Reducing Receiver Springs---Glock


Harley Quinn
October 11, 2006, 04:10 PM
Anyone do that much, as in reduce the receiver spring for a certain bullet weight? If so? Which and What?

I have been looking and I am going to go with a new receiver rod and weaker spring so I can shoot the 85 grain Frangiable in my 357 Sig barrel, that I dropped into my Mdl 22 Glock which is a 40 cal. Normal weight for that spring is from 125 and up. Not down, as in the 9mm bullet of the 357 at less then 100 grains.

So I have ordered the 19 lb, 17 lb and 15lb with the stainless rod.:what:

I figure the 17 and 15 will do it for the very light 85 and may even be better for the 125 in the 40 cal..I'll let other's know when I go to the range and try all the various springs and the grain weights in the two calibers.


If you enjoyed reading about "Reducing Receiver Springs---Glock" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
October 11, 2006, 09:34 PM
Just be careful. The way a Glock is designed, the trigger action is trying to open the slide. If the recoil spring is too light, it might succeed--at least partially.

October 11, 2006, 10:35 PM
Glocks need balanced springs. Hopefully you ordered from someone that can help you balance things out.

If I am not mistaken the factory spring weight for a G22 is 17 pounds. I would certainly try it with the factory springs in it, it will probably work fine.

October 12, 2006, 02:45 PM

Harley Quinn
October 13, 2006, 12:01 AM
I'll print out the information to have with me and for me to read.:)


October 13, 2006, 12:05 AM
From the site that '..' linked to:
You can go too light:
The firing pin spring can overpower an old or too light recoil spring causing the slide to pull slightly out of battery as you pull the trigger resulting in a light primer strike. If you have off center light primer strike this is probably the cause. Besides the possibility of misfires, a badly worn Glock may be coerced into firing slightly out of battery in this manner. Not a good thing.

October 13, 2006, 02:39 AM
Never go below 15 pounds on a Glock recoil spring unless you really know what you're doing.
My guesss is 17 pounds will be fine.
For standard .357 ammo I would go with a 20 pounder.
I always went with the heaviest spring that would cycle the gun reliably.
I'm not concerned with shaving .0001 seconds off my split times. I'm concerned with a reliable, long lasting gun.
If frame battering was not an issue, why did Glock have to beef up their pistols several times with the .40 and then again with the .357 Sig?
They were cracking frames, trigger pins, frame rails and locking blocks left and right untill the last round of upgrades.
Do yourself a favor, stay away from light springs.

Harley Quinn
October 13, 2006, 10:00 AM
I posted a thread and it got lost.:cuss:

I'll say this. I am going to need a lighter spring for the lighter bullet of the 85 grain frangible.

I am waiting on the springs and rod right now I bought the 19-17 and the 15 I hope that will do it. The 85 grain is lighter but very powerful, I am sure you will agree. The steel guys are going to it, so I thought someone might have had some hands on experience. :D It could be the other way around and I need a heavier spring I will find out I hope by using one of the 3 I am going to get ur done.

The ricochets are brutal if not dead on with the normal bullet. But the frangibles are good and the Air Marshall's are supposed to be carring them?:)


Harley Quinn
October 21, 2006, 02:27 PM
I have not received the springs or the rod yet. From what I can tell, I could have just ordered the springs and used the rod from the Glock. I have a book that shows how to take apart, not that big of deal.

Am hoping they will arrive soon.:uhoh:

I went and purchased somemore of the 140 grain made in CZ, good round,
Cooking along just under 1500 fps.:what:


If you enjoyed reading about "Reducing Receiver Springs---Glock" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!