metalnwood

I am not sure what is compatible. I replaced my shadow 2 mainspring with a shadow sp01 spring and I know they can share mags, other than that Idont know. The shadow 2 is the first shadow I have had.

Is the mag in the shadow one that came with it? It doesnt look anything like the mec gar's that came with mine.

We have quite a few people where I am with stock 2/3 extremes. Thats what we have been comparing very favourably with the shadow 2. One big difference is the shadow 2 runs any ammo and everyone I ahve seen with a stock 2/3 extreme has trouble, has to polish the feed ramp, can only run round points, etc, etc.

You can feel the difference in the same way you can feel the difference between shocks that are too stiff and ones that are appropriate. In terms of pistol shooting, you would certainly have a lot more experience than me and even I understand and with limited experience that these things feel different. I can only say things feel different as a whole though, a different pistol with somewhat different ergonomics, size, weight etc. I have never had the opportunity to take a single pistol with same size, ergonomics and just change the weight of the slide to see if the feel is significantly different.

Less deformation would mean more impact force. The barrel has no relevant momentum. It is just free falling like 2 mm. Other than that, there's a completely negligible amount of friction on the lugs when unlocking. What is the point? I am getting lost here. You are talking about the force over a very small amount of time. Like I said about the car, peak forces measured in an instant cannot often be felt even if they can be measured with instrumentation. If we are talking about what people perceive not machines then what is it you are trying to get across?

As the slo-mo videos show, there's basically no flip in the gun until the slide hits the rear, the barrel stops moving well before that time with NO impact on the muzzle flip. Again, it doesn't matter how much deformation there is...both slides would cause a theoretically equal amount of deformation. However, the slower slide will travel that deformed distance slower...thus the impact is spread out more. I just looked at the first video I saw, every one has the muzzle coming up before the slide hits the back. I do agree that the slide has taken a lot of the force so the real kick is when it hits the back. I am not sure how much peak force really matters here. At the end of the day, the whole shot it over in a very similar amount of time and the forces are averaged over that time. I have seen a lot of telemetry from cars and I can tell you a number of cars e.g. a dallara indycar might show 70Nm force through the wheel, at such a small amount of time it is not noticed but it may have happened. Finding such a number in an instant of time rarely tells the whole story.

OK, I see, there are some assumed figures about it based on the acceleration of the slide when stopping. So where does the rest of the energy come from? I mean you are quoting the force at a single instant in time as the acceleration is not a constant in this case. I think you you were to model what was happening and graph these values over time you wouldn't find such a difference as this one instance in time suggests.

I am not going to do any maths on it so I cant say how much it would impact the recoil. Perhaps nothing of note and I wasn't stating it was. It was just my observation that based on what GP had said on a TY video about the rotating barrel helping with recoil. I am not in an argument with you over that because I have no figures to back up what I am saying would actually contribute to less felt recoil but it does help change the direction of the force. Force is not lost but it is not all directed in the same place. Having said all of this, I cant find where GP says this is to help reduce recoil although I thought I had seen it somewhere. So I dont see much point in debating a point if I cant see why I might be doing it I still do not understand the F=ma thing though, the original force comes from the powder, the mass is the mass of the slide and the acceleration is calculated from those. A lighter slide therefore accelerates faster but with similar force.

I am not stating that this accounts for an appreciable amount of recoil, I was just saying what I thought was behind the design having only seen a little bit of information about it. Making the barrel hard to rotate is exactly the opposite of what you want it to do though. You want to transfer the energy in to rotating the barrel. If you make it hard then there there is no point doing it. The easier to make the transfer of energy in to rotating the barrel the more energy you take away from it pushing the pistol directly back. Once again, I can't say in practice how well it works, thats just how I saw it at first glance. You are misunderstanding how energy transfer works. If it is easy to rotate, it's doing less to reduce or change recoil. If the barrel weighed 20 pounds, yeah it would have a noticeable effect. I must be misunderstanding then because some of the things I have had to do in the past and calculate for involved taking rotation and converting it to linear motion. The Nm required was calculated based on the linear force I needed to overcome and mechanically works in the same way as the rotating barrel. Having said I could be wrong, I could even be further wrong because I dont understand how saying F=ma proves that something lighter has more force? Only if a specific calculation has m*a greater would it have more force. Isnt the original force coming from the powder, the mass is the slide and the acceleration is then given from force and mass. A heaver slide will accelerate slower, but it has more mass and unless the force originally came from having less powder how does it have less force?

By that thinking, they could just make the barrel really hard to rotate and take off a ton of the recoil. It doesn't work like that. It takes very little force for the barrel to rotate. Think about it, the barrel is rotating when you rack the slide. Does it take a lot of effort to rack the slide? No, and most of that is fighting friction and the recoil spring. The rotation is nothing. It is a red herring. I am not stating that this accounts for an appreciable amount of recoil, I was just saying what I thought was behind the design having only seen a little bit of information about it. Making the barrel hard to rotate is exactly the opposite of what you want it to do though. You want to transfer the energy in to rotating the barrel. If you make it hard then there there is no point doing it. The easier to make the transfer of energy in to rotating the barrel the more energy you take away from it pushing the pistol directly back. Once again, I can't say in practice how well it works, thats just how I saw it at first glance.

I dont know much about the design of pistols, I am just getting in to the sport myself but I know a little about engineering and when I saw the design and read it accounted for less recoil I thought it was based on the simple mechanism on the barrel to turn linear movement in to rotational movement. Some of the forces that would act to push the pistol back are also rotating the barrel which hits a hard stop. How much is absorbed I dont know but it must be something.