Battering in 1911, or 2011

[Carmoney]

Yes, that was Ned Christianson who did that.

Years later, Patrick Sweeney reported on it in one of his excellent 1911 books.

[Carmoney]

Excellent post.

I'm sure I'll make friends with this:-)

The 'weight' of a recoil spring is the force it imparts at it's fully compressed position (in the gun, slide all the way back). So think about this... How much actual difference do you think there will be in terms of impact to the frame if you change the recoil spring weight by a couple pounds? The total force that propels the slide backward is relatively constant, depending on the consistency of the ammo, and is a LOT more than 9 or ten or 12 lbs... Changing the recoil spring weight by two lbs simply adds (or subtracts, if you go up in spring weight) that much to or from the total force needed by the frame to stop the slide when it bottoms out. Sure, it's a dynamic load, which has the effect of multiplying that two pounds somewhat... But in the grand scheme of things, it won't make much difference in the life of the components unless you're already right on the ragged edge. Personally, I use the lightest spring that still works reliably.

Regarding 'worn springs', it's my humble opinion that this topic is way overblown. My experience is that springs settle a bit at first, and then stay that way a very long time, unless they're subjected to high temperatures or corrosive environments. And by high temps, I mean much higher than they see in a pistol... I quantitatively verified this to myself some years back... I built a little device to measure recoil spring weight...cause I was sick of trying to equate a 9 lb Wilson to an 11 lb wolf.... And these days, I measure the spring at it's fully compressed length, and then label it's package with that number. This way, it's a known quantity, regardless of spring brand.

Eventually, I got curious about how 'sacked out' the springs in my guns were, so I started measuring used springs. And I found that after many thousands of rounds, the spring was about the same as after it took it's initial set! Not exactly the same, but almost always within a pound or so. I think the worst case I came across was the 9 lb spring in my SS9mm measured 7.5 lbs after about 12k rounds. But it was still running like a top. I replaced it more out of curiosity, so I could compare it with a new 9 pounder. I wound up changing that out for an 8lb.

If you want to take some energy off your slide, fit a new F/P stop with a smaller radius... Makes a bigger difference than two pounds on the recoil spring, and you don't have the nose dive you get with the heavier spring.

Just my $.02.

[twodownzero]

The recoil spring does serve as a shock absorber, and a decelerator. Part of the reason its there is to keep the slide and barrel together for the first bit of travel aft...sort of a requirement with any short recoil system.

I think that this is the myth that this post exists precisely to debunk.

I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber. The recoil spring is there to push the slide back forward after it completes its travel.

The primary determinants of slide speed appear to be the energy of the fired cartridge and the mass of the moving parts, the biggest of which is the slide itself.

I would imagine that if there was a way to measure slide speed, there'd be far less observed difference in the rearward slide speed than you'd think.

It'd be hard to expect our guns to run at extremes of the range of acceptable spring rates, but if they would, I wouldn't be concerned about any relationship between that and battering/cracking etc.

Just as an illustration of what I'm talking about, fire your limited gun with a 16 or 18 lb spring and then fire the same ammo in the gun with a 10 lb spring. I'm willing to bet that the "snap" at the end of the slide's travel, where the slide bottoms out, isn't remarkably different between the two.

I think that the primary reason why we prefer lighter springs is the actual closing of the slide as well, because that's when our eyes are trying to get back on the sights for another shot.

I've been wrong before, but toying with springs has suggested, to me, that the reason the manufacturers want us to replace them regularly is so that our guns feed reliably and predictably, not due to concerns about slide speed and frame wear.

[Seth]

The recoil spring does serve as a shock absorber, and a decelerator. Part of the reason its there is to keep the slide and barrel together for the first bit of travel aft...sort of a requirement with any short recoil system.

I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber.

This is completely incorrect. A recoil spring is a COMPRESSION COIL SPRING. Its entire purpose in life is to RESIST compression.

Quoting: "When you put a load on a compression coil spring, making it shorter, it pushes back against the load and tries to get back to its original length. Compression springs offer resistance to linear compressing forces (push), and are in fact one of the most efficient energy storage devices available."

A recoil spring is installed parallel to the slide along a guide that controls the path that the spring follows. That means that the actual weight of the spring will resist the rearward motion of the slide in whatever progressive weight the spring collapses.

The rearward motion of the slide on a gun with a hammer is also slowed by the interface of the hammer and the firing pin stop --- which is controlled by the main spring.

[wide45]

Just as an illustration of what I'm talking about, fire your limited gun with a 16 or 18 lb spring and then fire the same ammo in the gun with a 10 lb spring. I'm willing to bet that the "snap" at the end of the slide's travel, where the slide bottoms out, isn't remarkably different between the two.

Actually, if I go down to 11lbs in my limited gun, the recoil has a sharp smack that I don't like. YMMV

[twodownzero]

The recoil spring does serve as a shock absorber, and a decelerator. Part of the reason its there is to keep the slide and barrel together for the first bit of travel aft...sort of a requirement with any short recoil system.

I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber.

This is completely incorrect. A recoil spring is a COMPRESSION COIL SPRING. Its entire purpose in life is to RESIST compression.

Quoting: "When you put a load on a compression coil spring, making it shorter, it pushes back against the load and tries to get back to its original length. Compression springs offer resistance to linear compressing forces (push), and are in fact one of the most efficient energy storage devices available."

A recoil spring is installed parallel to the slide along a guide that controls the path that the spring follows. That means that the actual weight of the spring will resist the rearward motion of the slide in whatever progressive weight the spring collapses.

The rearward motion of the slide on a gun with a hammer is also slowed by the interface of the hammer and the firing pin stop --- which is controlled by the main spring.

All of that is true. It does not negate the fact that the proportion of energy bled off by the spring pales in comparison to that which the fired cartridge creates.

How heavy of a spring does it take to get a 1911 to short stroke with factory ammo?

Of course it takes more energy to compress a heavier spring than a lighter one. That's not really the issue. The real question is how significant that difference is, and specifically, whether choosing a lighter spring will result in significantly more wear on the gun.

I think the answer to that question is in the negative. The slide is going to bottom out on the guide rod no matter what spring you have in the gun (within some reasonable, but wide range). I don't think there's any significance to the minor difference in speed that it hits with a lighter spring.

I could be wrong, though. It's possible that I underestimate the deceleration effect of a heavier spring. My intuition isn't a measuring tool.

Edited December 22, 2010 by twodownzero

[Seth]

The recoil spring does serve as a shock absorber, and a decelerator. Part of the reason its there is to keep the slide and barrel together for the first bit of travel aft...sort of a requirement with any short recoil system.

I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber.

This is completely incorrect. A recoil spring is a COMPRESSION COIL SPRING. Its entire purpose in life is to RESIST compression.

Quoting: "When you put a load on a compression coil spring, making it shorter, it pushes back against the load and tries to get back to its original length. Compression springs offer resistance to linear compressing forces (push), and are in fact one of the most efficient energy storage devices available."

A recoil spring is installed parallel to the slide along a guide that controls the path that the spring follows. That means that the actual weight of the spring will resist the rearward motion of the slide in whatever progressive weight the spring collapses.

The rearward motion of the slide on a gun with a hammer is also slowed by the interface of the hammer and the firing pin stop --- which is controlled by the main spring.

All of that is true. It does not negate the fact that the proportion of energy bled off by the spring pales in comparison to that which the fired cartridge creates.

How heavy of a spring does it take to get a 1911 to short stroke with factory ammo?

You're backpedaling. You're exact words were "I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber." Now you're agreeing that the spring DOES in fact act as a decelerator.

If someone were to read ONLY your first statement and nothing else, they would be led to believe that the recoil springs' only purpose is closing the slide, which is patently false... AND which you just agreed is only 50% of its job.

The first 50% of its job is to RESIST the force applied to it by the slide. If the recoil spring is linear and makes 11# of pressure from battery to the end of its travel, then its resisting those force of the slide by that 11#. That's a substantial amount of pressure that the spring is absorbing, which would otherwise transfer DIRECTLY to the frame.

This is EASY to prove. Take the spring out of your gun, reassemble and rack the slide. Now do it with the spring in. Notice any difference?

[aclundwall]

The recoil spring does serve as a shock absorber, and a decelerator. Part of the reason its there is to keep the slide and barrel together for the first bit of travel aft...sort of a requirement with any short recoil system.

I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber.

This is completely incorrect. A recoil spring is a COMPRESSION COIL SPRING. Its entire purpose in life is to RESIST compression.

Quoting: "When you put a load on a compression coil spring, making it shorter, it pushes back against the load and tries to get back to its original length. Compression springs offer resistance to linear compressing forces (push), and are in fact one of the most efficient energy storage devices available."

A recoil spring is installed parallel to the slide along a guide that controls the path that the spring follows. That means that the actual weight of the spring will resist the rearward motion of the slide in whatever progressive weight the spring collapses.

The rearward motion of the slide on a gun with a hammer is also slowed by the interface of the hammer and the firing pin stop --- which is controlled by the main spring.

Edited... never mind.... Seth replied while I was typing....

Edited December 22, 2010 by aclundwall

[twodownzero]

I'm not backpedaling at all. The primary purpose of the recoil spring is to push the slide closed when the recoil event is complete. Any secondary effect of decelerating the slide is just that--secondary. It is self evident that it takes more energy to compress a spring that stores more energy. That's not the point of this discussion.

It is certainly not "50%" of a recoil spring's job to slow down the slide as it moves rearward. The slide would move rearward with or without the use of a recoil spring. Its primary, and most important purpose is to push the slide closed.

You're right, it's very easy to prove. Put a round in your gun without a recoil spring and shoot it, and then tell me how 50% of the supposed function of a recoil spring is complete even though the part is missing from the gun.

Unless I'm missing something, it should be quite obvious that it's the forward motion, not the rearward one, that requires the stored energy of a spring.

You are also correct about the mainspring slowing the slide.

None of your points really get to the essence of the issue, though, which is that it is not the function of the recoil spring to prevent battering of the frame. That's not why it's there, and that's not even a relevant consideration in deciding which spring is used.

Feeding reliability should be the primary determinant of the chosen recoil spring, not "frame battering" concerns.

Edited December 22, 2010 by twodownzero

[ong45]

Think about what happens when a slide goes into battery...... Recoil spring pushes slide forward then picks up the barrel, as the barrel rises to mate with the slide all that energy is transferred to the barrel feet ( or lower lugs ) which then stops cold on the slide stop. Running a heavy recoil spring adds unnecessary battering to the only thing keeping your slide from flying out into space.

Take a look at your vis instead ( the other side ) it's much better equipped ( and i believe designed) to take that kind of abuse.

A lighter sprung gun shoots easier and is better for the gun to boot (imho).

Edited December 22, 2010 by ong45

[Seth]

There's no primary/ secondary function of a spring. The springs' SOLE purpose is to push... it is a compression spring. It is always pushing as it wants to be in a relaxed state. But in order for the spring to do its job, it has to be compressed. Think of it as a sine wave. 50% of the spring's 'event' is compression/ 50% of it is relaxation. So in order for the spring to close the breech, it has to first store that energy. The deceleration of the slide isn't an afterthought, its part of the brilliance of the design.

This had to be understood by Browning, as he had to time the device to make it work. So he tuned the machine to operate a certain power off ammo reliably. The speed at which the system opens determines the reliability. If the slide cannot overcome the pressure of the spring, the gun malfunctions. If the slide doesn't have enough spring pressure to strip the next round, you have a malfunction. Everywhere in between that is a functioning pistol.

Inside that curve of reliability, we can tune the machine to track a certain way. Too heavy a spring and it noses down when it closes.... too light a spring and the felt recoil creates greater muzzle rise. One only needs to try and 9# spring and a 19# spring in the same gun with the same ammo to recognize this function. We're tuning the gun to behave in a certain fashion. That happy medium is determined by sight tracking, muzzle rise, and felt recoil.

The same effect can be felt by shooting 135pf ammo and 200pf ammo. The felt recoil and resulting muzzle rise proves it.

As for battering, I have a guide rod sitting on my table that's beat to shit by running a 11# spring in an 5" 2011 running major PF ammo. It looked brand new for the first 20k rounds when I was running a 13# spring. When I went down to the 11# it took a beating and ultimately had to be replaced.

[tunakilla]

Wow, you are all correct. A lighter spring causes the empty brass to hit the Ejector Harder which results in brass flying farther. Stands to reason the slide is coming to a stop hitting the guide, buff, frame harder.

I don't think we do any serious damage to the equipment except to parts that are cheap or easy to replace. As long as it is reliable, run whatever spring you want or need to.

[Chris Keen]

There's no primary/ secondary function of a spring. The springs' SOLE purpose is to push... it is a compression spring. It is always pushing as it wants to be in a relaxed state. But in order for the spring to do its job, it has to be compressed. Think of it as a sine wave. 50% of the spring's 'event' is compression/ 50% of it is relaxation. So in order for the spring to close the breech, it has to first store that energy. The deceleration of the slide isn't an afterthought, its part of the brilliance of the design.

This had to be understood by Browning, as he had to time the device to make it work. So he tuned the machine to operate a certain power off ammo reliably. The speed at which the system opens determines the reliability. If the slide cannot overcome the pressure of the spring, the gun malfunctions. If the slide doesn't have enough spring pressure to strip the next round, you have a malfunction. Everywhere in between that is a functioning pistol.

Inside that curve of reliability, we can tune the machine to track a certain way. Too heavy a spring and it noses down when it closes.... too light a spring and the felt recoil creates greater muzzle rise. One only needs to try and 9# spring and a 19# spring in the same gun with the same ammo to recognize this function. We're tuning the gun to behave in a certain fashion. That happy medium is determined by sight tracking, muzzle rise, and felt recoil.

The same effect can be felt by shooting 135pf ammo and 200pf ammo. The felt recoil and resulting muzzle rise proves it.

As for battering, I have a guide rod sitting on my table that's beat to shit by running a 11# spring in an 5" 2011 running major PF ammo. It looked brand new for the first 20k rounds when I was running a 13# spring. When I went down to the 11# it took a beating and ultimately had to be replaced.

I'd agree with everything you said there Seth, but I'm curious as to what brand of guide rod would get so easily beat-up by running an 11# spring, when I run a 10# spring in my 2011 LTD gun and shoot 175pf ammo, and have so for a couple years now. And I easily shoot 20K per year.

[Seth]

Chris,

I don't know. Its not an STI rod and doesn't look like an EGW. Its been hard chromed and was in my 5" gun when Virgil built it. My ONLY guess is that its an Ed Brown.

S.

[Chris Keen]

Which part is getting beat up? The rod or the guide rod head?

[Seth]

The head. BAD. I'll get a picture.

[twodownzero]

Wow, you are all correct. A lighter spring causes the empty brass to hit the Ejector Harder which results in brass flying farther. Stands to reason the slide is coming to a stop hitting the guide, buff, frame harder.

I don't think we do any serious damage to the equipment except to parts that are cheap or easy to replace. As long as it is reliable, run whatever spring you want or need to.

I never thought anyone was incorrect. The back and forth is just to narrow down the particular issue that we're talking about.

Chris confirmed with I thought. If running a 10 lb spring in his gun doesn't beat it to death even after 20k rounds, I'd bet an 8 lb spring wouldn't, either (although it might not store enough energy to feed reliably, especially if he's running a conventional style extractor).

I might have to run some experiments with my 9mm 1911 and see how light of a spring I can get it to run with.

[Seth]

I might have to run some experiments with my 9mm 1911 and see how light of a spring I can get it to run with.

I have a better idea. Go buy some 230gr Federal Hydra- Shocks with a 205pf and run it with a 10# spring then an 18# spring and tell me if you can FEEL a difference.

[G-ManBart]

I never thought anyone was incorrect. The back and forth is just to narrow down the particular issue that we're talking about.

Chris confirmed with I thought. If running a 10 lb spring in his gun doesn't beat it to death even after 20k rounds, I'd bet an 8 lb spring wouldn't, either (although it might not store enough energy to feed reliably, especially if he's running a conventional style extractor).

I might have to run some experiments with my 9mm 1911 and see how light of a spring I can get it to run with.

One gun running to 20K doesn't really confirm anything...it's a fairly low round count for a lot of folks here, and most of us would be upset with major wear/damage at that point.

My first open gun cracked the slide at 65K....left side, even with the breachface (back of the ejection port). About 10K rounds later, the frame cracked on the left side even with the seat for the guide rod...where all the force from the slide get's transmitted to the frame.

Heavy loads (180+PF), lightened slide, light springs, lots of rounds = failed parts. My smith welded a pad on the left side over the crack, and made it a base for a scope mount, figuring it would last as a steel gun with 125-135PF loads.

Curious, but with those 125-135PF loads, I could get it to go from running 100% to short stroking (failure to extract/eject) simply by going from an 8lb spring to a 9lb spring....because the heavier spring was slowing the slide more.

Take a standard 1911, run it with 10, 14, and 18lb recoil springs and you're going to wind up with three piles of brass, with the farthest being from the lightest spring....meaning the slide came back faster, and the empty case hit the ejector harder. If the slide is coming back faster, it's going to transfer more energy to the frame. Speed is squared in energy equations, so even seemingly small increases in speed (it's not velocity), make much more significant increases in energy. Sooner or later, that's going to cause wear or failure....it has to. While it may take a lot of rounds to get there (see my 75K above), it's still going to happen eventually. Physics really isn't negotiable. R,

[twodownzero]

There's no doubt that it takes more energy to compress a heavier spring. It's whether the difference is sufficiently significant to wear the gun faster that I really wonder. All springs are going to slow the slide. Your steel loads slow the slide way more than any change of recoil spring could do with major loads.

I think the answer to that question is in the negative, but I don't have the data to confirm it. I think it's a myth that a properly fitted gun will last longer with heavier springs than lighter ones.

No appreciable wear in 20 thousand rounds IS evidence. If yours cracked after 65k, and his shows zero wear after 20k, I would expect his to last well beyond 65k rounds. If for some reason that is an unrealistic assumption, please let me know why.

Nobody said physics was negotiable. The essence of what we're talking about is how long your gun would have lasted if you had used a heavier spring for its whole life. I suspect it wouldn't have lasted any longer either way, and that 65-75k rounds is just how long that particular setup was good for, either way.

Edited December 25, 2010 by twodownzero

[G-ManBart]

There's no doubt that it takes more energy to compress a heavier spring. It's whether the difference is sufficiently significant to wear the gun faster that I really wonder. All springs are going to slow the slide. Your steel loads slow the slide way more than any change of recoil spring could do with major loads.

I think the answer to that question is in the negative, but I don't have the data to confirm it. I think it's a myth that a properly fitted gun will last longer with heavier springs than lighter ones.

No appreciable wear in 20 thousand rounds IS evidence. If yours cracked after 65k, and his shows zero wear after 20k, I would expect his to last well beyond 65k rounds. If for some reason that is an unrealistic assumption, please let me know why.

Nobody said physics was negotiable. The essence of what we're talking about is how long your gun would have lasted if you had used a heavier spring for its whole life. I suspect it wouldn't have lasted any longer either way, and that 65-75k rounds is just how long that particular setup was good for, either way.

I don't think that there's any evidence that a recoil spring serves as a decelerator or a shock absorber. The recoil spring is there to push the slide back forward after it completes its travel.

Your words, not mine....first you said the spring doesn't decelerate the slide, but now it does.

It's actually easy to measure slide speed, it's just not cheap. I know a couple of guys that are doing that now (may be done with the project by now). Ultra-high speed video with time displayed, gun fixed in a rest, indicator lines on the slide, and a scale next to the slide. Start video, shoot the gun, do the math for time to distance....voila, slide speed.

They told me that they see clear differences in slide speed going from one load to another, that are similar in PF. I've chronographed two of the loads they were using, and they were both around 170PF (factory .40). Those new recoil springs Glock has been releasing on the Gen 4 guns...part of their work wound up there, although that wasn't the original intent. I'd love to put an Open gun on their setup, but I can't imagine a Ransom Rest insert for one. I might try giving them a call to see if they're still testing, and if so, if they could try a 1911 with different weight springs. I'm sure many folks would find it interesting.

My gun above showed no wear at 20K...so Chris's gun may or may not last longer...it's still just one (or two) data points, where many (dozens, hundreds, etc) are needed to come up with anything remotely close to proof.

Sooner or later, the frame will fail on any gun. The metal has a specific fatigue point. The combination of the number of cycles, and the energy transferred will determine when it gets to that point. If more energy is transferred to the frame per shot, it's going to fail sooner; it has to.

Whether that round count is within reasonable limits for ultra-high volume shooters like USPSA/IDPA folks, is hard to say. I do know that I've seen multiple guns with cracked frames and slides, so at least some guns are getting to that point. I also know that those are normally high round-count guns shooting hot ammo with light slides and light springs...usually Open guns. Kimber actually has had a rash of cracked frames on some of their alloy frame models....right where the guide rod seat is...and the round counts aren't terribly high...some well under 10K.

I've said many times, that if a gun (assuming standard 1911/2011) is properly fit, and fed reasonable ammo, it should last multiple tens of thousands of rounds...I think that's a pretty safe assessment. Until somebody sets up a bunch of guns, and shoots them until they fail, and repeats it with various weight recoil springs, we'll never have any sort of real data to work off. Still, lighter springs can't be as good for the gun, but that's not what I worry about...I want it to track and reset properly, and if it fails at 65K or 100K....oh well, that's why I have backup guns. If I loved the way a 10lb spring worked in a Limited rig...I'd use it, but I'd also know that it very well could be shortening the life of the gun....no free lunch, ever action has an equal and opposite reaction, even if we don't get to see the ultimate result frequently. R,

[mike cyrwus]

just checking in.

How many photos we got so far?

[twodownzero]

just checking in.

How many photos we got so far?

Zero. Confirming my point. It makes not a bit of difference which recoil spring you run. The life of the slide is not determined by the choice of recoil springs.

[Seth]

You can't draw that conclusion based on the number of posted pictures on Brianenos.com. Its a sub-section of a sub-section of a sub-section.

I've worked in steel most of my adult life and can tell you without a doubt that if you hit a piece of steel onto another piece of steel over and over again it will EVENTUALLY peen. Add some heat and cooling to that equation and the hardnesses will change over time as well. You're forcing the molecules into alignment with every hammer stroke.

Ultimately, the spring makes a difference. A 10# spring is ~30% lighter than a 14# spring. That energy of impact must be transfered somewhere. It may take 100k rounds for it to show, but the physics and metalurgy of it cannot be argued. If it does take 100k rounds, then there's only a handful of shooters out there that have ever seen the effect. If it takes 250,000 rounds, there's even fewer... but you can't say the spring doesn't matter.

The only conclusion you can safely draw is that its unlikely that many if not most of us will ever see the effect.

[G-ManBart]

just checking in.

How many photos we got so far?

Zero. Confirming my point. It makes not a bit of difference which recoil spring you run. The life of the slide is not determined by the choice of recoil springs.

Where's your proof, not anecdotes, that springs don't make any difference? Please point all of us to the reference so we can learn something You said you didn't know how slide speed gets measured, so I'm assuming you used someone else's research to back up your statements since you posed them as facts right?

You've already changed stances and said the spring has to slow down the slide, so how can slowing it more, not lower the stress to the frame? Arguing otherwise runs counter to rules of physics that haven't been disproved in hundreds of years....