Modern Semi-Auto Slides Size

H

Higgins

New member
Why is it that many of the modern semi-auto handgun designs incorporate what are, to my mind, large, heavy, blocky slides which make the guns top heavy?

I've shot HK USP's, Glocks, Sigs, Rugers and Beretta and they all (with exception maybe of Beretta 92s) seem to have incredibly large and blocky slides which make the guns top heavy - especially when the frames are made of polymers like the USP's and Glocks.

I could understand an argument that such heavy slides are necessary to handle 9mm, .40 SW and .45 loads - until I picked up a Browning Hi-Power and even M1911's. The slides on both the BHP and M1911s are significantly slimmer than modern slides. It makes a big difference in how comfortable the guns handle. Pick up a USP full size, then pick up a BHP. The difference in the gun feel is immediate - mostly due to the differences in slide size and weight.

So what's up? Why are gun manufacturers making guns with slides the size and weight of bricks?
 
A thick slide fits a thick grip that accomodates a double stack grip much better.
 
I could understand an argument that such heavy slides are necessary to handle 9mm, .40 SW and .45 loads - until I picked up a Browning Hi-Power and even M1911's. The slides on both the BHP and M1911s are significantly slimmer than modern slides. It makes a big difference in how comfortable the guns handle. Pick up a USP full size, then pick up a BHP. The difference in the gun feel is immediate - mostly due to the differences in slide size and weight.
Click to expand...

Sticking tongue firmly into cheek... But the Browning and 1911's are obsolete designs!!! :rolleyes: Sorry couldn't resist.. :D

I'm no engineer nor have I slept at a Holiday Inn Express lately.. I think PreserveFreedom hit on one good reason for it... Only other design aspect I can think of was to absorb more of the recoil impulse on lighter polymer and aluminum framed pistols.

Rick
 
I think it has to do more with the manufacturing process. The older designs use forgings and machined steel. The "modern" designs use cheaper ways to make a slide. (a shame it doesn't show on the price tags)!
 
Although the idea - that modern guns have beefier slides because they are made to sit on wider frames which are made to accomodate double-stack magazines - sounds logical, I can't help but point out that the BHP was called the "Hi-Power" precisely because it was designed to accommodate a 13 round magazine - at a time when the standard was 7 or 8 rounds. Yet, the BHP has perhaps the slimmest slide of any full-size 9 mm pistol despite riding atop a frame containing 13 rounds. It's also worth mentioning that the frame on the BHP also isn't very wide and has perhaps the most comfortable grip of any full-size 9mm, except perhaps for the CZ 75/85.

So, if Browning could design a 9mm gun with 13 rounds and a slim, narrow slide over 65 years ago, why are a modern gunmakers making slides (and guns in general) which seem cut from a stone quarry? Hell, Ruger is now making a "compact" 9mm (the Millenium series) with Titanium slides - Titanium being lighter and stronger than steel. So if Titanium is stronger than steel, why is the gun and slide still thicker than a BHP with good old regular steel?

This response is not meant as a flame. Just an honest inquirey into a question which has bothered me everytime I go to my gunshop to look at my new pistol.

And I know you are just joking, but if the BHP and 1911 are obsolete then why does every dropping barrel semi-auto made still use the locking lug design used in the BHP. If the new guns make the BHP obsolete, then we are regressing, not progressing.

I just don't see any mechanical or material difference between the BHP/1911 designs and modern guns that justify the modern guns having huge slides.

Call me crazy, but you could make two BHP slides our of one USP slide.
 
I don't think an aluminum/plastic frame has one thing to do with the size of the slide. If so, why does the Colt Commander use the same size? The size/weight of the slide is one component in figuring the recoil impulse of a recoil operated mechanism. If you run a heavier slide, you can run a lighter weight spring, and vise versa.
As to the BHP and the 1911 being obsolete, understand that the vast majority of autoloading pistols are using the same Browning design, although some use the block shape barrel hood instead of locking lugs machined into the barrel and slide. I think this was the Petterson modification. . The effect is the same, although some may say that the larger ejection port is less suseptable to ejection problems.
Also, the swinging link in the 1911 is done away for a cam which takes its place. As to a cam vs the swinging link, I see no real advantage although there is 2 less parts for the cam nose as compared to being able to adjust the locking lug engagement for a closer fit with the swinging link.
 
Actually, look at many of the pistols he mentioned, they may use a Browning locking system, but instead of using locking lugs like a BHP or 1911, they use a big square barrel hood as the locking lug.

I imagine if you have a big square barrel hood for a lug, you'll end up needing a big square slide to sit on it as well.
 
I hadn't thought about the need to accommodate the "locking block" hood of the barrel which replaced the two locking lugs on top of the barrel in the BHP/1911. It makes sense that a larger dimensioned slide is needed to utilize the locking hood modification.

Makes me wonder though if the switch from two locking lugs on the barrel top to a square locking hood was such a great improvement. A marginal reduction in jamming/ejection problems in exchange for a much heavier, larger slide. Maybe any increase in reliability is justified, but boy does it make the guns top heavy.

Again, to everyone, thanks for your thoughts. No one I've asked at the range had any good answers. But I think you guys may have hit upon the best reason I've heard yet.
 
Food for thought: Some of us think the bigger gripframes and such are an IMPROVEMENT ergonomically.

-The blasphemer, ducking and running!
 
Interesting topic, I was asking myself the same time some time ago when I switched from a Ruger P-97 (BIG slide) to my CZ-75 (very thin,light slide). The CZ is SO much more comfortable IWB than many of the other full sized guns I`ve tried and now that I think of it the chunky guns that preceded it used Sig style lockup. Hmmm. Course my Keltec uses tha style of lockup and that`s pretty slim, I think the P-32 does too and that`s about as slim as autos get. Gee I dunno. :) Marcus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top