My PXT Extractor Broke -- Anyone else having problems with theirs?

Mine broke after I first got my CCO. But it was a real early model and I didn't know it was as common as it seems. I sent back to Para and it was returned in 4 days, no problems since (1000 rounds or so)

Bob:

Correct re the spring steel.... Tuner about ran me through with a cleaning rod over that one....

Why the manufacturer's would change, I don't know. Probably a half a buck's savings....

I'm not sure if the aftermarket extractors are available in spring steel or not.

The problem with the MIM Para extractors is that there's a complex MIM extractor body there that must be 100% tested. I'm not sure that you could make the thing any other way for a target MSRP in the $50 range. There a re three weak links. The hook itself (likely to break real fast), the little projection that holds the two halves together (even more fragile), or the square section between the two halves. Mine broke in that area. Looks like a void issue, plus it did get beat on by a hot round.

(The replacement's taken about 1000 rounds that I'm sure of, and probably another three or four hundred I've forgotten about.)

I would have preferred that it had broken earlier on, because that reload wasn't that hot, but....

Regards,

Hi Stu

I think from what I have read and from talking to George Wedge the early extractors were not 100% tested. I understand they are now. I think this really is a non-issue moving forward. The extractor works and like the HI-Power extractors will over time become a non-issue.

You are right regarding the new extractors. I think there are two issues, one is obviously cost in an age where keeping the costs down so we can afford the guns becomes an issue plus the old extractors had to be tuned by somebody and training individuals to do this tuning obviously jsut adds to the cost if you can find people to do it in the first place. My Norinco Commander while functioning perfectly throws brass all over hells half acres including and mostly into my forehead. My Norinco A1 hasn't figured out where my forehead is yet but brass goes everywhere. My Para tends to throw them in a small arc at least to my right. The only gun that I own that is just a treat in this regard is my STI Trojan 9MM that just dumps them to my right in a neat pile.

On balance I prefer the new extractor and while there were some issues with it, I suspect no more than with the traditional extractors that are out there. Must not be a problem because there are a lot of LEOs out there carrying Paras with the extractors.

Talking to Gunnar over in Pr. George yesterday, and he tells me the gun of choice for the hunting guides now is the Para LDA 14 rounder with .45-08 cartridges. If the Paras will take that cartridge in stride it speaks volumes to the quality of the gun.

Stay Safe

Pangris:

I'm kind of new to the argument - I've only had a Para PXT for about 18 months, and have little experience with the older Colt/Browning extractor.

However, I think that they do work, and are inherently more reliable than the original.

If they don't break....

IMHO the Colt/Browning extractors fail softer - the gun becomes much less reliable, rather than simply failing entirely. I've since retired it for other reasons, but my Combat Commander has been through about three extractor since I inherited it. The first one was damaged somehow, probably by Wolf steel cases. The gun continued to work, but was much more reliable when the extractor was replaced.

Then a shock buffer self-destructed inside the gun, leaving bits of itself all over the place. Reliability went completely south, but it would get a shot or two off. Didn't take long to figure that out, but the extractor had to be replaced again.

Meantime, the PXT in my Tac-Four broke. No more extraction at all....

Which is better? Either way you're in deep stuff. However, IMHO (and bear in mind that I'm not a gunsmith, don't buy into hype too well, and only drive by a Holiday Inn Express on the way to and from the range), if the folks at Para are indeed doing 100% inspection, the overall design is just bigger, and more likely to hold together. Lots of little bits inside, but there are only two failure points I can see - the little projection that holds the halves together, and the square section that links that to the body of the claw portion. (I suppose the little spring in there could fail, but it might still extract anyway if dirty.) Meantime, if you survive the failure, the part is a drop-in, and nearly indestructable otherwise.

Which is better? I'm not sure. I wouldn't (didn't) let a PXT or the lack thereof keep me from a purchase. I think Browning would have entertained a design like this in 1911 if it'd been possible to make it without serious extra expense. IMHO the standard claw is too tiny for reliability with a round this size anyway, but it is impossible to self-spring anything much bigger. I'm told, too, that the originals were made from a spring steel that made it difficult to "tune", but once properly done, was very reliable. More recently a "tool" steel is used that's easy to set up, but eventually fails. There ought to be a marketing opportunity there someplace....

I like the idea of offering both, but....

Regards,