Browning designed the 1911 with an internal extractor. Later Browning designes, such as the High Power, have external extractors. Anyone out there with knowledge about why that change ? I am of the mind that the internal extractor is probably the cause of many 1911 feed problems and is that the reason Smith&Wesson, in their wisdom, elected to go with an external extractor on their 1911 model pistols ?

I have several 1911 pistols and will be purchasing my first Smith&Wesson model, the PD. Opinions on the extractor question ? Thanks

S&W originally began working with the external extractor in their semiauto center-fire pistol design back about '52 (M39 development).

I'd say they're simply working to their strength.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

While I don't own a S&W 1911, I've shot a couple of them. Reliable as all my 3rd generation 45's.

Kimber gave the external extractor on 1911's a bad name. Kimber eventually wound up replacing slides so equipped. Awful guns.

S&W has done it right. Buy a S&W 1911 with confidence. Regards 18DAI.

I have a little different take. I cut my gunsmithing teeth on standard, internal 1911 extractors. They are relatively easy to tune, and if made of good, properly tempered steel, they last and last. However, they MUST be of good steel to hold up, and if someone tinkers with the spring balance on the gun and accidentally converts it from controlled-round feed to snap-over, even the best extractors will break. The external extractor does not have to have such an exact temper, since it pivots on a pin, rather than being its own spring. As long as it is heat treated to sufficient hardness and is not too brittle, there is more latitude in metallurgy to be forgiven. Also, it is less susceptible to damage from snap-over feeding.

I've had to fix extractor problems on more guns with external extractors than internal ones, proportionately, although I've not worked on as many external extractor 1911s as those with the original design. The externals are maddening to work on, at least for me, and I've typically found myself replacing a bad one, never being quite sure what was wrong with the original. My friend 18DAI has had good luck with the Smith design; I've worked on both Smiths and Kimbers with external extractors that puked. He's right about the original Kimber design, but they have tweaked it on some later models, and they seem to work well. The new Kimber extractor looks much like the one on Glocks, and Glocks don't have many extractor problems.

Said all that to say this: An external extractor on a 1911 is a solution to a nonexistent problem, but they aren't all bad. I still prefer JMB's original, and while I own LOTS of 1911-types, I own none with external extractors. Doesn't mean I won't, I just don't.

BTW, the SW1911 extractor is essentially considered a fitted part. S&W uses a Go/No-Go bar gauge to check fit, with an adjustment pad surface filed if fitting is needed (and it may not be required). There are 2 extractor springs available for use, the standard one and an optional heavier one. The tension is checked using a force dial gauge. The recommended tension range is 4-7 lbs @ .010" deflection.

S&W is also using a heavier (taller) extractor in their Pro Series models.

There are some advantages & disadvantages to both the internal & external designs, I'd think.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Always beware the terms "new and improved".
It usually means someone found a cheaper/easier way to do it.
And your gun is the one now doing their beta testing.
Always remember the line from the book & movie "The Right Stuff",
"Never forget your sitting on top of 3/4 million pounds of high explosives, built by the low bidder".

(EDIT)
Sorry I was remiss?
WELCOME!

Considering how long the S&W 1911's have been out, I would think they are way past the "beta" stage.
I haven't had any trouble with the externals on any of my three S&W 1911's, nor did I ever have any trouble from the extractor on my old 4596. Both designs work, but the internal extractor is a lot easier to clean and adjust.

External extractors simplify machining and reduce costs.

Without getting into the merits, I think S&W understands external extractors and just stuck with what has worked for them.
SIG had internal extractors which gave many problems and switched to external.
I have both, the only failure I ever had was in a 1943 Colt 1911-A1, the original extractor failed in 1980, I could not begin to guess at the rounds fired.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

A good look at the original John M. Browning-designed extractor for the M1911 and the M1935 High Power should tell you that the internal extractor design was created back in the days of manual machining operations and machinists were paid pennies per hour. Compare the simple slide cuts of the modern designs and the deep hole drilling of the older designs, plus the utter simplicity of the modern extractor vs the forged, machined, and heat treated older extractor and it comes right down to production cost.

The external extractor design is simpler, and lower cost, PERIOD.

Theres far bigger things to worry about than the extractor. Either design can work fine if set up properly.
I had a S&W PD, never missed a beat. Worst I can say for it is that it did like to spit brass back at me and i don't know how easy that is to tune out of an external extractor. It seems fairly common from what i read.

I hope everyone realized I was being facitious?
The real truth of the question can be read in J/T's post.
Time + talent always = $$$$$.
The fewer of any one, or better yet all of the three that can be reduced or eliminated, the better.

The internal extractor has much more to do with the corrosive ammunition in use when the earlier designs were developed. That ammo required cleaning as soon as practical after firing. As a result, the 1911 slide could be compeletly stripped for cleaning with nothing more complicated than a horseshoe nail (the lug nut of the day, every trooper carried a small supply) with no itty-bitty parts that could be easily lost.

Ammunition tolerances were much greater in them thar days too. That's why JMB made field adjustable headspace a feature in his heavy machine guns.

Much better ammunition has made different extractor designs practical. The close tolerances possible by other advances make fitting of some design of external extractors unnecessary.

Dead On! And that is why I prefer the internal extractor on the 1911 type pistols. If something goes wrong (and it can with any extractor type) I can get the gun up and running with out sending it to the factory or a gunsmith. The Smith extractor extractors do require factory fitting.

The flip side to that is: the Smith external extractors are a highly evolved part that is extremely reliable. If I liked the other features of the pistol, the external extractor would not be a deal killer.

Charles

I kinda glossed over the issues of the available steels and heat treat methods at the turn of the 20th century. Those would have also entered into the design, but the care required by the available ammo would have been the deciding factor.

FWIW, I used to run into a lot of WWII era surplus 1911 extractors that obviously failed be be made of spring steel and/or properly heat treated. They'd sorta work for awhile.

I agree that S&W got it right with the external extractor. But I will stick with the internal. I have a few extras and it doesn't take long to change one out.

I have a series one Kimber Classic Custom with about 500,000rounds through it. It's on it's second extractor.

In case your wondering about the round count, it's accurate. I loaned the gun to an indoor range for a couple years. This is a testament to the good ole 1911. It's doesn't need external extractors, full length guide rods, a rail, shock buffs, or any other ****. Stuff a good magazine in it and it's good to go.

My Belgium made Hi Power has an internal extractor.

The external extractor has been the bread and butter of Smith autos, since the beginning (before most folks reading this were born). For S&W, anything else would be a shot in the dark or a step backwards. I believe they will stick with it in the future as well, for whatever models may loom on the horizon. Stick with what works.

Other companies, such as Kimber, dropped the ball by using a MIM extractor. I think it would have failed even if it was internal. It was a metalurgy flaw, not a design issue.

Sig once used only internal extractors, but seemed to have some reliability issues with them in recent years. They are now using external ones on most models.