Internal or External Ejector on 1911?

[druryj]

There is sort of a mechanical genius/simplicity/ballet of parts the way JMB designed the 1911. One piece holds in the next and that one holds in the next then the last piece slips in place and it is secured in place by the firing pin and firing pin return spring that went in just before it. Can't do that with an external extractor.

Woody

And if left as JMB designed it to be, all one needs to disassemble the pistol for maintenance or repair is the rim of a .45 AUTO cartridge. One starts by using the rim of the cartridge to remove the grip screws...Most of the problems with the 1911 pistol can be traced back to the humble grip screw. Not satisfied with what JMB gave us, we feel the need to dress our 1911 up, and that often begins with changing out the grip screws to something with a Phillips Head or a Hex screw or some such fancy thing that now requires a special tool. Then, still not satisfied with an already fine single-action trigger, we think we need a lighter trigger so that we can be a better shot, and so we seek to improve upon JMB's design with all manner of trigger jobs and sear spring bending and the changing out of springs and such. Then we often have to polish the feed ramp and throat the chamber so that we can use expensive hollow point ammunition, because rather than improve our marksmanship and work with a cartridge which already pokes a hole approaching 1/2 inch in our adversary, we seek to have a cartridge which will "cover" for us if we can just manage to "get close" with our hits, although it may not always feed properly or work well with our simple, yet quite functional magazines. So then we "improve" and re-design our magazines for that expensive hollow point ammunition, yet they are often finicky and difficult to maintain in field conditions. Then, still not happy with the G. I. Guide Rod and recoil spring, we decide that we need a FLGR, and another special tool so that we may continue to disassemble our pistol. Then, because we are scared to learn that our pistol will work just fine if we will only follow the instructions for cleaning and lubrication, we tighten the tolerances and put on fancy sights so that we can sometimes shrink our groups from the bench by fractions of an inch, yet these tighter tolerances can often lead us to malfunction city. And now, frustrated by a no longer very reliable pistol which started life as a simple, effective tool, we sometimes find our "1911" is no longer as JMB designed it to be. So, we think...maybe if we make it with an external extractor, it will work better. Or, we just give up on the 1911 and get a Glock. After all, a Glock doesn't have grip screws, which as you can see, will lead us down the road to hell and ruination!

 

[JD8]

And if left as JMB designed it to be, all one needs to disassemble the pistol for maintenance or repair is the rim of a .45 AUTO cartridge. One starts by using the rim of the cartridge to remove the grip screws...Most of the problems with the 1911 pistol can be traced back to the humble grip screw. Not satisfied with what JMB gave us, we feel the need to dress our 1911 up, and that often begins with changing out the grip screws to something with a Phillips Head or a Hex screw or some such fancy thing that now requires a special tool. Then, still not satisfied with an already fine single-action trigger, we think we need a lighter trigger so that we can be a better shot, and so we seek to improve upon JMB's design with all manner of trigger jobs and sear spring bending and the changing out of springs and such. Then we often have to polish the feed ramp and throat the chamber so that we can use expensive hollow point ammunition, because rather than improve our marksmanship and work with a cartridge which already pokes a hole approaching 1/2 inch in our adversary, we seek to have a cartridge which will "cover" for us if we can just manage to "get close" with our hits, although it may not always feed properly or work well with our simple, yet quite functional magazines. So then we "improve" and re-design our magazines for that expensive hollow point ammunition, yet they are often finicky and difficult to maintain in field conditions. Then, still not happy with the G. I. Guide Rod and recoil spring, we decide that we need a FLGR, and another special tool so that we may continue to disassemble our pistol. Then, because we are scared to learn that our pistol will work just fine if we will only follow the instructions for cleaning and lubrication, we tighten the tolerances and put on fancy sights so that we can sometimes shrink our groups from the bench by fractions of an inch, yet these tighter tolerances can often lead us to malfunction city. And now, frustrated by a no longer very reliable pistol which started life as a simple, effective tool, we sometimes find our "1911" is no longer as JMB designed it to be. So, we think...maybe if we make it with an external extractor, it will work better. Or, we just give up on the 1911 and get a Glock. After all, a Glock doesn't have grip screws, which as you can see, will lead us down the road to hell and ruination!

Only problem with this here.... is that JMB designed platforms with EEs.... including.... (drum roll)... the 1911. Like I said boys..... do some homework.

Oh and Wilson 47Ds blow away old Gi mags from my experience.

 

[Boehlertaught]

I am a traditionalist and like the 1911 tube way it was designed. But the EE work too. But I also like simplicity and tube EE has more parts so it looses.

 

[druryj]

Only problem with this here.... is that JMB designed platforms with EEs.... including.... (drum roll)... the 1911. Like I said boys..... do some homework.

Oh and Wilson 47Ds blow away old Gi mags from my experience.

An excellent source for historical info on the 1911 can be found at: (http://www.sightm1911.com/1911-History.htm) at this site, there are links to a wide variety of other sites as well as a plethora of historical info.


Its not really a problem. From my casual reading on the 1911, a lot of which is from the above site, but not really what I'd call homework, I learned that JMB designed numerous prototypes prior to the final acceptance of the pistol that was subsequently called the M1911. Some of those prototypes had external extractors and some had internal extractors. One of the early prototypes that he designed didn't even have a thumb safety, and it had an external extractor. Don't hold me to this, but I believe it is referred to as the Model 1905. There are some benefits to an external extractor; one, it isn't susceptible to clocking, as an internal extractor can be. But a pistol with an internal extractor was desired for reasons of logistics; repairs of such would be easier in the field. You don't need a special punch to remove pins on a design with an internal extractor, but you do with an external one. An internal extractor still allows one to tear it down without tools. Regardless, the pistol that was submitted and which passed the final acceptance trials, and which became known as the M1911 had an internal extractor. That pistol is the only one that can truthfully be called "The Design" of the Model 1911. All others are merely prototypes. We may be arguing semantics here, there were as I said above, numerous "designs" of the pistol that would eventually be adopted as the M1911, but nothing can be called the M1911 except the one that was accepted. And that one had an internal extractor.

As far as magazines go, Wilson magazines, particular those in the 47 series, are also my preferred magazines. My experience has convinced me that they will reliably feed virtually any commercial or factory ammunition of the proper caliber. I completely agree that they are far better than the old GI Magazines...it does make me wonder though, what Browning would have done differently had he had he same type of ammunition we have available today. To argue that is moot; there were no hollow points back in those early days so he designed a magazine to feed ball ammo.

Folks, I didn't come here to argue over what was in JMB's mind prior to the final acceptance and naming of the pistol, I only know that he did design pistols with both types of extractors, with and without thumb safeties, and the one that was accepted and subsequently named as the M1911 was the one that had an internal extractor and that is the one that counts. I don't know it all, but I do know that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CHenry]

Did someone say BHP?

 

[Boehlertaught]

Good info druryj, thanks. I have seen some extractors clock. And sadly, even on new factory Colts! It can be prevented with proper fitting of the extractor and the firing pin stop.

 

[druryj]

Good info druryj, thanks. I have seen some extractors clock. And sadly, even on new factory Colts! It can be prevented with proper fitting of the extractor and the firing pin stop.[/QUOT]

I was told by a fellow who is a machinist that sometimes, it's "tool wear" and being too liberal with the specifications that can cause it too. You can get an extractor channel that is a tiny bit on the large side, but still within specs, and an extractor a itty bitty bit on the small side but again, still within specs and well, there you go...clocking happens. I had a brand new Ruger SR 1911 that did it. It was so bad, it would put a big dent in the side of the cases as they ejected. It didn't seen to affect my accuracy, but it bothered me still the same.

 

[druryj]

Did someone say BHP?
View attachment 106924

Nice pistol. Who did the paint job?

 

[JD8]

An excellent source for historical info on the 1911 can be found at: (http://www.sightm1911.com/1911-History.htm) at this site, there are links to a wide variety of other sites as well as a plethora of historical info.


Its not really a problem. From my casual reading on the 1911, a lot of which is from the above site, but not really what I'd call homework, I learned that JMB designed numerous prototypes prior to the final acceptance of the pistol that was subsequently called the M1911. Some of those prototypes had external extractors and some had internal extractors. One of the early prototypes that he designed didn't even have a thumb safety, and it had an external extractor. Don't hold me to this, but I believe it is referred to as the Model 1905. There are some benefits to an external extractor; one, it isn't susceptible to clocking, as an internal extractor can be. But a pistol with an internal extractor was desired for reasons of logistics; repairs of such would be easier in the field. You don't need a special punch to remove pins on a design with an internal extractor, but you do with an external one. An internal extractor still allows one to tear it down without tools. Regardless, the pistol that was submitted and which passed the final acceptance trials, and which became known as the M1911 had an internal extractor. That pistol is the only one that can truthfully be called "The Design" of the Model 1911. All others are merely prototypes. We may be arguing semantics here, there were as I said above, numerous "designs" of the pistol that would eventually be adopted as the M1911, but nothing can be called the M1911 except the one that was accepted. And that one had an internal extractor.

As far as magazines go, Wilson magazines, particular those in the 47 series, are also my preferred magazines. My experience has convinced me that they will reliably feed virtually any commercial or factory ammunition of the proper caliber. I completely agree that they are far better than the old GI Magazines...it does make me wonder though, what Browning would have done differently had he had he same type of ammunition we have available today. To argue that is moot; there were no hollow points back in those early days so he designed a magazine to feed ball ammo.

Folks, I didn't come here to argue over what was in JMB's mind prior to the final acceptance and naming of the pistol, I only know that he did design pistols with both types of extractors, with and without thumb safeties, and the one that was accepted and subsequently named as the M1911 was the one that had an internal extractor and that is the one that counts. I don't know it all, but I do know that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, this why I wanted some of you to do some homework, research, etc.

My point was that the External Extractor wasn't a "new" or "latest and greatest" innovation...... it was an original design by JMB. If we get technical, I highly doubt anyone here is carrying a true M1911. If you are, kudos, more power to ya. I'll betcha if I get all of you boys to post up your 1911s I can find some sort of bastardization of the "original" in a lot of examples, so what's the point of trying to be a purist? Just go with what works for you. I just find it hilarious that he used EE on other designs, it's widely used across several platforms, successfully I might add.....yet people scoff at one on a 1911? Citing JMB? Well... again to that.... read up. LOL.

It's ok I get it, a long time ago I would catch hell on 1911forum for saying that I preferred a rail on my 1911s that were my bedside. Some were worried about how it looked? So naturally, there are some out there that are more worried about what they THINK JMB would do vs actually using the 1911 as a viable tool. Either way, heads exploded...... absolutely fascinating I tells ya.

 

[CHenry]

Nice pistol. Who did the paint job?

That pic doesnt do it justice, it almost looks gold lol but its Burnt Bronze. Clint Black at Black Label Armament did the cerakote job