I'll re-post this. It's a useful thread...
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sh...hlight=tests+of+full+length+guide+rods&page=2
tipoc
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sh...hlight=tests+of+full+length+guide+rods&page=2
tipoc
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1911 FLGR
- Thread starter Koda94
- Start date
Iron bottom
New member
Springs can bow in any direction. If you don't believe, try to push a recoil spring, with nothing to guide it, with your finger tip until the coils stack. They are never going to compress in a straight line.
Well, let's see: where would I like springs on other things to rub and crunch? The valve springs in the truck engine? Well, no. The suspension Springs on the pickup? Once more, no. I'm sure there are many more. I just haven't heard them crunching.
Well, let's see: where would I like springs on other things to rub and crunch? The valve springs in the truck engine? Well, no. The suspension Springs on the pickup? Once more, no. I'm sure there are many more. I just haven't heard them crunching.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Iron bottom said:Springs can bow in any direction. If you don't believe, try to push a recoil spring, with nothing to guide it, with your finger tip until the coils stack. They are never going to compress in a straight line.
Well, let's see: where would I like springs on other things to rub and crunch? The valve springs in the truck engine? Well, no. The suspension Springs on the pickup? Once more, no. I'm sure there are many more. I just haven't heard them crunching.
Some springs, like those valve springs are too stout and too short to do much rubbing or crunching. And the car's engine is too darned noisy to hear valve springs crunching, anyway.
If you own a CZ, the recoil springs from Wolff will do some of that, because those springs have always been made to fit the Tanfoglio-version of the CZ pattern guns, and those springs were made for a larger-diameter guide rod. (Now, for most CZs, that remains a non-issue, because the guide rod is so short... and arguably there to help with the installation process.)
I have been using the Browning HP recoil springs of the proper weight (power) for my CZs over the years including one or two that used full-length guide rods, as they more closely fit the guide rod and have less wiggle room. But the ones with shorter (not FLGRs) don't seem to care. That change was the result of what seemed like a "good idea" idea at the time, but I've seen no real difference in any part of the gun's performance.
You do see a tiny bit less wear on the inside of the slide where the recoil springs can rub against the dustcover.
Last edited:
Iron bottom
New member
I remember sitting on the back steps one Sunday afternoon and using a Bosch drill to file a hinge pin into a replica of the CZ plastic guide. (the hinge pin was being turned by the drill and metal was removed with a #2 swiss file). It worked great.
Those short guide rods can be a problem. I have seen a few guides machined wrong and never fit straight in the receiver. I have ran into receivers that were not milled correctly and the short guides never fit correctly. The long guide rod does have the spring plug to hold the full length guide straight.
Walt, if I remember correctly, you're the one that convinced me to buy a CZ. Many moons ago.
Those short guide rods can be a problem. I have seen a few guides machined wrong and never fit straight in the receiver. I have ran into receivers that were not milled correctly and the short guides never fit correctly. The long guide rod does have the spring plug to hold the full length guide straight.
Walt, if I remember correctly, you're the one that convinced me to buy a CZ. Many moons ago.
Let's ask a few questions:
Does a FLGR prevent the spring from wiggling during it's compression? Yes it does, to some extent. It cannot prevent it completely because of the difference in diameter between the spring and the diameter of the FLGR. But there is no question that the spring will wiggle less with the FLGR than with the retainer.
Does this, the above, enable to spring to work more efficiently with the FLGR than without? Yes it will operate more efficiently. This is a straightforward mechanical issue. If the spring is limited in it's movements throughout it's travel and supported at both ends it will work more efficiently than the GI set up. Efficiency in the mechanical sense. That means that because it's movement is slightly more consistent than the spring with the GI set up, it will be more efficient.
Does this extra efficiency in motion mean that the slide will travel more consistently? Possibly, but because the consistent movement of the slide is more determined by the overall fit of the gun, particularly the slide to frame fit and the barrel to slide fit, it's impossible to say how much this may matter alone. It's likely not any amount that can be measured. If measured it's most likely so small that it would not matter.
Does the greater efficiency mean that the barrel lock up will be more consistent? Maybe. But that will depend more on the fit of the gun overall. Of the several factors that effect this the short motion of the slide and the recoil spring that any greater efficiency could matter.
Does the "crunch" sound that the spring make when compressing with a standard retainer in place mean something "bad" is happening? No. It means that the spring is rubbing and likely on the dust cover.
The 1911 is a simple design. That is one of it's strengths. It is capable of cycling reliably faster than any human can pull the trigger.
What the FLGR does is to introduce another part, or two, into the gun. The concept is to increase the efficiency and consistency of the recoil spring and by doing so the accuracy of the gun. But given the purpose of the recoil spring the tiny increase in efficiency of the spring can not do what it claims to do. This is because the increase in efficiency can make no significant difference in the operation of such a simple mechanism, independently of a number of other more important factors.
What it can do is alter the feel of the gun while firing. The feel of a gun while firing in any individual hand does make a difference in consistency while shooting and in accuracy. That is also the most common reason folks cite for using FLGRs. They say it improves the feel, movement of the slide and sound of the gun.
Few in this thread maintain it improves accuracy. If it did that consistently we'd all use them.
It's possible to over engineer a simple thing. To try to make up for a lack of skill by a quite small mechanical advantage, if it is that at all. The advantage is likely in the small class as changing the stocks on the gun. That is likely to have more effect on accurate shooting than a FLGR.
tipoc
Does a FLGR prevent the spring from wiggling during it's compression? Yes it does, to some extent. It cannot prevent it completely because of the difference in diameter between the spring and the diameter of the FLGR. But there is no question that the spring will wiggle less with the FLGR than with the retainer.
Does this, the above, enable to spring to work more efficiently with the FLGR than without? Yes it will operate more efficiently. This is a straightforward mechanical issue. If the spring is limited in it's movements throughout it's travel and supported at both ends it will work more efficiently than the GI set up. Efficiency in the mechanical sense. That means that because it's movement is slightly more consistent than the spring with the GI set up, it will be more efficient.
Does this extra efficiency in motion mean that the slide will travel more consistently? Possibly, but because the consistent movement of the slide is more determined by the overall fit of the gun, particularly the slide to frame fit and the barrel to slide fit, it's impossible to say how much this may matter alone. It's likely not any amount that can be measured. If measured it's most likely so small that it would not matter.
Does the greater efficiency mean that the barrel lock up will be more consistent? Maybe. But that will depend more on the fit of the gun overall. Of the several factors that effect this the short motion of the slide and the recoil spring that any greater efficiency could matter.
Does the "crunch" sound that the spring make when compressing with a standard retainer in place mean something "bad" is happening? No. It means that the spring is rubbing and likely on the dust cover.
The 1911 is a simple design. That is one of it's strengths. It is capable of cycling reliably faster than any human can pull the trigger.
What the FLGR does is to introduce another part, or two, into the gun. The concept is to increase the efficiency and consistency of the recoil spring and by doing so the accuracy of the gun. But given the purpose of the recoil spring the tiny increase in efficiency of the spring can not do what it claims to do. This is because the increase in efficiency can make no significant difference in the operation of such a simple mechanism, independently of a number of other more important factors.
What it can do is alter the feel of the gun while firing. The feel of a gun while firing in any individual hand does make a difference in consistency while shooting and in accuracy. That is also the most common reason folks cite for using FLGRs. They say it improves the feel, movement of the slide and sound of the gun.
Few in this thread maintain it improves accuracy. If it did that consistently we'd all use them.
It's possible to over engineer a simple thing. To try to make up for a lack of skill by a quite small mechanical advantage, if it is that at all. The advantage is likely in the small class as changing the stocks on the gun. That is likely to have more effect on accurate shooting than a FLGR.
tipoc
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
New member
I think tipoc has offered a fairly complete summary of this discussion.
Earlier, Hunter Customs offered a different point of view and offered an explanation of WHY a FLGR might help with some guns that aren't fitted as well as they should be. His explanation seems to apply to a 1911-style gun, but it's less clear to me that his explanation applies to other guns. That said, in this discussion, those who advocate FOR the use of a FLGR seem to be primarily 1911 enthusiasts.
For 1911s that were well put together, the links I offered -- one of which used well-designed Ransom Rest tests using qualuty weapons-- suggest there is little to be gained by using a full-length guide rod in a well-fit 1911. Those links are the best I've found, thus far, but they probably don't apply to non-1911 designs.
As for the crunching, etc. All of noise and weirdness happens AFTER the bullet has left the barrel -- which it does when the slide has moved just a small fraction of an inch (maybe 1/10") and before the barrel has begun to unlock. That suggests that the advantages offered by a FLGR must happen as the slide is being returned to battery -- right before the shooter prepares for the next shot. If a FLGR does that more consistently in a poorly-fit 1911, it could be helpful. For other gun designs, that potential improvement in lockup consistency seems less likely.
If someone has other sources or evidence supporting either side of this discussion, I hope they will share that information with us!
Earlier, Hunter Customs offered a different point of view and offered an explanation of WHY a FLGR might help with some guns that aren't fitted as well as they should be. His explanation seems to apply to a 1911-style gun, but it's less clear to me that his explanation applies to other guns. That said, in this discussion, those who advocate FOR the use of a FLGR seem to be primarily 1911 enthusiasts.
I have a custom AT-84s, a Tanfoglio-based CZ pattern gun. That gun was supposedly built by Jim Boland, a big-name IPSC gunsmith from back in the day; I think he died about 15-20 years ago, before I got the gun, and I was never able to check it's provenance. That gun has all sorts of whistles and bells and custom touches. Only a SIG P-210-6 and a S&W 52-2 I once owned could outshoot it. It has a FLGR, but it also as nicely fit as the P-210-6 and S&W 52-2. I'm not sure the FLGR explains it's superb performance. (I do know, however, that installing the FLGR and taking it out is much more difficult with that gun than with a standard CZ, even those with metal FLGRs (like a .40 SAO).
For 1911s that were well put together, the links I offered -- one of which used well-designed Ransom Rest tests using qualuty weapons-- suggest there is little to be gained by using a full-length guide rod in a well-fit 1911. Those links are the best I've found, thus far, but they probably don't apply to non-1911 designs.
As for the crunching, etc. All of noise and weirdness happens AFTER the bullet has left the barrel -- which it does when the slide has moved just a small fraction of an inch (maybe 1/10") and before the barrel has begun to unlock. That suggests that the advantages offered by a FLGR must happen as the slide is being returned to battery -- right before the shooter prepares for the next shot. If a FLGR does that more consistently in a poorly-fit 1911, it could be helpful. For other gun designs, that potential improvement in lockup consistency seems less likely.
If someone has other sources or evidence supporting either side of this discussion, I hope they will share that information with us!