Ejector tuning...

[David Rose]

Hey Johnny! Is this what you meant to say (on another forum a year ago):

"The point of impact on the case also has an effect. Oddly enough, the higher on the case it contacts, the more straight up the ejection is in most instances...and the lower it hits, the more straight out. If you have a standard, or "GI" type of ejector...study the angle and the impact point on the nose to get an idea on where you want it to impact." ?

That is the exact opposite of what I would expect. If you meant to say this, then that could explain some of my ejecting problems with the 70 series Colt Govt. I've spent most of my time playing with the first case contact low on the ejector nose.

I did slightly recut the ejector as you suggested with about a 10 or 15 degree backward sloping inside top edge with a couple of file strokes along the top (inside corner). I squared the nose/face back first. This ejected into the port lower wall and was "mouth crushed" on 5 of 7 rounds. It doesn't show the side damage nearly as much, but is still damaged (and caught three times) by the front of the port at the top. So the main problem is worse.

It really seems like for whatever reason, the case is not clearing as fast as the slide is returning. That is probably what *has* to be going on. What other problems could possibly cause this? About the only thing that I have not played with is recoil springs. It's still running the 16# that I put in in the beginning.

Puzzling to me still is the fact that the old A1 top end worked on the Colt bottom and the A1 bottom worked on the Colt top. And this is the only change that I've made that has worked. Other things made slight improvements, but then failed when I continued doing whatever I did by slight increments.

So far, three extractors (all fitted), three ejectors (with many recuts on the Brown), three barrels (one poorly fit), the 1911-A1 switch(es), and 200 rounds of ammo have been tried. With the exception of the A1 switches, there has not been more than maybe one mag that has shown no mouth damage. Oops! Except for the very beginning when the sides were crushed 1/4 of the case diameter in. Needless to say, the charges to the customer were stopped long ago. Now it has become a "me against it" project.

David, who will win

[David Rose]

One thing that I haven't tried is chamber reaming. I've not needed the reamer so far on Kart barrels, which I prefer. But if there is some likelihood that this could be a problem (on this Storm Lake drop in), I will purchase one and give that a try. I'm getting desperate, as you can tell. :(

David

[1911Tuner]

David, it sounds like the extractor hook isn't releasing the rim. Too deep with do that sometimes. This is one of those maddening situations that remind me of somethin' I'm fond of sayin'.

"Diagnosing a problem over the internet is like tryin' to read a newspaper through a brick wall. You know there's a paper on the other side...but that's about all ya got."

The impact point with a standard "stub" ejector usually needs to be a little higher to take advantage of the upcoming round's "bump" to get the hook to turn loose of the case. It's not a hards, fast rule...but very often turns out to be the case.

Wish you could make the trip...

[Lazarus]

The whole subject of extended ejectors has been unclear to me. For customized guns, it is knee-jerk to install an extended ejector. Opinions differ on why one is needed. Ability to adjust where the brass flies seem to make the most sense. But one often hears that it is "good" to have the brass exit sooner than it does with the stock part. Kuhnhausen notes simply:
"(1) The fired cartridge case is ejected without influence of the next round pressure"
and advanced ejection timing "permits cartridges in the magazine to feed upward...without being influenced by the case being ejected..."

So, two different ways of saying the same thing. The purpose? Control over where the brass is thrown...including the last round in the magazine? But looking at the design of extended ejectors one sees that they all hit the case higher than the stock part, even when trimmed for late ejection. Intuition would indicate that higher strikes on the case translate into more lateral ejection patterns. If that much is true, then extended ejectors would not be the right choice for use in stock guns with high ejection ports.

Lazarus

[David Rose]

Everytime one of you guys gives me more info, it gives me something else to try. Of course, none of it has worked yet. :p But since it will eventually, you might as well get some credit.

I lost the last workup of this post. Boy I hate this method of posting pics!!!! All sized under 640 by 480 and still no acceptance. Oh well, I should be glad that we can post pics... I guess.

Last mod to ejector and allowing the extractor more room to move gave these results.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/roseguns/brassdamage2508022.jpg

Then the burr on the case head (at left) showed me something I had missed! Aha! Jumping the ejector. And the two on the right show heavy impacts, but not at the same location. ???

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/roseguns/brassdamage2508021.jpg

This pic, if it works, shows about .030" gap from the top of the ejector to the bottom of the channel in the slide. It doesn't show it well, but it is there. I haven't measured it, but that is about what it is. However, at the rear of the slide the next pic shows a close fit. ??? I need to measure the channel front to rear.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/roseguns/brassdamage2508012.jpg

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/roseguns/brassdamage2508009.jpg

Lost my train of thought when the dogs got excited because the shop alarm went off! False alarm, thank God. But slightly distracting. :scared:

I was about to try a lighter recoil spring (15#), but the impact on the brass seems pretty heavy. Should I try going up instead? I was thinking that the slide was cycling forward faster than desired. Now I'm wondering about that.

David

[Lazarus]

David, each one of those cases shows a significant extractor mark that I believe is giving you a major clue. To me, the marks mean that the case won't budge out of the chamber at the time the hook begins pulling on the rim. Barrel timing issue, maybe? Chamber is tapered or has a defect that is holding the fired case too tightly? Did you run a finishing reamer in the chamber to true it up?

I have seen .223's where the extractor rips a piece right out of the rim when there is an incorrect amount and timing of gas pressure. Is it possible that your extractor hook is popping over the case rim at the beginning of recoil?

I just went over your original post on this problem, and recalled that you fitted a new Storm Lake barrel in the gun. The earlier barrel was a hack job, but it sounds like the customer was complaining about the ejection pattern even with his original hacked barrel - is that true?

Does the frame allow for sufficient barrel drop? In other words, is the frame bed approx .077" (thanks, Niemi) below the top of the rails? Barrel bed position would determine the relationship between case and ejector, it seems to me.

That brings us to one more question and that would be Dremel damage. Since the gun had a hacked barrel, could the frame ramp and frame bed have been Dremeled (customized!) out of spec? I have actually met people who remove metal on the frame and slide in order to make the barrel fit. (I know you don't do it this way!) Usually these same people love to make a mirror of the breech face to remove all those nasty bumps and ridges!

Lazarus

[Iron bottom]

Looking at the back of that slide, that ejector doesn't look like the right one. Or that slide is way out of spec.

[David Rose]

Lazarus,

The extractor mark is on each case rim, but not to the extent that the photo appears. It appears under low magnification to effect about 1/4 of the rim and is angled about 30 degrees to the rim. I think it is left when the case rolls out from under the lower part of the hook. Since it is not parallel to the rim, I doubt that it is happening on first extraction. I've already cut a radius on the lower hook rear face. I started "small" here and currently it is more than I normally put on one.

I have not reamed this chamber. I don't presently have a finisher for it. I asked about whether this could be a possibility earlier. However, I've tried other barrels on it and at least one of them was a tested working (on another gun) barrel. A customer just sold me an "unknown" barrel today that I may also try.

The customer brought me the gun complaining of failures to feed, failures to eject, and getting hit with brass. He said that the gun had done it since it was new. He didn't have his original barrel, and the one in it was junk. The Storm Lake barrel, though not the best, does lock well, seems to link down well, hits the VIS just before going to the bed (which it does not quite touch when down), has "almost" the 1/32" gap from ramp to ramp. Out of 200 rounds, there has been one failure to feed, and I figured on doing the barrel work to clear that up after getting the ejection problems out of the way. Btw, the barrel has .055" lockup and reasonable top clearance. I was "blessed" on the decent fit I think... unless there is more related to it that I am missing.

And yes, I did do the obvious in the beginning like a sonic cleaning.

Bed is .076" deep not accounting for the flat tip of the caliper which is narrow enough to be about right. There was some damage to the inner bed edges (only) from the previous barrel. But those cleaned up well. Frame ramp measure "at" .375" high and is very close to 31 degrees. It still appears to be factory.

Fortunately, this guy only bought a barrel and recoil spring and dropped them in. I think he knew to avoid cutting on things. I see no DD marks anywhere. I've got a Foredom with foot control which gives much better control. :D But the main "control" is leaving it off most of the time. It is great... when needed.

Uh, well... the last Caspian I built had to have a fair amount of honing in the slide to get it to spec. That was with a lug iron, not power. Come to think of it, the bed had to be dropped a tad. But I did that without power too. Point being, sometimes frames and slides do need fitting for a barrel to work.

Thanks again,

David

David, each one of those cases shows a significant extractor mark that I believe is giving you a major clue. To me, the marks mean that the case won't budge out of the chamber at the time the hook begins pulling on the rim. Barrel timing issue, maybe? Chamber is tapered or has a defect that is holding the fired case too tightly? Did you run a finishing reamer in the chamber to true it up?

I have seen .223's where the extractor rips a piece right out of the rim when there is an incorrect amount and timing of gas pressure. Is it possible that your extractor hook is popping over the case rim at the beginning of recoil?

I just went over your original post on this problem, and recalled that you fitted a new Storm Lake barrel in the gun. The earlier barrel was a hack job, but it sounds like the customer was complaining about the ejection pattern even with his original hacked barrel - is that true?

Does the frame allow for sufficient barrel drop? In other words, is the frame bed approx .077" (thanks, Niemi) below the top of the rails? Barrel bed position would determine the relationship between case and ejector, it seems to me.

That brings us to one more question and that would be Dremel damage. Since the gun had a hacked barrel, could the frame ramp and frame bed have been Dremeled (customized!) out of spec? I have actually met people who remove metal on the frame and slide in order to make the barrel fit. (I know you don't do it this way!) Usually these same people love to make a mirror of the breech face to remove all those nasty bumps and ridges!

Lazarus

[David Rose]

It is the slide. There is about .025" gap. The breech end it is less than half that. But that just puts the ejector cut a bit far to the left, which shouldn't effect this... should it?

David

Looking at the back of that slide, that ejector doesn't look like the right one. Or that slide is way out of spec.

[Iron bottom]

I was thinking maybe it was an ejector for a 10mm. I don't know about any difference. I have a 70 Series reissue that was tearing up brass like yours. I lowered the ejection port to Les Baer's dimensions and cleared up the problem. I also went through a couple of extractors and tuned the ejector a little. No joy. After the port was lowered, all the extractors worked fine. No marks on the brass, no brass in the face and all brass landed in the same area, a little foward and not too much of an arc. Be interesting to see what the problem is. Seems like the ejector I had just would not get the trajectory right to exit the stock port.

[Iron bottom]

Perhaps NIEMI would be kind enough to show us where the ejector should contact the casing on a mid spec Colt?

[Lazarus]

Point being, sometimes frames and slides do need fitting for a barrel to work.


Oh, I definitely agree with you that someone at Caspian is seriously deluded when it comes to proper specs. I simply refuse to repeat that experience ever again! I would rather weld up a Colt frame than deal with the bizzare dimensions one finds on Caspian parts.

Lazarus

[niemi24s]

The USGI ejector's upper slanted-back-at-the-top-20 degrees portion will contact the first bunch of cases (which are up under the breech face guide blocks) as shown:
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/scan0009b.jpg

The last case (not having a cartridge in the magazine to pop up and shove it up under the BFGB's) may well be at the barrel's linkdown level and, if so, will contact the ejector at its narrow flat area (shown as hatched).

I think this goes a long way to explain why some 1911's eject the last case in such a different place.

The red line at the side of the slide is a Gold Cup lowered ejection port.

[Lazarus]

I understand the theory that on the last round, the case will not have any assistance from rounds popping up in the magazine. This applies to the stock ejector only, which is located behind the line of the magazine well. For any other type of ejector (such as the one that David is currently using), the ejector will contact the case before the cartridge ram allows the top round to move upward.

Niemi is suggesting that the spent case moves downward on the breech face as the barrel drops, but then is pushed upward once again by the movement of the top round in the magazine - all this before the ejector strikes the case. While I concede that this description is possible, it seems unlikely given that the rounds in the magazine are, themselves, being pushed downwards under the influence recoil. Does high speed photography confirm this up and down motion of the ejecting cases?

Lazarus

[David Rose]

Lazarus,

Overall, I've had good results with Caspian parts from major to minor. The challenges I faced with their product should never have had their name on it. The left over parts from the Sig contract were pretty bad for the most part. So far though, the only slides that I've used for 45s from them were the left over Recons. These were not "standard" in several ways. I've got a 45 slide on order right now that is suppose to be right. I may be screaming about them after I measure it, but I don't expect to be. Even the Foster frames that I've used so far were excellent. Again, I exclude the Sig frames.

Did your bad experience with Caspian fall within the Sig part deal?

David

Oh, I definitely agree with you that someone at Caspian is seriously deluded when it comes to proper specs. I simply refuse to repeat that experience ever again! I would rather weld up a Colt frame than deal with the bizzare dimensions one finds on Caspian parts.

Lazarus

[David Rose]

Wouldn't it be simple to tell if this is the case by ejector marks on a case? It would be interesting to check that.

My case crushing occurs at all points through the mag and with short as well as extended ejectors. So far nothing I've done with ejectors or extractors has had much effect on it.

David


Niemi is suggesting that the spent case moves downward on the breech face as the barrel drops, but then is pushed upward once again by the movement of the top round in the magazine - all this before the ejector strikes the case. While I concede that this description is possible, it seems unlikely given that the rounds in the magazine are, themselves, being pushed downwards under the influence recoil. Does high speed photography confirm this up and down motion of the ejecting cases?

Lazarus

[1911Tuner]

My case crushing occurs at all points through the mag and with short as well as extended ejectors. So far nothing I've done with ejectors or extractors has had much effect on it.

David...That center case has the classic extractor clock damage. At the very least, it indicates that your extractor is dropping the round so low that it's actually trying to stuff it back into the magazine. If it happens on the last round, it prevents slide lock. If it happens before the last round, it pushes the upcoming round back down into the magazine far enough to keep it from being stripped...and the slide tries to stick the empth case back into the chamber.

In light of these last pictures...I think your problem is more extractor related than ejector.

[niemi24s]

The comments in Post #13 are based on a gun having the stubby, non-extended, USGI ejector.

However, for a gun with an extended ejector like Lazarus was talking about, it would seem several factors (in addition to the actual length of the ejector) come into play in determining the vertical position of the case head when contact is made with the ejector.

Some of these other factors are those which determine when the next round in the magazine is released by the disconnector rail and allowed to pop up under the magazine feed lips:

1. Fore-aft position of magazine in magazine well
2. Fore-aft position of top cartrige in the magazine
3. Ability of the disconnector rail to move the top cartridge aft in the magazine & magazine aft in the magazine well
4. Amount of chamfer at the forward, lower corner of the disconnector rail
5. Magazine spring strength
6. Total number of rounds in the magazine

Then, it seems, a few other factors would come into play in determining whether the empty case has enough time (once the round below pops up) to make it up under the arch in the left hand breech face guide block before ejector contact. Some might be:

1. Ammo power factor (+P, standard, mid-range target, etc)
2. Recoil spring strength
3. FPS corner radius
4. Mass of slide & its attachments
5. Mass of shooter and his/her grip strength

Too many factors - some of which might be quite variable from shot to shot - for me to digest.

David Rose hit the nail on the head when saying ejector marks on the case are the only way to tell with any certainty the case's vertical position when struck by the ejector.

However, after looking at a bunch of my fired cases, I couldn't tell for sure. My ejector nose slants back about 5 degrees and doesn't leave an imprint which allows me to tell. Fiddlesticks!

If your extended ejector nose is vertical or (better yet) slants forward to the top corner, the top corner should be part of the imprint. If so, it would be possible to determine the vertical position of the case head when hit by the ejector.

Maybe some forum member with such an ejector and some spare ammo could do some last round versus not last round tests and find out for sure - for that gun, at least. Or, as Lazarus suggested, some high speed photography?

[David Rose]

Tuner,

As far as clocking, it would have to be from the extractor twist in the body. Both the Brown and Wilson are fitted so tightly that I have to press out the stop with a punch. And the stop is not that tight in the slide unless the extactor is in. The currect extractor, the Brown, was that tight on installation (with a tight stop). The Wilson had to have slight fitting for the stop to go in at all.

I put a barrel in today that a customer loaned me. It is a noname and probably drop in. With this barrel (and this one only), hand fed rounds popping out of the mag (current Colt 7 round) pop out past the extractor every time. Why would a barrel change cause this? I've feeds dozens to hundreds of rounds by hand through the various configs (counting several other barrels) and nothing did this. Is this a clew or am I still chasing zebras?

No failures to feed, if that is what you mean. There may have been one back 150 rounds ago, would have to check. I've documented (yeah, I actually started doing that back around 75 rounds) that this (mouth crushing) has occurred on first round at least 5 times, last round at least 7 times, and in the middle of the pack around 20 times. That is around 32 times in 200.

I've documented the damage but not whether it failed to eject. Almost all of these ejected... somewhat. Most of the crushed/crimped mouths were ejected slightly front to the left. I think there may have been 8 or 10 that "stuck".

I got new case damage today with a lighter recoil spring and touchup on the extractor. I'll post it in this post that after I get it sized and marked.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/roseguns/brassdamage2708008.jpg

The circled area is at the very bottom of the case during cycling according to ejector and extactor marks. The case is clearly hitting something while moving forward. If I labelled it right, this was a "first round in the mag".

David, who is about to cut down the port wall...

David...That center case has the classic extractor clock damage. At the very least, it indicates that your extractor is dropping the round so low that it's actually trying to stuff it back into the magazine. If it happens on the last round, it prevents slide lock. If it happens before the last round, it pushes the upcoming round back down into the magazine far enough to keep it from being stripped...and the slide tries to stick the empth case back into the chamber.

In light of these last pictures...I think your problem is more extractor related than ejector.

[niemi24s]

As far as clocking, it would have to be from the extractor twist in the body.

If the extractor tensioning wall is not parallel to the bottom of the FPS slot the extractor will have a permanent built-in clocking. Could this be the case on both of those extractors? [Could this be the best zebra yet?]

[1911Tuner]

If the extractor tensioning wall is not parallel to the bottom of the FPS slot the extractor will have a permanent built-in clocking. Could this be the case on both of those extractors? [Could this be the best zebra yet?]

Yep. I'm startin' to think so. Sometimes it really is a zebra, Dan. ;)

[niemi24s]

Or, maybe Mammy Yokum's put one of her "Double Whammies" on this gun! :D

[Lazarus]

As far as the built in clocking idea goes, I discovered this very thing in about 6 of my 1911's. None of them were behaving badly, but for various reasons the hook can end up at a funny angle, even tho the fit at the f.p. stop is tight. The fix is simple. Use 2 adjustable spanners to gently twist the hook into the proper alignment. A 5 minute fix tops.

After looking at David's photos, I believe his extractor is slipping over the case rim as the slide begins to travel backwards. The case, then follows a short time later, banging into both the ejector and the extractor, then being pushed out of the gun as the slide is closing.

If I had to guess, I would say that the frame and slide did not leave Colt together, but as different guns, at different times. Or, someone found a reject slide in the dumpster and thought it would be funny to have David try to fix it!

Lazarus

[David Rose]

I've graduated from zebras to pink striped elephant... without any medicinal stimulation!

I just laid a small straight edge on the installed extractor flat. It appears to be pretty parallel to the breech walls (if that is the correct term). How much misalignment do you think it would take to start things?

Wow, Laz! You are a real encourager! "A dumpster dredged slide"... what a thought. :scared: I can hear some Colt tech now... "let's ship this one to Arkansas and see how long they work on it before it hits the trash again"... been over 30 years now. :butthead:

David

[niemi24s]

How much misalignment do you think it would take to start things?

Tough question and I've got no answer. If with the straightedge the tensioning wall eyeballs real close to vertical my guess is it's probably OK - as long as it doesn't clock a lot.

Have you tested for clocking by alternately pushing (hard) on the top and bottom of its vertical surface just aft of the FPS?

I believe this to be the only reliable clocking test. Even though the extractor may be a tight fit in its tunnel (with no FPS), the FPS a snug fit in its slot (with no extractor), the extractor can still clock if the FPS doesn't force the curved aft right hand surface of the extractor up against the extractor tunnel wall.

This can occur when the horizontal thickness of the extractor at the FPS slot bottom is less than the distance in the slide from the FPS slot bottom to the far right wall of the extractor bore.

Maybe this sketch says it better than that last paragraph:
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P082080002d.jpg

[Iron bottom]

I have heard that, looking from the rear of the slide, the tensioning wall on the extractor being clocked a wee bit in the clockwise direction will stop them from dropping cases. It sounds logical, but I have never doctored an extractor in this manner. I can see the tensioning wall, being clocked counter clockwise, having a tendency to force the case downward.

[Iron bottom]

Niemi, thanks for the drawings.

[niemi24s]

I have heard that, looking from the rear of the slide, the tensioning wall on the extractor being clocked a wee bit in the clockwise direction will stop them from dropping cases. It sounds logical, . . .

Sounds very logical to me too.

But then I sometimes wonder if an extractor's ability to clock just a little bit might help the case rim slide up along the tensioning wall during chambering.

[and then a split second later I stop wondering about stuff like this!]:D

[berkbw]

Tough question and I've got no answer. If with the straightedge the tensioning wall eyeballs real close to vertical my guess is it's probably OK - as long as it doesn't clock a lot.

Have you tested for clocking by alternately pushing (hard) on the top and bottom of its vertical surface just aft of the FPS?

I believe this to be the only reliable clocking test. Even though the extractor may be a tight fit in its tunnel (with no FPS), the FPS a snug fit in its slot (with no extractor), the extractor can still clock if the FPS doesn't force the curved aft right hand surface of the extractor up against the extractor tunnel wall.

This can occur when the horizontal thickness of the extractor at the FPS slot bottom is less than the distance in the slide from the FPS slot bottom to the far right wall of the extractor bore.

Maybe this sketch says it better than that last paragraph:
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p232/niemi24s/P082080002d.jpg


Sir, unless the extractor is REALLY loose, then the clocking may be seen by viewing the extractor being parallel to the hammer slot, or not.

[niemi24s]

Sir, unless the extractor is REALLY loose, then the clocking may be seen by viewing the extractor being parallel to the hammer slot, or not.

My thinking here is that unless you try to rotate the extractor in its tunnel you don't know if will rotate. Perhaps a casual glance would show it being parallel to the hammer slot - just because that happened to be how it was oriented at the time.

Worst one I ever saw would rotate (clock) a total of about 10 degrees (really loose?) and IIRC the first look showed it pretty much parallel. That one needed a shim in the bottom of the extractor's FPS slot to cure the clocking because its dimension (as shown above) was significantly less than the corresponding dimension in the slide. Even a tightly fitted EGW oversized FPS wouldn't have kept it from clocking.

[David Rose]

Niemi,

When I first put the extractor(s) in, it/they would clock with the original stop. I used a Caspian, which has proven to be slightly oversize in the past. And it is this time. I had to drive it in with a nylon punch on the Wilson extactor (fun to get out) and it takes a firm push with the Brown. The stop is not tight in the slide without the extractor(s). And no, you can't move either extractor at all with firm pressure top or bottom.

As always, we appreciate the drawings!