Why does S&W use External extractors on their 1911's??

Do any other major manufacturers do this? It seems most are Mil Spec with internal.

Just wondering.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I would imagine that they have more experience with the external extractor and making it work right. Hopefully most people buy a 1911 becuase how well it feels in the hand rather than the extractor.

Well, they have more experience with the external extractor. Kimber, Wilson and Caspian have all used the external.

I have two Kimbers with externals.
They both work great for me.
I don't care either way. I bought them both because they were priced lower and got few bids. My understanding is that Kimber went back to internal, not because it was better but because 1911 purists prefer them that way.
I have had people tell me that Kimber will furnish a new slide with internal to any one who has problems , I have never this verified as I do not have any problems.

I think you may be on to it. The "purists" probably do want them internal as the gun was designed. I have a Dan Wesson and Colt which are internal and was looking at a real nice SW at the shop which had the external. I do not care either way, but it got me thinking.

I shoot other guns a lot more than a 1911 but that itch keeps coming back.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

The internal extractor is not a strong point of Browning's original design. It is repeatedly copied by other manufacturer's, but that doesn't mean it's the best approach.

S&W's heavy-duty external extractors on the Performance Center 1911's work great. I have no experience with their "regular" extractors.

For an internal extractor to really work well and have a long service life, it needs to be custom fabricated from bar stock steel. For my "purist" 1911's, I select Wilson's "bullet-proof" extractors.

It seems to have worked for 100 years and millions of guns
But the externals work also, as I said makes no difference to me as long as it works.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

The extractor on the standard line of smiths is the same one that they use on all of the 3rd gen guns so you could say it was well tested. The reason kimber went back to internal is because their external ones had a lot of issues, mainly because the extractor they used was too short and positioned too high on the slide.

Arguably the external extractor is more durable than internal because it pivots and uses a spring on the back side to hold tension on the round. The internal ones rely on the extractor to be its own spring and won't hold up as well as the coil spring under the external extractor. The up side of the internal extractors is that they are easy to remove and replace if you know how to tune one.

I really wish that kimber had never come out with an external extractor gun, their screw up has given the EE a bad rap. S&W 1911s would be a lot more popular and not looked down upon by ignorant people.

I'm also one of those that believe that SW1911s have not quite gotten their due simply because of this purist's notion towards external extractors. In fact, I was one of them. I resisted getting a Smithie for the longest time because this. Eventually gave in last year and I'm not sorry I did. My sku#108284 has quickly become my favorite 1911 next to my Colt Gold Cup. Every bit as reliable and as accurate.

Sig uses external as well -

I agree 100% the JO's that think they know everything about 1911's are the biggest problem in respect to how S&W 1911's are viewed-

I rate them right up there with the best

The only issues I've ever had with a Colt 1911 is a broken extractor and cracked firing pin retainer. The Colt-type extractor also has required tuning with certain loads. I have to admit that I'm prejudiced against the external extractor due to appearance only. When I step back and look at it objectively, the S&W external extractor seems to have no problems. It is probably a superior design compared to JMB's original.

+1 for BE Mike
The only problem not of my own making I have ever had with my old (43) Colt 1911 is with the extractor. This hardly counts as a serious weakness since it had countless rounds between extractors. Still it used to be a good practice to have a second extractor fitted when a bullseye pistol was being tuned. Thus it would be available when the inevitable time that it was needed came.
So it may not be a real weakness in the 1911 design, just sort of the first thing to go. IMO external extractors last as long or longer without the fitting problem.

__________________
Ipsis Rebus Dictantitbus

Actually I read somewhere that JMB wanted to make the 1911 with an external extractor but the Army wanted their new service guns to be easily disassembled all the way by the average soldier. I don't know if there is any truth to this or not since it was second hand info and obviously not from the mouth of JMB himself.

Due to corrosive priming and erosive powders, detail cleaning of the slide assembly shortly after firing was a necessity. As a result, the ability to detail strip the upper assembly without tools and without itty-bitty pieces that are readily lost was a requirement.

FWIW, a 1911 can be completely detail stripped without tools-if you don't count the 3 fingered sear spring as a tool.

My S&W1911 base model has been flawless. I do not like when Kimber bone heads point at my external extractor and say "That is a problem". Whatever, S&W makes a great factory 1911! I have a Colt series 70 re-issue that doesn't extract nearly as consistent as the S&W. The Colt will plop them on the shooters head from time to time.