The question of internal vs External extractors comes up from time to time, and it mainly centers around which is best or more reliable. Since all modern autopistol producers have pretty much gone to the external type, we'll have to use Johnny Browning's pistols to represent those with the internal type.
I'll go ahead and make a flat statement here. Assuming sound design and execution of the design, neither is superior to the other in terms of function and reliability. They both do exactly the same things in exactly the same way.
During Browning's road toward the 1911, he used both types. The Model 1900 used an internal extractor. The 1902 and 1905...essentially the same gun with a few minor changes to the 1905...and the Model 1907 used the external extractor. These pistols functioned and there were no particular issues noted with their respective extractors. The problems that led to the Model 1909 were simply that the previous pistols weren't robust enough to withstand the pounding generated by the new .45 cartridge. The problems centered around the impact abutments, the vertical impact surfaces and lower barrel lugs, and the upper lugs.
Enter the completely redesigned Model 1909 with its single link tilting barrel, beefed-up upper and lower lugs, and slide to frame impact abutments, and...a return to the internal extractor.
Browning would have been fine with the external type but for one directive from the US Army Ordnance Board.
One of the criteria for the fine, new pistol was that it be easily serviced in the field, preferably without the need for specialty tools, with a minimum of small, easily lost parts. In those days, there were field armorers that were issued small parts kits for expedient field repairs and/or replacement. Because the external extractor pivoted on a tiny pin that required a punch to remove...and because it was powered by a tiny spring, both of which were easy to lose and hard to recover...the external extractor had to go.
So, Browning...taking a page from the German Mauser brothers...fashioned an extractor that acted as its own spring, held in place by tension, and locked by an easily removable plate that was in turn secured by the firing pin and spring.
Basically, it was a leaf spring with a claw on the front end and a means for securing it on the rear...and it worked...and Browning set about proving it by firing 6,000 rounds without a single failure to do its job, and its been doing fine ever since.
So, why all the claims of having to constantly fiddle with it and retension it and "retune" it?
Most of you aren't going to like my answer.
I have a pair of Colts and I've used strictly as beaters and I've beaten both like the proverbial red-headed bastard step child. They're both logged over 400,000 rounds collectively, about evenly split. Both are on their 3rd barrels. They presently stand at over 50,000 rounds...each...since I've had to do anything to the extractors other than periodic removal for cleaning. In fact, they're both currently still running on the OEM extractors that Colt installed nearly 35 years ago. I've adjusted tension once each in that time, though I did make light tweaks on one for deflection when the guns were new.
How can this be? (Many will ask) After all, everyone "knows" that 1911 extractors lose tension and have to be...fiddled with...in order to return to proper function.
The answer is very simple.
Those extractors don't lose tension from repeatedly springing open. With the proper degree of deflection, they actually deflect...spring open...very little. I like to see about .010 inch, but they'll function just fine with less. They don't need to move laterally very far to maintain tension on the case as long as the case rim diameter is within spec. At this point, note that the rims on some foreign ammunition are too small...notably the Russian variety.
They lose tension from impact and over springing and that happens when the round gets ahead of the slide and the claw is forced over the rim...which usually happens once per magazine...on the last round, but if the magazine spring is weak enough, it can happen on the last two.
So, the answer is that I use magazines...exclusively...that don't allow the last round to "jump the follower" or sometimes described as "jumping the lips" under recoil, and I use good springs. That means 7 round magazines with the bump on top of the followers to keep that last round in the magazine until the slide makes contact. Too many modern fancy magazine designers and suppliers have either lost sight of the fact that a genius designed that magazine the way he did for some very good reasons, or they didn't understand it to begin with. As I've said so often...so many people have been trying for so long to prove that they're smarter than Mose, they really think they have.
So, there you have it. The definitive answer to which is superior.
I'll go ahead and make a flat statement here. Assuming sound design and execution of the design, neither is superior to the other in terms of function and reliability. They both do exactly the same things in exactly the same way.
During Browning's road toward the 1911, he used both types. The Model 1900 used an internal extractor. The 1902 and 1905...essentially the same gun with a few minor changes to the 1905...and the Model 1907 used the external extractor. These pistols functioned and there were no particular issues noted with their respective extractors. The problems that led to the Model 1909 were simply that the previous pistols weren't robust enough to withstand the pounding generated by the new .45 cartridge. The problems centered around the impact abutments, the vertical impact surfaces and lower barrel lugs, and the upper lugs.
Enter the completely redesigned Model 1909 with its single link tilting barrel, beefed-up upper and lower lugs, and slide to frame impact abutments, and...a return to the internal extractor.
Browning would have been fine with the external type but for one directive from the US Army Ordnance Board.
One of the criteria for the fine, new pistol was that it be easily serviced in the field, preferably without the need for specialty tools, with a minimum of small, easily lost parts. In those days, there were field armorers that were issued small parts kits for expedient field repairs and/or replacement. Because the external extractor pivoted on a tiny pin that required a punch to remove...and because it was powered by a tiny spring, both of which were easy to lose and hard to recover...the external extractor had to go.
So, Browning...taking a page from the German Mauser brothers...fashioned an extractor that acted as its own spring, held in place by tension, and locked by an easily removable plate that was in turn secured by the firing pin and spring.
Basically, it was a leaf spring with a claw on the front end and a means for securing it on the rear...and it worked...and Browning set about proving it by firing 6,000 rounds without a single failure to do its job, and its been doing fine ever since.
So, why all the claims of having to constantly fiddle with it and retension it and "retune" it?
Most of you aren't going to like my answer.
I have a pair of Colts and I've used strictly as beaters and I've beaten both like the proverbial red-headed bastard step child. They're both logged over 400,000 rounds collectively, about evenly split. Both are on their 3rd barrels. They presently stand at over 50,000 rounds...each...since I've had to do anything to the extractors other than periodic removal for cleaning. In fact, they're both currently still running on the OEM extractors that Colt installed nearly 35 years ago. I've adjusted tension once each in that time, though I did make light tweaks on one for deflection when the guns were new.
How can this be? (Many will ask) After all, everyone "knows" that 1911 extractors lose tension and have to be...fiddled with...in order to return to proper function.
The answer is very simple.
Those extractors don't lose tension from repeatedly springing open. With the proper degree of deflection, they actually deflect...spring open...very little. I like to see about .010 inch, but they'll function just fine with less. They don't need to move laterally very far to maintain tension on the case as long as the case rim diameter is within spec. At this point, note that the rims on some foreign ammunition are too small...notably the Russian variety.
They lose tension from impact and over springing and that happens when the round gets ahead of the slide and the claw is forced over the rim...which usually happens once per magazine...on the last round, but if the magazine spring is weak enough, it can happen on the last two.
So, the answer is that I use magazines...exclusively...that don't allow the last round to "jump the follower" or sometimes described as "jumping the lips" under recoil, and I use good springs. That means 7 round magazines with the bump on top of the followers to keep that last round in the magazine until the slide makes contact. Too many modern fancy magazine designers and suppliers have either lost sight of the fact that a genius designed that magazine the way he did for some very good reasons, or they didn't understand it to begin with. As I've said so often...so many people have been trying for so long to prove that they're smarter than Mose, they really think they have.
So, there you have it. The definitive answer to which is superior.
