Do i need a shock-buffer with a 14# spring (Single Stack .45 1911)

[garrysks]

I would think if buffers made a significant difference, the 1911 manufacturers would recommend their use. I am not aware of any that do.

[Steve RA]

I don't think you will find many - if any - aftermarket parts that the Mfrs do recommend.

[garrysks]

What I meant was that if it was found that buffers significantly reduced frame damage, wouldn't Colt, SA, or the other ones start making their own buffers and include them with the gun. Seems if they prevented frames from being sent back to the factory, they would want customers to use them.

[RangerTrace]

I would think if buffers made a significant difference, the 1911 manufacturers would recommend their use. I am not aware of any that do.

My first Wilson Combat CQB came with a shock buff installed, as did my last few Limited Division Infinitys...

[Joe D]

The old .45 1911 was designed to run with a 16# recoil and a 23# main. This was with a 190ish PF load. I run my .45s with a 12.5# recoil and a 17# main. Remember these two springs work together. Yes, I use a buff with a 168-170 PF load. The lighter springs get the recoil cycle over quicker. I sure wish Heitt was still around. Fortunately I still have a pretty good selection left.

[Jim Watson]

My gun that you would expect to need a buffer the most, an aluminum framed 9mm IDPA ESP, will not tolerate them.

I fought random failures to slidelock - a severe liability in IDPA - until I finally took out the rubber baby buggy bumper.

I replaced the weak Springfield recoil spring with a 13 lb to try to protect the frame.

[bountyhunter]

What I meant was that if it was found that buffers significantly reduced frame damage, wouldn't Colt, SA, or the other ones start making their own buffers and include them with the gun. Seems if they prevented frames from being sent back to the factory, they would want customers to use them.

Wilson not only uses them in their guns they also make the buffers.

http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/recoil-parts/recoil-buffers/shok-buffs-pak-sku965002004-16387-36781.aspx?cm_mmc=cse-_-Itwine-_-shopping-_-1911%20Auto%20Shok-Buffs&gdftrk=gdfV21820_a_7c187_a_7c1021_a_7c965002004_d_965002004_d_10587

It's simple physics. The buffers absorb energy that would otherwise be used to pound the slide and frame together. If there are cycling problems (short stroke, no lock back, etc) they can easily be addressed. Also, I recall buffs are available in several different thicknesses to allow for guns with less "cycle range".

As for why gun makers don't recommend them: they don't profit from them, they pose a miniscule risk of cycling problems if neglected and not replaced at a sane interval, so they don't assume the risk that would come with it since they derive no benefit. They are happy to sell new guns when the others wear out, so extending the life is not in their interest.

Edited September 1, 2014 by bountyhunter