Inspector, why replace a good extractor?

S

sleeping dog

New member
In another thread, Inspector Callahan recommended that with any new 1911, the extractor should be replaced by one called a "Wilson Bulletproof" and then tuned. "Best 28 bucks you'll ever spend" was the claim.

I don't understand this. If the spent brass is flying away, then the existing extractor must be working ok. So why replace it?

And for the really dumb question: What does it mean to "tune" an extractor?

Regards
 
Let me try to explain. It seems that most extractors in new 1911s are made from cheap cast or MIM steel, instead of the hi-tensile tool steel used in the good ol' days. As a result, a lot of folks will throw it away and install a new aftemarket one made of the proper materials. "Tuning" an extractor means to file the hook at the right angle and put the proper amount of tension on it by bending it. That's how a 1911 extractor works, by being bent inside its channel and thus imparting tension on it.

Yeah I know, on a new gun you shouldn't have to deal with this kind of garbage. But it seems neither Colt, Springfield, nor Kimber will listen.
 
Why change something if it works fine? Thats my thought. If you start having problems then you change it. My kimber has the original one for 5 years and a whole lot of rounds have been put through this gun. Still extracts great, if the time comes when it doesn't I'll change it. Mark
 
In the old days, extractors were made out of spring steel, not barstock, MIM, castings, or tool steel. The extractor is essentially a spring with a hook on the end, that has to take an enormous amount of punishment. The Wilson bulletproof extractor? I've never used one. I try to keep my pistol as close to the original design as possible (although that is a personal preference) and the only properly heat-treated spring steel extractor I know of is made by Cylinder and Slide.
 
Tuning Extractor

Tuning an extractor, to me, means shaping the hook in such a way to make the brass extract in a specific direction. ie: straight back over the shooter, out, up and to the right and reaar, out, up right and to the front, up out to the right with enough force only to land in a brass catcher.

Sometimes in competitive shooting, direction of the brass can be annoying to the shooter next to you. There is not an exacting way to accomplish this but it can be done by taking away a bottom portion of the hook, the top part of the hook, releasing pressure on the extractor. I was able to do this by trial and error. but it can be done.

HJN
 
The extractor...

...is not so much a design flaw as it is definitely an archaic holdover of the 1911 design.

Long, tension powered extractors are harder and more expensive to get right than short, coil spring-powered ones. Heck, even the BHP eventually went to a short coil-sprung one, and Wilson's KZ-45 was designed with one. If not of good materials, they can eventually lose their tension (or even be in need of "tuning" out of the box due to defective QC).

Having an extractor checked and tuned by a knowledgeable pistolsmith (and replaced if deemed substandard) is a relatively cheap investment in reliability.

(Personal Pet Peeve Follows: And for Thor's sake, why does nobody fit the extractors on 1911's costing less than the French War Debt anymore? Why do I have to see, every dang time I pick up some $600+ 1911, two feet of extractor hanging out of the rear end of the slide? :mad: )
 
Ahh yes, factory fitting of extractors. My experiences:

1. Every old GI gun I ever received from another collector had a perfectly tensioned extractor.

2. All three Kimbers I bought had NO tension on the extractor at all. I had to bend them and tune 'em up.

3. Most Colt extractors were okay, but I did have two that lost tension after less than 500 rounds and had to be replaced.

4. The Para I once owned came with a poorly cast extractor that I ash-canned without even using.

5. The older Springfields I had were fine. But I dunno about the new ones from Brazil.

And the winner is.....

6. Auto Ordinance. I bought one new in 1990, and the extractor was badly warped causing the gun to not even feed. However I couldn't tell until I chucked the slide in a vise, and with a long drift punch and a 16oz. hammer was finally able to drive it out of the slide! The extractor was warped into a crescent shape, and the factory worker had ground the rear edge down until he/she was able to pound it in! As a result I had to pound it out to remove it. That was one of several things wrong with that particular gun, but that's something for another forum topic.

Yes Tamara the 1911 extractor design is a bit dated, but with quality components it works well enough that it doesn't need changing. One made of quality materials and tuned properly wil easily go 10, 20, 30,000 rounds or more. That's more than good enough for, ahem, "government" work. :)
 
Hi, Harley,

I think you will find that "directing" the brass is as much or more a function of the ejector than of the extractor. They do need to work together to keep things correct. Enlarging the ejection port is essentially a copout by makers who don't want to bother to get the ejection process working right.

Jim
 
What Jim says is too true. I remember sending an early Series 80 GM to Colt's service department due to an ejection problem. Colt's solution was to grind away part of the slide and enlarge the ejection port. Makes me wonder how the GM managed to function reliably during the first 70 or so years of its existence. :rolleyes:
 
tuning

Jim:
I have to agree, however, the initial question was "tuning the extractor". Many times by removing certain portions of the extractor can accomplish the directional movement of the brass, upon ejection, without tuning the ejector. If this does not occur, to the specifications desired, then the ejector needs to be tuned along with the extractor.

HJN
 
Last edited:
serious question here.. not trying to be a smartas..umm.. smartaleck.

Seems to me the long hooked spring idea of extractor (as opposed to a little bar held in place with a coil spring) is the same idea as what folks rave about in the pre-64 Winchester 70 rifles -- claw feed instead of push feed and all that. If it's not a good idea anymore, why do folks still go out of their way to get the old-style extraction on the rifle? Or is it a "works great at manual speeds, gets iffy under the continued stress of semi-auto operation" thing?

On a related note.. doesn't the Ruger P-series use a similar extractor? Why no problems with them?

-K
 
I personally don't feel that the 1911 extractor design is bad, or even outdated. The problem lies in the fact that manufacturers use poor-quality materials these days. I've owned many ex-GI pistols with the original extractor in them, which still worked fine.

If there's any other issue it's that the extractor needs to be properly tensioned on a new gun, and I guess you can't train a non English-speaking immigrant how to do it properly during manufacture. The newer spring-loaded extractors are simple enough that even a dummy can put it together and not screw it up.
 
dsk took the words out of my mouth.

A short, coil spring powered external extractor is just harder to screw up when making the gun. Small piece of metal, small spring, et voila!

The 1911-type is a long spring that has to be tuned (ie: properly bent) and made out of at least semi-decent material to work right. It works just fine, but takes more time, money, and effort to do right.

Neither system works any better necessarily, it's just that the one is easier to make cheaply and still work right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top