Welcome to M1911.ORG
The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site


John needs your help
Please read this message.


Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from the companies advertising above, or near the bottom of our pages, please use their banners in our sites. Whatever you buy from them, using those banners, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Fitting/Tuning the EGW Ejector

THREAD CLOSED
This is an old thread. You can't post a reply in it. It is left here for historical reasons.Why don't you create a new thread instead?
  1. #21
    Join Date
    18th May 2009
    Location
    Fresno, CA.
    Posts
    732
    Posts liked by others
    1
    Update,

    I did some checking on my Norco and found the extractor didn't fit the bore very tightly at the back of the slide. I swapped in a Brownell's 'House Brand' extractor I had on the bench and had to open the slot to get the EGW FPS to slide through it. I ended up with a smooth, press fit. It didn't fit as tight as in my 1927 Colt-Hartford Argentine, but it was much better than the Norco extractor with a much wider hook.

    I meausured the pad on the old extractor at .1085" with a very rough and uneven surface. However, this gave very good outboard movement, bringing the floor of the hook almost dead-even with the breech block when a case was seated. The new extractor measured .113" so I began reducing the diameter of the pad until I arrived at a very slick and smooth 0.1075", finishing up with a file wrapped with 600# sandpaper.

    I shaped the nose to clear both fired and unfired brass and tested this with several different brands of ammunition to ensure it would clear in every instance.

    I then tensioned the extractor to hold a loaded cartridge against the breechface with light shaking, but more vigorous shaking would dislodge it. An empty case is held against all shaking.

    Back to the range....Robert

  2. #22
    Join Date
    18th May 2009
    Location
    Fresno, CA.
    Posts
    732
    Posts liked by others
    1

    Correction:

    Quote Originally Posted by 10851Man
    I meausured the pad on the old extractor at .1085" with a very rough and uneven surface. However, this gave very good outboard movement, bringing the floor of the hook almost dead-even with the breech block when a case was seated. The new extractor measured .113" so I began reducing the diameter of the pad until I arrived at a very slick and smooth 0.1075", finishing up with a file wrapped with 600# sandpaper....Robert

    I made a mistake in posting these measurements. The old extractor pad from my Norco measured .1335" and the new Brownells house brand extractor measured .1415" respectively.

    I just measured a new Wilson Bullet Proof Extractor and it has a .140" thick pad...Robert

  3. #23
    Join Date
    25th September 2006
    Location
    South of Lake Superior
    Posts
    14,085
    Posts liked by others
    127
    Those side-to-side measurements of the extractor's positioning pad thickness don't mean too much simply because the back (right hand) side of the extractor never contacts anything.

    The only really meaningful positioning pad measurement is its distance from the tensioning wall (0.058 + 0.006 inch), as shown here:



    Regards
    When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. [Lord Kelvin]

  4. #24
    Join Date
    18th May 2009
    Location
    Fresno, CA.
    Posts
    732
    Posts liked by others
    1
    Thanks for the pics!!!!!

    On my Norinco, since the gun ran so well, I duplicated the pad thickness when installing the new extractor...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    25th September 2006
    Location
    South of Lake Superior
    Posts
    14,085
    Posts liked by others
    127
    Don't bother with the pad's thickness. It doesn't mean a thing. The reason it doesn't appear in my drawing, above, is because it's not even on the Ordnance drawing.

    As long as tinkering with the pad didn't get the 0.058 + 0.006 inch distance to the tensioning wall out of spec, it'll be OK.

    Again: the pad's thickness means nothing. Zip. Nil. Zilch. Squat. Bupkus.

    Regards
    When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. [Lord Kelvin]

  6. #26
    Join Date
    18th May 2009
    Location
    Fresno, CA.
    Posts
    732
    Posts liked by others
    1
    So that measurement reflects outboard movement????

    I was taught many years ago by my Dad that when a case is slipped under the hook, the floor of the hook should be about even with the breech block under the extractor bore....Robert

  7. #27
    Join Date
    25th September 2006
    Location
    South of Lake Superior
    Posts
    14,085
    Posts liked by others
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by 10851Man
    So that measurement reflects outboard movement????
    Yes, partly. That 0.058 + 0.006 inch distance determines how far away the tensioning wall is from the left hand breechface guide block before the case goes in. The distance the extractor moves outboard when the case goes in is determined by that distance (average = 0.4655") as shown here....



    ....and the diameter of the case rim (average = 0.475").
    Quote Originally Posted by 10851Man
    I was taught many years ago by my Dad that when a case is slipped under the hook, the floor of the hook should be about even with the breech block under the extractor bore....Robert
    If what you call "floor" is the tensioning wall in the drawing, yes - that's pretty close to what happens.

    A 0.475" diameter case rim will move the extractor outboard about 0.010". That 0.010" of movement will reduce the distance from the tensioning wall to the nearby guide block from the 0.0145" shown here...



    ....to about 0.005" - and 0.005" is essentially even to the naked eye.

    Regards
    When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. [Lord Kelvin]

  8. #28
    Join Date
    18th May 2009
    Location
    Fresno, CA.
    Posts
    732
    Posts liked by others
    1
    Ok,

    Fired 100 rounds of 230 grain factory-load FMJ through the Norco tonight. Most of the cases went by my right shoulder and landed 2 feet right of and 2 feet behind my right foot. A few, probably 5 cases, were sent about 2 feet in front of my right foot. About 5 more went straight up, over my head and landed about 3 feet directly behind me.

    I also tried the 14, 15 & 16lb recoil springs with no difference in ejection pattern whatsoever, but a noticeable increase in recoil impulse with the lighter springs. I encountered no stoppages of any kind. Ejection is best and most consistent when shooting rapid fire.

    Inspection of the cases show no contact with the pistol, a well-centered FP strike and no burrs from the extractor. I did notice a small 'swipe' on every case head from the ejector. Closer inspection showed that only the inboard edge (closest to FP centerline) of the ejector is making contact with the cases.

    Could this be an issue??? Should the cases contact the entire flat face of the ejector??? If so, that would mean blending the face of the ejector back and towards the FP centerline.

    Am I looking at this correctly????
    Last edited by 10851Man; 3rd February 2010 at 19:58.


  9. #29
    Join Date
    25th September 2006
    Location
    South of Lake Superior
    Posts
    14,085
    Posts liked by others
    127
    IIRC, erratic ejection can be caused by either lack of extractor tension or extractor clocking, and I think you said your extractor doesn't clock.

    If the cases that went back over your head or got tossed forward were the last rounds out of the magazine, I'd get the extractor a tad tighter and see what changes.

    Regards
    When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. [Lord Kelvin]

  10. #30
    Join Date
    18th May 2009
    Location
    Fresno, CA.
    Posts
    732
    Posts liked by others
    1
    The old Norco extractor clocked (rotated) slightly, but the back of it was loose in the extractor bore. It was about .004" below spec. The new Brownell's extractor fit nice and snug, but not tight; it can still be moved slightly at the back, up and down on the FPS, but it can't be clocked.

    I think the stray rounds were the last few come to think of it!!!!!

    You think the 'edge riding' on the ejector face is OK????

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, please use their banners above. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Non-gun-related supporters.
Thank you for visiting our supporters.