Recoil Springs

[Zhivago]

Could someone explain to me or point me in the direction of a good resource the purpose and effect of different weight recoil springs? I've seen some aftermarket springs offered as like 22# and 24# and etc.

What effect does using a heavier or lighter spring have? In what situations is it recommended?

 

[makarovnik]

Search this website and you will find some good threads. I put a stronger recoil spring in my Polish P64 because the recoil was brutal and it really flung the brass. Stronger recoil spring installed and both problems solved. If you are shooting light handloads you may have to put in a weaker recoil spring or your pistol may not cycle correctly.

It can be a very delicate balance between the correct weight recoil spring, firing pin spring (in a striker fired design especially), and a correct weight main hammer spring. Usually with factory loads the standard weight springs will give you best all-around performance. Make sure you replace them when the manufacturer suggests. The frame you save could be your own.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

What makarovnik said.

Also, might want to look around the Wolff site for good info:
http://www.gunsprings.com/Resources/welcomeNOF.html


.

 

[nambu1]

I have a 22 that had to be sent back due to the recoil spring was too strong and woould not let the toggle cycle to chamber a new round.

 

[Eric F]

Just remember recoil springs work 2 ways. They slow the slide down to help reduce recoil and prevent beating the gun then they force the gun back to battery. I shoot some really hot 38 super in my 1911 I use a heavier recoil spring to compensate but it really slams the gun back into battery and it is beating the feet on the barrel at the link. Some times a shock buff is better than a heavier spring.

 

[Mad Magyar]

Some times a shock buff is better than a heavier spring.

I've used them on range sessions...Many don't like them for various reasons starting with "if John Browning wanted them he ......"!

 

[FEG]

Just remember recoil springs work 2 ways. They slow the slide down to help reduce recoil and prevent beating the gun then they force the gun back to battery. I shoot some really hot 38 super in my 1911 I use a heavier recoil spring to compensate but it really slams the gun back into battery and it is beating the feet on the barrel at the link. Some times a shock buff is better than a heavier spring.

Yep. I call the phenomena "bounce back" for lack of a better term.

 

[RyanM]

I've used them on range sessions...Many don't like them for various reasons starting with "if John Browning wanted them he ......"!

If Gaston Glock wanted a buffer, he woulda designed one in there!

But really, the main issue is that recoil buffers shorten the distance the slide moves. That is never a good thing. There is no way that making the slide move a shorter distance can ever be good. A longer cycle time gives the magazine more time to keep up with the slide. Put in a recoil buffer, and mag spring tension becomes much more critical.

If the heaviest recoil spring that won't batter the lockup doesn't prevent frame battering, then you're using a round that's too powerful for that platform. If John Moses Browning wanted 1911s to be in 10mm, he would have invented the 10mm himself!

 

[Mad Magyar]

But really, the main issue is that recoil buffers shorten the distance the slide moves. That is never a good thing. There is no way that making the slide move a shorter distance can ever be good. A longer cycle time gives the magazine more time to keep up with the slide. Put in a recoil buffer, and mag spring tension becomes much more critical.

Well, since you brought it up…It was my 2nd reason after the “JB” line that many object to Shok Buffs…Don’t want to quibble about it, but let’s examine this in more detail…First of all, I agree with the assertion that shortening the slide travel could lead to problems, especially in shorter barrel lengths.
A Wilson Shok-Buff is 3mm in thickness….When it is struck, it compresses to ½ its diameter. So, what we are talking about is 1.5 mm in thickness to disrupt the cycling action in a 5” full-size 1911….If your pistol is so acutely tuned that this distance would disrupt your firing action; I contend you have other problems.
Personally, I don’t use them anymore since my range time has been severely reduced due to ammo costs, but when I did use them: never had a problem…Change them out after couple of sessions, they are dirt cheap….This is in response to the 3rd reason many give for not using them: they get mangled/chewed up and clog up the pistol. Yeah, sure….

Now see which one is more tolerant of limp-wristing, dirt, etc, and especially which one will tolerate weak magazine springs. 9 times out of 10, jams with a pistol are caused by the magazine.

You raised some good points...But your above statement is what I'm referring to as with other problems inherent with FTF....Like I said, I'm not promoting these "buffs", but I don't think they hurt if someone wants to spend the $$ for them...

 

[RyanM]

A Wilson Shok-Buff is 3mm in thickness….When it is struck, it compresses to ½ its diameter. So, what we are talking about is 1.5 mm in thickness to disrupt the cycling action in a 5” full-size 1911….If your pistol is so acutely tuned that this distance would disrupt your firing action; I contend you have other problems.

1.5mm can be significant. Look at the amount a typical pistol slide moves beyond the bare minimum for the next round to pop up. Then get an AK type rifle and compare. Now see which one is more tolerant of limp-wristing, dirt, etc, and especially which one will tolerate weak magazine springs. 9 times out of 10, jams with a pistol are caused by the magazine. Weapons with very excessive bolt travel, on the other hand, tend to be almost impossible to jam.

1.5 mm could easily be 25% or more of the slide's travel beyond what's strictly necessary for the next round to feed.

Also, this is a video worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sNDTdKQNVU

It's pretty obvious that Mikhail Kalashnikov is not an idiot. He did not design a gun which has a "violent" action, that "requires" the use of a recoil buffer to prevent wear. For about half of those shots, the bolt carrier didn't even hit anything.

Once again, you should use ammo that's appropriately powered to your weapon platform. The AKM is obviously tuned quite well to standard military 7.62x39mm ammo. If your weapon requires a spring that causes lockup battering, or a recoil buffer, to prevent premature wear, then you're obviously using ammo which is far too strong for it (regardless of whether the gun factory made it that way). Unless the gun is designed to use a recoil buffer (like the AR-15). That's a whole different story.