Remember to change mag springs occasionally!

[Jim Watson]

And yet the manufacturers tell us to leave a stiffly sprung magazine loaded for a few days to squash the spring into a "set" so it can be loaded more easily and feed smoothly.

If We Single Stack Shooters were happy with seven .45s or nine 9mms, we would have a lot fewer problems. They seem to have 8 shot .45s pretty well worked out, it will be interesting to see how often they need spring replacement. My Wilson 47Ds about every other year.

The 10 shot 9mms seem to be a work in progress, I have four brands, some in multiple generations or modifications. Like a British car, occasionally everything works perfectly.

The latest issues steal a little extra tube length with a wrap around base disguised as a bump pad. They would do better if we accepted a little more protrusion. I had a native 8 shot Metalform .45 about 3/8" longer than GI with a good stout spring. They don't make it any more that I can find.

 

[danez71]

Walt, + 100.

I'd argue that you've got it partly right, but that you are ignoring a key factor: a spring's elastic limit.

Yes.

It's like claiming that falling off a building never hurt anyone.

If you eliminate the impact of hitting the ground and remove the variable of how high the building is, by golly, I guess the statement isn't false..... and therefore, must be true... so the person making the statement is right!


Nope.

 

[ATLDave]

If I have pistol mags that are starting to act "sketchy", I buy new mags and put the sketchy ones in the box of "training mags", after marking the mag with red paint marker.

If you're talking about inexpensive Glock or 1911 mags, that makes sense. But if you're talking about mags cost a non-trivial amount, it may be worth trying to figure out what's wrong.

In my case, tossing or retiring the mags would have made no sense. The springs were worn out. But there was nothing wrong with the tubes ($25 each), and certainly nothing wrong with the aftermarket machined aluminum basepads ($40 each). Tossing/retiring the magazines in their entirety would have meant tossing $65 worth of perfectly good material - for EACH magazine. I make a pretty comfortable living, but I'm not throwing away $300+ dollars worth of stuff that can be saved by replacing springs (which would have to be replaced in new mags, anyway).

 

[Drail]

I have been in the habit of buying magazine and recoil springs in bulk and keeping them on hand because they will start to weaken at some point. There were a few years springs when I was shooting 1000 rounds a week just practicing for competition. Semi auto pistols NEED quality springs to run. If you don't know how old your are or who made them - replace them with new quality springs. In my experience all of the factories use the cheapest springs they can source.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

If you're talking about inexpensive Glock or 1911 mags, that makes sense. But if you're talking about mags cost a non-trivial amount, it may be worth trying to figure out what's wrong.

It may also make sense to try to figure out what's wrong with Glock or 1911 mags, too, despite their somewhat lower costs. Some folks just throw troublesome mags away. Go figure.

That said, I've had a few Glocks and a few 1911s over the years, and except for some cheap 1911 mags (made by Mec-Gar, but using a different, non-traditional design, bought on a whim from Numrich), they've all been remarkably reliable.

Given that, $5 or less for a spring (or a bit more for a packet of springs) seems like a better alternative than $20+ for a new Glock mag or $20-$30 for a good quality 1911 mag. And if a mag was once working right and the follower isn't damaged, about the only thing that will be wrong is the spring...

I've been surprised just how reliable hi-cap Glock mags have been in the Glocks I've owned -- 17, 19, 23, 34, 35 -- but upon reflection, I'm less surprised when I remember how hard those mags are to load when new; they come with very stout springs. When new, you almost need a hydraulic press to load them -- while other new mags are generally far more easily loaded without a loading tool.

 

[yar]

I mostly do completion shooting (3Gun, USPSA, Steel plate) and I agree changing springs regularly is good preventive maintenance. I would recommend not only magazine springs but every spring in the gun. The springs are a consumable part that will fail over time or when you most need them to work. I change every spring in my primary competition guns and all my defensive guns once a year on my birthday (at least that is when I order the parts if necessary some places like MidwayUSA has a birthday discount)

 

[edmo01]

Not to interrupt the "who's spring is bigger" competition, however...

The OP's problem is why I number my magazines. If something hiccups with the function of my firearm I can check to see if is related to a specific mag.

Mags are cheap and regardless of spring wear due to compression and/or cycles I'll just buy more...

Edmo

 

[RA40]

For those of us in CA with hi-caps before the ban, those tubes are keepers. Well, unless one doesn't mind 10 rounds capacities of the new ones. Changing springs is easy. At times I ponder the +5% over the "stock" versions. Thoughts?

 

[Spats McGee]

Maybe a year or so ago, I bought a handful of used Glock magazines. I'm too cheap to just throw away perfectly good magazine tubes (regardless of the reason for spring wear). I'm not too cheap to rebuild a magazine, though. A couple of the mags needed new springs, but new springs and followers made (most of) my new-to-me magazines perfectly serviceable for range use. A couple of those mags still don't function quite right, but I just leave those in the "range mags" pile.

 

[45_auto]

Because I know the properties of the springs/materials and have looked into this subject multiple times. Cycling the springs is what wears them, not keeping them loaded.

Perhaps you could endow Century Spring (one of the biggest coil spring manufacturers in the world) with some of your "spring wisdom" and get them to correct their FAQ. It appears that they are under the mistaken impression that deflection distance, not cycling, is the major factor affecting spring life. Their faulty information is what allows them to design compression springs for an infinite life.

It's been a few years since I received my mechanical engineering degree, but material science at the time agreed with danez71 and Walt Sherrill, not you. I would be very interested in seeing any references that support your view.

https://www.centuryspring.com/pdfs/05-11TECHFAQS-SMI.pdf

7. How long will a compression spring last?

In cyclic applications, springs are generally designed for
infinite life

19. What does maximum safe deflection mean? (Stress value, calculated number cycles)

In a static application, this is the maximum safe
deflection from free that will not result in the spring
taking a permanent set. For a compression spring, the
permanent set will result in reduced free length and
force output. For an extension spring, the permanent
set will reduce force output by reducing initial tension
or increasing the free length.
In cyclic compression spring applications, this would
be the maximum deflection to which a spring could be
compressed from free length that still assures
appropriate spring life. The cyclic condition maximum
safe deflection is significantly less than the static
application maximum safe deflection.

 

[JohnnyFlake]

I am sorry, but I do not buy into this at all!

I have many, many, many mags in many different calibers, especially .45acp, 9mm & .380., 6 rounds up to 19 rounds and I have had most of them for well over 20 years. In the past some have been fully loaded for years and they all functioned perfectly!

I have never experienced a spring related problem, with any magazine in any caliber. Hell, last summer I bought a Polish Tokarev Pistol with the original magazines. The gun and mags are over 60 years old. The gun and mags function perfectly. I put about 300 rounds through it.

 

[ATLDave]

You don't buy that the springs in my mags had gotten weak? Or that they impacted function? Or that replacing them resolved the function issue? What is it that you're not buying?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I am sorry, but I do not buy into this at all!

I have many, many, many mags in many different calibers, especially .45acp, 9mm & .380., 6 rounds up to 19 rounds and I have had most of them for well over 20 years. In the past some have been fully loaded for years and they all functioned perfectly!

I have never experienced a spring related problem, with any magazine in any caliber. Hell, last summer I bought a Polish Tokarev Pistol with the original magazines. The gun and mags are over 60 years old. The gun and mags function perfectly. I put about 300 rounds through it.

A lot of people have never experienced a spring-related problem. That's true of many folks with older military-surplus weapons, with 1911s, with full-size guns that don't run hi-cap mags. The Tokarev doesn't have hi-cap mag so that spring isn't greatly stressed when cycling or when stored fully loaded. I'll bet that most of that Tok's 60 years was spent stored, empty. I wouldn't expect that gun's springs to be weakened. Many of the Communist Bloc weapons were re-arsenaled before they were sold to the West -- and that probably included new springs.)

All of this was discussed and it was explained why such weapons weren't likely to have problems. I guess you read right past that part of the discussion. It could be that most of your handguns fall into that low-stress category. Except perhaps for the gun that has a 19-round mag.

Do you keep your 19-round magazines fully loaded? And if so, how many years have you done this? (I would note that 19 rounders haven't been around THAT long...) As best I can tell, most of the guns with 18-21 round mags are relatively new, competition-oriented guns, and those types of mags are known to have shorter mag spring lives.

Some, but not all, hi-cap mags can become a problem if left FULLY LOADED for long periods. (As noted earlier, that's why Wolff Springs, another "spring" authority, recommends downloading a round or two for such storage.) If downloaded a round or two, the springs can have a long life.

Leave some of your guns stored with the slide locked back and see what happens. Many of them will show significant recoil spring weakness relatively quickly. On another forum where some of the shooters there use suppressor, some of the newer suppressor users find that the stock recoil springs are too strong when the suppressor is used. (Unhappily, their guns are a brand not supported by Wolff Springs, and they can't find weaker recoil springs.) The experienced suppressor users tell them to leave the slide locked back for 4-5 days. They do, and the springs are weakened enough to cycle and function properly. (If they take the suppressor off, they will probably want to have a spare, stock recoil spring -- although the weakened spring may still work well enough.)

Some guns are harder on their recoil springs and mag springs than others. The service life of a recoil spring in a sub-compact gun is typically a fraction of the service life of a similar full-size gun in the same caliber. Same round, but far fewer rounds fired before replacement is recommended or needed.

Happily or unhappily, most of these spring problem are seen in the newer sub-compact guns and compact or full-size guns with very High Capacity magazines. In all of these cases, the same springs (or smaller ones in the sub-compacts) must do more for the gun to function as it should -- and there's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[JohnnyFlake]

You don't buy that the springs in my mags had gotten weak? Or that they impacted function? Or that replacing them resolved the function issue? What is it that you're not buying?

I don't buy into the idea of changing springs on a regular basis. Certainly, if there is a problem of some sort, actually related to the spring, then it should be replaced!

I have no doubt that the problems you experienced actually happened. I am surprised that they did!

 

[danez71]

This is one of the biggest internet gun myths that gets regergitated mindlessly by so many.


What I don't understand is why some will claim to have done research but disappear from the thread when asked to present info.

But I guess it's very telling when it happens...

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I don't buy into the idea of changing springs on a regular basis. Certainly, if there is a problem of some sort, actually related to the spring, then it should be replaced!

I tend to agree on THAT point -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it. BUT... you need to shoot them regularly to assure yourself that the gun ain't broke.

What the guys are doing when they change their springs out regularly, is trying to buy peace of mind. It's not that expensive, and it's one less thing to worry about. Many of the guys who advocate regular spring changes are guys who compete a lot and shoot a lot, and if you've ever had a gun fail during a match, you will spend a lot of time, later, kicking yourself in the butt. You certainly don't want it to happen again.

Unless you keep meticulous logs about how many rounds you put through each of your guns (and a few guys do that), it's often guesswork as to how many rounds have been fired, etc. So changing springs periodically is a relatively inexpensive tranquilizer

.

 

[JohnnyFlake]

Walt, I get your point, I really do, but for me, I just don't feel the need to do so. I've been shooting handguns and everything else, for over 50 years now, and I have never seen or personally have had a magazine spring failure.

 

[SwampWolf]

When all is said and done, most people will agree that a spring failure, magazine or otherwise, only really counts when the pistol is being used for self-defense, when the failure of a spring can mean dying. Personally, though I've heard the many and often interesting arguments blaming magazine spring failure on cycling rates and/or states of compression over time (further defined by the type of magazine-high capacity or otherwise), I've never been able to decide which "camp" is correct.

Accordingly, to be on the "safe" side, I replace magazine springs in pistols I carry for self-defense regularly and use the used ones for practice and competition.

 

[Spats McGee]

I can't say that I change my mag springs regularly, but if I start getting some wonky behavior that looks like it might be mag-related, changing mag springs is a pretty cheap way to isolate the problem . . . or so it seems to my (mostly untrained) mind.

 

[Warp]

Perhaps you could endow Century Spring (one of the biggest coil spring manufacturers in the world) with some of your "spring wisdom" and get them to correct their FAQ. It appears that they are under the mistaken impression that deflection distance, not cycling, is the major factor affecting spring life. Their faulty information is what allows them to design compression springs for an infinite life.

It's been a few years since I received my mechanical engineering degree, but material science at the time agreed with danez71 and Walt Sherrill, not you. I would be very interested in seeing any references that support your view.

https://www.centuryspring.com/pdfs/05-11TECHFAQS-SMI.pdf

Translation: A poorly designed firearm magazine that compresses the spring too far is bad, compressing the spring too far is bad for its life. A better designed magazine that does not do that is good. Infinite life you say? But if having them compressed wears them out...

Walt, I get your point, I really do, but for me, I just don't feel the need to do so. I've been shooting handguns and everything else, for over 50 years now, and I have never seen or personally have had a magazine spring failure.

It's hard to talk to a group of gun guys without plenty of them having left magazines loaded for years, sometimes decades, with no ill effect. I'm only in the 'years' category so far myself...some of mine have been loaded full time, except occasionally when shot at the range, for just about a decade now...working fine when I shoot them (only 17 round capacity though since that seems to be at issue)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Translation: A poorly designed firearm magazine that compresses the spring too far is bad, compressing the spring too far is bad for its life. A better designed magazine that does not do that is good. Infinite life you say? But if having them compressed wears them out...

You're back to your old claim: i.e., a better mag design won't make the springs fail. That claim is flawed. Your criteria -- longer spring life -- is not everyone's criteria. It's certainly not a design criteria for many of the newer guns now available.

The best mag design isn't always the one that leads to longer mag spring life. In some cases, the better mag design is the one that gives you a much higher capacity weapon, and you just change springs more often. Many of us are willing to swap higher capacity for shorter spring life. Or... in the case of sub-compact guns, a smaller gun for a shorter recoil spring life.

A Rorhbaugh R9 with a better-designed (i.e., longer) frame might have a recoil spring that lasts more than 200-300 cycles, but you can bet that R9 will be bigger, and heavier, and just won't do what the R9 was originally designed to do. Ditto some of the very hi-cap mags now being used.

It's hard to talk to a group of gun guys without plenty of them having left magazines loaded for years, sometimes decades, with no ill effect. I'm only in the 'years' category so far myself...some of mine have been loaded full time, except occasionally when shot at the range, for just about a decade now...working fine when I shoot them (only 17 round capacity though since that seems to be at issue)

Have you noticed, though, that many HERE can cite examples to the contrary, and can give you technical reasons why that is so? Just because a group of guys have left magazines loaded for years/decades doesn't tell us anything about the guns involved. If those guns are 1911s, or full-size 10-round 9mm guns -- or even some 15-rounders, they're not likely to have problems. Ask those same guys about their 18-21 round mags -- an I'll bet they don't have any of those extra hi-cap mags that have been left loaded for decades. If, for no other reason, that those type of mags haven't been around for decades.

With many of the new gun designs, springs are a renewable resource -- not something intended to live longer than the shooter. The reason we talk about downloading mags when storing them loaded is to prolong spring life. That may not be needed with all hi-cap mags, and nobody has said it is necessary for all mags, but it does help with some of them. (That's what Wolff Springs recommends in their FAQ page on their site. You'd think they'd just keep quiet and sell more mag springs...)

If you want to test your theory, leave a couple of your semi-autos with the slides locked back for a couple of months. Then check back with us with the results... With most guns, you'll see a reduction in recoil spring power. If you're a man of your convictions, there's no reason NOT to do so, as it can't hurt the springs, right?

 

[danez71]

Originally Posted by Warp
Translation: A poorly designed firearm magazine that compresses the spring too far is bad, compressing the spring too far is bad for its life. A better designed magazine that does not do that is good. Infinite life you say? But if having them compressed wears them out...

Translation: I dont understand (or acknowledge) what has been presented and have nothing to support past claims so in effort to appear 'not wrong' I'll now start moving the goal post by self determining what a good design is even if it may go against the design parameters of the mfg, and sound, documented science.



If you have data to support your position, you should start presenting it (requested several times).

By you continuing to move the goal post and also not provide any data to support your claim, you just apear argumentative and unknowledgable of the subject.

 

[Warp]

Translation: I dont understand (or acknowledge) what has been presented and have nothing to support past claims so in effort to appear 'not wrong' I'll now start moving the goal post by self determining what a good design is even if it may go against the design parameters of the mfg, and sound, documented science.



If you have data to support your position, you should start presenting it (requested several times).

By you continuing to move the goal post and also not provide any data to support your claim, you just apear argumentative and unknowledgable of the subject.

I'll give you that a firearm/magazine knowingly and intentionally designed to have poor durability and longevity may in fact have poor durability and longevity. Hopefully people who buy something like that R9 know this going in.

 

[Ron James]

I know not what others may do, but for myself, I have never replaced a magazine spring in any gun I have ever owned nor have I ever worried about how long a magazine has been loaded.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'll give you that a firearm/magazine knowingly and intentionally designed to have poor durability and longevity may in fact have poor durability and longevity. Hopefully people who buy something like that R9 know this going in.

That's like saying a muscle car is intentionally designed to have poor economy... when in economy wasn't even a design objective (or concern), while performance was. A Chevy Volt doesn't have the acceleration or top speed of a Corvette, but it can go a lot farther for lot less money (for gas or the electricity equivalent). That's due to the Volt and the Corvette's different design objectives. Yet both the Volt and the Corvette are fine designs that mostly do what they were intended to do.

You apparently think one of the key standards of magazine performance is a long mag spring life. A lot of us want our mags to hold many more rounds, and a gun owner can't always get that extra capacity in a given mag while also enjoying long spring life in the same mag.

A 7-round 1911 mag will have cycled twice each for each time a 14-round Mag in a STI 2011 cycles once. And, since you've told us that cycling is what wears out a mag, that must mean that the 14-round mag will last a lot longer than the 1911 mag, right?

That argument, however, ignores the different objectives tied to the mag designs which address how the guns are used, doesn't address how much each spring is compressed when the mag is fully loaded, and whether the mags are able to work in the same space. (Flush fit or nearly flush fit as opposed to extended or greatly extended.)

I'd be willing to bet the 7-round mag spring will outlive the 14-round 2011 mag spring by a number of years -- the 1911 mag spring may never need to be changed, if the same number of rounds are fired through both guns. But that 1911 and mag won't get let the shooter get nearly as many rounds on target nearly as quickly as the STI and mag. Different design objectives...