Re: S&W 1911?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mnhntr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shoot4fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm afraid that if both of you guys had been in charge there would be no Wilson Combat, Ed Brown, Night Hawk, etc. and none of the innovation that has indeed made the 1911 so widely popular. Face it, until gunsmiths started tinkering with the 1911 to improve on it and get it where it is today, no one really liked it. It had a horrible reputation as sloppy, inaccurate and unreliable with the masses because the only one most guys ever fired was an old worn out GI gun while in the service.
True to what you are saying, 1911 should not have adjustable sights, beavertails, checkering, beveled mag wells, etc because that isn't how JMB designed it.
</div></div>
And quite a few of those old, sloppy, worn out, GI model 1911s that apparently no one liked, turned out to be used in bullseye matches all over the country. </div></div>
Maybe at the bottom of the match results. A combat pistol made to kill Japs at 5 feet isn't exactly a bullseye gun.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smokshwn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shoot4fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A successful external extractor design would be great for high round count users. For most people, though, it's a liability rather than an asset. </div></div>
???? </div></div>
<span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="color: #FF0000">An extractor with replaceable springs, if it were reliable and did not interfere with the 1911 feeding process, would be great.</span>
</span>
</div></div>
So you often point out to people how much experience you have yet you are unaware of
AFTEC Extractors with you guessed it, replaceable coil springs .......you never cease to one up yourself.
Which btw is a much better design than the original JMB part.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who so loudly profess the sanctity of the original 1911 design so conveniently forget all of the parts (beaver tails, hammers, sights, triggers, magazines, magwells etc) that are not only superior to the original design, but have almost wholesale replaced the original parts in 1911 production. </div></div>
An Aftec is not an external extractor. Perhaps you should consider the discussion in context, or read the title of this post before shooting off at the mouth.
You would be hard pressed to show that I "profess the sanctity of the original design." In fact, I have stated repeatedly that I wouldn't own a 1911 without dovetail sights and a beavertail.
In fact, I don't own any 1911s that even remotely resemble the original design, and I probably wouldn't ever.
The Aftec does in fact satisfy the short quote you've pulled from my post. But it is not an external extractor, and it is part of the feeding process just like any other internal extractor.
In other words, the Aftec shares more in common with the normal spring steel 1911 extractor than an M16 or Glock style external extractor, which is what the subject of this post is--spring loaded external extractors that snap over the rim of every cartridge rather than feeding the rim up under them in a controlled manner like the 1911 does.