EXTRACTOR HELP II continuation - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-08-2018, 04:23 PM
RUSS123 RUSS123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brandywine MD.
Age: 69
Posts: 1,449
EXTRACTOR HELP II continuation

Continued from:

https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=893586

I figured a way to determine the deflection of my stock Kimber extractor and a new Wilson extractor that both had positive "UNKNOWN" deflections. It was made possible thanks to a new EGW extractor which began negative. How so?.....

The Method:

I took all 3 extractors and measured the 1. Positioning Pad thickness and 2. Tensioning Wall thickness, then, subtracted the Tensioning wall thickness from the Positioning Pad thickness.

Their Measurements:
Extractor - Pad - T Wall = "resulting figure"

Kimber: .135" - .079" = .056
EGW: .134" - .072" = .062
Wilson: .138 - .081" = .057

So what does this "resulting figure" give me? First Note: The EGW extractor started with negative deflection and therefore, I was able to remove material from the position pad, establish a zero deflection reference and by further removal of material, establish a .010" deflection setting on the tensioning wall.

OK, so I have one of the 3 extractors as a reference, the EGW. My Kimber and the Wilson extractors both have unknown positive deflections and the best that I could determine is that they were both at or near the same deflection without an actual measurement.

The Results:

Without going into a lot of detail about how the above figures work, deflection results are as follows:

Kimber has a .016 deflection
Wilson has a .015 deflection

As you might realize, yes, I took the difference between the "resulting figure" of the EGW extractor to establish the deflections for the other two, adding .010" to that difference because the EGW had been set for a .010" deflection. If that's not clear, let me know.

As you can see: The resulting figures for the Kimber and Wilson are close: .056" to .057" which supports my estimation that both felt to have the same and that was in addition to what I could visibly determine under high magnification.

The resulting figure for the EGW extractor became .062", after fitting it for a .010" deflection: I could actually use that figure as a reference for future extractor tunings however, it can only be a good reference for my gun alone, no one else's of course but perhaps close, if spec's are near equal.

A question might be: Why not just use the inner diameter hooks from a caliper to determine deflection? That's a good question. I ask the same thing. Sure why not. I tried in fact. Reading were close but the problem was not being able to ensure squareness between the breech tension side wall and the tensioning wall. I kept getting slightly different readings. Let's just say, it was difficult.

Steve in Allentown introduced the use of a homemade width gauge to establish a .000" deflection reference and it can be used for both positive and negative deflection starting points. Steve never mentioned using a caliper and I wonder why. Possibly the difficulty in getting a consistent reading.
__________________
_____________________
Russ
Kimber Stainless Raptor II
Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum, 7.5"
NRA Member

Last edited by RUSS123; 01-08-2018 at 05:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:13 PM
skulker skulker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Maryland
Age: 71
Posts: 62
I tried using calipers but could not get consistent reading. Made a .466 gauge and adjusted the deflection as there was very little to begin with. Tried it and ejection seems better now. Need more range time when it thaws a little.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:22 PM
Steve in Allentown Steve in Allentown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSS123 View Post
Steve in Allentown introduced the use of a homemade width gauge to establish a .000" deflection reference and it can be used for both positive and negative deflection starting points.
As with most things, there's nothing new under the sun. The gauge was actually something someone else here mentioned once. I wish I could remember who so I could give credit where credit is due.

Quote:
Steve never mentioned using a caliper and I wonder why. Possibly the difficulty in getting a consistent reading.
Calipers are a royal pain for this application. Been there done that a lot. Too time consuming, too frustrating. The gauge is simple, nearly idot proof, requires no math, and works for any internal extractor in any slide.

Remove material from the locating pad until the tensioning wall touches the gauge and you're done.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:57 PM
RUSS123 RUSS123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brandywine MD.
Age: 69
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by skulker View Post
I tried using calipers but could not get consistent reading. Made a .466 gauge and adjusted the deflection as there was very little to begin with. Tried it and ejection seems better now. Need more range time when it thaws a little.
I plan on making a .466" gauge. Awaiting shipment. The thing is, the gauge can't tell you what you're starting with from being positive to begin with beyond the setting you use the gauge for. Case in point: Brand new Wilson? I assumed it should come negative so I'm only having to file away on the Pad for which it's intended for, not the tensioning wall. I'll be staying with EGW parts in the future.
__________________
_____________________
Russ
Kimber Stainless Raptor II
Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum, 7.5"
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-08-2018, 07:46 PM
PD5523 PD5523 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 398
Just curious Steve - I assume you made the .466 wide “gauge”. What did you use and did you simply file and measure until you got the .466 width you needed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:21 PM
RUSS123 RUSS123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brandywine MD.
Age: 69
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by PD5523 View Post
Just curious Steve - I assume you made the .466 wide “gauge”. What did you use and did you simply file and measure until you got the .466 width you needed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't want to answer for Steve but if you scroll down to the bottom of his STICKY, he gives a link to the MSC site and the product steel stock which is 1/2" or .500" in width. You only have to shave off .044". You get 18" of this steel flat stock so there's plenty if you wanted to make other widths. It cost $8 plus shipping.

Steve's Sticky: https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=829865
__________________
_____________________
Russ
Kimber Stainless Raptor II
Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum, 7.5"
NRA Member

Last edited by RUSS123; 01-08-2018 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:52 PM
Steve in Allentown Steve in Allentown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSS123 View Post
The thing is, the gauge can't tell you what you're starting with from being positive to begin with beyond the setting you use the gauge for.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, I don't see why this is a problem. I'm only interested in setting the deflection to a specified number. I'm not concerned with measuring varying amounts of deflection. I may need a little more explanation to understand the issue.

Quote:
Case in point: Brand new Wilson? I assumed it should come negative so I'm only having to file away on the Pad for which it's intended for, not the tensioning wall. I'll be staying with EGW parts in the future.
So the Wilson came with excessive deflection because the locating pad was not tall enough to allow correct fitting. I bet it would be spot on in a Wilson slide and some others.

That's what makes the EGW unique. It has a tall enough locating pad to account for all kinds of manufacturers slides. Sure you have to do more filing but you can buy one knowing that it can be fit to whatever slide you have on hand.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-08-2018, 08:59 PM
Steve in Allentown Steve in Allentown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by PD5523 View Post
Just curious Steve - I assume you made the .466 wide “gauge”. What did you use and did you simply file and measure until you got the .466 width you needed?
Russ gave you the right info. I hasten to add that I made my gauge .466" because I shoot mainly reloads. If I shot mainly factory ammo I'd go with .465" since it's right in the middle of the case rim diameter range range. Or, if I were the armorer for an agency that issued 1911s, I'd get the average rim diameter of the issue ammo and make a guage specifically for that ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-08-2018, 11:47 PM
RUSS123 RUSS123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brandywine MD.
Age: 69
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve in Allentown View Post
If I'm interpreting you correctly, I don't see why this is a problem. I'm only interested in setting the deflection to a specified number. I'm not concerned with measuring varying amounts of deflection. I may need a little more explanation to understand the issue.
No issue first of all. I'm in learning mode and got these two extractors for fitting practice, or so it came to be. One as you know, EGW skinny and the Wilson and then there's my stock Kimber. This is my first attempt at fitting this incredible and vital part. If I screw them up I still have my stock Kimber which has proven itself. Without a gauge like yours I had to figure another way to set deflection and so I figured a way but as it turned out, it would only work out for the EGW skinny because it was negative.

NOTE: Not sure if I need to explain but: The EGW skinny, as I call it, is EGW's regular extractor, not the HD with the solid fat end I originally intending to buy. That extractor is "now" on order. The Wilson was purchased as an "afterthought", backup should I screw up the EGW skinny but that was the plan at the time however, "that original plan changed". I decided to use both for practice when I decided to buy the EGW HD as my finale.

Back to what I was explaining:

If I had your gauge I would have just used that to fit both but.... as the story goes, I find myself working to fit two extractors at the same time. My Kimber was used as an example to compare but I then I discover that my Kimber and Wilson are positive. Now I'm needing to know how much positive. My surprise over the Wilson being positive changed things again. Now I have to think....

My statement about the gauge was only meant to be in relation to the method I came up with for making the determination on how positive they both were, nothing more really. The gauge would not have helped me there obviously but regardless I could have just left out that statement.

I need to know the Wilson's actual deflection but mostly the Kimber's because there has been no problem with the Kimber. If the Wilson turned out to be excessively positive compared to the Kimber, I would of had no choice but to cut down the tensioning wall on the Wilson to satisfy my fitting requirement. I really didn't want to do that so I'm glad my calculations turned out the way they did.

Since the Wilson has the same positive deflection, .001" less actually, as my Kimber in deflection, I will consider it acceptable and finish the fit.

So here I am working with 3 extractors, two for fitting and my Kimber only needs some polishing. Before I attempt to fit my final EGW HD super extractor, I want the practice of fitting the other two first. I will take them both to the range and test when I'm satisfied. If they both run well, I'll consider victory over what I've learned and move on.

The interesting thing.... is the difference between the two. They both had very different fitting requirements and that experience was most beneficial. I "will" make both of them run and then I'll be ready to fit the super extractor that will become my permanent. The other two I'll just keep on hand.

Hope that explains more about what I'm doing...

Quote:
So the Wilson came with excessive deflection because the locating pad was not tall enough to allow correct fitting. I bet it would be spot on in a Wilson slide and some others.
I'll bet you're absolutely right!

Quote:
That's what makes the EGW unique. It has a tall enough locating pad to account for all kinds of manufacturers slides. Sure you have to do more filing but you can buy one knowing that it can be fit to whatever slide you have on hand.
What can I say about that? Remember, I was the one who said, "all new extractors should be negative to begin with". And you basically replied: "Don't count on it"! Well, I know now, don't I?
__________________
_____________________
Russ
Kimber Stainless Raptor II
Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum, 7.5"
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2018, 04:52 AM
Rwehavinfunyet Rwehavinfunyet is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,831
Fitting an extractor.....

I think properly modifying and fitting an extractor is less difficult than it sounds in this thread...... I have used the methods to modify an extractor in the attached graphic, and never measure anything. I do make sure the extractor holds a round with the proper tension, which is very important to get the proper results.....
Attached Thumbnails
Extractor tuning.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:40 AM
Jolly Rogers Jolly Rogers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Eastern West Virginia
Posts: 4,918
Steve, in reviewing your excellent sticky, I recognized the illustrations as the work of ”niemi24s” from M1911.org. I have communicated with him about crediting his art in the past and he is not very protective of his work. He didn’t seem to care that the output is reproduced as long as it benefits the readers. That said, he is very talented in making blueprint drawings understandable. If possible as a sign of respect to that talent and contribution to the sport I think a credit is due. Do you agree and if so can you ask the mods to add the references?
Joe
__________________
1911
The original instant emergency response number.

Last edited by Jolly Rogers; 01-09-2018 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-09-2018, 05:47 PM
Steve in Allentown Steve in Allentown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Rogers View Post
Steve, in reviewing your excellent sticky, I recognized the illustrations as the work of ”niemi24s” from M1911.org
I agree completely. I've modified a couple of his drawings by putting his name at the bottom as I did with the photo taken by Jerry Keefer. I've been meaning to do the same with that extractor drawing but just haven't gotten around to it. Your reminder will serve as a kick in my pants to get it done. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-09-2018, 11:52 PM
RUSS123 RUSS123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brandywine MD.
Age: 69
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rwehavinfunyet View Post
I think properly modifying and fitting an extractor is less difficult than it sounds in this thread...... I have used the methods to modify an extractor in the attached graphic, and never measure anything. I do make sure the extractor holds a round with the proper tension, which is very important to get the proper results.....
Actually, I'm inclined to agree, now that I've completed two separate fittings that tested out just fine. Looking back, it wasn't difficult. This was my first time fitting new extractors from scratch and the EGW was way oversized, including the hook.

For a new student, I think going through all the numbers is the only and best way to really learn the basics when starting off so that, when you have to measure, you know what to measure and why.

Just like in Air Force Med Equip. Repair Tech School, we were bombarded with figures, formulas, calculations, etc, enough to make your head swim. When we got to the field they were rarely used but when the time came when we needed them, we knew them and knew how to use them.

This thread, as with previous threads, is for beginners who experience extractor related problems and wish to know how fix those problems themselves.
__________________
_____________________
Russ
Kimber Stainless Raptor II
Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum, 7.5"
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-10-2018, 01:02 PM
RUSS123 RUSS123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Brandywine MD.
Age: 69
Posts: 1,449
I just caught an error in my original statement of findings. The very last line reads:

Quote:
Steve in Allentown introduced the use of a homemade width gauge to establish a .000" deflection reference and it can be used for both positive and negative deflection starting points. Steve never mentioned using a caliper and I wonder why. Possibly the difficulty in getting a consistent reading.
It should have stated .010" that Steve's homemade width gauge establishes, not .000". It was too late to edit.
__________________
_____________________
Russ
Kimber Stainless Raptor II
Ruger Redhawk .44 Magnum, 7.5"
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-10-2018, 03:01 PM
Magnumite Magnumite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belcamp, Maryland, USA
Posts: 7,972
I just use numbered drills (pin gauges work) to set the deflection. Put in desired width shim or case. Measure between outside extractor claw and extractor bore. Remove case or shim. Measure again. Subtract with shim from without shim - result is defection.
__________________
The modern production 1911 - high visibility sights, beavertail grip safety, aluminum trigger, good trigger pull, enhanced slide/ frame fit, accurized barrel/bushing fit. If it’s not a Kimber, it’s a copy.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:12 PM
Steve in Allentown Steve in Allentown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Rogers View Post
If possible as a sign of respect to that talent and contribution to the sport I think a credit is due.
Joe, Retired Rod worked his magic and was able to replace the original image with one I modified. Long past time that I took care of this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-12-2018, 01:54 PM
Jolly Rogers Jolly Rogers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Eastern West Virginia
Posts: 4,918
Good on ya Steve!
Joe
__________________
1911
The original instant emergency response number.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-12-2018, 06:50 PM
19-357 19-357 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 116
Instead of buying a .500 from msc I found using a flat feeler gauge which is about .500 and shaving to the .466 or what ever size you may need.Works well and almost everyone has one and you can pick the thickness you like.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-12-2018, 07:28 PM
Pedro 1 Pedro 1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: USA
Age: 62
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19-357 View Post
Instead of buying a .500 from msc I found using a flat feeler gauge which is about .500 and shaving to the .466 or what ever size you may need.Works well and almost everyone has one and you can pick the thickness you like.
This is what I did when I read Steve in Allentown's post about making the deflection tool.
Pedro.
__________________
NRA
GOA
NAGR
VCDL
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:17 AM
4evrnbljns 4evrnbljns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Penna
Age: 64
Posts: 529
"remove material from locating pad" ....when I read this I removed extractor from old llama I have been trying forever to feed and eject,filed on the pad(took 3 disassembly to get it right)and wonder of wonders the darn pos now feeds and ejects perfectly. What would I do without this forum.I only bought llama to learn on but every darn part needs extensive fitting,what a pain
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved