Lightening The Slide

[Joneser5000]

I noticed a few pwople chose to drill holes thru their slide. What do you gain by useing a lighter slide also what is the drawback?

[Cameron]

Less recipricating mass = less recoil and faster cycle time.

The drawback, it costs money to drill all of them holes.

[Joneser5000]

I was always taught the heavier the pistol the less felt recoil. I notice the difference between a S&W ultralite 357mag and a 6"Colt Python 357mag. How is that different in this aplication?

[diehli]

I was always taught the heavier the pistol the less felt recoil. I notice the difference between a S&W ultralite 357mag and a 6"Colt Python 357mag. How is that different in this aplication?

There's no reciprocating mass with a revolver, though, is there....

[Flexmoney]

You probably don't need to go drilling holes in your Glock slide.

(Down side to holes is that it can make the slide weaker, easier to crack.)

[bountyhunter]

I was always taught the heavier the pistol the less felt recoil. I notice the difference between a S&W ultralite 357mag and a 6"Colt Python 357mag. How is that different in this aplication?

The moving slide forms a "recoil absorber" which spreads out the total recoil energy over time, thereby reducing the peak (maximum) recoil pulse your hand feels. A revo has no moving part so it is just one single THUMP of recoil, while an auto has the initial pulse and a sustained (increasing) pulse as the slide moves against the recoil spring, then a final pulse as the slide hits the frame.

Changing to lighter recoil springs in an auto make felt recoil appear less because they allow the slide (which is the recoil absorbing element) to move more easily, at a lower initial recoil force level.

The reason long barreled revos have less felt recoil (and less muzzle rise) is that they have more total mass and more mass out at the barrel end to keep the gun in place. The recoil pulse has to overcome the inertia of the gun's mass, so: more mass = less felt recoil.

You probably don't need to go drilling holes in your Glock slide.

(Down side to holes is that it can make the slide weaker, easier to crack.)

And let the inside of the gun fill up with crap.

Edited March 7, 2006 by bountyhunter

[the duck of death]

*QUOTE*

And let the inside of the gun fill up with crap.

One of the reasons I bought a 17 rather than a 34.

[Sniper1Moore]

Duck,

I have been shooting a 35 in IDPA,USPSA and GSSF matches for a couple of years and haven't had anything get in the gun.It gets no dirtier than my G22,17,21,37,27.I think the 35 balances alot better than the others.As for as cutting or drilling my own holes in the gun "not gonna happen".If I felt that the lock time of the gun was holding me back and that would help maybe I would but it will be along time before I'm that good.Ken

Edited March 7, 2006 by Sniper1Moore

[the duck of death]

I shoot the 17 in competition and carry it CCW and around the ranch. It has to work. If holes work for you good, the fewer I have the better.

Edited March 7, 2006 by the duck of death

[Mad Scientist]

I want heavier slides.

[TimWarner]

John, you ever thought of fitting a piece for the cutout on a 34, welding in and refinishing?

I'm not sure where else weight is cut down on a 34, but you could beef it up in the nose some at least.

[Kevin Kline]

Or, John could just make a tungsten slide! That would be one helluva project.

[TimWarner]

I think radically changing the weight of the slide, such as making it out of tungsten, would cause more problems than it solves.

Adding a little extra weight by filling in the cutout would add strength and weight, without throwing the whole system too far off it's original design.