An Ejector Question

[Mauser69]

I do not have the answers for you, but I do have a few other observations. Based on at least one other current thread about bulged cases in .357, those notches in the barrel face are NOT specific to the .44 - he showed pictures of the same thing. But I also saw indications in his picture that someone had been rutting around in his gun with a grinder, so maybe something else is going on? Perhaps a bunch of ham-handed work done by monkeys on a few guns that do not feed right or are poorly assembled?

Since my gun is relatively new (2013 or 2014), it might be an indication of a design change, but we would need a lot more observations to determine this.

I do not really know the function of that shape - just assumed it was part of the guide for the bottom of the bolt or ejector, but I never paid much attention to it. I would have to disassemble the gun and study the parts to know for sure.

[Turkey Huntsman]

I spoke to an authority on the subject today. He explained the two ejector "blades" that protrude are supports for the case rim when the brass is undergoing withdrawal from the chamber during extraction.

Imagine after firing, you pull the lever down and the bolt starts moving back. As soon as it gets any distance away from the barrel, the ejector is pushing very hard against the bottom half of the case head, while the top 12:00 position is being held in place only by the extractor claw. Apparently as the spent case comes further out of the chamber, the ejector would try to push the case head back down into the action - were it not for that "shelf" for the rim to rest on. Once the case mouth clears the breech, the ejector is able to flip the case up into the air.

The timing and geometry of all this seems like it would be rather critical to provide reliable extraction and case ejection. This is why extraction/ejection problems are one of the most common issues in this type of gun!

[Mauser69]

I spoke to an authority on the subject today. He explained the two ejector "blades" that protrude are supports for the case rim when the brass is undergoing withdrawal from the chamber during extraction.

Your "authority" is just spinning imaginary bovine scat to entertain you (or possibly just to entertain himself).

I am not an "authority", no do I pretend to have examined a lot of these guns. But just going from my own rifle, as well as other pictures on this board, I can authoritatively say that at least some guns (maybe all that do not show signs of rooting and grubbing with a grinder?) do not have this imaginary "shelf". My ejector has a rim all the way around the edge that perfectly matches the rim all the way around the rest of the bolt face. The blades on the bottom are flush with this rim - they do not extend forward at all. That is a fact. If the rim on the ejector were to be completely removed, then those blades sticking a slight bit forward (the same amount that the rim on the bolt face extends) would functionally serve as if a piece of that rim were still there. Perhaps that is what your "authority" is imagining? But even this would not require cutting slots in the bottom face of the barrel unless someone ground off too much of the ejector face, leaving those blades too long.

In my imagination, I completely reject the wild idea that the ejector, which pushes forward on the bottom left quadrant of the case head could EVER "push the case head back down into the action". Just ain't gonna happen. I cannot claim that is a fact 'cause I ain't gonna butcher my gun just to prove it. I will say, however, that the rim on the outside edge of the ejector is rather thin, so one purpose I can see being served by extra metal directly below the bottom is to support that portion of the rim as a shell is being slipped up into position.

Those two blades, on the other hand do have two very specific purposes. If you watch the case being chambered, the top of the rim rests on the bottom of the blades as soon as the lifter pops it up, and then the case head slides up those blades like on a ramp while the round is being pushed forward. They also allow proper movement of the ejector. Look at the bottom of the bolt - they run in two slots in the bolt to keep the ejector straight as it moves in and out; there is even a section of the bolt that rides between them. You do not have to disassemble the gun to see this, just open the action and use the tip of a screwdriver to push the ejector back while looking in there with a strong flashlight. Does not seem like any mystery at all to me.

[Ranch Dog]

I finally went out and checked all five of my 92s: 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 Colt, 454 Casull, and 480 Ruger. The only rifle without the "fins" is the 357 Mag. That is the newest 92 that I own, it was manufactured in 2012, it is kind of weird that all the older 92s have them.

From my work on the cartridge guides and examining cartridge feed in detail, I've felt that they are solely for the purpose of getting the cartridge moving along and up off the carrier.

[GasGuzzler]

My 1987 SRC .357 has no ruts. The breech of the barrel is the same all the way around. It feeds specials under spec OAL and 183 gr lead over 1.6" in .357 with the same butter smooth feel.

[kyron4]

My 357 R92 is smooth, no cut outs . It was made in early 2016. The 44 mag I looked at next to the 357 I bought, did have the cut outs.

[Turkey Huntsman]

I spoke to an authority on the subject today. He explained the two ejector "blades" that protrude are supports for the case rim when the brass is undergoing withdrawal from the chamber during extraction.

Your "authority" is just spinning imaginary bovine scat to entertain you (or possibly just to entertain himself).

Those two blades, on the other hand do have two very specific purposes. If you watch the case being chambered, the top of the rim rests on the bottom of the blades as soon as the lifter pops it up, and then the case head slides up those blades like on a ramp while the round is being pushed forward. They also allow proper movement of the ejector. Look at the bottom of the bolt - they run in two slots in the bolt to keep the ejector straight as it moves in and out; there is even a section of the bolt that rides between them. You do not have to disassemble the gun to see this, just open the action and use the tip of a screwdriver to push the ejector back while looking in there with a strong flashlight. Does not seem like any mystery at all to me.

Mauser, I fully agree with you. After looking more closely at the action, those two "blades" or "tabs" are there to align the ejector as it travels in/out, and to help guide the TOP of the case rim as the shell is being elevated.

That being said, are these protruding tabs essential to reliable feeding? It seems that some of the guns do not have them, particularly the .357s. It appears that all .44 and .45 variants came with the blades. Since Rossi will not sell owners just the ejector (grrrrr) we are forced to buy "universal fit" or Win ejectors and hand fit them. It would be a heck of a lot easier if those two protruding tabs did not have to be fashioned over hours with a jeweler's file...

[Ranch Dog]

It would be a heck of a lot easier if those two protruding tabs did not have to be fashioned over hours with a jeweler's file...

If it comes down to that for me, I'm going to part the thing out.

[Sarge]

I finally went out and checked all five of my 92s: 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 Colt, 454 Casull, and 480 Ruger. The only rifle without the "fins" is the 357 Mag. That is the newest 92 that I own, it was manufactured in 2012, it is kind of weird that all the older 92s have them.

From my work on the cartridge guides and examining cartridge feed in detail, I've felt that they are solely for the purpose of getting the cartridge moving along and up off the carrier.

I had my last 357 (a 2014 Taw-roos) apart WAY too many times and I'm pretty sure the ejector had those rudders on it. It seems like they were aligned to the left and right sides of the bolt. If so, I presume they are there to keep the ejector from tipping down under pressure from the cartridge. I'd almost bet the reasoning was to reduce hand fitting between the bolt and ejector during manufacture.