1911 Extractors

[RustyJr]

Have started looking into getting a 1911 with a picatanny rail. Have looked at Sigs, Colts and Springfields. One thing I noticed about the Sigs is that they have external extractors. Are there any advantages or disadvantages to the external extractors compared to the internal ones?

Thanks,
RustyJr

[1894c]

Not a big fan of 1911 platform, but have done some reading when I was considering the design. The internal extractor is the original design, they need to be replaced (not sure of the round count) and sometimes tuned if and when extraction becomes difficult. But still are very functional and reliable. The Sig external design (S&W and Dan Wesson has this too) is similar to what most modern semi-auto pistols have today. My personal opinion is that they would seem more reliable and easier to replace if broken, but since I don't presently run a 1911 (Glock-fan-boy here) my knowledge base is limited.

When I was seriously considering the 1911 platform I was leaning towards a Springfield Armory or a Colt Rail Gun in 1911, both have the internal extractor...in the end there is something about a 103 year old design with 103 years of combat and LE experience that I find appealing...and since the Marine Corp just purchased 20-30,000 Colts I'd say the internal extractor wasn't a deal breaker... :)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012 ... istol.html

When it comes to .45ACP I own and EDC a Glock 30SF...

[7.62 Precision]

The extractor as originally designed for the pistol is fine. No need to be changed.

To sell you a 1911, manufacturers need to come up with a way to market it to you. That means features. So they add an external extractor, full-length guide rod, etc.

Some 1911s have had issues with external extractors due to poor execution. Others are just fine. If you like the pistol and it is a quality pistol, then get it, no matter what type of extractor it has. Both styles can work just fine.

Of the three, I would recommend the Springfield. In courses we see more malfunctions from 1911s than any other single type of quality pistol. The most expensive ones tend to malfunction more. Springfields have a good record for reliability, and don't have added firing pin block safeties. They are built strong. Colts have the added firing pin block safety, but it is an easier design to work with than others. SIG 1911s have proven a pain for us for holster fit.

If I were buying a 1911 it would be a Springfield. Any of the three should be good choices, though.

Just remember that there is a reason gunsmiths love 1911s - they can keep making money off of them long after they sell them. They are the ARs of pistols - lots of accessories and mods available. Features offered by manufacturers and gunsmiths are often more for marketing purposes than for practical advantages. Make sure it is a quality pistol and get what you like.

Personally, I don't prefer full-length guide rods and external extractors and stuff like that in a 1911. I am not opposed to using a 1911 that has them, though. If you look at requirements from some of the more high-speed agencies that use them, you will see that a lot of professionals have the same preferences. Competition guys often have other preferences, though, and professional competition guys often have preferences that are dictated by their sponsors.

As a gun guy, I love 1911s. I don't carry one though. For practical reasons I go a different direction.

[Griff]

i love the 1911... and one is my carry piece. 99% of all issues come down to 3 things: ammo, magazines & the shooter; with magazines & shooters being 99% of those!

My Combat Commander is on its 3rd barrel. And no other part has broken or failed. Other'n grips it only has 3 aftermarket parts, the slide release, recoil spring and grip safety. Each change was for a specific purpose... Its last tune-up was in 1987. The guy that throated it was an "ARTISTE"!

IMO, really knowledgeable 1911 mechanics are very few, far between, about like real levergun mechanics. Any change you make to a 1911 has the potential to ruin the gun, (lessen its reliability). I'm certainly no expert, but I'm just a couple of months shy of carrying and usin' one in various forms for combat, competition, police duty, plinkin' and self-protection for 44 yeaars.

The one I want is the new Colt Marine contract.

[M. M. Wright]

I'll admit that I really like the 1911 platform and have owned a bunch of them from a lot of manufacturers. If I were buying a new one from stock today it would come from Bill Wilson.

One of the best I've owned was a Colt prepared by Frank Pachmeyer. No telling how many rounds I fed it. I did have the frame group Metalloyed. I still have the one built for me by Bud Price. Not a lot of rounds through it though, 10K or so.

The one I usually have on me is a Charles Daly made in the phillipines. 4" bbl. with ambi safeties, dovetailed sights, lowered and dimpled port, big beavertail with memory hump, skeletonized trigger and hammer, long clip release. Only had to change the recoil spring to make it totally reliable especially with Wilson/Rogers magazines.

[Bronco]

Hello,

Love the 1911 platform.
From what I have read the internal it the way to go.. Problems are associated with the external extractor. That being said I bought a Kimber years ago when they has switched to the external extractor. Customers were having issues Kimbers solution send them back in and we will replace with a new slide and internal extractor for FREE

Sent mine in and no issues since.

John

[mikld]

I have never disassembled a Sig, but replacing the extractor on a 1911 is very easy. From gun on bench to exchanged extractor to gun back on bench should be less than 5 minutes...

[walks with gun]

externals look trashy to me, I like the old clean lines, internal extractors are easy to change if needed, which you probably never will have too.

[Bullard4075]

i love the 1911... and one is my carry piece. 99% of all issues come down to 3 things: ammo, magazines & the shooter; with magazines & shooters being 99% of those!

My Combat Commander is on its 3rd barrel. And no other part has broken or failed. Other'n grips it only has 3 aftermarket parts, the slide release, recoil spring and grip safety. Each change was for a specific purpose... Its last tune-up was in 1987. The guy that throated it was an "ARTISTE"!

IMO, really knowledgeable 1911 mechanics are very few, far between, about like real levergun mechanics. Any change you make to a 1911 has the potential to ruin the gun, (lessen its reliability). I'm certainly no expert, but I'm just a couple of months shy of carrying and usin' one in various forms for combat, competition, police duty, plinkin' and self-protection for 44 yeaars.

The one I want is the new Colt Marine contract.

My experience is almost exactly like Griff's. I would only add that you take a close look at a Kimber. The Kimber Custom II has everything you need without the frills you don't. A Kimber will run "right out of the box" unlike many others. YMMV

[Lastmohecken]

i love the 1911... and one is my carry piece. 99% of all issues come down to 3 things: ammo, magazines & the shooter; with magazines & shooters being 99% of those!

My Combat Commander is on its 3rd barrel. And no other part has broken or failed. Other'n grips it only has 3 aftermarket parts, the slide release, recoil spring and grip safety. Each change was for a specific purpose... Its last tune-up was in 1987. The guy that throated it was an "ARTISTE"!

IMO, really knowledgeable 1911 mechanics are very few, far between, about like real levergun mechanics. Any change you make to a 1911 has the potential to ruin the gun, (lessen its reliability). I'm certainly no expert, but I'm just a couple of months shy of carrying and usin' one in various forms for combat, competition, police duty, plinkin' and self-protection for 44 yeaars.

The one I want is the new Colt Marine contract.

My experience is almost exactly like Griff's. I would only add that you take a close look at a Kimber. The Kimber Custom II has everything you need without the frills you don't. A Kimber will run "right out of the box" unlike many others. YMMV

I have had pretty good luck with Kimbers but personally, I would stay away from the Kimbers that end in a II as those have that crazy Swartz style firing pin block safety. Kimber still makes some guns that don't have the Swartz junk in them. I have owned both kinds of Kimbers, and my friends have owned several. I have had to replace bent firing pins in 3 Kimbers that had the Swartz firing pin blocks.

Also, talking about the Kimber, to replace an extractor in the Swartz models, you have to have a rear sight puller and removed the rear sight, then take out the Swartz firing pin blocking pin before you can remove the extractor. I still own one of the little 3 inch Kimbers with the Swartz system, but I removed the junk in the slide and replaced the firing pin with an Ed Brown firing pin.

[Lastmohecken]

As far as 1911's go I prefer to stay with the internal extractor. A good quality internal extractor that has been adjusted correctly with be as reliable as anything else.

I think it's better to stay with a series 70 style gun as much as possible.

[Lastmohecken]

I'll admit that I really like the 1911 platform and have owned a bunch of them from a lot of manufacturers. If I were buying a new one from stock today it would come from Bill Wilson.

I have a Wilson 5 inch gun, and it's the best gun 1911, I have every owned. If I was to ever buy another custom 1911, I would probably get a Wilson, not to mention, they're only an hours drive away, so I can deal with them face to face.

[7.62 Precision]

A Kimber will run "right out of the box" unlike many others. YMMV

Kimbers tend to be pretty tight out of the box. Kimber themselves recommend a pretty decent break-in before you can expect one to run reliably, and most people consider 500 rounds to be about minimum for a break-in on Kimbers, so while I don't dislike Kimbers, I don't recommend them as ready to run right out of the box - expect to break them in for reliability.

Also, talking about the Kimber, to replace an extractor in the Swartz models, you have to have a rear sight puller and removed the rear sight, then take out the Swartz firing pin blocking pin before you can remove the extractor. I still own one of the little 3 inch Kimbers with the Swartz system, but I removed the junk in the slide and replaced the firing pin with an Ed Brown firing pin.

Yeah, I HATE having to remove the rear sight to disassemble the pistol. Kimber dovetails tend to be really on the tight side, too, so if you are disassembling often, and using punches, there is potential for damage, especially if you have certain night sights. I have a USIT sight tool, so it is not as bad.

I would remove that safety if I owned a Kimber as well.

[Lastmohecken]

On some of my friend's Kimbers, they went on a Kimber buying kick for a while, as far as I know, all of the Kimbers they bought worked fine out of the box, but after shooting them for a while, problems begin to develope like the bent firing pins, and one them developed a broken thumb safety (MIM PART), and one of the guns broke a slide stop. These things all started happening about probably around 2000 rounds if I remember correctly.

My own personal Kimbers were reliable out of the box, except for the first one I purhchased about 12 to 14 yrs ago, and it required some good after market magazines, and it also broke a slide stop, early on, and I broke the tit on little screw that holes the mag release button on, and had to replace that.

Kimber has a lot of nice models, and I like the Pro Carry models, the best. However, I think I like Springfields better. I have a very resonably priced Springfield GI, 4 inch barrel, that is one of my favorite carry gun, but I did change out the mainspring housing and got rid of the lock with all new guts in the mainspring housing. That helped the trigger pull and everything else.

[7.62 Precision]

Started this post this morning, but ran out of time before church. (We drive an hour into town to go to church, so stay all day.)
One thing to consider about 1911s is that a number of companies are competing to build the same pistol. One of the things they compete on is accuracy.
Now you can only shoot a pistol so accurately from the hand, so to test accuracy, gun writers lock the frame in a vice. The frame-to-slide fit can be very loose and the piton can still shoot well, because the accuracy comes from the lockup between the slide, which has the sights on it, and the barrel.
But when writers want to test the accuracy of one 1911 against another, they lock the frame in a vice to shoot groups. In this case, depending how they test, the slide to frame fit can make a big difference - a very accurate pistol can look very inaccurate when tested this way.
So the manufacturers tighten the fit between slide and frame and other tolerances as well. This is on a pistol design that can already be stopped by a little over-sprayed paint on the slide or frame rails. This may be fine for competition and target shooting, but these finely fitted guns can also be finicky.
If you are using the pistol for competition, the highly tuned 1911s are great. If you are using it for self-defense, duty, or combat, looser tolerances and better reliability will be more important than the right name, custom work, and a high price tag. This is why I like pistols in the lower price range of the quality 1911s - the factory guns that have the features you want, but the reliability you need for these purposes.
As I said before, I do not carry a 1911, but if I did, it would likely be a Springfield Armory 1911.

As far as tight match-type tolerances, they are no advantage for me, because I don't shoot a pistol well enough that it makes any practical difference to me. They do tend to drop reliability. I have seen Glocks have all kinds of problems with aftermarket match-chambered barrels that precluded the use of a lot of ammo that won't fit in those tight chambers.

[North Country Gal]

I shoot a Sig 1911 as my carry gun and couldn't ask for a more reliable gun. I would have no hesitation getting another Sig. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the extractor thing.

My favorite 1911 is still the Springfield - I have four of them. Just can't beat them as far as quality and performance for the dollar.

[86er]

STI.

[7.62 Precision]

STI.

The ones I have seen seem very nice.

[Lastmohecken]

Started this post this morning, but ran out of time before church. (We drive an hour into town to go to church, so stay all day.)
One thing to consider about 1911s is that a number of companies are competing to build the same pistol. One of the things they compete on is accuracy.
Now you can only shoot a pistol so accurately from the hand, so to test accuracy, gun writers lock the frame in a vice. The frame-to-slide fit can be very loose and the piton can still shoot well, because the accuracy comes from the lockup between the slide, which has the sights on it, and the barrel.
But when writers want to test the accuracy of one 1911 against another, they lock the frame in a vice to shoot groups. In this case, depending how they test, the slide to frame fit can make a big difference - a very accurate pistol can look very inaccurate when tested this way.
So the manufacturers tighten the fit between slide and frame and other tolerances as well. This is on a pistol design that can already be stopped by a little over-sprayed paint on the slide or frame rails. This may be fine for competition and target shooting, but these finely fitted guns can also be finicky.
If you are using the pistol for competition, the highly tuned 1911s are great. If you are using it for self-defense, duty, or combat, looser tolerances and better reliability will be more important than the right name, custom work, and a high price tag. This is why I like pistols in the lower price range of the quality 1911s - the factory guns that have the features you want, but the reliability you need for these purposes.
As I said before, I do not carry a 1911, but if I did, it would likely be a Springfield Armory 1911.

As far as tight match-type tolerances, they are no advantage for me, because I don't shoot a pistol well enough that it makes any practical difference to me. They do tend to drop reliability. I have seen Glocks have all kinds of problems with aftermarket match-chambered barrels that precluded the use of a lot of ammo that won't fit in those tight chambers.

Yes, I am not a big fan of match chambers, or real tight slides. I do like a pretty close fit of barrel to slide and barrel to bushing. That's where most of the accuracy comes from. Of course Bill Wilson claims that a fairly tight slide to frame fit, is more reliable, because the slide doesn't drift around much from shot to shot, so everything is more consistent, and a tight slide doesn't allow dirt to get in to start with. It does make for a smoother shooting and operating gun, but you have to clean them a little more often.

My Wilson gun will shoot 500 rounds without any problems between cleanings, but I had an old custom built Colt slide/Essex frame gun that was wore out before I got it, back in the 80's that I shot IPSC with and it was very reliable, and accurate, but would rattle like a bucket of bolts when clean. I shot a lot back then and would often go many times over the 500 count of dirty grungy reloads before cleaning it, and reliability never seemed to be an issue, actually it shot better dirty IMHO.