It seems that most would say that a fixed ejector is better than a spring loaded ejector for reliability but I think there's more to it.
I think that a spring loaded ejector actually provides a more positive ejection simply because once the casing clears the chamber, whether the carrier experienced a short stroke or not, it gets ejected forcefully.
I understand and have experienced that when a rifle suffers from a short stroke with a fixed ejector, the casing may dribble out or may not even leave the weapon. In rifles such as the FAL, the ejector is so far back that a short stroke can cause a double feed. I could only imagine that had it been a spring loaded ejector, issues like that wouldn't have been documented.
The ar15 gets some flak for having a spring loaded ejector because it may get filthy and fail, but I've never read a whole lot of reports on failing ejectors, not as much as failing bolts! This just tells me that the spring loaded ejector issues may be a tad exaggerated.
What do you think? Is one better than the other? I'd say that the extistance of both is a matter of how the internals operate. When you have a bolt riding on rails, it would make sense to use a fixed ejector. When the carrier is the only reciprocating piece riding on rails, it would be easier to put the ejector onto the bolt face itself.


Reply With Quote
.


Bookmarks