Posted: 4/23/2011 6:37:02 AM EDT
|
Excuse my ignorance please.
Why the hate for an external extractor on the Sig? Is it a poor design/ doesn't function as well? Or is it for aesthetics? Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
Or is it for aesthetics, for most, and that whole JMB did not put it there. When they first came out they were unreliable, just like every one else that has tried this trick before. They claim they fixed the problem on newer guns. S&W seems to be the only company that has managed to make a reliable EE form the get-go. Another big issue is that it is a proprietary design. Every company that uses an EE has a different design. Every company that uses an IE (except the morons at Para) use a standardized design. Also they do generally take a bit more maintenance and cleaning than an internal one. |
|
Rails look right, skeleton triggers look right, beavertails look right, speed hammers look right, highly modified ejection ports look right, bob tails look right, three inch slides and barrels look right, full length guide rods look right, bushing-less bull barrels look right, officer size grips look right, long slides look right, flared magwells look right, adjustable target sights look right.
But unlike all the features listed above; an external extractor doesn't look right because it isn't part of JMB's original design so an external extractor pistol isn't a real 1911. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aesthetics....The true blood 1911 guys think it strays too far from the original design. I don't ever hear anything bad about functionality...just aesthetics. Then why did Kimber replace all those slides? Because unlike S&W and SIG; Kimber was never really able to get their version of the external extractor to work reliably. |
|
There are a few reasons I'm not a big fan of EEs.
You only have one source for parts if anything goes wrong. Some would say that it's no different than any other non-1911 handgun, and there's some truth to that... but one of the attractive things about using 1911s is that parts are EVERYWHERE for it. With an IE, you can buy and fit a spare that can easily be installed if something breaks. If you have an EE, the process is more involved, and if the EE is secured with a roll pin, you'll likely need a new one when you take the old one out. In some designs, the pins can also slip down out of the hole and lock up the gun. I own a Kimber with an EE and it's given me no problems, FWIW. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aesthetics....The true blood 1911 guys think it strays too far from the original design. I don't ever hear anything bad about functionality...just aesthetics. Then why did Kimber replace all those slides? Because unlike S&W and SIG; Kimber was never really able to get their version of the external extractor to work reliably. you know i hear people say this crap a lot, i think you may have said it in another 1911 thread, did you own any of these EE kimbers? my kimber eclipse pro II with EE has run through probably 1000 rounds, i've even shot it in some IDPA style shoots without a single issue. IMO, kimber replaced the slides because like most other markets flooded with "traditionalists", any modernization of the product sparks a ton of hearsay and rumors which ultimately hurt their sales... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aesthetics....The true blood 1911 guys think it strays too far from the original design. I don't ever hear anything bad about functionality...just aesthetics. Then why did Kimber replace all those slides? Because unlike S&W and SIG; Kimber was never really able to get their version of the external extractor to work reliably. you know i hear people say this crap a lot, i think you may have said it in another 1911 thread, did you own any of these EE kimbers? my kimber eclipse pro II with EE has run through probably 1000 rounds, i've even shot it in some IDPA style shoots without a single issue. IMO, kimber replaced the slides because like most other markets flooded with "traditionalists", any modernization of the product sparks a ton of hearsay and rumors which ultimately hurt their sales... There were a lot of folks who had problems with the Kimber EE. In my opinion it wasn't the best design because they kind of half-assed it and basically tried to fit a EE design into, essentially, the same channel as the IE. The way the spring interacts with the extractor provides marginal leverage against the rim of the case. I think the fulcrum design used by SIG and S&W is superior because the extractor spring can act against the lever arm more efficiently... but it does use a pin fulcrum, which Kimber was obviously trying to avoid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aesthetics....The true blood 1911 guys think it strays too far from the original design. I don't ever hear anything bad about functionality...just aesthetics. Then why did Kimber replace all those slides? Because unlike S&W and SIG; Kimber was never really able to get their version of the external extractor to work reliably. you know i hear people say this crap a lot, i think you may have said it in another 1911 thread, did you own any of these EE kimbers? my kimber eclipse pro II with EE has run through probably 1000 rounds, i've even shot it in some IDPA style shoots without a single issue. IMO, kimber replaced the slides because like most other markets flooded with "traditionalists", any modernization of the product sparks a ton of hearsay and rumors which ultimately hurt their sales... I just can't believe that's the reason Kimber, at great expense, replaced the entire slides on already existing pistols that were returned for warranty work rather than simply fixing the extractor problems. Owners didn't return the external extractor pistols they had already bought because they suddenly turned into traditionalists, they sent them back to Kimber because their pistols weren't working. Smith and Wesson and SIG don't seem to have that problem because their iterations of the external extractor are known to work. I recently bought a new railed Smith and Wesson E series pistol that fails to return completely to battery and chamber a round every few magazines and I just received the free shipping label from them today to send it in for warranty work. I'm pretty certain that when I get it back from the factory, it will not have a replacement slide with an internal extractor on it. I like Kimber pistols but IMO, they never mastered the external extractor and wisely decided to do away with it and return to what works best for them. I'm glad that your pistol runs so well, I hope S&W can get mine running as well as yours does. |
|
Quoted:
There were a lot of folks who had problems with the Kimber EE. In my opinion it wasn't the best design because they kind of half-assed it and basically tried to fit a EE design into, essentially, the same channel as the IE. The way the spring interacts with the extractor provides marginal leverage against the rim of the case. I think the fulcrum design used by SIG and S&W is superior because the extractor spring can act against the lever arm more efficiently... but it does use a pin fulcrum, which Kimber was obviously trying to avoid. Every time you post in one of these threads I learn something new about the 1911 system. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
you know i hear people say this crap a lot, i think you may have said it in another 1911 thread, did you own any of these EE kimbers? my kimber eclipse pro II with EE has run through probably 1000 rounds, i've even shot it in some IDPA style shoots without a single issue. IMO, kimber replaced the slides because like most other markets flooded with "traditionalists", any modernization of the product sparks a ton of hearsay and rumors which ultimately hurt their sales... Bullshit. I worked in a tiny gunstore and we sent a few guns in for faulty extactors(one twice). They were junk and Kimber sucked it up and replaced the slides. 1000 rounds isnt much in the scheme of things. You might have a extractor that will work forever but 1000 rounds isnt much of a life for a handgun |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There were a lot of folks who had problems with the Kimber EE. In my opinion it wasn't the best design because they kind of half-assed it and basically tried to fit a EE design into, essentially, the same channel as the IE. The way the spring interacts with the extractor provides marginal leverage against the rim of the case. I think the fulcrum design used by SIG and S&W is superior because the extractor spring can act against the lever arm more efficiently... but it does use a pin fulcrum, which Kimber was obviously trying to avoid. Every time you post in one of these threads I learn something new about the 1911 system. Thanks. Thanks for the comment! There are a lot of knowledgable folks here, I just try to stay in my lane and contribute what I can. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or is it for aesthetics, for most, and that whole JMB did not put it there. When they first came out they were unreliable, just like every one else that has tried this trick before. They claim they fixed the problem on newer guns. S&W seems to be the only company that has managed to make a reliable EE form the get-go. The Spanish arms makers made 1911 style pistols with external extractors for decades. Those pistols didn't malfunction due to problems with extractors. All anyone "designing" an external extractor would have to do would be to buy an old Star (for example) and copy it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or is it for aesthetics, for most, and that whole JMB did not put it there. When they first came out they were unreliable, just like every one else that has tried this trick before. They claim they fixed the problem on newer guns. S&W seems to be the only company that has managed to make a reliable EE form the get-go. The Spanish arms makers made 1911 style pistols with external extractors for decades. Those pistols didn't malfunction due to problems with extractors. All anyone "designing" an external extractor would have to do would be to buy an old Star (for example) and copy it. I bought this Llama in the early 1960's and, to this day, it never chokes, neither did the other two I owned in .45 ACP and .380. But when you pay almost fifty dollars for a pistol new in box, you should expect no less. 
|
|
Quoted:
Rails look right, skeleton triggers look right, beavertails look right, speed hammers look right, highly modified ejection ports look right, bob tails look right, three inch slides and barrels look right, full length guide rods look right, bushing-less bull barrels look right, officer size grips look right, long slides look right, flared magwells look right, adjustable target sights look right. But unlike all the features listed above; an external extractor doesn't look right because it isn't part of JMB's original design so an external extractor pistol isn't a real 1911. Funny how true that is. |
|
Quoted: Do I have to own one of everything to know whether something is good or bad ?Quoted: you know i hear people say this crap a lot, i think you may have said it in another 1911 thread, did you own any of these EE kimbers?...Quoted: Because unlike S&W and SIG; Kimber was never really able to get their version of the external extractor to work reliably.Quoted: Aesthetics....The true blood 1911 guys think it strays too far from the original design. I don't ever hear anything bad about functionality...just aesthetics. Then why did Kimber replace all those slides? I think not.
 |
|
It's been a while since I had to mess with an external extractor on a 1911, but the Kimbers I've seen over the years had a myriad of issues. As mentioned, the spring tension was poor to start with which amplifies issues with geometry and fit. Generally speaking, due to the placement of the extractor the hook sat too high on the cartridge, giving it a tendency to drop cases. I've seen one with a negative hook, which barely ejected and sometimes punted the case back in the chamber. Really, these are the types of issues that I encounter as a gunsmith on old, worn guns. Not almost new production guns of Kimber's relative quality. S&W seems to have made out pretty well, but I haven't gotten my hands on one to inspect yet. For ease of acquiring parts I'm a traditionalist though  |
|
Quoted:
Aesthetics....The true blood 1911 guys think it strays too far from the original design. I don't ever hear anything bad about functionality...just aesthetics. My kimber pro carry just got back from kimber where they replaced the external extractor slide with am internal extractor slide due to failure to fed problems at their cost. So kimber's external extractors do hurt the functioning of their pistols. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There were a lot of folks who had problems with the Kimber EE. In my opinion it wasn't the best design because they kind of half-assed it and basically tried to fit a EE design into, essentially, the same channel as the IE. The way the spring interacts with the extractor provides marginal leverage against the rim of the case. I think the fulcrum design used by SIG and S&W is superior because the extractor spring can act against the lever arm more efficiently... but it does use a pin fulcrum, which Kimber was obviously trying to avoid. Every time you post in one of these threads I learn something new about the 1911 system. Thanks. Same here, I need all the help I can get. Thanks. |
|
Mine works great. I think i can speak for most gun owners when i say i wouldnt trust myself replacing any extractor, internal or external. Even if i did know how i wouldnt void the lifetime warranty to save a day or two in shipping. So, for myself and most gun owners, it makes no difference. When things first come out they usually have hiccups, i.e. <4" 1911s. From my understanding external extractors have some benefits as well, i.e. if you manually load a round into the chamber and drop the slide a EE is alot less likely to break than a IE. Although you might not do this, I'm confident my friends are absent minded enough to pull that maneuver off when asking to shoot it
I own a S&W Gunsite if it matters. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rails look right, skeleton triggers look right, beavertails look right, speed hammers look right, highly modified ejection ports look right, bob tails look right, three inch slides and barrels look right, full length guide rods look right, bushing-less bull barrels look right, officer size grips look right, long slides look right, flared magwells look right, adjustable target sights look right. But unlike all the features listed above; an external extractor doesn't look right because it isn't part of JMB's original design so an external extractor pistol isn't a real 1911. Funny how true that is. I agree, except there are changes that increase reliablity / usability of the gun, some that are personal preference, and some that just mess with the design. For instance, I don't really care for skeleton triggers, bob tails, three inch slides, FLGR, bushing-less barrels, officer sized grips, long slides, front cocking serrations or adjustable target sights. Doesn't mean that some of those things aren't needed in the right situation. On the other hand, items like the lowered and flared ejection port and front strap checkering, FCS or FLGRs can offer additional reliablity or additional traction on the pistol with wet hands. Beavertails can offer added comfort. Sights can make your target easier to acquire and add in charging the firearm. Ultimately, there is a reason many 1911 enthusiasts like the simplistic approach to the 1911. I for instance love wetidlerjr RP 1911. A standard slide with no FCS and typical novak sights and a bushing barrel is extremely clean and doesn't mess with the design. A government style frame with no magwell or rails or anything cosmetic, just front strap checkering, a standard flat and checkered MSH, a solid trigger and no ambi controls can continue the clean lines. Only place I like a change from the old is the beavertail and the skeleton hammers, but that's just me having to mess with something
|
|
Extractors of any variety are as a rule designed to snap over a cartridge rim, though you do occasionally find ones with screwy angles that won't. It's not very likely either type would outright break from it unless it was faulty to begin with, but extractors do break and they're a very under-appreciated part. There's a lot of subtle complexity to a well designed extractor. FWIW, when dropping the slide over a chambered round you aren't stressing a 1911 extractor any more than it's normal feed cycle. It's cammed out of the way by the cartridge rim feeding up under it, same as snapping over. The impact from dropping the slide on it is thumping it where it's retained, at the cutout for the firing pin retainer plate. On an external extractor, that blow is delivered to the retaining pin and the hole in the extractor, usually. Neither will do much overall, but an internal extractor has a lot more beef where it absorbs that hit than a little pin Quoted: From my understanding external extractors have some benefits as well, i.e. if you manually load a round into the chamber and drop the slide a EE is alot less likely to break than a IE. Although you might not do this, I'm confident my friends are absent minded enough to pull that maneuver off when asking to shoot it |