Square slides?


PDA






chris in va
November 12, 2012, 02:28 PM
Glock seems to be one of the pioneering designers of the square slide. Just curious why he came up with the design when most other semiauto's at time of conception had rounded tops. Other manufacturers have copied the profile...Springfield etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "Square slides?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim K
November 12, 2012, 02:35 PM
Partly just style, but also a slide for a given caliber has to have a given weight (mass) if it is not to batter itself and the frame. One way to add mass to any rounded object without adding size is to fill in the corners, and the square slide does that.

Jim

Greg528iT
November 12, 2012, 02:35 PM
Designing for cheap manufacturing. Much cheaper to mill cut a square than a contoured surface.

Shadow 7D
November 12, 2012, 03:44 PM
Designing for cheap manufacturing. Much cheaper to mill cut a square than a contoured surface.
+1
Glock wasn't all that innovative on the GUN side
rather on the production side.

There is a major trade off, ever see a glock CC holster, square doesn't hide that well.
BUT glocks aren't really sold to that crowd anyways.

dogtown tom
November 12, 2012, 06:10 PM
Shadow 7D When was the last time you saw glock come out with something like a LCP
Or a Nano...
rather they make baby glocks for fanboys...
When was the last time you read the ATF's "Factoring Criteria for Weapons"?:scrutiny:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5330-5.pdf


Glock is over 500,000 firearms behind.....they don't really need more models to slow down production.

chris in va
November 12, 2012, 09:03 PM
Interesting point about milling.

jon86
November 12, 2012, 09:41 PM
Interesting thread. I've always thought the glock would conceal much better with a rounded slide.

The Lone Haranguer
November 12, 2012, 11:28 PM
SIG-Sauer actually pioneered the squared chamber shoulder lockup with the P220 in the 1970s, not Glock. This is easier to machine and fit than conventional locking lugs.

CZ57
November 13, 2012, 02:00 AM
The Croations did similar with the HS-2000/XD but the XDm has a different profile. ;)

1911Tuner
November 13, 2012, 09:10 AM
SIG-Sauer actually pioneered the squared chamber shoulder lockup with the P220 in the 1970s, not Glock. This is easier to machine and fit than conventional locking lugs.

Bingo.

Rounded slides require radial locking lugs. Radial lugs engage horizontally between 10 and 2...which doesn't provide a lot of surface area to keep the slide and barrel from separating unless multiple lugs are used. The squared slide and single massive lug equals or exceeds the locking area.

In all tilt-barrel designs, the barrel lugs engage vertically, but they lock horizontally in opposition under shearing forces.

chamber shoulder lockup

Note that the rounded slide/radial lug arrangement also has a chamber shoulder lockup. It's the first lug wall...the one without a space behind it. Being more supported, and having maximum vertical engagement, it's the strongest one of the three...while the other tilt-barrel Browning designs lose a little vertical depth in the slide with each progressive lug. i.e. The #2 lug vertically engages with about 90% of the depth of the first lug. #3 loses an additional 10%. (These figures are approximate.)

It's also simpler...read cheaper/faster...to manufacture when there's only one lug to worry about meeting spec.

1911Tuner
November 13, 2012, 12:23 PM
Let's keep this one purely technical.

Thanks.

beatledog7
November 13, 2012, 12:53 PM
Let's keep this one purely technical.

If only that were possible. If the word "Glock" appears, the thread goes Fanboy vs Basher in a heartbeat.

ku4hx
November 13, 2012, 01:05 PM
Just mill the square barstock, round a corner or two and skip the gross re-contouring. Lowered the production cost and created a "new" look. And the rest, as they say, is history.

1911Tuner
November 13, 2012, 02:16 PM
If only that were possible

Oh, most assuredly possible. Go and look.

Let's continue.

Interesting thread. I've always thought the glock would conceal much better with a rounded slide.

It would...a little...but rounding the slide would necessarily reduce the width of the single locking lug...which would weaken the breech. You can have a round-topped slide with multiple radial lugs, or a square slide with a single massive lug. Pick one.

Ash
November 13, 2012, 06:34 PM
SIG did so not to reduce milling in the 220, true, but it is more of a product of the slide construction. The slide was stamped (though folded is the current description), and it is just plain impractical to round a slide and mill lugs when your goal is to stamp its shape. The question is did the single large lug lead to the folded slide or the folded slide necessitated the use of a square lug? Either way, Glock copied it 7 years after SIG introduced it and so it is hardly original on the Glock - indeed nothing is original on the Glock - all features were pioneered by other companies in other pistols. Of course, Glock combined the features into a single pistol, and so the Glock was the first, you could argue, to do it all at the same time. It is, in short, an example of the best that Browning, SIG, Hk, Lee, and others created over more than 100 years.

The squared-slide profile is popular, but there are many designs that do not use it. They are all solid, rugged, and reliable.

Stringfellow
November 13, 2012, 07:54 PM
An observation from someone working in a different industry... Glock is the Apple of the firearms world: less about innovating anything, but more about putting it all together and marketing it well. The result is the same too--massive overall success, massive profitability (compared to other innovators), industry dominance, and a fervent group of followers who are, well, fervent nonetheless.

The Lone Haranguer
November 13, 2012, 09:27 PM
This has proven very popular, with many, if not most, newer guns using it.

1911Tuner
November 14, 2012, 04:34 AM
This has proven very popular, with many, if not most, newer guns using it.

Yep. A lot easier and simpler to attain the same breech strength. It's a little tricky to get three lugs to bear the brunt of the recoil forces equally when three barrel lugs have to meet three slide lugs. There are six linear distances that have to coincide instead of two.

And this is also where the single massive lug has an advantage over three radial lugs in terms of strength...and where the Glock fans can reasonably argue that their choice is superior to the 1911.

If the three radial lugs aren't equalized...and few mass-produced 1911s meet that criteria...then the breech strength is not only lessened...longevity is also compromised.

Even if the three are equalized, and have maximum vertical engagement, the load is concentrated on a narrower area...between 10 and 2...while the single square lug's load is dispersed over the entire width of the lug. Advantage: Glock

Finally...from a manufacturing standpoint...it's simpler, faster, and cheaper to machine squares than contours.

I still prefer the 1911 because of the trigger and because I can't wrap my hand around a Glock to save me outta torment, but that's a matter of personal preference and thus has no place in a technical discussion.

RON in PA
November 14, 2012, 05:31 AM
Wasn't this first done by Petter with a pistol he designed for the French in the 1930s?

hentown
November 14, 2012, 10:38 AM
And now for the real answer. The squareness of the Glock slide is the result of the true genius of the Austrian engineers who designed the pistol. A square slide is much easier to grip with the weak hand for cycling the slide.

Whoever posted that the Glocks are not sold to the CCW "crowd" is just babbling incoherently. ;)

Tinker
November 14, 2012, 02:18 PM
One way to add mass to any rounded object without adding size is to fill in the corners, and the square slide does that.

(playing lay-engineer here, but) I agree with JimK on this. A Glock is half plastic, or there about. They use squaty slides to have a low bore axis. The squaty slide need mass. Squared slides add mass. Most of the other brands of plastic pistols have rounded slides but have a higher bore axis.

Kind of like that old science question: How many gallons of water can fit in a cubic foot container?

7.4

I think it would be interesting to compare slide weights of a Glock and it's closest clone, a Caracal, and see the difference. The Caracal is slightly rounded. I'd bet Caracal adds a tad more to the length, or something, to get more mass.

JohnBT
November 14, 2012, 02:43 PM
I thought P220 was designed by SIG and Sig-Sauer for the Swiss Army and then manfactured by Sig-Sauer. Does Sig-Sauer now get all the credit?


"A square slide is much easier to grip with the weak hand for cycling the slide."

I suppose if your hand is weak it might be a useful development. For all the folks I've ever known it's a non-issue.

hentown
November 14, 2012, 04:10 PM
I suppose if your hand is weak it might be a useful development. For all the folks I've ever known it's a non-issue.

You OBVIOUSLY missed the point. :cool:

9mmepiphany
November 14, 2012, 05:00 PM
I thought P220 was designed by SIG and Sig-Sauer for the Swiss Army and then manfactured by Sig-Sauer. Does Sig-Sauer now get all the credit?
The last pistol that SIG (Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft; a Swiss company) produced/manufactured was the P210 for the Swiss Army.

They designed the P220 with export in mind...also sized it to accommodate the .45ACP and .38 Super... and partnered with Sauer (a German company) for production due to Swiss export restrictions. The company they founded was named SIG-Sauer

Ash
November 14, 2012, 05:17 PM
Hentown, the squared slide was the genius of Swiss engineers, not Austrian. Glock had nothing to do with the design other than copying it.

coolluke01
November 14, 2012, 09:38 PM
I can't see how a square or round slide would help concealment. I know some guns are thinner, but the slide is in the holster for the most part. The grip is the only thing I ever have any trouble concealing on a hand gun.

tipoc
November 14, 2012, 09:56 PM
As others have said the squared slide and use of the squared locking block rising up into the ejection port was first used in the Sig P220 and introduced in 1974. It was, as Tuner said, both easier (and less expensive), to manufacture than the locking lugs of the 1911 or the BHP, but also potentially stronger. The P220 also introduced the flat topped, squareish slide profile.

The P210, based on the Petter design, uses 2 locking lugs and has a rounded slide profile.

Glock's many innovations combined for one of the most important handguns of the last part of the 20th century. While the method of slide lockup was not original to them it was combined with a number of other features that made for a strong, reliable and accurate sidearm that took full advantage of modern production methods and materials. This made it possible for Glock to manufacture and ship a handgun for about $100. in the 1990s and sell it for $400. in the U.S. and other countries commercially and for less to law enforcement or the military. It became a very popular gun and remains so.

The particular shape of the Glock slide is a result of the manufacturing process and the desire of the company to keep the gun simple and inexpensive to manufacture. There is no ornamentation to it as there is on the M&P for example. This is by design and a point of pride for some Glocksters. Other Glock fanciers have sent their guns out to Robar or others to have some personal style added.

Glock profiles are not thin, as everyone knows, but they are still thinner than a revolver profile. Many folks CCW Glocks.

tipoc

CZ57
November 14, 2012, 11:06 PM
It was Sauer after they partnered with SIG that created the locking block design that was first introduced in the US as the Browning BDA. H&K were the pioneers of the polymer frame concept with the VP-70z. Glock copied from both designs with the G17. Unfortunately, they obviously didn't understand the need for good chamber support with the introduction of the G20, G21 and G22. The Croation firm of IM Metals took it a step further after a close evaluation of the SIG/Sauer design and offered a barrel with a chamber design with no need for barrel lugs ala S/S with adequate chamber support along with the grip safety ala 1911, but they included a steel locking block that also incorporates the forward slide rails and is removable and replaceable as a single unit ala the SIG/Sauer owned Mauser M2 design. With further enhancement they offered the XDm which incorporates all the features with a trapezoidal shaped slide and the feature that negates dry firing for disassembly. One of the first firms to follow the SIG/Sauer example besides Glock was Sturm Ruger with the introduction of the P-85. ;)

1911Tuner
November 15, 2012, 05:11 AM
The "Locking Block" is really no more than a square lug...a derivative of the Colt-Browning tilt barrel design. Look at a 1911 or High Power barrel...at the first lug wall...and imagine making it wide and square. It's function is the same, and it works in exactly the same way to prevent separation of the barrel and the breechblock when the system is accelerating under equal/opposite force.

Like all short recoil operated systems, the slide is driven rearward...grabs the barrel by the lug...and hauls it backward with it for about a 10th inch. This gives the bullet time to escape so that pressures can drop to a level that allows the barrel and slide to separate...or open the breech. Then the bullet exits, the barrel is pulled down...and the slide continues on its way under the momentum that was conserved during the acceleration phase.

And that's pretty much how it works.

Ash
November 15, 2012, 05:50 AM
tipoc, out of curiosity, what were Glock's "many innovations"? Not to trash them, just interested in what Glock brought to the table, design-wise. I prefer CZ designs, specifically Tanfoglio's evolution of the CZ-75 as built by IMI, SA, and others. Nothing about the CZ-75 and its derivatives was original except for the shape of the grip frame, which really does fit the hand like a glove. Everything else came from another design - which makes sense since the auto pistol has been out for 125 years and the concept has been thoroughly hashed-out for 4 decades now. With that in mind, I don't intend a pot and kettle here.

SIG was original when they folded a heavy gauge of steel to form a slide and then locked the barrel straight into the ejection port. Hk was original when they introduced plastics into frame construction, though Remington did so with firearms a decade earlier. Savage, Mauser, and others were innovative when they introduced striker-fired (though really not innovative since everybody was using strikers in bolt-action rifles by the time 1900 saw the light of day). Browning himself liked the striker in his early design for the Hi Power (which incidentally included the rails-in-the-frame design later adopted by SIG, CZ, and Star). The cocking system employed by Glocks was used in production in the early 20th century so now it is about 100 years old. CZ was using firing pin blocks in the 1950's - Glock's take down notch was used on the CZ-52 as well.

So, what were Glock's many innovations?

dogtown tom
November 15, 2012, 10:31 AM
Ash tipoc, out of curiosity, what were Glock's "many innovations"?
I would say their Tenifer treatment was pretty innovative.

tarosean
November 15, 2012, 11:07 AM
I would say their Tenifer treatment was pretty innovative.

It was inventive, too bad it wasn't glock who did so... Changing the name from tufftride to tenifer is not quite the same.
It's been around since the 60's, but I do believe they were the first to use it on firearms..

dogtown tom
November 15, 2012, 08:39 PM
tarosean Quote:
I would say their Tenifer treatment was pretty innovative.

It was inventive, too bad it wasn't glock who did so... Changing the name from tufftride to tenifer is not quite the same.
It's been around since the 60's, but I do believe they were the first to use it on firearms..

If thats what defines innovative then one could argue:
Sig didn't innovate with a folded slide because people have been folding metal since they discovered metal.
HK and Remington didn't innovate with plastic because people were making stuff out of plastic for decades.

Plastic, tenifer, large capacity, reliabile, inexpensive.......none may be innovative on their own, but pretty neat when combined.

tipoc
November 16, 2012, 02:36 AM
From Ash,
tipoc, out of curiosity, what were Glock's "many innovations"?

Not so many actually. The main one being the conception of it.

Glock did not know much about guns when he decided to go for the Austrian Army contract in 1980 or so. He went out and bought a Walther P38, a Beretta 92, a CZ75, and a Sig Sauer P220 and studied them. He pulled together a group of men who knew guns and the military and production techniques and together they studied. This group knew the other guns submitted well and knew the H&K guns the VP70 and the P9S which used plastic in their construction. They were familiar with the Steyr AUG which also used polymer. As Ash and others have said they put together some of the best features of these guns in a new and innovative fashion with an eye to new production techniques and materials which they were very familiar with. The approach was innovative.

They deliberately kept the number of parts low, they also kept the production procedures simple and easy to do on CNC machinery by partially trained workers. The "squarish looking" slide was machined from a solid piece of barstock with as few tool movements as necessary to reduce time and save on tooling. They used a known finish on the slide but one that was durable. They kept production costs low in all ways. They had no factory before they won the contract. They had no history of their own which could help or hinder. Once they won the contract they hired a number of workers, many immigrant North Africans, in order to fill it.

The "safe action" trigger was new and innovative. Also inexpensive to manufacture.

Plastic on rifles and handguns was known before the Glock. The innovation here was putting it together in a form that was successful. Then marketing it in traditional ways-publicity, strippers and hookers, payoffs, a good product at a surprisingly good price, etc.

All in all a revolutionary development with a deep effect on handgun design and the market. I don't like 'em personally, never have. Of the kin I think the M&P is better. But all in all a strong, durable gun that took full advantage of good previous designs, updated them, used modern materials and techniques in an innovative way. They have made mis-steps but all handgun manufacturers have.

tipoc

tarosean
November 16, 2012, 02:44 AM
The "safe action" trigger was new and innovative. Also inexpensive to manufacture

Transfer bar and Trigger Safety's were done back in late 1800's by Iver Johnson.

Ash
November 16, 2012, 05:58 AM
There was nothing revolutionary about the Glock. Had Gaston done it a decade earlier, it would have failed. What happened with Glock was that it was at the right time at the right place. Even so, I suspect the concept would have died and Glock would have gone the way of John Inglis had Austria picked the Steyr instead.

Glock GMbh is an example of capitalism at its best and I don't fault Gaston's willingness to go out on a limb. Again, I like the CZ-75, but nothing outside of a nearly perfect grip design, is original to the CZ so I avoid casting too broad a net. Glock is no different in that regard.

SIG did nothing new by folding a slide, but they did something new with the ejection port. Even that was not revolutionary, but evolutionary. There is virtually nothing that is revolutionary in firearms. Even the self-contained brass cartridge filled with powder, capped with a primer and loaded with a projectile was evolutionary from the percussion cap firearm.

The closest things I can think of that were revolutionary in firearms were: 1. black powder poured down a barrel to launch a lethal projectile, 2. rifling of the bore to increase accuracy, 3. the revolving cylinder creating a repeater. Everything else is an adaptation or evolution of one of those. The primer cap is just evolved ignition. The box magazine is just evolved cylinder.

hentown
November 16, 2012, 07:30 AM
The innovation is the total package...designing a reliable,lightweight, accurate pistol that never requires the services of a gunsmith. Every part can be changed out by the consumer, with no special tools. Also, I'd have to say that the marketing of Glocks has been pretty innovative and wildly succcessful.

1911Tuner
November 16, 2012, 10:34 AM
The innovation is the total package...designing a reliable,lightweight, accurate pistol that never requires the services of a gunsmith. Every part can be changed out by the consumer, with no special tools.

Nothing innovative about that, either I'm afraid.

After the specs were reworked, and during the rush to armament of WW2, one of the must-haves with the US Army's pistol was complete, drop-in interchangeability of parts from all contractors. This included contractors who only supplied parts and not complete pistols.

The test was to have armorers disassemble 2 pistols from each of the five contractors and toss them into a box. box was then dumped onto a table and they reassembled 10 pistols with no regard as to what went where. All pistols had to meet function and accuracy requirements. They did. The test was repeated with another 10 randomly-selected pistols. All passed again. Then, various small parts were randomly selected and installed from inventory. They all worked.

And let's not forget that the 1911 and 1911A1 pistols in their original configuration could be detail-stripped and reassembled with no tools other than the gun's own parts...lending itself to parts replacement in the field without the need for an armorer.

This is just one example of complete parts interchangeability requirements. The concept predates Glock by over a hundred years.

hentown
November 16, 2012, 10:52 AM
IF JMB had been alive in the 1980s, his pride and joy would probably look a lot more like a Glock than a 1911. :evil:

Back to my previous post, the innovation was the complete package, a LIGHTWEIGHT, accurate, durable pistol, which, btw, is a lot easier to disassemble in the field without losing pins, small springs, etc., than is a 1911...not that I don't also like my 1911s. ;)

tipoc
November 16, 2012, 12:21 PM
Transfer bar and Trigger Safety's were done back in late 1800's by Iver Johnson.

I seem to recall that being on a small revolver made of steel. It looked nothing like the Glock "Safe Action" trigger.

tipoc

1911Tuner
November 16, 2012, 01:51 PM
which, btw, is a lot easier to disassemble in the field without losing pins, small springs, etc.

I'm a little confused. Which springs are so easy to lose? By original spec, the recoil spring presses onto the guide rod and the plug threads onto the open end of the spring. It can't go anywhere, even if the plug gets loose.

The plunger spring was kinked to keep it from launching when the thumb safety comes out.

There's the firing pin and spring, but that's easy to deal with once ya know how. It's all in the thumb.

And...as originally designed...the pistol can be detail-stripped down to the bare slide and frame without tools...minus the ejector and grip bushings...in about a minute, and reassembled in two. (And I can prove it. Come see.)


There are three small pins...no argument...but that's what a helmet is for. In the absence of a helmet, a shirt or jacket will do.

Weight? About 4 ounces difference between a loaded 5-inch 1911 and a Glock...what is it in .45 caliber...21? 23? I can't keep up.

Capacity. Yeah, there's that I guess.

Innovations? Not much new under the sun. Everybody borrows ideas from those who came before them. Gaston was no different. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

tipoc
November 16, 2012, 03:30 PM
From Ash,

Even that was not revolutionary, but evolutionary. There is virtually nothing that is revolutionary in firearms.

Ash is correct here to caution against the overuse of the term "revolutionary". I bought a pair of shoes the other day and received a "radical", "extreme" and "tactical" pair of free socks with the shoes. I have to wash them same as the others.

However when a gun or rifle changes the shape of what is acceptable in firearms then you can speak of a "revolutionary" impact.

Revolution is itself the result of evolutionary changes it is the sharp forward jump of those changes resulting in something new. Revolutions develop out of the material that exists. The 1911 did not drop from the heavens. No deity whispered the design in Browning's ear.

A fella can quibble over the use of the term, so let's get that out of the way so we can get to the heart of the disagreement. Call the Glock a game changing design. One that has had a profound impact on the firearms industry over the last quarter century and set the industry off scrambling to catch up. Now we have discussed why that was and we can get into that more.

Fellas can say ..."But there was nothing new in the design componants" etc., etc. but at a certain point we have to be like Nikki Finke to Carl Rove on election night..."Is that real math you are using or just something to make yourself feel better?"

There have been several important and influential designs for pistols in the last 110 years or so. The CZ 75 was influential, a da/sa gun that could be carried cocked and locked and that had, at the time, the best da trigger of any semi out there (my opinion but shared by others at the time like Jeff Cooper). It was frequently cloned. But it was not as influential as the Walther guns, PP, PPK, P38 that set a standard for da/sa triggers. Though the Austrian Little Tom had pioneered the concept Walther made the da/sa trigger and slide mounted safety the type standard for military and law enforcement for a few decades.

Browning designs changed the face of handgunning. He and Luger, and Borchardt and Mauser were key players in the revolutionary transition from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols.

The H&K VP 70 design and design conception were flawed. It introduced polymer construction but in an unsuccessful package. The Glock conception was successful and it has brought about significant change in how firearms are manufactured.

A fella has said..."But this would of happened anyway". Yep it would have, but it didn't. It happened the way it has happened. A number of known elements of design and production technique were brought together to produce a product that has had deep significance in the industry and for the sport. It was innovative.

Bill Ruger did the same with cast frames for his revolvers and pistols and stamped metal for his Ruger Mark I. Nothing new there either.

Gaston Glock could not design a firearm to save his life. He brought together the folks who could though. Luck, marketing, right time right place, some smarts (the fella who made the movie Die Hard looked to H&K, S&W, Colt, Berretta and others to get a gun for the movie and they all either refused or wanted to charge him, Glock gave him some for free) all helped. Sam Colt would understand that.

tipoc

1911Tuner
November 16, 2012, 04:38 PM
Anyway. Square slides with a single lug. Remember?

Cheaper, faster, easier to get the same breech strength as multiple radial lugs.

1858
November 16, 2012, 05:30 PM
Back to my previous post, the innovation was the complete package, a LIGHTWEIGHT, accurate, durable pistol, which, btw, is a lot easier to disassemble in the field without losing pins, small springs, etc., than is a 1911...not that I don't also like my 1911s.

SIGs have been accurate, durable and easy to field strip long before GLOCKs came along. The weight has never been an issue for me so GLOCK really doesn't offer anything I need or want.


Anyway. Square slides with a single lug. Remember?

Cheaper, faster, easier to get the same breech strength as multiple radial lugs.

It can't be much clearer than that.

Blue Brick
November 16, 2012, 07:40 PM
Loving this thread...... :)

tipoc
November 16, 2012, 07:41 PM
SIGs have been accurate, durable and easy to field strip long before GLOCKs came along. The weight has never been an issue for me so GLOCK really doesn't offer anything I need or want.

Same for me. But it don't tick me off that they exist either and it don't stop me from seeing the value of them. Sigs are easier to take down as well.

tipoc

The Lone Haranguer
November 16, 2012, 11:56 PM
A slim gun is more comfortable to carry IWB than a thicker one, but this has little to do with the slide/barrel lockup used.

Blue Brick
November 17, 2012, 11:23 PM
How does the Hi Point lock up or does it lock up?

dogtown tom
November 18, 2012, 12:28 AM
Blue Brick How does the Hi Point lock up or does it lock up?
Hi Points are blowback operated.

The Lone Haranguer
November 18, 2012, 09:29 AM
A Hi-Point does have a big bulky square slide, but this has nothing to do with any barrel/slide lockup because, being of straight blowback operation, there isn't anyway. The slide is heavy because the gun relies on the mass of the slide to keep the breech closed until the bullet has exited. The alternative to the heavy slide is a recoil spring that could double as truck suspension. ;) And the slide is large because zinc, being lighter than steel, needs more of it to achieve the desired weight. But if it were made of steel the gun would cost more.

hentown
November 18, 2012, 10:18 AM
I'll never have to go into combat with either a Glock or 1911. However, in my day-to-day shooting of handguns at various ranges. I find the Glock a lot quicker and easier to disassemble and service than my 1911s. At any rate, I took my old 70 Series GC out to the range yesterday, along with a G21 that's equipped with a Bushnell TRS-25 and threaded, compensated KKM barrel. Just never did get around to shooting the 1911, for some reason.

1911Tuner
November 18, 2012, 11:49 AM
Technical discussion, gents. Let's try to keep it focused on the technical aspects.

The reason for the square slide has pretty well been answered and there really isn't much reason to keep it open...but it'll stay open until it turns into an argument over the superiority of one over the other.

coolluke01
November 18, 2012, 04:52 PM
A square slide allows for better grip for racking the slide. It's also meatier and feels like it's easier to grab. This may be subjective. But I think I can point to the square sides for why this is.

I also feel the more right angle of the slide from top to side helps with point shooting. It provides more of a clear, clean line to use as a point of reference. Sure again this could be subjective, but it seems to make sense to me.

Jaymo
November 18, 2012, 06:10 PM
Everything about the Glock seems to have been geared toward simplicity of manufacture, operation, and maintenance.
Glocks don't work for me, for a few ergonomic reasons, but they are a good design.

hentown, you can send that Gold Cup to me, since it no longer holds your interest. I'll take GOOD care of her.

Blue Brick
November 23, 2012, 01:46 AM
A Hi-Point does have a big bulky square slide, but this has nothing to do with any barrel/slide lockup because, being of straight blowback operation, there isn't anyway.

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Square slides?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!