ltwguns.com

I'll keep watching and waiting. I'm looking to shoot a load tomorrow. That will bring me to 500 rounds.

I want my Eclipse to shoot the best it can.

I only have one external extractor 1911, a Kimber. I have had it less than a year, and shot just over 1200 rds through it.
That's about 1/1000th of the experience I'd like to have with it before saying it's better or worse.
So I'm not voting either way.

I will say that I have had zero trouble with the extractor on that gun.
Of course, for all I know, mine is the only one that works.

I have had a couple of 1911s that needed a little extractor adjustment to function (internal extractors).
Both were bought used.
Had they been handled improperly- slide repeatedly dropped on a chambered round?
Or, were they traded off because they failed to function from the box?
Beats me.

But I have to wonder if external extractors may be more idiot-proof.

Friends,

Now that SHOT 2005 is done, do we have some news? Anybody coming out with a after market Kimber extractor.

My Eclipse is working great now.

I met Hilton Yam at SHOT. He seems to have a connection at Kimber and scored a small batch of extractors which he is going to share with me. Let's see how they look.

His take on externals is from a slightly different angle than mine, that of a large agency issuing lots of 1911's. He feels that the external extractor, properly executed of course, has advantages in this scenario, and I'd have to agree.

Had an odd external extractor thing the other day, a Glock that was not working. The extractor plunger, the rod that pushes on it, was pushing forward on the extactor as it should, but was also catching interference from another, 90-degree surface on the extractor. Result, the extractor would stick "out", giving no extraction. Darned extractor was also hitting and sticking on the firing pin safety plunger. I'm not Glockspert enough to say if these were factory parts, aftermarket parts, or perhaps factory parts for another caliber (this was a G17). But it sorta reinforces the idea that it's about being done right, it's not about being a 1911.

Out of curiousity, can you release the slide on a loaded chamber with the 1911 external extractors?

When comparing my 92FS and my 1911, I notice the external extractor has a higher level of mobility to pivot the hook out further without harming the tension of the spring where as the internal one doesn't have much mobility without bending metal and loosing the tension. After tuning my internal extractor, I couldn't load one in the pipe without racking it off the magazine.

Personally, I like the 1911 with the internal extractor. I think the external one kind of messes up the nice flat sides of the slide.

Twong, the external is more "drop friendly" than the internal, but that should not be done anyway for a variety of other, non-extractor-related reasons, first of which is that this practice in some cases may cause the hammer to drop (on the now-loaded chamber). Obviously this would be in a gun where everything is not right, but doing this might provide just enough jar that the trigger's inertia will be enough to trip the sear when the frame is jarred forward into the trigger by the slide dropping. This blow is actually softened quite a bit when a round is fed out of the magazine.

Thanks for the information Ned. That is good to know. I think the slide is slowed down by the resistance of a round being pushed off the magazine.

One of the guys at my range also told me that dropping a slide on an empty chamber is bad for the gun. Is this true? I thought it was kind of the same reasoning of the slide being slowed down by the magazine.

Got the extractors today Hilton, thanks. They appear to be no different. If that is so, and if my sample-of-one Kimber's extractor cut was in the right place, this represents a big let down. I still hold out hope that the extractor cut on this gun was too high, meaning that the extractor was meant to be lower, meaning these extractors, or the one that was in my sample gun, would work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Just saw a post on 1911 Forum by a guy who was sent an updated replacement extractor by Kimber. He posted a pic of them both, and, BIG dif. Either we did not get the latest or I'm way off on my mental picture of what the "problem" extractor looked like. Looks like Kimber is on it and that''s what I've really been hoping to be able to say. Looks like a possible happy ending on the horizon

Well, I'm just glad to see some indications that they're on it.

Does anybody know if Kimber is offering the updated extractors as a replacement for those of us with early ones?
Either swap-out at the factory (probably) or just mail out a new one (doubtful, but preferred)?

And, can you tell if there are any changes besides the extractor itself, i.e. the plunger, spring, etc.

Again, I've had no trouble with the one I have, but it's sure good to stay informed!

Great, thanks.
Mine has always worked, so I have no intention of messing with it.
Should that change, however, I wondered what the procedure was to get another.
Thanks for letting me (us) know.

Last week I did a little more research. to date I have seen 6 different versions.

There is an early (note this is not Gospil, just best guess)
OAL. .542 ish
went with firing pin blocks that were oval shape in slide.
probably up to 2 years ago.
Kimber refers to as Low wall. or early
If there is a dimple in the lug area inside slide it is the later extractor.
This is rare.

Later version (V2.0 )
Longer .575 ish
D shaped plunger, larger surface (not sure where)

I have seen at least 3 probably 4 different radiuses on the hooks.

the last ones I received were best I can tell machined.

Wolf makes an xtra power spring.


externals extractors only 45 acp.

If we make one or when we make one, we will probaby not do any corner radius so the smith can conrtol how far down the case can be on the bolt face and still held by the extractor

geo

Hilton, I meant to razz you about this earlier but never got around to it---- a couple of posts back, you said:

"The Kimber has some serious fleas....."

Jeez, when you come down on a manufacturer, you come down hard!

....from now on every Kimber that comes in goes through a delousing first

WHEW!
That explains the itch I got after I started carrying mine IWB.
What a relief.

I got my Kimber Eclipse Pro back on Friday. It shoots very well. They replaced the extractor and the barrel and polished the breechface.

I wasn't suprised about the barrel as I suspected the chamber's roughness contributed to my FTEs.

I'm still trying to figure out what's the best ammo to shoot in a four inch barrel. Now that I might have a reliable pistol I should think about ammo.

I'm still getting stovepipes after the first twenty rounds with WWB ammo.

I despair of sending my pistol back to kimber. Should I just get a new pistol?

Does anybody have a custom external extractor for the Kimber pro series that works

JCSteve, your stovepipes aren't necessarily extractor related. Far as I know nobody is making an aftermarket extractor yet for the KII's.

So what is my next step?

1. Another pistol

2. Send it back to Kimber

3. Shoot somthing either than PMC or WWB to practice

4. Find somebody to check the chamber and the extractor


Thanks for your help

Just make Kimber fix it. If they blow it, then consider having a 'smith work on it.

_________________
Sean Smith
"Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that?" -Jack Burton, Big Trouble in Little China

Kimber had it last month and replaced the barrel and the extractor.

Have you tried shooting it with your pinky out?

Just trying to help, Theo

Didn't JMB start with an external extractor and change to an internal? Don't worry, I'm thick skinned.

Guys, I am no gunsmith, but I have owned all three types of 1911 extractors - the Kimber external, the conventional internal, and the Smith and Wesson type external. In my opinion, the weakness of the Kimber type is the angle at which it operates. Take a look at a Glock slide, and you will see that the extractor is angled when viewed from front to back. That is to say, in the slide, when pressure is exerted, it moves up and out. Physics would indicate that an object (the chambering round) is applying upward pressure as it rises to enter the chamber. Glock's design accounts for this and the extractor pivots up and out with tension held by a spring. Kimber's design depends on horizontal movement of a very short pivoting piece, and this piece will have upwards force applied, causing more frictional forces on the upper part of the extractor where it meets the slide. The portion of the extractor furthest from the breech in the rear is also undergoing frictional forces against both the plunger and the slide. With the longer internal and smith and wesson types, the actual amount of extractor in contact with the slide is much less, and the lever arm is longer, thus allowing for more variability in tension as the round has more leverage to push the extractor outwards. Kimber obviously wanted their slide to look like Glock from the side, but in actuality, until they mill the slide to allow upward pivot like Glock, they will have problems.

Actually, I was serious. I thought John M Brownings original pistol had an external extractor. Was I tripping?