Hay BruceHMX!
Methinks this whole "long extractor" thing is a too -ong overblown issue.
Now, first of all, my opinion is likely tainted because I like the Model 39 as much as this Forum's founder likes his wheel guns.
However, the road to Hades is paved with good vibrations, or, maybe, that should be "intentions." Ah, old age. Doncha just love it?
Having noted the above, I've been researching this subject nigh on three years. Admittedly, it's not a 24/7 enslavement, but the mass of materials I've collected on the subject has surprised even yours truly.
The greater number of complaints came from those who were all but forcibly switched from revolvers to the Model 39, for the Model 39 then was on the cutting edge of "future firepower" as much as is found any handgun today.
I'll get far deeper when I finish my research and present its results for peer review, but I am going to throw something out there for others to consider: When the M16 was introduced in VietNam, there was nothing it could do right. The hue and cry from the jungle as to the terrible nature of the new battle rifle was deafening.
After considerable research and investigations by not only the armed forces but Congress as well, discerned the biggest problem: Troops failed to properly and frequently enough clean their weapons; The previous battle rifle chambered a .308, whereas the M16 chambered a measeley .223. The big round went "Boom!"; the smaller round went "boom."
Bottom line: The M16 was seen as deficient to the AK before it really had a chance.
A similar mindset was encountered by the mass of law enforcement officers when the Model 39 was introduced.
You are completely correct, BruceHMX, in noting the need of chambering a round from the clip, then dropping the clip for a refill to reach the maximum available rounds. I applaud you for your research.
It was this shortcut that was seen as the most likely culprit in breaking the extractor, which is not the same thing as an "ejector," i additionally note. It was and is the extractor's job to drag a spent casing from a chamber, present it to the ejector - a separate process within the overall process - which kicks that spent case out and away.
Now, please keep in mind that an extractor can look perfect but break on the very next round if, in the past, it has been frequently subjected to someone else's improper technique. About the only way I think one can determine an extractor's viability would be to use a technique known as magnafluxing, which uses fluids and blue light to locate metal fatigue and cracks otherwise unseen with the naked eye.
Without using the above technique, methinks the only way you could find a solid extractor would be to purchase a New, In Box (NIB) Model 39. They are available and, I suggest, will become even more available over the next few years. You might allocate something in the lower end of four figures, but you or your son should not be disappointed at what you get in return. Be as amart as you have with your extractor research and I'm sure you'll get a darn good 39.
Lastly, the five Model 39s I've purchased over the preceding month and the three purchased the month before are a fraction of the Model 39s (no-dash) I keep. While I believe a gun is made to be fired, and do that to many, it's also clear I can't fire all of mine and don't intend to do so.
But I do have a couple of favorites that are discharged every two weeks because they are my "go to" firearms should a situation so warrant. It is likely I've put nearly 5k worth of rounds through the two over the last couple or three years, but to be frank I have no real earthly idea.
But they, nor any other Model 39 in my inventory, has had an extractor failure. Should they, I'm nevertheless prepared.
Later.
Methinks this whole "long extractor" thing is a too -ong overblown issue.
Now, first of all, my opinion is likely tainted because I like the Model 39 as much as this Forum's founder likes his wheel guns.
However, the road to Hades is paved with good vibrations, or, maybe, that should be "intentions." Ah, old age. Doncha just love it?
Having noted the above, I've been researching this subject nigh on three years. Admittedly, it's not a 24/7 enslavement, but the mass of materials I've collected on the subject has surprised even yours truly.
The greater number of complaints came from those who were all but forcibly switched from revolvers to the Model 39, for the Model 39 then was on the cutting edge of "future firepower" as much as is found any handgun today.
I'll get far deeper when I finish my research and present its results for peer review, but I am going to throw something out there for others to consider: When the M16 was introduced in VietNam, there was nothing it could do right. The hue and cry from the jungle as to the terrible nature of the new battle rifle was deafening.
After considerable research and investigations by not only the armed forces but Congress as well, discerned the biggest problem: Troops failed to properly and frequently enough clean their weapons; The previous battle rifle chambered a .308, whereas the M16 chambered a measeley .223. The big round went "Boom!"; the smaller round went "boom."
Bottom line: The M16 was seen as deficient to the AK before it really had a chance.
A similar mindset was encountered by the mass of law enforcement officers when the Model 39 was introduced.
You are completely correct, BruceHMX, in noting the need of chambering a round from the clip, then dropping the clip for a refill to reach the maximum available rounds. I applaud you for your research.
It was this shortcut that was seen as the most likely culprit in breaking the extractor, which is not the same thing as an "ejector," i additionally note. It was and is the extractor's job to drag a spent casing from a chamber, present it to the ejector - a separate process within the overall process - which kicks that spent case out and away.
Now, please keep in mind that an extractor can look perfect but break on the very next round if, in the past, it has been frequently subjected to someone else's improper technique. About the only way I think one can determine an extractor's viability would be to use a technique known as magnafluxing, which uses fluids and blue light to locate metal fatigue and cracks otherwise unseen with the naked eye.
Without using the above technique, methinks the only way you could find a solid extractor would be to purchase a New, In Box (NIB) Model 39. They are available and, I suggest, will become even more available over the next few years. You might allocate something in the lower end of four figures, but you or your son should not be disappointed at what you get in return. Be as amart as you have with your extractor research and I'm sure you'll get a darn good 39.
Lastly, the five Model 39s I've purchased over the preceding month and the three purchased the month before are a fraction of the Model 39s (no-dash) I keep. While I believe a gun is made to be fired, and do that to many, it's also clear I can't fire all of mine and don't intend to do so.
But I do have a couple of favorites that are discharged every two weeks because they are my "go to" firearms should a situation so warrant. It is likely I've put nearly 5k worth of rounds through the two over the last couple or three years, but to be frank I have no real earthly idea.
But they, nor any other Model 39 in my inventory, has had an extractor failure. Should they, I'm nevertheless prepared.
Later.
