JamieC said:
Question, if the frame doesn't get 'battered' from using too light a recoil spring and too hot a load, what does?
The shooter, perhaps? Lots of people find that using different recoil springs change the EXPERIENCE of the recoil. More about this, below.
JamieC said:
I guess that's directed towards 1911s, I'll also guess different platforms might get different parts 'battered'.
I wouldn't be surprised if some guns, particularly some that aren't made for hot loads, might find themselves getting battered -- with frames actually stretching, over time. It happens with revolvers, but the transfer of force there is more direct, with fewer variables and points of contact where force can be transferred.
JamieC said:
FWIW, there IS a company that markets a type of shock absorber that replaces the recoil spring guide rod, can't think of the name, I'll have to look when I get home. A combination of shock absorber and spring can't be all bad...
Springco does that, as do other companies. I bought a used CZ some years ago and it came with a Springco recoil reduction unit. Their materials make no claim about protecting the gun. Some use a guide rod that has mercury or some other heavy material in it, adding MASS to the process. Most of them advertise their products as something that makes the gun more comfortable to shoot, or more manageable. I haven't seen a lot of advertising focused on "protecting the gun." I think most of them simply redistribute the recoil force differently, over a slightly different span of time.
I think that's what most of them are intended to do: to change the experience of recoil, and NOT protect the gun. Changing the experience of recoil might change things so that the gun might not rise quite as high or as quickly; in some cases, the shooter won't feel the force in quite the same way -- what was a sharp crack might be come a longer duller thump.
As someone else has noted, heavier springs have a downside -- some of the force is converted to heat, but some of it is retained and sent back to the gun with the slide's return to battery.
I don't understand enough about physics to appreciate all of the variables, but the force from the rounds being fired that aren't captured by the springs, must be passed through the gun to the shooter. I suspect that a heavier recoil spring (24 lbs rather than 14 lbs, for example) isn't really changing the equation all that much -- and substantial force is still being passed into the gun through point of interface (or interfaces) to the shooter. (I'm much more familiar with CZs than 1911s, but I think the underlying principles are the same.)
On hammer-fired guns, force is also being transferred to the hammer spring (as the slide moves back), and I would think that a heavier hammer spring would do as much to prevent frame damage as a heavier recoil spring -- as some of that stored force doesn't hit the gun again until the next shot (hammer drop.)
I've been told that a few of the top shooters in IPSC use these recoil reduction devices to let them fire their weapons more effectively in a timed contest. I suspect that saving the gun isn't really an issue for them, as they probably can get a new gun whenever they need it. Minimizing the amount of muzzle flip, or slowing it can make the gun more manageable and THAT probably is an issue for them.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding all of this -- it won't be the first time I've misunderstood some of the subtler aspects of handgun mechanisms -- and if you find that what I've written above is wrong, please feel free to share your findings with us.