• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Extractors

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jammer Six:

Numrich/The Parts Corp (I think their web address is www.e-gunparts.com) but I'm not sure. Anyway They used to have some extractors for about $5.00. Why so, ah ... inexpensive? Because they're investment cast, and Tuner may have a fit just because I brought the subject up. But while I would never put one of these in any gun I cared about they are perfect for learning on, and if they aren't badly out-of-dimension they'll do for experimenting - and it beats making mistakes on those good ones that you're playing with now.

Remember, you don't have to have "the best" to learn on, just to finish up with.
 
Ready...Set...STOP!

Don't grind it...File it a little at a time and check it often. You can use a Dremel to reduce the pads...IF...you're careful and follow the radius closely.
Use a light touch.

To polish the bottom of the slot, try a popsicle stick edgeways with a piece of 600-grit paper wrapped around it and held tightly. You don't want to
change the angle at the back of the hook or make that part too smooth.
Just knock off any sharp edges...Think of it like the breechface.

Standin' by...
 
I really have tried to stay out of this but.........................................you seem to be "Grinding" on a part that I have fitted hundreds of and have yet to "Grind On One"! Buy a STOCK CASPIAN Extractor, put a little tension on it by inserting it in it's hole in the slide backwards with the hook facing the inside. Grab it with some household pliers with the claw inside the jaws and bend it inward slightly, install it back in the gun and see if it shoots. The bend is at the aft end of the donut and it doesn't take much. Let me know if some pictures would help here. Put that book away! I have taught over 40 students online to fit extractors and we have yet to have a malfunction after they are fit right. I must know something! Old Fuff mentioned the tip hitting the back of the barrel at the throat area. 38 Super/9mm barrels are relieved in this area for that reason and it may be a bad bunch of dimensions that are causing this problem. I really doubt it , though. I am not going to get into what I do to revise the claw and hook but I have never reduced one in the area that you seem to be "Grinding" on. Keep us posted.
 
Ready...Set...STOP!
Click to expand...

OK, no grinding.

I'll use a cylinder on my drillpress to do the pads, and I'll use a file for the hook.

Fuff, you old dog, why didn't I think of that? That's what I should have done- not only would I be about $25 ahead now, but I could have made a couple extras to take to the league as back ups.

Now that I think about it, maybe I will, anyway.

You have to keep 'Tuner off me, though...
 
An Extractor Tip

Here's a little-known thing concerning "springy" steel.

Back when I was dabblin' with automotive machine work, an old race engine builder showed me a little trick on straightening steel crankshafts...
which have a certain amount of "spring". Using a hydraulic press to
unbend one exceeds the elastic limit of the steel on the surface and compresses it underneath...so he used a large hammer to shock the crank
in the appropriate direction.

An extractor is basically a leaf spring...more or less...and the same applies.
Bending a leaf spring is much the same as stretching a coil spring...It
weakens the spring, and causes it to fail early because the bending
operation exceeds the elastic limit of the steel.

Laying the extractor on the jaws of an open vise, with the ends supported
and center hangin' in the air...and using a small hammer to bump the center pad shocks the steel into changing shape...and doesn't stretch the surface steel or compress the stuff underneath. The grain structure realigns without damage...and the steel not only holds that shape longer,
it's retains its full measure of springiness.

Luck!

Tuner
 
Get a round under the hook and push the barrel over the round and into lockup. Use a dowel rod to push the round back against the breechface while you look at the underside of the slide to check for contact between the front of the hook and the forward angle of the extractor groove.

You may not be able to tell that it's making contact by looking at the
contact area...Watch for the extractor to spring to the right side of the channel.
Click to expand...

OK, to bring everyone up to date, and resurrect a dying thread, I finally had time today to work on the next (second) extractor.

I have it down to .110, which is longer than the first one I did. It was just .100, using the measurement I sent you during hurricane season. (The first one, incidentally, extracted 100 rounds in a row without a single failure.)

I used the dykem-blue on the base of a piece of brass method, and the extractor is in fact hitting the forward angle.

Then, just for grins, I took the extractor out of my loaded model and measured it, and it measured out to .108-.110, which is at least .005 less than Kuhnhausen says it should be. The hook is also considerably shorter (the tip is closer to the breech face) than the new one, too.

I'm starting to think that Springfields like really short hooks on short extractors...

It's still hitting, according to the dykem blue, but I swear I don't see it move when I push back against the breech face. I'm going to take material off the tip before I make the hook any shorter.

Incidentally, I got vol. one of the AGI series, and his section on extractors doesn't say anything about specs, and the only time he mentioned length, I think he said it backwards. I was disappointed.

More later.
 
Springfield Extractors

Howdy Jammer,

It so happens that I had a go at another forum member's Loaded Springer last night. The hook was .027 inch...and it had been tweaked...so
they may be on the near side of too short for a reason. I think I've discovered why...at least on his pistol.

When I installed the Bulletproof, the hook was a little long, and pulling the extractor back out of the channel caused the hook to catch on the breechface. I had to spring it to the right to get it out...even AFTER it
was brought down to .034 inch. It appears that there's an issue with
his slide that I didn't really go into due to other things that I had to do.

There was also a weird problem with fitting the EGW firing pin stop. He
had ordered a Series 80 type stop...but no prob.me...I've used those before without issues. It had been in and out about 5 times, and was almost perfect. It pressed in with just a little more than thumb pressure...when all of a sudden it wouldn't come out. Nothing would help. I wound up cutting it up the middle with a cut-off wheel in my Dremel...c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y...and finding a standard stop that was .010 wider than his old one. The old extractor had been clocking, and having various failures to extract and stickin' the last empty back in the magazine.

Anyway...It could be that some of Springfield's slides are seriously out of
spec, which causes them to shorten the hooks out of spec in order to get them to feed. Hard to say if they even test-fire'em before shippin'em. Your issue with the extractor hook bottoming out in the extractor groove is probably just such an issue. I think yours is a stack-up between the slide
length from the firing pin stop centerline and the breechface...and headspacing.
 
The SA's are metric and they have different specs. No one seems to be able to get ahold of this, but I have re-built a few of them and they are fun to work on. The rear tangs are different, the hole for the front sight is about.0185-0186-0187-0188 or so, and the slide dimensions vary from gun to gun. A metric copy of an SAE 1911 has to be slightly off. They are great guns to use as is, but I would never consider working on one to any extent other than a reliablity tune up. I never use Jerry's dimensions as I have to fit each part just so and his books are no help for that. Each 1911 is different. Perhaps just a tiny bit, but not the same. All the parts have to be happy with each other no matter who the maker is. If they aren't, bad things happen to good guns.
 
Metric?

According to my sources:

Before and during World War Two, Brazil was an important ally in the war against Germany. When Argentina aligned itself with the Axis Powers, Brazil’s support became even more critical. While Uncle Sam was more then willing to send military supplies to Brazil, doing so was difficult and dangerous because of German U-Boats. Even so, Brazil was one of the few South American countries that received regular shipments of USGI 1911-A1 pistols through Lend-Lease.

Following the war in 1945-46, the U.S. Government decided that it would be advisable if Brazil could produce it’s own pistols in case another re-supply issue developed in the future. Surplus manufacturing machinery, along with Colt and Government engineers set up the program, and besides the machinery provided drawings, jigs and fixtures, material specifications – in other words the whole ball game. Springer buys their frames from the successor to this program, and they are still made to those original USGI drawings and dimensions.
 
I think that Tuner needs another source. Look at the grip tangs on an SA and then look at one of your GI Guns. Then tell us they are made to those specs.
 
Grip Safety Tangs

Yep..I know those are .220 radius...but everything else...the areas that really count...are true to print specs and usually within tolerance...or as near as I can determine. As to why they went with that particular radius, I can only guess. Maybe something to do with the fact that several custom smiths were using Springfield slides and frames for ground-up builds at one time, and requested that dimension? The Gunsite Gunsmithy was usin'em almost exclusively at one time, until Springfield stopped delivering.
Maybe somebody with the inside skinny can enlightent us on it...
 
Last edited:
I have one of those Gunsite Springfield's. I really don't know about the metric part. But, it is tough and still running. In my haste one night at a IDPA shoot. I loaded a 40 sw round in my mag. It fed , fired , and fried. Made a really interesting sound. Got a good chewing from the SO. But, I finished the shoot. Learned a good lesson. Gun was filty. Regards
 
Most of the other countries in the world do not use SAE measurments. These are converted to the system that they use and are very close to the inch measurments that we use. Brazil use to build great VW BUGs and they were metric to start with so they were near perfect copies. I am not picking on any manufacturer, but rather just stating the facts. Things happen in clones and as long as they work, I do not care. I have mentioned the obvious differences that I have found in these guns. The Chinese do not care about metric/SAE, they just do an exact copy. They have been doing that for centuries. If you want an exact SAE 1911 copy, look at a 1927 Systima. Made in Brazil. End of this discussion.
 
End Plus One

Hmm...In that case, maybe Springfield has made the GI Mil-Spec closer to an exact copy than first suspected...

Most commercial Colt and all my spare, (NOS) USGI parts would drop in and work with two WW2 Mil-Specs like they were made for'em. Mine and my step-son's. Other guys around here report the same results with their
standard Mil-Spec Springers too.

When I upgraded my WW2 Springer, even the thumb safety fell in and worked perfectly with the OEM Springfield sear and hammer. The early Colt commercial hammer dropped in and worked perfectly with the OEM sear...and only when I used the Nowlin Pro-Match sear did I have to work on it. The Nowlin sear had a thicker pad, and the safety wouldn't work.
Instead of fitting the safety, I stoned the pad until it would just barely engage...too tight...and fine-tuned the rest of the fit with the safety so I'd have plenty of metal left to peen and refit the safety in the future if need be,

Colt and Remington-Rand barrels that I tried strictly out of curiosity dropped in perfectly, and the slide fit flush with the frame...Even the USGI mag catch went in and worked without a hitch. Ditto for the grip safety. Ditto for the trigger. Ditto for the Briley disconnect...The only problem that I had was with a S&A mainspring housing. The holes didn't line up...but (you guessed it) a USGI mainspring housing fell right in. No contact with the new Colt strut...No problem with the sear spring...No problems. Except for the Nowlin sear, everything was a drop-in swap.

So, if the metric issue is real...How does all this figger into the overall picture?

Jammer's got a spec problem with his slide or his barrel...or both. I'll know more about it by Tuesday night or Wednesday afternoon...It's gonna be overnighted to me on Monday, and I'll report as soon as I know.

Stand by...
 
I guess that I have lost the art of communication. I have never said that the parts could not be changed and drop in. They can. Machines anywhere can be set to either metric or to SAE. Mills come from China either way and any machinist would know this. My digital caliper can do either metric or SAE.. This does not effect the part, but only how it is measured and where. I give up. Tuner is right and I am WRONG. I hope that will make him happy.
 
Right/Wrong

LOL:D

Ease up Cap'n...I ain't sayin' that anybody's right or wrong.
I just quoted a reliable source and I've measured a lotta stuff on Springfields. If there's a difference between the metric and the SAE measurements, it falls into the standard specs...and closely too, I might add.

Anyway...I'll see what the deal is with Jammer's top-end soon. My suspiscion:scrutiny: is headspacing...
 
Most of the other countries in the world do not use SAE measurments.

If you want an exact SAE 1911 copy, look at a 1927 Systima. Made in Brazil. End of this discussion.
Click to expand...

IMBEL, stamped on the bottom of my Springer, stands for "Industria de Material Bélico do Brasil".

It was also, therefore, made in Brazil.

Now, if Brazillian manfacturing means that it's metric, your second statement I've quoted is in error.

This is the third time I've seen you attempt to end discussion, and the second time I've seen you attempt to end a discussion immediately after saying that 'Tuner is wrong.

Is there some other issue here? Is the last word important to you? Is it 'Tuner? Me?

If it's me, let me apologize, and invite you to participate. We're talking about extractors, and I don't care who is right or wrong- all I want is facts.

I would suggest another tactic, because attempting to end discussions with me only works when my wife does it, and 'Tuner is a moderator, as well as being really old, and truly stubborn. I don't think it'll work with him.

You can only be so rude for so long before you get a reaction, and when you go up against a moderator on a private board, the result is pre-ordained.

My personal experience has been that the only thing 'Tuner has done, here and on Pistolsmith.com, is to try to be as helpful as possible. I've found both his conclusions and his suggestions to be accurate, encouraging and helpful, and he's never asked for so much as a cup of coffee in return. He has given his time and his knowledge without hesitation, he has sent me parts to use as examples, and Old Fuff has given me parts outright! They've both sent me drawings, suggestions and advice, and they're both willing to keep doing so until I understand.

You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to be obnoxious, and you have implied on more than one occasion that you're the only one in our discussions who has any knowledge about how the 1911 works, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

What puzzles me is that all your students praise your abilities and your willingness to teach- clearly you have the ability, so why do you change personalities when you show up here?

Money? Is it because your students have paid you and we haven't? If it's about money, I'd like to invite you to have a seat. I'm not here to spend money, and clearly, neither 'Tuner nor Old Fuff are here to sell anything.

You and I can still go either way, but if we're going to get along, you need to dial it back, and give me and my friends at least as much respect as most people give to taxi drivers and waiters.

Now, if you wish, you can end this discussion, and the rest of us will go back to talking about extractors without you.
 
Dave Sample:

I know you is a "guru" and all of that, but ...

>> If you want an exact SAE 1911 copy, look at a 1927 Systima. Made in Brazil. End of this discussion. <<

The truth of the matter is that the "Pistola Sistema 'Colt' Modelo Agrentino 1927, Caliber 11.25 mm." was manufactured in Argentina (not Brazil) by the Direcci'on General de Fabricaci'ones Militares, at the F'abrica Militar de Armas Port'atiles factory. Thus they are marked on the left side of the slide: D.G.F.M. - (F.M.A.P.).

The pistols were manufactured on a licence granted by Colt in 1927, but production didn't start until 1945. The pistols were manufactured in accordance with 1927 drawings and specifications provided by Colt, and the parts were interchangeable with Colt pistols of the same period. They were incidentally 1911-A1's not 1911's. This is not to say that the Argentine military didn't use model 1911 pistols, because they did. But those were known as the "model 1914" in that South American country, and they were made by Colt in Hartford, CT.

Now we'll see if that ends the discussion. :uhoh: :D :D
 
The only problem that I had was with a S&A mainspring housing. The holes didn't line up...but (you guessed it) a USGI mainspring housing fell right in.
Click to expand...

Tuner, I did one of these, it was the most ill fitting beast I ever played with. The holes on the S&A were way off, I ended up filing cussing, filing and more cussing. I finally got it to fit, I thought I had just gotten a bunk one, but maybe they are all out. This was on a original Colt, which was to spec as three other Colt mainspriings all fit right.



The pistols were manufactured on a licence granted by Colt in 1927, but production didn't start until 1945.
Click to expand...

Are you sure of the production dates? I have one that is marked 1927 and its not a contract gun. Nice gun but there are some very subtle differences from the Colts, check out the triggers, I have never seen a Colt with the same knurling on the trigger and the hammer knurling is different also.

I think I need to take my Sistema and one of my Colts apart and do a mix and match to see how the stuff all fits together ( everything should fit right together ).
 
Flames!

Lordy...THIS one took a nose-dive right quick.:rolleyes:

Okay...Lemme see if we can get back on track without gettin' too far off the
high road.:cool:

Jammer...Dave's just blowin' off a little steam. Me and him been doin' this dance for about 18 months now...:D Thanks for the good words. We'll
soon figger out what's causin' the problem.

Fuff! Welcome back. Wish your journey could have been under more pleasant circumstances. I'd heard a few references to the metric/SAE
argument with Springfield pistols, and never have found it to be the case.
As noted...if anything is metric on the guns, the dimensions aren't separated widely enough for it to make a practical difference...so they musta split those metric dimensions into fractions thereof. Measurements
generally fall well within blueprint tolerances, and seem to be held to
to even closer tolerances than many new Colts.

Schromf...Oddly enough, that S&A mainspring housing fell into an Essex
frame like it had been fitted. It almost worked in one early Colt 1991-A1
and went into a NRM Government Model with just a little presuasion...and
it was all about hole location. Go figger. On the dates...I think Fuff was referring to military contract pistols. The Argentines probably did as they
pleased with the contract on a commercial or civilian(polizia) level. Imay be wrong on that point...Anybody want to correct or clarify?

Dave...Ya can't end a discussion that somebody else started. If you meant that YOUR part in the discussion is over, that's your privelege...but Jammer
started it to try and determine why his pistol keeps breakin' extractors. If
the reason was that the gun is machined to metric dimensions, it would seem that ALL Springfields would do the same thing...or at least a large
number of'em. I've found that a large number of Springfields do have extractor issues...but breakage at the 150-200 round mark ain't the problem. Moreover, the greatest percentage of the problems that they do have seems to have been corrected sometime after the ones marked "B"
on the flat on the butt-end. Like I suspected...it was a vendor/lot number problem.

In order to keep things on an even keel, I'd suggest that you stick to suggestions on how to correct the problem on a problem-related thread. If you'd like to start a discussion about how poorly or incorrectly Springfields are manufactured, you're welcome to do so...and we'll debate it until the cows make their way back to the barn.

Now then...Let's all take a breath and try again. I'll post my findings on
Jammer's top-end in a day or two, and see if we can solve this mystery.
If what I suspect is at fault, I don't know if it can be massaged into working condition with the original parts...but I'm gonna give it a try.

Stand by...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
1911Tuner, Weird Extractor Problem
Replies
11
Views
1K
Dave Sample
D
B
  • Locked
Replacement 1911 extractors: which is best?
Replies
2
Views
3K
1911Tuner
1
T
  • Locked
Last round stovepipes
Replies
18
Views
2K
Teapot
T
chrisf8657
  • Locked
Just did a 1911 Extractor Tune...
Replies
5
Views
1K
Presto
P
M
  • Locked
1911 tuner I need help on this please.
Replies
3
Views
871
bigjim
B
Back
Top