Where is that link supposed to go? Didn't work for me.

 

Hilton Yam

I couldn't get link to work but there's a quote.

 

Hilton is a very well respected guy, and his plug for S&W is noted - but the gun has been doing fine for 100 years with the original design extractor.

But his point is, unfortunately to promote, as the late Col. Jeff Cooper would say "an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem".

The only "problem" with a standard 1911 extractor is the way the current makers fail to stick to original specs and fitting........

The original part was made of spring steel - it was, in essence, a leaf spring with an extractor hook. The originals made 70-100 years ago seldom need replacing, period. They are FINE! The gun with the most extractor tension in my 1911 memory is a 1916 Model Argentine Colt (C - commercial #), and by wear patterns, blue color, etc, it appears to be the original part. 95 years old and not in need of an "upgrade"!

Modern makers have used cast, MIM and ordinary steels, and failed to tension the extractor (which can be done with the thumb) as it was installed. If you use inferior materials and omit an important fitting step during final assembly, is that the fault of the design - or the manufacturer?

What is wrong with the external extractor? More parts, and you cannot completely dismantle the pistol without tools and a bench. Why would you want to replace something simple that works with something more complex? If you ever dunk your duty piece in salt water, I can guarantee you you will want to take it clear down and clean out All of the Salt! You cannot do that with the external design. Sand, dust, whatever, must stay in the gun until you return to civilization. That is an Inferior Design! Not good off the pavement......

But to a guy with a high end gunsmithy and a bench, that seems just fine. Not for me, thanks. CC

 

Agreed. My 44'RR still won't quit. It just went past 4000 rounds, only patching the bbl and clp on rails as needed. I use it to introduce new shooters to the 1911.

 

Did Colt stop using spring steel too?

 

Everything Hilton is saying is old news. While I agree with what he has written as do most honest 1911 smiths, there is more to the story.

With the internal extractor you get the ability to self-rescue. Hilton even hints at this in his article. But his example is a bit off target. If you are concerned with supporting a whole group of pistol carriers, and they aren't pistol people, they don't need an external extractor. They need a Glock.

This self-rescue is a very big concept with the 1911. Not just the extractor. You can look at how it is designed to take parts off the gun and use them as tools to take down the rest of the gun. Hell! Hilton has even made some money by selling "original GI spec" grip-screws. Screws that can be turned with the rim of a 45ACP case.

I mean we want to get all down on the 1911 design, get a frame with an integral plunger tube --which people make. Or get a plunger tube that is staked using 4 legs as opposed to two. Which people make.

Look. I like Hilton's stuff. I think Hilton really tries to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions for 1911 users.

But I don't for one second believe that Hilton Yam sat down with Smith and Wesson and said, "I want an external extractor". There are too many bad experiences with the masses and 1911s for him to want that option.

Bottom line. Smith and Hilton talked about doing a model. Smith said Ok, we know you don't like how high our hook is on some of our previous 1911s. We'll change it for you. But the machining process is set in stone. It will be an external extractor. You in or out?

Obviously we know the answer. And I am not faulting HY for that. Hooking up with smith a great opportunity. Hell! It's the opportunity of a lifetime. But it's a collaboration, not the Hilton Show. He doesn't get everything he wants.

I'm not changing. And I believe, in theory, the external extractor is a better design. For the unwashed masses.....:biglaugh:


Regards,
Greyson

 

If you are concerned with supporting a whole group of pistol carriers, and they aren't pistol people, they don't need an external extractor. They need a Glock.

In a perfect world, or at least in my version of it, those folk would be required to return to a cubicle before they hurt themselves.

 

Funny that a gun with sooooo many inherent flaws ever made it past its 5th birthday. Yet here we are 100 years later and the true original design is still coveted. As far as a dirty extractor goes, you can have it out of the gun in seconds, without tools, clean it and be running in a minute. What kind of idiot does'nt clean it often enough to have it be a problem ? I don't need an idiot proof gun, there is no such thing. Besides I am a way bigger idiot than they can ever imagine ! To each their own though, if you think you just have to have one then take your pick.

 

Redhat, I believe that Colt uses machined steel, of good quality, but no longer a true spring steel. Which shows that the design is very tolerant, in that it generally works fine with a quality machined steel extractor, correctly tensioned.

The only spring steel extractor I know of that has been generally available in recent times is one made by Cylinder and Slide Shop. The external extractor was an attempt to "cheap out" rather than do it right by Kimber, S&W and others, and that is part of my oppositon to it. I'm pretty sure a little coil spring is not going to last long term as well as a hefty flat spring - which the original is. One of the charming things about the 1911 is that you can generally pick up an original Colt from 80-90 years ago and if it is complete it runs, with it's orignal design (Ball) ammo, without needing anything but decent ammo and magazines.

EGW makes a very high grade replacement internal extractor, and I have had brief discussions with George here about the steel EGW uses, which also works fine, and is probably superior to the original material. I'm just an old guy that doesn't see a need to change what works, and would prefer it be made correctly in the original way, since I don't need any better than what works. Most changes are made to make a part cheaper, or to use a newer, cheaper manufacturing method to make the same part. Not the right reason, for a weapon, anyway. And a great principle Henry Ford gave us is, "Simplify and add lightness." CC

 

And a great principle Henry Ford gave us is, "Simplify and add lightness." CC

That was actually Colin Chapman, another great car designer (Lotus), but I digress. Otherwise agree on your points.

 

Kimber used the external extractor but went back to the internal unit.

IIRC it was designed by a German and the slides were sold on some Springfield Armory models.

I cure for a non-existant problem.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

John Moses Browning got it right the first time.:rock:

 

Or anyone else. Faceless bureacrats with guns, oh my! You need a certain degree of civic virtue to be an armed protector, not just a degree. CC

 

Did I see "honest gunsmith"?

I have broken seven or eight extractors in the last forty + years and have seen a lot more broken in matches. I believe some folks see a problem and some can't. And some come up with old sayings or clever little sayings to get by but it doesn't solve a problem. But as long as they feel good and stay away from me then all is well.

The exteral extractor is a problem for one big reason: It has no where to go when it has to overide a rim. John Browning did not get everything right. There are more machine guns, semi-auto pistols and semi auto everything working very well with an external extractor than ones hiding on the inside. Browning never designed the 1911 for thousands of rounds. Just my thoughts and opinion.

 

The exteral extractor is a problem for one big reason: It has no where to go when it has to overide a rim. John Browning did not get everything right. There are more machine guns, semi-auto pistols and semi auto everything working very well with an external extractor than ones hiding on the inside. Browning never designed the 1911 for thousands of rounds. Just my thoughts and opinion.

Did you mean "internal extractor"?

As for the 1911 not being designed for thousands of rounds...well, I wasn't sitting next to JMB at his bench but I'm pretty sure he DID design it to go thousands of rounds. The Army test called for it. He knew that going in.

 

from Pistol Dynamics website and Paul Liebenberg

External Extractor: A standard feature on our scratch built pistols. This system allows us to precisely position the location of the extractor relative to each caliber. Extraction and ejection is substantially enhanced over the traditional 1911 internal extractor system.

Internal Extractor: We offer internal extractors on our scratch built pistols but we are seldom asked to do so. Because of the infrequency of these requests, internal extractors are single set-up operations and add to the expense of the pistol.

 

I had writing off external extractors mostly due to horror stories I've heard from the Kimber experiment. My preference is still an internal, but I'll keep an open mind on the externals.

 

External extractors seem rather fitting on the side of the SIG slide.. One enhances to ugliness of the other.. Just saying.. Ron

 

Just to make sure that my article is not taken out of context, here it is in its entirety:

In the wake of my testing of the S&W E Series 1911, which featured a wider external extractor than the original SW1911, some discussion came up about the merits of the concept. Almost every modern service pistol design features a spring loaded external extractor design. The 1911 still gets by using a spring tempered hook machined out of a straight piece of steel that is bent to achieve tension. It does surprisingly well with this, but it is certainly not the 21st century answer.

I've spent a lot of time studying the 1911 external extractor situation, to include building a gun through which I fed over 20,000 rounds and countless different experimental extractors. I have also studied the various commercially available external extractor guns. Suffice to say that the bulk of the available options had been less than stellar, and customers were justifiably reluctant to jump on the bandwagon. With the introduction of the S&W E Series, I think that situation is going to change, and I will be watching the progress of those guns with great anticipation.

So what does it all mean to you as an end user?

First, let's consider what the external extractor offers - consistent spring tension over the life of the part thanks to a coil spring which does not get worked very hard, and installation/setup that does not require much more than driving out a pin, stuffing the parts in, and putting the pin back in. Compare that to the current internal extractor design which requires hand fitting of the part into the slide, filing of the hook geometry, and bending of the part to create the proper spring tension. This all requires a skilled hand to achieve optimum results. For a single user, the internal extractor is merely a nuisance that can be worked around by having the gunsmith fit a spare extractor or two when the gun is built. For a group of users - such as a tactical team or a department - that "minor nuisance" grows quickly into a ton of man hours spent chasing extractor function.

As far as approaching maintenance, I think a huge part of the discussion here relates to points of reference. I am thinking in terms of LE unit or department level use vs. a single end user with a recreational or CCW gun, which makes the argument for an external extractor scream to me in a loud and compelling manner. To date, I have yet to hear any convincing arguments in favor of the internal extractor in this realm.

In regards to disassembly and maintenance, it certainly does require more tools to switch out an external extractor, but let's be realistic about what we want to do. If you're out on an extended rural patrol or on a deployment, that part of the gun can now be considered one unit, much like the lower of your M4, MP5, etc. Just like those weapon systems, don't take them apart until you're back in a controlled environment. If the use pattern consists of going to the range or a match, then go to the car and get some tools or the spare gun.

The amount of dirt that the external extractor can tolerate underneath it is far greater than that of an internal extractor, which accumulates the dirt right under the claw's locator pad. More dirt under the locator pad translates immediately into lost tension. If you get dirt/mud/etc. inside the slide, you can hit the slide with a hose or some brake cleaner and be done with it. You really have to work hard to get a lot of foreign material inside the external extractor's spring pocket when it's in a holster. If you got blasted with crud at a helo LZ and it's that bad, chances are the rest of your gun looks like a sugar cookie inside too and the extractor honestly is the last of your worries. If you consider how many modern pistols have external extractors that rarely ever see any service on them vs. all the 1911s that require some tweaking to their internal extractors, that's a clue.

As far as unit level maintenance, it's hands down for the external extractor. I don't know of too many armorers who have set up all the guns on a team or department with a fitted spare extractor. That's not very feasible when you need to do that for a whole big group. The very concept of the fitted spare is for a single end user (where it certainly does work well), but it just doesn't fly for a whole team. In fact, I don't even believe in the concept of the fitted spare, I always pack extra guns instead.

Properly executed, the external extractor breathes new life into the 100 year old pistol, and gives it a fighting chance to run with the new kids.

For reference, my continuing pool of research spans more than 10 years, includes almost 100 guns, and over 2 million rounds. Everything that I write about is based on data that I have gleaned from this body of research, not conjecture, hearsay, or sentimentality.

For clarification, there is no "collaboration gun" with S&W. The E Series is their latest production gun. I am not affiliated with the effort beyond the gun I tested recently and any input I provided to them years ago when they first started producing 1911s.

My article is quite explicit regarding the need for field disassembly and the ease of repair (ie. "self rescue"). You do not need to disassemble the external extractor in the field any more than you need to disassemble the lower receiver of your M16. Use of spray cleaners and compressed air gets the job done. In regards to repair, I can teach someone to service their own external extractor in a few minutes. Drive pin out, stuff in new spring and extractor, hammer pin in. Fitting a new 1911 extractor involves a few more steps, and even that "mere bend with the thumb" can easily provide too much or insufficient tension over the long term.

Ultimately, if you want to enjoy your 1911 in its traditional format because "that's how JMB designed it," then consider that you should only shoot 230 ball only out of 7 round magazines in guns with long spur hammers, tang grip safeties, high ejection ports, unbeveled mag wells, and tiny sights. If you are interested in expanding the function of the 1911 in the modern age, then I have a lot of research that you might enjoy reading.

Thank you.

 

Properly executed, I tend to agree with Mr. Yam. I am all for evolution of the 1911 design.

CW

 

I don't think anyone would argue that point. If it works, and its significantly and empirically better, why not?

I would only point out two things:

1) It does nothing for the million plus 1911s out there with internal extractors.

2) As long as an owner/operator/shooter can still 'fix it' when they break, I'm all for it.

I just think one needs to be careful and not replace technical proficiency with an idiot proof component - else we end up with yet another Glock.... that is of course, far from Perfection.


WARNING: What follows below is a soap box rant, move on if you are easily offended...
Soap box: I know of literally thousands of 'agent/operators' that aren't allowed much less know how to completely field strip the top end of their Glocks. One of the results of that, that I have personally witnessed on multiple occassions while running a range, was the dude/dudette stepping up to the line and having a pistol NOT WORK on the first round or even subsequent rounds. Why? Because the firing pin channel was so gunked up with crap that the pin couldn't hit the primer. Immediate action drills did nothing to fix the problem. The top end had to be stripped and cleaned properly - something that the individuals couldn't perform. Why? Because they hadn't been trained in the secret and oh so complicated black art of taking apart and cleaning the top end - else they might lose a cup, or fail to put the thing back together properly. So, substituting technical proficiency for an idiot proof component, or in this case a pistol could have easily led to some unfortunate deaths.

Training and proficiency rule the day - always.

If the external is to be, so be it. Just don't make it so that you have to be at a bench to repair it when it ****s the bed.

 

Guess i would need to try one.

 

L W McVay,

Yes, I meant internal extractor. Thanks,

 

Well said, Greyson. The theoretical (sp) "improvement" of the external extractor is not needed - and it prevents that in the field "self rescue" from even being possible. If you can count on a supply of parts being FedExed when you need them, and have the luxury of a bench, bench block, punch and hammer, then a problem with an external extractor is no big deal. You may not always have those luxuries before you.

As I mentioned before, take a dip in salt water with your 1911 and you will want to totally dismantle it and get the salt out. The pinned external extractor is not fixable in the field, requires tools and adds small parts (including a much more fallible coil spring) - not good in a foxhole, at all. If you are a pavement dwelling urban type, you may not care - until things break down and no parts are available.

As for "evolution of the design", I think you misunderstand how evolution works. Evolution is where the improvements contribute to better survival characteristics. The external extractor clearly does the opposite for 1911 users. Build the original design correctly and this issue does not even exist.

The external extractor was well known (and used) by John Browning. It is not remotely a "modern" idea - it's older than the 1911! He deliberately selected against if for a global, in the field, hard use weapon. He made the right choice.

All of this external extractor stuff is just "product differentiation" to fool non-thinking people into buying the more "modern" version - which happens to be inferior to the correctly built original, and isn't modern at all. It's just a cheap workaround by modern makers who, once again, don't know what they are doing. CC

 

If the primary objection is ease of replacement, then apparently Kimber was on the right track with the design of everything but the claw itself. Their "experiment" in external extractors could be removed the same way an internal was. You had to "fight" two coil springs to slip the FPS up and a third hand helped but no more tools required than to change an internal extractor.

Maybe they shouldn't have stopped at only 4 different hook designs in search of one that worked. :biglaugh:

 

I don't kmow Mr. Yam but I visited his site. One thing is abundantly clear for a young man like him. He is a light year ahead on the external extractor.

I am working on a brand new Kimber that will not chamber a round completly in battery. Stops shy depending where they are in the magazine. The extractor is the problem. Way too much tension, inside the hook is rough also.

 

Mr. Yam, I have followed your reports on the new E Series with great enthusiasm as I agree with you re the external extractor as obviously does Paul Liebenberg. Forget the "Commander McBragg" types who see any improvement as heresy.

Anyone with a brain knows that the two "Achilles heels" of the 1911 are the internal extractor & the plunger tube. If either one breaks you have a club. The sear spring setup is also antiquated, but let's save that for another day.

I will probably be buying a new E Series and feel as if I will only need to change the springs (per your article) and perhaps mount a bar stock plunger tube properly staked & Loctited. IMO that is about as foolproof as one can make this design today.

Thanks again Mr. Yam for going against the grain and saying that the Emperor has no clothes. :biglaugh:

 

...saying that the Emperor has no clothes. :biglaugh:

Buy quality and you'll find the Emperor wears plenty of clothes.

:biglaugh:

 

With regards to not being able to service an external extractor in the field....when was the last time you wore out an external extractor on a Glock/M&P/any other modern day pistol? Other than professional shooters or LEO/Military that shoot a crazy volume of rounds through the gun, of course.

I just don't see "field repairs" on an external extractor being an arguable issue for civilians.

 

To recap, Mr Y. found considerable fault with the narrow 9mm size external extractor on standard model SW1911s. He now considers the "E" model guns with a wider hook to be satisfactory... if the pin doesn't walk out.

This is probably not news to S&W. The more expensive PC and Pro Series guns had the wide extractor early on. Maybe even from the start. My question is, why? Most agree that the external extractor is less expensive at the factory level. But the width and placement of the part can't make much if any difference. So what did S&W know and when did they know it?

 

Well the brand new, alloy framed, Kimber that nearly had a box of ammo shot through it is running perfect. He did not want to send it to Kimber. I took the extractor out and it fed great. So with a little bending of the extractor in the arbor press it got right. Funtioned with factory Win, Hornady Super Huge Hollow points, Hornday 200 SWC, Hornady 230 Flat Point and some Wolf Al case 230gr. ball.

I did polish the barrel from about 3 to 9 oclock with some old polishing tip I got from a dentist. Thinking of some things, some dentists made pretty fair 1911 mechanic's way back when.

 

I don't sense a weakening in The Force,Luke.

Enjoying the thread.

The horse,she is not yet dead.:biglaugh: