Loaded magazine question 9mm

[Walt Sherrill]

If you think the slide and or barrel slamming back is trivial then why do some model guns have recoil buffers as standard?

One obvious reason is because using a buffer allows you to use a lighter recoil spring, which makes racking the slide easier. A heavier spring might work as well, but won't be as user-friendly. Generally speaking, anything done with a buffer can also be done by a spring.

Some of the pro-shooters I've talked with use much lighter springs and buffers, because it allow faster slide cycling, important in competition.

Recoil springs are somewhat different than other gun springs because, with most semi-autos, they tend to be almost fully compressed with each firing cycle. With most spring, full compression (i.e., the spring almost or actually stacked and pushed to its design limit) is what leads to earlier failure. But, when the recoil spring starts to weaken you see your spent casings going into the adjoining county or the rounds don't feed as crisply. Those things tend to happen LONG before there is the slightest risk of damage to the gun. And if you pay attention, you're going to know that springs need to be replaced.

What is your recoil spring schedule -- how many rounds between changes -- and how did you come to create that schedule? You said you should change them regularly, but you didn't tell us how to create that schedule. Every 5000 rounds? Why not 3000? or 6000? Tell us your method.

 

[JoeSixpack]

What is your recoil spring schedule -- how many rounds between changes -- and how did you come to create that schedule? You said you should change them regularly, but you didn't tell us how to create that schedule. Every 5000 rounds? Why not 3000? or 6000? Tell us your method.

It depends on the gun, most of my guns do not have enough rounds thru them to have required a spring change.
I will pop off a few rounds with the flavor of the week, but the majority of my range time is devoted to my carry guns, of which there are only 2 (soon to be 3)

Taurus 99 is my primary and gets changed at most every 5k rounds.. I don't keep exact round count records, so this is a soft number.
I will change it sooner if I feel the need.

How did I come to this? As I said people with far more experience then my self suggested this schedule (actually I think Beretta also suggests this but I can't remember for sure).
I have not been over there in quite some time but the Beretta board is brimming with knowledge on this platform.. someone will point out im applying this to a Taurus, having Taurus, Beretta, As well as the imported mke (turkey) knock offs I can tell you the advice pretty much applies across the board, I use Beretta springs in my Taurus.

Why do I blindly follow someone else advice? I don't.. you can tell when the spring is getting weak, the slide is easier to rack, you can take the old spring and compare it to the new and see how much it has shrunk in a rested position.

It does seem like once you approach 5k rounds the spring is noticeably worn.
Maybe you could go 6k rounds.. in other cases I'd imagine only 4k.. Im not sure if the load you're shooting has any impact on wear rate of the spring.
I try to stick with standard pressure loads my personally.
It's not an exact science but rather a good rule of thumb.

Again this goes back to my previous example.. I pulled the #8 number out of thin air, I honestly don't know what the exact minimum weight that the gun will still run correctly, but when in doubt swap it out.. I don't really care if the spring will technically go 6 or 7k rounds.. or maybe 30k.
If it seems worn, I pitch it, I can afford the 2.99 spring change.

Your car can probably go 50k between oil changes without blowing up.. does not mean it's good for it.
I remember my first car it was a 76, I took it in to have the oil change and the guy told me it was like sludge, car ran ok but Im sure it was doing it no favors, I have no idea when the oil had been last changed in the car.

So what happens if you do nothing and never change it?
I don't know.. not till I bought the Taurus 99 and seen the excessive wear it had caused in places much like I had been warned of prior.
The gun was mfg in 1988.. I don't think the previous owner(s) ever changed the spring.. it was obviously in a weakened state but I did not try to measure in poundage the actual rating.. I just pitched it and installed a new spring as part of my "new to me" detail strip before I ever even shot the thing.

If the previous owner(s) ever did change the spring then they must have been shooting proof loads.. I otherwise can't account for the wear on the gun, it was abnormal for a maintained gun.

Truth be told I should probably have replaced the locking block as well due to the obvious wear, but it had no cracks so I left it in service.

Other guns are going to be different I think so I would not automatically apply the 92 platform schedule to X Y Z gun.
Guns with double recoil springs (usually on a captive rod) seem (I say SEEM) to me to be more wear resistant.

The other gun I carry is a Hi-point c9 *waits for gasps* ok ok calm down.
The spring on it is very heavy duty.. I have seen no signs of it wearing down.. given the nature of the gun blow-back I suspect the spring is heavy duty for that reason.

It almost reminds me of a hammer spring on most other guns which are usually very robust.. I don't change hammer spring unless im getting light strikes.

I don't believe HP has any guidance on spring replacement, I think they only recommend you clean the gun like every 500-1k rounds.

While The Hi-point is a carry gun I only carry it when doing dirty jobs where I don't really care what kinda hell the gun gets put thru.
So it gets shot regularly at the range (about 50rnd per session) but proportionally less then the Taurus (usually 100-150 per session) and only has around 2000 rounds thru it since, but it's not showing any signs of weakening so far.

So I'll have to get back to you when I finally do replace the spring.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

What if you replace a spring with a new, defective spring?
If it ain't broke.......

So, JoeSixpack changes his springs because someone else told him it was a good idea.

 

[Don P]

Personally I change magazines springs when the magazine continues to fail to work as intended. Same with recoil springs. Maybe if I were on one of the military shooting teams or had money falling out of my dupa while I walked that would be different. I'm trying to get the most use out of my springs for my money

 

[Walt Sherrill]

So what happens if you do nothing and never change it?
I don't know.. not till I bought the Taurus 99 and seen the excessive wear it had caused in places much like I had been warned of prior.

But, alas, you don't know that the wear you saw was caused by NOT changing recoil springs. I'm pretty sure that the Beretta military and LEO guns that had problems with locking blocks got regular recoil spring changes. On some forums, they say that the Taurus and Beretta locking block will typically fail at about 20K rounds, regardless of how frequently the recoil springs are changed; some of those shooters recommend replacing the locking block at about 15K rounds.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, using different words but making the same point: with most gun designs key parts can be worn or damaged from high round counts -- but that damage isn't necessarily caused by springs not functioning properly or not being replaced on a regular basis. A recoil spring only reduces the recoil force by a relatively few pounds by storing that amount of force -- which is generally just enough to cycle the weapon for the next shot. The rest of the recoil force is passed on to the shooter.

I continue to hear stories about frame damage on guns, and how shooters go to higher strength springs to prevent it. But I've seen almost no examples of frame damage that can be attributed to poor recoil springs. As I noted earlier, if the spring is so weak as to cause damage to the gun's frame, the gun probably isn't going to function properly in the first place -- springs THAT weak are going to be replaced before damage can happen, IF it can happen.

(1911Tuner, a some-time participant here and other forums, has a YouTube video showing that you can fire a 1911 without a recoil spring, and that the shooter doesn't notice much difference in felt recoil. You have to manually cycle the slide to chamber the next round, of course. He does this with an old gun that as cast frame and slide. He's done it many times and the gun shows no obvious damage or wear from the lack of a recoil spring.)

 

[Don P]

I concur Walt, I'm running 9# recoil springs and have not noticed any frame abnormalities. Taint broke, taint fixin it

 

[JoeSixpack]

What if you replace a spring with a new, defective spring?
If it ain't broke.......

So, JoeSixpack changes his springs because someone else told him it was a good idea.

Well I kinda doubt that would happen, I guess we can't rule it out.
But even the poor excuse for a recoil spring I pull out of the Taurus 99 when I got it while quite a bit shorter and weaker then fresh it was perfectly "intact" 1 piece.

I Do not do it because someone told me.. although frankly there are worse things I could do considering it was a widely used schedule over on that forum and some of those guys have dozens of 92's and have forgotten more then I'll ever know about the platform.


I followed their advice because I found it to be true as I approached 5k.
That's all.
Sometimes the advice you get online is actually true.. imagine that.

I use the same defective part mentality when dealing with other maintenance though.
EX: Common practice is to replace the locking blocks on schedule.
Reason being they can actually break in such a way that the gun is "jammed" and can not be stripped.. and even if it can often causes internal damage... None the less I don't change parts unless they appear to be failing, often times broke lugs on barrels and wings on locking blocks will show cracks first.. but not always..

But, alas, you don't know that the wear you saw was caused by NOT changing recoil springs.

Well I don't run a lab, and Im not about to take another gun and attempt to recreate the wear with a worn spring.. I was warned of this type of wear from worn out recoil springs.. I just assume the warning I receive was correct.

I'm pretty sure that the Beretta military and LEO guns that had problems with locking blocks got regular recoil spring changes. On some forums, they say that the Taurus and Beretta locking block will typically fail at about 20K rounds, regardless of how frequently the recoil springs are changed; some of those shooters recommend replacing the locking block at about 15K rounds.

LEO is probably very low round count.. I know some of the police trade in's I've seen often look holster worn but inside pretty decent... problem is most police trade in Beretta are D's.. or even if they're F/FS are usually black, I don't like either, I prefer inox G's although hard to come by I settle for F/FS.

Army, I dunno, I've heard they rarely got preemptive part replacements like LB, spring change.. maybe.. dunno.. Not sure if regular recoil spring replacements really help LB's because they're unpredictable as to when they'll break.. I guess if you had a large sampling you could maybe draw a conclusion though.. but the LB is steel.. primary concern with 92's is the VAST majority of them are on softer aluminum frames.. that's the problem.. you have increased velocity of steel parts slamming into an aluminum frame.

As far as locking block expected life time? depends.
They are really unpredictable, Taurus last I knew was using Gen 1 blocks.
Beretta has like 3.5 gen's, The latest blocks I think are rated at like 35k
You're right many shooters who put out that kinda volume will swap the blocks long before that.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, using different words but making the same point: with most gun designs key parts can be worn or damaged from high round counts -- but that damage isn't necessarily caused by springs not functioning properly or not being replaced on a regular basis. A recoil spring only reduces the recoil force by a relatively few pounds by storing that amount of force -- which is generally just enough to cycle the weapon for the next shot. The rest of the recoil force is passed on to the shooter.

So it's your opinion that a worn spring that's say 4-5 lb's weaker then a new spring is just as good and that a new spring makes no difference at all.
Am I to understand that correctly?

I continue to hear stories about frame damage on guns, and how shooters go to higher strength springs to prevent it. But I've seen almost no examples of frame damage that can be attributed to poor recoil springs. As I noted earlier, if the spring is so weak as to cause damage to the gun's frame, the gun probably isn't going to function properly in the first place -- springs THAT weak are going to be replaced before damage can happen, IF it can happen.

The damage would not be immediate, it would just lead to increased wear over time or possibility of wear beyond normal. that's where the damage would be.. but again would not happen over night.

(1911Tuner, a some-time participant here and other forums, has a YouTube video showing that you can fire a 1911 without a recoil spring, and that the shooter doesn't notice much difference in felt recoil. You have to manually cycle the slide to chamber the next round, of course. He does this with an old gun that as cast frame and slide. He's done it many times and the gun shows no obvious damage or wear from the lack of a recoil spring.)

How many is many? 10? 100? 1000? The damage is cumulative, The Taurus I bought that had this wear was from 1988.. I think I bought it in.. damn I can't remember 2011 maybe? thats 23 years before it came into my possession who know what this gun has seen but from the looks of the recoil spring regular changes was not one of them.

I concur Walt, I'm running 9# recoil springs and have not noticed any frame abnormalities. Taint broke, taint fixin it

What platform.. 92? why man? even the standard 13# spring is plenty easy to cycle the slide

 

[Walt Sherrill]

So it's your opinion that a worn spring that's say 4-5 lb's weaker then a new spring is just as good and that a new spring makes no difference at all.
Am I to understand that correctly?

You don't understand that correctly. I didn't write that.

I did say I've run CZs that were maybe 2 lb. less than the standard 14 lb. rate and as high as 22 lbs.. Those different rate springs could all be used without big changes in gun performance. You would likely notice a change in how far the spent cases flew, and you'd probably feel a difference in the recoil impulse. If you dropped that low 12 lbs to a true 7 lbs, I don't know what would happen, but I'd bet that the gun would have a hard time stripping and chambering the next round if the magazine in the gun had a fresh magazine spring and the mag itself held 15 or more rounds.

The Beretta factory recoil spring is rated at 14 lbs. If you reduced that to 9 pounds, it might still function -- but you'd notice a difference, as with the CZs. I've not had a Beretta for many years, so it's possible that it might NOT function and load the next round if you went much lower.​

I wrote that a spring that allows the gun to function properly will likely not lead to damage. That's because the recoil force reduction of the recoil spring isn't really that great. That spring is there to store recoil force that makes the gun function, not to control or reduce recoil. A spring that loses a significant % of its potential to store force also loses its ability to make the gun function as it should. A gun that can't function isn't likely to be damaged.

Perhaps weak springs CAN lead to gun damage, but that claim seems to be an article of faith for many shooters, offered without supporting evidence, photos, etc. Even the gunsmiths who participate here haven't had much to say on the topic.

If you or anyone here can find and share such evidence, please do so, as it will be a valuable and useful contribution to this discussion.

With regard to Beretta/Taurus locking blocks: as best I can tell, Beretta or Taurus locking block damage has not been directly or indirectly tied to recoil spring strength or wear. (On one of the Beretta forums, you read about LB's failing with as little as 5K rounds fired, and in other cases not until long after as many as 50K+ rounds fired. Some on the forum I visited talk about some LBs being drop in parts, while others say they work best when gunsmith-fitted. Even Beretta enthusiasts don't seem to have a good understanding of the problem or the solution.) While there are significantly fewer Taurus versions of the Beretta design in the U.S., forum members seem to think the Taurus versions don't have the same level of locking block problems.

 

[Sweet Shooter]

I tried looking for a similar thread in the wheel-gun section. Couldn't find one. Makes ya wonder...

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I tried looking for a similar thread in the wheel-gun section. Couldn't find one. Makes ya wonder...

Springs aren't as important to function in wheel guns, and only a few models use coil springs to power the hammer. And even then, few of the springs in a revolver are kept deeply compressed for long periods -- the condition that CAN (sometimes) lead to coil spring failure or degradation.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I wrote that a spring that allows the gun to function properly will likely not lead to damage. That's because the recoil force reduction of the recoil spring isn't really that great. That spring is there to store recoil force that makes the gun function, not to control or reduce recoil. A spring that loses a significant % of its potential to store force also loses its ability to make the gun function as it should. A gun that can't function isn't likely to be damaged.

I agree with the first part in that it's primary function is to strip a round and return to battery.
But I think we can say with some certainty that it does in deed reduce the velocity of the slide.. But it sounds to me what you're saying is that it's negligible to start with so it does not matter.

Perhaps weak springs CAN lead to gun damage, but that claim seems to be an article of faith for many shooters, offered without supporting evidence, photos, etc. Even the gunsmiths who participate here haven't had much to say on the topic.

Who are they? have they seen this thread? Give me a list of names I'll send out invites to get a consensus.

I can offer up photos of the wear im talking about.. but would anyone here actually accept it?

Not from what I can tell nothing less of digging up JMB and asking him or a double blind study with a dozen identical models, round counts (with the same ammo of course) and an array of spring strengths would do as "evidence"

Spring discussions wow.. seem to be a big deal around here.
All I can say is I was warned of the excessive wear similar to what is seen on the gun in question, the recoil spring was very worn THAT is not in dispute (well actually it probably is) But please give me the benefit of the doubt that Im not a complete moron and can tell when a spring is worn.

The gun was 23 years old before I got it and not fired under supervised lab conditions during that time.
I take the wear, which again I was warned of when the recoil spring is neglected, In conjunction with the extremely worn recoil spring as a good indication that at least the previous owner of the gun did not change it regularly.

My conclusion is the wear was due to neglect.

But ya'll do what you want, I've worded this as many ways as I know how.
Change'em don't change'em.. it's a 3 dollar spring every 5k rounds it's not like you're replacing it every day, Even if I was somehow wrong I'm not gonna miss 3 dollars every few years.

If you or anyone here can find and share such evidence, please do so, as it will be a valuable and useful contribution to this discussion.

What exactly would pass for evidence around here?

With regard to Beretta/Taurus locking blocks: as best I can tell, Beretta or Taurus locking block damage has not been directly or indirectly tied to recoil spring strength or wear. (On one of the Beretta forums, you read about LB's failing with as little as 5K rounds fired, and in other cases not until long after as many as 50K+ rounds fired. Some on the forum I visited talk about some LBs being drop in parts, while others say they work best when gunsmith-fitted. Even Beretta enthusiasts don't seem to have a good understanding of the problem or the solution.) While there are significantly fewer Taurus versions of the Beretta design in the U.S., forum members seem to think the Taurus versions don't have the same level of locking block problems.

Well the main concern like I said is with the softer aluminum frame.
But ya LB's are a tricky beast, They have life expectancy but I've seen those fall well short.. and go well beyond.

The Taurus blocks seem to fail sooner, It appears they use the original gen1 blocks which had the worse service life.

That's why some change them out before they fail, I have not had one fail on me yet, and unless I see cracks won't change them.
But when they do break it can be a very serious problem trying to get the gun stripped if the wings break and move inside.. hear of people having to try to reposition the broken wings with picks just to strip the gun.

The blocks are a drop in part, just knock out the plunger pin, take out plunger and swap block.

Some blocks can be wiggled out without removing the plunger, one thing you do have to watch for though is the plunger changed over the generations, easiest way to avoid that confusion is to just buy the "kit" from Beretta.
http://www.berettausa.com/en-us/beretta-92-96-locking-block-kit/le9201/

At any rate I don't think I have anything tangible to add to the thread.. so Good luck to you all.

P.S get me that list of smiths though I will send out invites so they at least know of the threads existence.
I don't know if someone elses word who claims to be a smith would make any difference or be evidence enough but at least we can collect opinions I guess.

 

[Don P]

What platform.. 92?

1911A1

 

[Walt Sherrill]

If you or anyone here can find and share such evidence, please do so, as it will be a valuable and useful contribution to this discussion.

What exactly would pass for evidence around here?

Information from folks like long-time gunsmiths, custom gun shop employees, from a technician who builds or repairs guns, or someone who can offer observations based on physical evidence rather than observations and inferences alone.

A lot of gun talk seems to be a bit like discussions about religion -- a few facts, a holy book or two used as proof sources, and a measure of faith (which is defined as a belief with strong conviction in something for which there may be no tangible proof).

• For years, on this forum, it was an article of faith that quality springs won't wear out unless they are cycled excessively. Thanks to the input from a number of engineers, one of whom was a metallurgist, as well as a number of folks who worked with metals in spring-related applications, we've learned that cycling seldom harms springs unless, when cycled, they're pushed TO OR BEYOND THEIR DESIGN LIMITS (also known as their elastic limits). Otherwise, the springs can (and generally will) lead long, functional lives. BUT there can be spring wear when the springs are deeply compressed and not cycling. With some new gun designs, the need to do more work with less material (i.e., springs that are smaller and must fit in tighter confines) and because of that some springs just can't last as long as they once did -- and that's by design.
  
  
• More recently on this forum, we had a very lengthy discussion about the effect of bullet weight and velocity on recoil and barrel rise in a locked-breech short-recoil design semi-auto. It was my contention that there was no greater barrel rise from slower/heavier bullets than from lighter/faster bullets; others said the difference was easily seen. Turns out both factions were wrong.
  
  Thanks to one participant here, who understood the physics and had the appropriate mathematical skills to show his proofs, we now know and can show that -- due how the locked-breech, short-recoil gun works -- only a small part of the recoil can be transferred to the frame in a way that can cause barrel rise until AFTER the bullet has left the barrel. His examples and calculations show how this is true, and we now know that slower and heavier bullets do cause more barrel rise than lighter faster bullets, but the difference between heavy, slow bullets and light, fast one is so tiny (almost trivially so) that while measurable, we are unlikely to see it at the range. Bullet weight and speed makes a bigger difference in fixed barrel designs. -- and a bigger difference as the round gets on down range.

You believe that weak springs can lead to gun wear or damage -- and you may be right, but your assumptions seems to be based on what you've observed and not on a physical evidence that can be seen to be based on a cause/effect relationship. You assume there is a cause/effect relationship, but you haven't proved it. I've made the same sort of assumptions -- one is shown above -- and in that case I was wrong, even though the physical evidence seem absolutely clear!

As for a list of gunsmiths -- I can't offer you one, but some gunsmiths do participate here from time to time and they sometimes join in these discussions. They are certainly welcome to add their experience and knowledge to the discussion.

.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

I offer myself, though I am no longer a commercial gunsmith-I was for many years and I still make gun parts.
I have already offered my observations.
One of these observations is that springs do not lose strength when compressed-as long as they are compressed within their design limits. If this were not true, all cars would need new springs and all tappet springs would go bad.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I offer myself, though I am no longer a commercial gunsmith-I was for many years and I still make gun parts.
I have already offered my observations.
One of these observations is that springs do not lose strength when compressed-as long as they are compressed within their design limits. If this were not true, all cars would need new springs and all tappet springs would go bad.

Have you seen damage to a gun that could be directly attributed to weak springs? Frame damage because of a weak recoil spring, perhaps? (That's the concern I see mentioned most often.)

That question asked, everything you wrote above is true, but I would say it a bit differently: that springs won't degrade unless compressed to or beyond their elastic limits, which may be different that what the springs were intended to do. The "design limits" and the spring's "elastic limits" may not be the same.

The Rohrbaugh R9, arguably the smallest quality 9mm semi-auto available, is an example of a gun with a recoil spring that works exactly as intended, but doesn't last that long. The recoil spring has a service life of 250 rounds. While the R9's recoil spring has a short functional life, that spring operates exactly as designed. A long recoil spring life was never a part of the gun's design objective. (To make the spring last longer, you'd have to make it bigger or thicker, and there's no space to put that extra metal in that tiny gun.)

The same constraints occur with some high-cap magazines. When fully loaded, some of these mags will hold 20+ 9mm rounds in a mag tube that is only slightly longer than the mag tubes that originally held only 10 or 15 rounds. If left fully loaded for extended periods, the springs in these hi-cap mags will slowly degrade even though they're not cycling. They can degrade despite the fact that they are being used exactly as intended. Happily, the users don't mind -- because high capacity is more important to the users than extended spring life.

.

 

[JohnKSa]

If this were not true, all cars would need new springs and all tappet springs would go bad.

The problem is that long spring life is only one design requirement for magazine springs. They must also be easy to load (fully compressible with the pressure from a single thumb), relatively small and light, they must not exert enough pressure to deform the cartridges and the difference between the loaded (fully compressed) and unloaded (magazine empty) length needs to be maximized because that is what maximizes capacity.

Those are pretty stressing design requirements and are night and day different from the design requirements for valve springs or car coil springs.

 

[Bill DeShivs]

Walt-
I have not seen damage attributable to weak/failed springs.
You are correct about "elastic limits," but "design limits" may be more understandable.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I have not seen damage attributable to weak/failed springs.

Thank you for that.

You are correct about "elastic limits," but "design limits" may be more understandable.

Perhaps it is a better term, and I've used that same term in these discussion, too.

I was trying to make a subtly different point for others reading -- that a spring that has been designed to do the maximum work for the space and material available may still fail far sooner than most would expect, because the gun designer is asking the spring to do more work than can be sustained for longer periods. The R9 recoil spring is an example. As JohnKSa notes above, spring life is only ONE of the factors/traits addressed in spring design. Many here seem to assume that long life is one of the more important spring design characteristics -- and for some gun designs it may be. For other guns, some springs may simply be renewable resources, like tires on a car (which can be made of harder stuff and prove to be long-wearing, or softer and much quieter. Those tires won't have the same functional life.)
.