Semiautomatic pistols' extractor systems - then and now

[Naphtali]

Military semiautomatic pistols that were reputed to be ultra reliable were the 1911/1911A1 and the Browning M1935/Hi-Power. In reality, they were pretty much the same basic design for cartridge case extraction and feeding. That was in the first half of the 20th century. Since then pinned in pivoting extractors appear to be ubiquitous, replacing the previous internal extractor system, including that change in the Hi-Power extractor system.

- Why did the change occur?

- What, if any, reliability improvement accrues from the newer extractor system?

- If reliability has regressed when compared with previous military semiautomatics, or are less reliable than currently made semiautomatics that use the earlier extractor system, why would military organizations, including police, deliberately adopt inferior systems?

[Scharfschuetze]

The 1911's extractor is a controlled feed type and does best when feeding from the magazine. Good 45 smiths make a dollar or two tuning them for best reliability and function. I don't think that you have to do that with the pined and pivoting extractors on later designs and usually can chamber a round easily without a magazine if that is important to you. With all that said, I've never noticed any difference in reliability between the two types. I've used both types in the military and in police work without any issues traceable to the extractor.

[Combat Diver]

Pinned and pivoting extractors are not new to the military and they are just as old or older.

Mauser 1896 Broomhandle
Luger P08
Walther P38
Colt M1903/1908


CD

[gray wolf]

Easy job to remove and clean a 1911 control feed extractor, also to replace one.
No pins, no springs, and yes you can destroy a conventional one easily by dropping rounds into the chamber.
Ain't suppose to do that.

Sig ( whom I like ) states there extractor should be replaced every 2,000 rounds, OK I guess for a casual shooter.
I can remove my extractor at the range, clean the tunnel and add a little bend to it in 5 Minutes.

No doubt they may work, but I don't see the need, I would by a Sig in a Minute if I didn't want a 1911 pattern pistol.

I still have not been told what the actual benefit is.

[35remington]

If an extractor needs to be replaced frequently the pistol is not feeding correctly. 1911 extractors should go a long long time between needed replacements.

[Bigslug]

Consider what kind of technology base you had to repair a broken extractor in 1911. You couldn't send an e-mail and have parts show up on a C-17 two days later, but you DID have blacksmiths shoeing cavalry horses, and a good one could probably file and spring-temper a piece of steel to do the job. Consider also the Peacemaker and other older revolvers - not a lot of coil springs in them, but plenty of spring-tempered leaves. Hard to improvise a proper coil spring on site. Also, going in, the design team for Colt knew the mud and pounding that the gun was about to be subjected to. It's entirely possible that they thought coils were not up for the task at that time. At any rate, NOT needing a separate spring and retaining pin was a stroke of genius.

As to why governmental entities might deliberately adopt inferior systems, NEVER forget that your weapon was likely supplied by the lowest bidder. If it's not the cheapest to buy, there's at least a good chance that it's the cheapest to run, to train on, and it only has to last long enough for the person who looked good proposing it to comfortably retire.

[Ragnarok]

Many of the small blow-back Beretta style handguns have no extractor...none!

I own a cool little Beretta Tomcat that works fantastic without an extractor.....

[gray wolf]

Many of the small blow-back Beretta style handguns have no extractor...none!

I own a cool little Beretta Tomcat that works fantastic without an extractor.....

Not sure exatly what to get out of that. ??

[paul h]

Design changes are typically driven by what is less expensive to manufacture. Even though the pivoting extractor has more parts, it's cheaper to stamp out the extractor, cut a pin from round stock and procure a small coil spring than the machining required for the one piece extractor.

From the standpoint of reliability, after 20+ in engineering and working in manufacturing and industrial process, I've never seen an increase in reliability by adding parts to a machine or mechanism, the machine or mechanism with the least moving parts is more reliable by design and in the real world.

But that same 20+ year experience has shown that purchasing decisions are typically made based on the bottom line, not the greatest reliability. Especially when the people holding the purse strings for purchasing the equipment are not the same ones that hold the purse strings for maintaining the equipment.

[gray wolf]

I guess that's why Sig suggests changing the extractor every 2000 rounds.

IMHO I think that's crazy, some folks would have to go through 5 extractors a year.

I mean shoot, you get better life from a recoil spring.

[Naphtali]

Jim Clark, the famous Formula 1 driver, used to say: "Old technology wins races." He was referring to Offenhauser engines being fundamentally more reliable than newer designs, mostly because the older technology had had its teething pains while the newer engines still had unexpected, undetected problems to overcome.

[paul h]

Jim Clark, the famous Formula 1 driver, used to say: "Old technology wins races." He was referring to Offenhauser engines being fundamentally more reliable than newer designs, mostly because the older technology had had its teething pains while the newer engines still had unexpected, undetected problems to overcome.

A corollary is, you must first finish to finish first.

Or as my buddy Jack would say, there are a lot of ways not to set a record.

http://www.jackcostella.com/images/pictures/jack_costella.jpg

[destrux]

I've seen extractor tests on 1911 extractors where they flexed the extractor over a case lip 60,000 times in a row without ruining the extractor. I have also seen them break the tip off from doing that only a few times. So I don't think it's a design problem being "fixed" so much as the move to pinned extractors was to eliminate problems caused by hit and miss metallurgy.

I think it was also just design preference. There are still new guns being designed and made with flat spring extractors.

[35remington]

Mostly due to the fact that they can use untempered metal for extractors and not have to temper them to a spring temper. The problem with cheap 1911 extractors is that they are not springs.

[Silver Jack Hammer]

Cost. The exposed extractor is cheaper to manufacture. The Beretta 92 exposed extractor allows for loading a single cartridge directly into the chamber which was a plus during the military tests. The 1911 was most likely designed with an internal extractor because the military mandated it because they thought is was more reliable in field environments. Not that internal extractors were more reliable in the field environments, but someone in the higher ups likely believed so.

[Petrol & Powder]

Both types of extractors accomplish the same thing and I'm not convinced there's an advantage of one over the other.
The internal extractor is designed to work as a controlled feed extractor with the rim slipping in behind the lip of the extractor as the round is fed from the magazine but as pointed out, the extractor can flex and snap over the rim if needed. In fact, the external type extractors work the same way but may be a bit more tolerant of being forced to occasionally override the rim of a cartridge already in the chamber. The reality is the internal type is probably reliable enough and the external type is probably less expensive to produce.
I don't think it's an issue of one being better but rather just two different ways to accomplish the same task.