Strength of slide return spring in a 1911

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyis5h9MvUU
.......If anyone wants to duplicate this, you need a FLGR system. The standard GI type guide rod will tilt and tie up the gun. You also need to verify that the bushing is aligned and centered between shots........Aside from that...have at it.


Hmmm, the date on the video isn't April 1st, which was my first thought. I guess this is one more time when much of what I thought to be true wasn't. Yesterday I would have said that this would damage a gun.


Obviously from the video, there is no apparent damage, and you've got a reputation for being a walking encyclopedia when it comes to the 1911, but it's hard for me to accept this, even as I'm watching it.


My mind doesn't change that fast - things have to settle into place sometimes. This is one of them. If this really is true, then a lot of people have told me thing over the years that were incorrect.
 
I guess this is one more time when much of what I thought to be true wasn't.

One of the hardest things for me to accept was that what I've believed is irrelevant in the face of evidence to the contrary.

If this really is true, then a lot of people have told me thing over the years that were incorrect.

Oh, it's true...and that pistol isn't the first one I've used to demonstrate it. I have a Colt LW Commander that I've used several times, and have fired something close to 500 rounds through it without a spring, including few dozen +P 185s and 230s...and the impact abutments are fine.

This business of peened, damaged frames was started by people who make money selling springs and shock buffers.

Marketing 101:

First, convince the customer that he needs it, and then sell it to him.
 
If you read the original post, while it's not worded very well, it does suggest what I'm trying to learn.

Sometimes we don't know exactly what question we want to ask or how to formulate it, so we approach it sideways. That's what you did in post #1. You asked the question in a "what should I do form". So you received those answers which in general were good ones.

The questions you wanted to ask are:

1.) What does the recoil spring do? How does it work?

2.) How does the weight of the recoil spring effect the shooting of the gun with different weight bullets?

3.) Does the weight of the recoil spring need to change with bullets of different weights and velocities and if so why and how?

These questions are standard and good ones for all semi-auto pistols.

Tuner explained the central function of the recoil spring; to strip a round from the mag and return the slide to full battery reliably even under adverse conditions.

Kuhnhausen says (pg. 90 Vol. 1) that the original recoil spring weight was 16 pds, but certainly varied some on earlier guns. The standard for Colt has been 16 pounds since then for a GM. This was with 230 gr. ball service ammo at standard velocities under adverse conditions and even where the springs may not be changed on a regular maintenance schedule.

This spring weight, 16 pds is also good for general usage of other weights and velocities on a limited basis.

The Colt Gold Cup was introduced as an entry level bullseye gun with the intent of a steady diet of 200 gr. bullets at about 700-800 fps. The gun was built with this usage in mind. It comes with a 14 pd. recoil spring as standard.

Calibration packs are available for any 1911 in one or two pound increments to adjust the gun to specific loads and to the shooters taste. Which is the other factor in recoil spring weights.

Too light a spring for a heavy load and the gun will not reliably strip a round from the mag and return it to battery fast enough for the gun to function properly in time with the cycling of the gun. Conversely too heavy a spring for a lighter load can retard the timing of the action in another direction.

Rounding of the locking lugs can result from a spring weight not properly mated to the loads being fired as well as other problems.

The 1911 in particular is it's own animal and a particular gun can feel differently in the hand in how it shoots and feels. Changes in recoil spring weight can adjust for this to a shooters taste. Particularly in the "ker-chunk" when they return to battery.

Because their are a variety of makers of 1911s and those guns are often built to particular purposes (bullsye, 3 gun competition, IPSC, duty sidearm, self defense piece, bowling pin gun, etc.) recoil spring weights, along with mainspring weights, can play an important role in how a gun handles and thus the shooters accuracy with the piece and speed in getting back on target.

Here are some recommendations made by Layne Simpson in his book "The Custom Government Model Pistol" in appendix three of his work. I mention only those for the GM in a non compensated barrel.

For Pin guns where heavier bullets are often used at high velocities for the weight: 22+ pds.

For a regular diet of +P 230 gr. loads: 20 pds

For standard 230 gr. bullet weights at 800-900 fps or "hardball" rounds: 16 pds

IPSC competition: 18-19 pds

For general purpose target work with 200-230 gr. loads: 12 pds

For bullesye competition 185-200 gr. wadcutter or semiwadcutter at 700-750 fps: 8 pds-10 pds.

tipoc
 
Kuhnhausen says (pg. 90 Vol. 1) that the original recoil spring weight was 16 pds, but certainly varied some on earlier guns. The standard for Colt has been 16 pounds since then for a GM.

Kuhnhausen has been wrong on a number of occasions.

The original spring was specified as 32.75 turns of .043 diameter music wire. Comparing that to a Wolff 14-pound GM spring with 32 turns of the same diameter wire...it works out to be about 14.2 pounds.

Rounding of the locking lugs can result from a spring weight not properly mated to the loads being fired as well as other problems.

The "recoil" spring has no effect whatsoever on the lucking lugs. Rounding at the top corner of the barrel lugs comes from the barrel not being fully disengaged vertically from the slide when the lower lug hits the vertical impact surface and stops the barrel.

Conversely too heavy a spring for a lighter load can retard the timing of the action in another direction.

I think you're confusing timing with time. The timed event is mechanically fixed and occurs at the same place in the cycle, regardless of the speed of the cycle, while time is a function of speed and distance. The spring can affect time...but not timing.
 
Slide or frame battering is generally caused by less than a good fit of the slide, frame and recoil spring plug and not by the recoil springs. Though the latter may accentuate it.

As I mentioned the recoil standard for a GM is 16 pds. For the Commander sized gun with the lighter and 3/4" shorter slide the standard weight is 18 pds. For the Officer sized guns 22 pds for standard use. The are factory standard. The obvious is that the shorter and lighter the slide the faster it must travel to do it's job properly and thus the heavier spring weights.

All these guns shoot the same service round of 230 grs at about 830-850 fps from a 5" barrel. The power to move the slide to it's full rearward position is provided by the round firing. In the shorter barreled guns this happens faster than the 5" guns and so a more powerful spring is needed to send to return the battery faster and in the correct sequence for proper feeding of the round and lock up of the barrel to slide. If a shooter decides to use a 185 gr. round from the Defender to lessen felt recoil and increase velocity a slightly lighter weight spring can be used. But in a smaller gun the room for various weight bullets and spring weights is less than for the GM.

tipoc

I have to add something...a couple of years ago myself and others encouraged you to research this topic and get ahold of Kuhnhausen's books and I suggested Simpson to you. It appears you never did that.
 
I have to add something...a couple of years ago myself and others encouraged you to research this topic and get ahold of Kuhnhausen's books and I suggested Simpson to you. It appears you never did that.

I've had Kuhnhausen's books for nearly 40 years. One of his most blatant errors...the one that was edited out of the later editions...was his "Balanced Thrust Vector" description in which he states that the slide doesn't move until after the bullet exits...which flies in the face of Newtonian physics, particularly the 3rd Law of action and reaction.

i.e. If the slide hasn't moved until after the bullet exits, the slide won't move. Jerry dropped his candy on that one.

In another one, he describes the barrel face as a recoil surface...which it absolutely is not.

I could go on.

Slide or frame battering is generally caused by less than a good fit of the slide, frame and recoil spring plug and not by the recoil springs.

I'm a little confused as to how the slide to frame fit...determined by the rail dimensions...has an effect on how much force the slide hits the impact abutment with, and how the recoil spring plug...which doesn't impact anything at all...has any effect on frame battering.
 
It's not of much importance but the weight of the weight of the recoil springs has been fairly standard since the beginning of the gun. Within a couple of pounds, as I mentioned earlier.

Kuhnhausen was not writing a history of the 1911's specs but a manual on the gun as it is, I'll cut him a break. If it was 14-16 pds it's in my wheelhouse.

The original recoil spring for the GM was (Joe Poyer, pages 172-73) made of wire .044" thick in a coil .430" in diameter.

Two types were used originally.

Type 1 had 33 coils and was 6.9" long. Both ends of the coil were crimped so that either could fit tightly over the recoil spring guide.

Type Two was of the same diameter spring but was shortened to 30 coils and 6.55" long. Only one end of the spring was crimped, to fit over the guide and the other end was open and was soon able to fit in the indented plug and with a twist lock in place.

Charles Clawson in his book on the commercial series (pg. 39) echoes Poyer but differs in some respects. Clawson agrees that the earliest springs were crimped on both ends so either end could fit over the guide. A .043" wire was coiled 32 3/4 times with a right hand twist. These were soon opened up as Poyer explains so that only one end fit tightly on the guide.

In Feb. 1921 at about serial # C129000 the wire diameter on the commercial models was reduced to .0414" and the number of coils increased to 34 1/2.

In 1924 at about serial number C138000 the recoil spring diameter was changed back to 32 3/4 coils and .043" wire diameter to coincide with military use (why have two different recoil springs length and thickness of wire for military and commercial usage? So they simplified).

In 1930 for the Colt commercial guns number of coils was reduced to 30 and remained there through the 1970s and beyond.

Colt has set factory standard weight for the recoil springs at 16 pounds for a number of decades.

Does the above matter to this discussion? Not that much.

If a fella is firing a 6" barreled compensated gun with 260 gr. pills at 810 fps and running that with a 10 pound recoil spring many defects and shortcomings in the fit of the gun will be revealed. This can include damage to the locking lugs. When running at the extremes.

tipoc
 
Kuhnhausen has two books out on the 1911 as you know. There are some errors in them, also things in which folks have differing theories.

When your book appears I'll buy a copy and recommend it to folks as I recommend the works of Simpson, Kuhnhausen, Bill Wilson and others. I'll quote it and post links, as I do to with theirs, so I leave a trail where the student of the gun can go. Those written pieces, available to all, are a benchmark, or touchstone available for all to read, evaluate disagree or agree with. Their most important contribution is that the information is mostly correct, has been edited and is available for all. It is not the gospel of a diety but the efforts of a gunsmith of his time.

The point ain't to always be correct in all small matters but to leave a trail so others can see the method. How a fella got from point A to B.

How's your book coming by the way? :)

Write your piece, or better short pieces. I'll help you edit them. Put them online. Where folks can disagree and debate over the questions as you do with Kuhnhausen.

That takes the stones Kuhnhausen had. You have that...do it.

I'm a little confused...
Ain't we all?

tipoc
 
Write a book.

If only I had the time.

I barely have time to make short posts on a couple of the gun boards.

The point ain't to always be correct in all small matters but to leave a trail so others can see the method.

It's not about being correct in all small matters. These points are a matter of mechanical reality...and the reality is that the slide just doesn't hit the frame all that hard...even without a spring.

From what I've gleaned, the gun is fine with a 16 pound spring as long as all you're firing is hardball spec ammunition, but will quickly self-destruct with +P unless you use an 18-pound spring and it will do likewise if you use a 14-pound spring with hardball...despite the original spring's rate which as it it turns out...was 14-pounds, give or take.

It just doesn't follow logic. The plain, simple truth is that the frame isn't that fragile, in spite of what the spring and shock buff marketeers would have us believe.

And I've proven it by firing 1911 pistols without springs for the doubters since the early 80s when the first shock buffs appeared, along with the hype that we "needed" these silly things in order to save our frames from certain destruction.

I had to make my own FLGR and drill a hole in the spring plug in those days because it predated commercial FLGRs. I still have that old homemade set around here somewhere.
 
Write a book.

If only I had the time.

Don't think book. Makes the job too big. Think brief essay on a specific subject...like recoil springs or magazines. A rework of what you've already written in fact.

It's a short piece posted in a blog. Another short piece gets written. A link in a chain. Pretty soon a chain.

Anyway...

From what I've gleaned, the gun is fine with a 16 pound spring as long as all you're firing is hardball spec ammunition, but will quickly self-destruct with +P unless you use an 18-pound spring and it will do likewise if you use a 14-pound spring with hardball...despite the original spring's rate which as it it turns out...was 14-pounds, give or take.

It just doesn't follow logic. The plain, simple truth is that the frame isn't that fragile, in spite of what the spring and shock buff marketeers would have us believe.

I agree completely. I have guns I've shot for years with a variety of bullet weights and many rounds through them. All with the factory standard weight springs in the gun. No damage to any of the guns as a result of that.

On the other hand I had two guns back 20 years ago I dedicated to hardball matches. I put an 18 pd. spring in them and they ran well in that. No harm to the guns either way. I also stuck a shok-buff in them but saw no real need for it frankly.

I've known guys who put 20 pd springs in their pin guns where they shot the equivalent of +P 45 acp constantly.

I don't see guns being battered constantly and quickly. I think there's a band of weights where it makes little difference unless you're shooting 500-1000 rounds a week of a certain type ammo. 14-18 pds with standard ammo from 185gr-230 gr. at standard velocities 300-500 rounds a month. You shouldn't see a problem unless the gun is misfit somewheres.

I gotta go burn some meat.

tipoc
 
.......I have to add something...a couple of years ago myself and others encouraged you to research this topic and get ahold of Kuhnhausen's books and I suggested Simpson to you. It appears you never did that.

Four or five years ago, I was posting about my 1911 Colt, and everyone here decided it needed to go back to the Colt factory. After wasting time on my own, I sent it back to Colt a year and a half ago, and just got it returned about four months ago, just before I bought the Les Baer. I only got to use it once, and it's now in my gun safe, waiting for me, but I'd rather concentrate on only one gun at a time.

A couple of years ago, I was shooting my 357 Highway Patrolman, and you and others strongly recommended I buy Jerry Kuhnhausen's "S&W Shop Manual". I bought it, and it was extremely helpful!!!

Obviously, I should do the same for the 1911, but haven't yet gotten around to ask which the better books are. After reading all this, and past memory, I would prefer to be on the waiting list for 1911 Tuner's upcoming (??) book! But I'd like to get one now, and I guess I can ask right now which book to buy. ........and thanks!!
 
......It's not about being correct in all small matters. These points are a matter of mechanical reality...and the reality is that the slide just doesn't hit the frame all that hard...even without a spring........


Most everything I read or hear or see gets filtered somehow in my brain as to whether or not I accept it. With enough information, everything, reloading, shooting, maintenance, and all the rest, start to make sense to me, once I "understand" (not the same as hear) what's what.

People books, YouTube videos, forums, whatever, say something that doesn't "fit" my version of reality, and I've got to decide whether to revise what I think, or reject what I saw/read/heard/watched. I know that there is a "real mechanical reality", and personally, I would very much like to know THAT, before thinking of all the ramifications.

A whole lot of very helpful people here have had the greatest influence on what I believe, and I'm constantly changing how I think. A relative of mine keeps saying "but last time you said this, and now you say that...". True. I guess nothing is "perfect", even if it seems so at the time. ...at least not, if you keep an open mind.



......Which all leads me to what 1911tuner posted above about the spring, and that the gun won't be hurt if the spring is left out. Part of my brain believes what he said, but there's another part that refuses to accept it. If I do accept it, that fact changes everything! Yesterday, I would have said the spring needs to be set to optimize one's shooting (function, felt-recoil, proper ejection), and also to protect the gun from damage. So, the question then only becomes which spring performs best, as there won't be any damage regardless.

The logical thought that follows if the gun won't be damaged no matter what spring is in the gun, is that the spring should only be optimized for what one is doing (speed shooting, target shooting, big heavy bullets for max power, or small light bullets to get the most accuracy on a paper target). A bullet made for downing an angry grizzly bear wouldn't be the best for bullseye shooting, and vice versa.


Knowing all that now, I'm not even sure what my question would be. Thinking as "an engineer", even if the gun won't be damaged by a too-light/too-heavy/missing spring, it just seems logical (to me) to use a lighter spring for smaller, lighter, lighter-load bullets, than for more powerful heavier bullets.

Thanks for all the insights (I will eventually work out my own confusion...).
 
If you look into the background of the gentleman we know as 1911 Tuner you will discover he has forgotten more about the mechanics of the 1911 pistol platform then then anyone else on this forum (and several others ) know, and that includes me - and I an no dummy.

What is largely forgotten is that the pistol has a Browning designed short recoil locked breech system.

The barrel and slide, and the total weight thereof, are locked together until the bullet has left the bore and internal pressure has dropped to zero. Then as the slide recoils backward the hammer - and the spring behind it - act as a buffer pushing against the slide to slow its speed.

The principal purpose of the recoil spring is to return the slide/barrel back into battery, and it has little to do with the slides rearward travel.

This is entirely different then Browning's straight blowback system where the recoil spring and the slide's weight holds the slide against the barrel while the bullet travels down the bore and exits. For obvious reasons this is usually only found on small pistols firing low-power cartridges.
 
mikemeyers,

it might be easier to digest all this if you realize the main spring (the one attached to the hammer) is doing the most resisting of the slides rearward travel. 1911 tuner could shed more light on this, but with this bit of info, understanding why your gun won't be destroyed without a recoil spring might make sense.

murf
 
.and the reality is that the slide just doesn't hit the frame all that hard...even without a spring.

This was hard to get a handle on when I was first confronted with evidence to the contrary.

This was interesting. Its a glock, but,.... I wouldnt have guessed a single finger against the back of the slide would stop it from functioning, and not hurt the finger. A finger simply pushed against the side of the slide can also completely stop it from cycling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re8oMnGbnh4
 
The bullet attains about 90% of its terminal velocity within the first half inch or less of its travel in the barrel.
The chronograph data from Ballistics by the Inch suggests that if we're talking about a 45ACP with a 5" barrel, it takes between 3 & 4 inches for the bullet to reach 90% of muzzle velocity.

Deducting 1.25" for the length of the cartridge would indicate that the bullet achieves 90% of muzzle velocity by the time it has moved about 1.75 to 2.75 inches.

However, I do agree that it's likely that there's more likelihood of damage to the gun from things that happen early in the rearward motion of the slide than near the end of rearward travel. In a hammer fired gun, cocking the hammer slows the slide significantly and therefore reduces the final impact velocity when something finally brings it to a stop.

In striker-fired guns, the dynamic is different and I suspect that the spring may play a more important role in slowing the slide than in hammer-fired designs.
I wouldnt have guessed a single finger against the back of the slide would stop it from functioning, and not hurt the finger.
I've done it a couple of times with a 10mm pistol and while there was no injury to the finger, I wouldn't say it was exactly pleasant.
 
Let's do a little simple math.

The combined mass of the barrel and slide in a 5-inch gun is roughly 32 times that of a 230-grain bullet..which means that the slide assembly's rate of acceleration is 1/32nd that of the bullet and thus the assembly's maximum speed will likewise be 1/32nd of the bullet's.

If we assume 830 fps bullet velocity, the slide's maximum speed is about 25 fps with GI-spec hardball.

And that's just a mass to mass ratio.

Once we factor in the outside forces imposed on the slide by the hammer's mass...mainspring...and the preloaded recoil spring, which start to fight the slide's acceleration the instant that it starts to move...it's probably a safe bet that the slide will lose at least 3 or 4 fps by the time the bullet exits.

At that point, there is no more accelerating force on the slide, and it can only decelerate.

Then, at .250 inch of travel, the barrel falls away, reducing the mass and the momentum by roughly a fourth...and the slide decelerates more rapidly because the lower the mass, the more rapid the rate of deceleration with a given resistance.

Firing 230/830 with a 14 pound action spring, it's doubtful if the slide impacts the frame at more than about 20 fps. That ain't exactly a wreckin' ball.

The chronograph data from Ballistics by the Inch suggests that if we're talking about a 45ACP with a 5" barrel, it takes between 3 & 4 inches for the bullet to reach 90% of muzzle velocity.

A few experiments have shown that it's entirely possible that with some bullet/powder/barrel length combinations, the bullet can actually be moving faster at some point in the barrel before it exits.

I believe that this is more common that suspected with standard (non-magnum) pistol calibers and quick-burning powders.

But here's some food for thought...again, talking about non-magnum calibers.

Remember that with the powders typical to pistol calibers, pressure...and accelerating force...peak rapidly. With some powders...like Bullseye...that peak can occur before the bullet has even fully entered the rifling.

If we assume 35 fps per inch of barrel gained or lost, which will be pretty close...we get about 140 feet per second of the muzzle velocity from the 4.2 inches of rifled barrel in a 5-inch .45 Auto barrel.

That leaves 690 feet per second unaccounted for, assuming 830 fps mv.

And, yes...I've conducted an experiment to test the theory. To keep this from becoming too long, I'll outline it in another post later on.
 
Back in 2007, gunsmith and custom knife maker Wild Bill Caldwell was our houseguest for 2 weeks while he attended an engraving class at Montgomery Community College.

We'd discussed these muzzle velocity points at length online and over the phone, and he told me that he was bringing something that could provide some answers.

That "something" was a pair of 2 inch Rohm RG .38 Special revolvers.

For those not familiar with the RG, the barrel is a simple, pinned steel tube with a zinc shroud lightly pressed onto the barrel. Very easy to take apart and reassemble.

On the first range trip, we chronographed 10 rounds from a box of standard velocity 158-grain lead RN to get a baseline. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they were in the high 690 fps range...typical with that ammunition from a 2-inch barrel...which was 2.15 inches long, measured with a dial caliper.

Then we pulled the shroud and the barrel...stuck the barrel in a lathe...and cut it down to the point that we had just enough left to pin it back in the frame...which left just enough shallow rifling to spin the bullet and keep it flying point-forward through the chrono screens. I didn't want to shoot my chronograph, so that was necessary.

The remaining barrel was roughly a quarter-inch long. Close enough to no barrel for gub'mint work.

Barrel/cylinder gap was a generous .009 inch.

The second test with 10 rounds from the same box resulted in a velocity loss of 58 fps. Factoring in the quarter inch of barrel, we estimated that with no barrel at all, the loss would have been about 65 fps.

If we assume that the initial velocity was exactly 690 fps, and assuming that the adjusted 65 fps loss was accurate...625 fps was attained before the bullet was even clear of the case mouth.

We then broke out the other RG, and fired 10 rounds through the screens. Again, I can't recall the exact figures, but they were close enough to call it good. In a blind test, neither of us could tell any difference in felt recoil between the two, nor could a third party who showed up at the range during the test and got dragged into our little mad scientist experiment.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
 
That leaves 690 feet per second unaccounted for, assuming 830 fps mv.
That would be about 83% of the velocity achieved in the first fraction of an inch of travel.

That's entirely consistent with the data from BBTI.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

There's one loading that runs 843fps from a 5" bbl which has the bullet moving 705fps a quarter inch after it started moving (2" bbl). That's a virtually identical percentage of velocity achieved in the first quarter inch of travel.

It is certainly true that the majority of the bullet's velocity is achieved within a fraction of an inch of travel, however the actual figure for the 45Auto out of a 5" bbl is closer to 80% than 90%. It takes 1.75 to 2.75 inches of bullet travel to get up to 90% of muzzle velocity.
If we assume that the initial velocity was exactly 690 fps, and assuming that the adjusted 65 fps loss was accurate...625 fps was attained before the bullet was even clear of the case mouth.
That sounds right. However, in that experiment, you weren't comparing the initial "jump" velocity of the bullet as it leaves the case with the velocity out of a 5" barrel. You were comparing it to the velocity out of a much shorter barrel. Naturally that resulted in that initial jump providing a larger percentage of the overall velocity.

For example, if instead of using the 5" velocity figures as the starting point in the BBTI data, we used 3", then we would find that over 90% of the muzzle velocity was achieved in that initial "jump".
 
mikemeyers,

it might be easier to digest all this if you realize the main spring (the one attached to the hammer) is doing the most resisting of the slides rearward travel. 1911 tuner could shed more light on this, but with this bit of info, understanding why your gun won't be destroyed without a recoil spring might make sense.......


'murf', as I read the response from 'Old Fufff' just before yours, and then what you wrote, everything had clicked into place:

"The barrel and slide, and the total weight thereof, are locked together until the bullet has left the bore and internal pressure has dropped to zero. Then as the slide recoils backward the hammer - and the spring behind it - act as a buffer pushing against the slide to slow its speed."

When I turned the computer off last night, I pretty much accepted what '1911tuner' had explained, but not knowing all the other things you guys have just posted, I couldn't understand WHY he was correct. Now it all makes sense to me..... up until the next few posts, which I still need to read a few more times, to understand.


(I'm going to take this thread, edit out the extra stuff, and condense it down to a one page explanation which I can print out. Maybe '1911tuner' can make any adjustments that are needed, and either post it as a 'sticky', or use it for the potential book he might get published. Books need a person who fully understands the subject, and others who turn those thoughts into a readable book.....)​
 
........ This was interesting....... I wouldn't have guessed a single finger against the back of the slide would stop it from functioning, and not hurt the finger......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re8oMnGbnh4


Two days ago, I would have said this had to be a fake video, since I absolutely KNEW that all the force of the bullet moving one way had to be pushing that slide equally hard towards the rear. After reading this discussion, the video now makes sense. I doubt if more than one shooter in 100, or maybe 1000, realizes this!
 
I absolutely KNEW that all the force of the bullet moving one way had to be pushing that slide equally hard towards the rear.

And you're correct. Force forward is force backward. If there are X units of force accelerating the bullet, there are X units of force accelerating the slide.

It is certainly true that the majority of the bullet's velocity is achieved within a fraction of an inch of travel, however the actual figure for the 45Auto out of a 5" bbl

Well, I wasn't speaking in absolutes, nor was I interested in precise velocity figures. That's why I said "about" when I brought it up. The point was that slide velocity rearward isn't dependent on muzzle velocity. Muzzle velocity is a factor, but it's only part of the whole picture.
 
1911tuner said:
The point was that slide velocity rearward isn't dependent on muzzle velocity.

You guys are about to discover why discussing basic physics with 1911tuner is like discussing concealed carry with Rosie O'Donnell ..... facts and logic do not apply. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top