Asymmetric Ejector Stars--can someone explain?

**JohnKSa** · September 22, 2012, 10:39 PM

For the life of me, I can't figure out the point of symmetric ejector stars.

Does anyone understand why asymmetric ejectors are better and, if so, could you please explain it in simple words so I can understand too?

Sgt127 · September 22, 2012, 11:00 PM

As best as I can tell, the old style, with the two pins, S&W for instance, when the hand pushed on the ratchet, all the force was on the pins. The new style S&W, its the flat edges of the star pushing against the flats on the cutout of the cylinder and it "locks" in when pressure is applied.

It may also be easier to manufacture, no aligning and drilling the pin holes.

**JohnKSa** · September 22, 2012, 11:09 PM

So it has nothing to do with improved extraction; it's merely to spread out the force applied by the hand differently?

Maybe I've been making this harder than it needed to be...

drail · September 22, 2012, 11:24 PM

I believe that when they first came out with the new extractors the reason was that they had purchased new CAD/CAM equipment and they could be machined faster and easier this way.

FrankenMauser · September 22, 2012, 11:28 PM

When the cylinder is loaded, it should be the cartridge cases that get the force applied to the ratchet star by the hand. The pins are really only there for alignment with no cartridges in the cylinder.

With the asymmetrical stars, you just don't have to drill and install pins. It saves 4 drill holes, and two pin installations during production. The rest of the machining operations are essentially the same... just with slightly different finished geometry.

I do not know, for sure, why S&W went to asymmetrical stars; but I believe it was simply to shave a dollar, or so, off manufacturing costs.

Jim Watson · September 23, 2012, 11:55 AM

Agree with Franken.
The CAM can cut about any shape and this saves the cost of the pin holes and pins.

I don't think it is as strong. A friend broke the newer style star on a 625 in rapid DA for IDPA.

tipoc · September 23, 2012, 04:12 PM

Frankenmauser is right.

If you look at the development of the rods and stars (comparing guns from the last century till now) you see that the machine work on them gets simpler and in many ways more durable. The early rods were first turned on a lathe and later a slot was milled down part of the length. This slot located the rod in the cylinder. The pins also aided in location of the star ejector and kept it from spinning on the end of the rod. The detail work on the ends of the ejector also helped to aid in location. All that took time to machine. The pins were prone to breakage as well.

The modern design (which evolved over time it seems) eliminates a lot of that detail work and can be stronger.

tipoc

Dave T · September 25, 2012, 09:50 PM

It's just another example of what was once a great revolver manufacturer (S&W) cutting corners and costs. It isn't as good a company as it once was and their revolvers are not as good as they once were either.

Sad commentary on the times we live in. Make it cheeper and charge more for it. The average consumer won't know the difference (according to the bean counters).

Dave

James K · September 25, 2012, 10:09 PM

FrankenMauser answered the question, but I suspect it saved more than a dollar.

Dave T., how do you think companies stay competive and stay in business except by "cutting corners and costs"? I have an S&W M&P made in 1900. I have little doubt that that gun, made today the way it was then, would cost at least $4000 and it would not be as good or as reliable as a modern Model 10. I doubt you would like to assemble that 1900 gun, with its tiny springs and microscopic pins, and if you had to do it you would want a lot of money to make up for the eyestrain.

So you can lament the passing of those old guns, and I agree that they were works of art. But I prefer to have guns I can afford, not ones I would have to admire from afar.

Jim

September 22, 2012, 10:39 PM	#1
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,989	Asymmetric Ejector Stars--can someone explain? For the life of me, I can't figure out the point of symmetric ejector stars. Does anyone understand why asymmetric ejectors are better and, if so, could you please explain it in simple words so I can understand too? __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

September 22, 2012, 11:09 PM	#3
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,989	So it has nothing to do with improved extraction; it's merely to spread out the force applied by the hand differently? Maybe I've been making this harder than it needed to be... __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

September 22, 2012, 11:28 PM	#5
FrankenMauser Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2008 Location: In the valley above the plain Posts: 13,424	When the cylinder is loaded, it should be the cartridge cases that get the force applied to the ratchet star by the hand. The pins are really only there for alignment with no cartridges in the cylinder. With the asymmetrical stars, you just don't have to drill and install pins. It saves 4 drill holes, and two pin installations during production. The rest of the machining operations are essentially the same... just with slightly different finished geometry. I do not know, for sure, why S&W went to asymmetrical stars; but I believe it was simply to shave a dollar, or so, off manufacturing costs. __________________ Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe.

September 25, 2012, 09:50 PM	#8
Dave T Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2000 Location: Mesa, Arizona Posts: 1,456	It's just another example of what was once a great revolver manufacturer (S&W) cutting corners and costs. It isn't as good a company as it once was and their revolvers are not as good as they once were either. Sad commentary on the times we live in. Make it cheeper and charge more for it. The average consumer won't know the difference (according to the bean counters). Dave __________________ RSVN '69-'71 PCSD Ret

September 22, 2012, 11:00 PM	#2
Sgt127 Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2002 Posts: 1,053	As best as I can tell, the old style, with the two pins, S&W for instance, when the hand pushed on the ratchet, all the force was on the pins. The new style S&W, its the flat edges of the star pushing against the flats on the cutout of the cylinder and it "locks" in when pressure is applied. It may also be easier to manufacture, no aligning and drilling the pin holes.

September 22, 2012, 11:24 PM	#4
drail Junior member Join Date: February 2, 2008 Posts: 3,150	I believe that when they first came out with the new extractors the reason was that they had purchased new CAD/CAM equipment and they could be machined faster and easier this way.

September 23, 2012, 11:55 AM	#6
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,542	Agree with Franken. The CAM can cut about any shape and this saves the cost of the pin holes and pins. I don't think it is as strong. A friend broke the newer style star on a 625 in rapid DA for IDPA.

September 23, 2012, 04:12 PM	#7
tipoc Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Location: Redwood City, Ca. Posts: 4,114	Frankenmauser is right. If you look at the development of the rods and stars (comparing guns from the last century till now) you see that the machine work on them gets simpler and in many ways more durable. The early rods were first turned on a lathe and later a slot was milled down part of the length. This slot located the rod in the cylinder. The pins also aided in location of the star ejector and kept it from spinning on the end of the rod. The detail work on the ends of the ejector also helped to aid in location. All that took time to machine. The pins were prone to breakage as well. The modern design (which evolved over time it seems) eliminates a lot of that detail work and can be stronger. tipoc

September 25, 2012, 10:09 PM	#9
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	FrankenMauser answered the question, but I suspect it saved more than a dollar. Dave T., how do you think companies stay competive and stay in business except by "cutting corners and costs"? I have an S&W M&P made in 1900. I have little doubt that that gun, made today the way it was then, would cost at least $4000 and it would not be as good or as reliable as a modern Model 10. I doubt you would like to assemble that 1900 gun, with its tiny springs and microscopic pins, and if you had to do it you would want a lot of money to make up for the eyestrain. So you can lament the passing of those old guns, and I agree that they were works of art. But I prefer to have guns I can afford, not ones I would have to admire from afar. Jim