1911 Springs/Plastic Pistol Springs

[mes228]

My question is "Why are some steel pistols sprung so heavy compared to plastic ones?"

I have both 1911's and several plastic pistols. All my 1911's except the Custom 10x are way too difficult to cycle. Even after thousands of rounds I must cock them to cycle the slide. All the semi-custom 1911's ie Springfields, Baers, Wilson, etc.etc. are the same. Even the new Browning HP's are way too stiff. Keep in mind I'm older (62) but not a total wimp. Both 1911's and Browning HP's, several years ago were all built "easy" to rack (my 10X still is) . Seems most every maker now thinks everyone is a 21 year old muscle man when it comes to "steel" pistols.

Compare the plastic pistols. All are easy to rack. The Glock's, H&K's, FN's, Springfields, S&W etc.etc. Especially the Tactical Models (I have the H&K & the FN Tactical). A child can rack them. I suspect they are as durable as anything out there too.

 

[g.willikers]

The striker fired guns are going to be easier to rack.
There's less mass and spring pressure inherent in the design.
As for the hammer fired guns, the springs, both recoil and mainsprings, are pretty much standardized, since they are important to the overall designs.
But different size guns and different calibers can have vastly different springs.
To overcome the problem, maybe you should change the method you use to rack them.
Are you using the isometric method, (weak hands method)?
Most old timers, like us, grew up with the pinch the slide method.
The isometric method is way easier.
There's quite a few links on this forum for it and on youtube.

 

[mes228]

Spring

I do use the "isometric method" if you are speaking of "push'pull" with both hands. Many pistols are still a bear to rack. Several years ago 1911's were quite easy to rack, so were Browning High Powers. Now everyone's gone to Godzilla spring weights. I suppose it relates to hot loads and longevity. However the full custom 10x 1911 I have is easily rackable, as accurate as any of my other custom-semicustom pistols. And has many fired thousands of rounds with no ill effects I can see. You would think the plastic pistols frames would need "stronger" springs to prevent frame damage from recoil. Are all plastic pistols striker fired type? I realize my Glock's are.

 

[g.willikers]

No, the material the frame is made of is not necessarily an indicator of the design.
There are polymer framed 1911s, even.
To add to the confusion, some hammer fired guns have internal hammers.

 

[g.willikers]

Almost forgot.
There's another version of the isometric method, that uses the shoulder and arm, not just the push pull of the hands.
Keep the gun close to the body and get the shoulder and even a little hip action involved.
It's quite good for even the hard to rack ones.

 

[tim s]

Spring rates for 1911 series pistols are pretty much unchanged from 30 years ago. Full 5" guns run 16# to 18# rates, target models 13-14# weights. I'd give a serious look at your lubrication methods/compounds. Alas nobody gets stronger from 40"s to 60's . I'm not too far away from your vintage & shoot guns with spring rates from 14 to 18.5 and they do not seem troublesome.

 

[Coyote_Buster700]

My Colt 1911 is very easy to rack. As I've said on other threads, I can rack it with one hand. It is much easier to rack than my friends PX4 (polymer), it however is relatively new. Especially when compared to my 1911 that was Manufactured in the late 70's.

 

[BlueTrain]

I have a polymer framed, striker fired 9mm and a metal framed, hammer fired 9mm. Frankly, I find the slides on both of them rather difficult to retract compared with other pistols I've had, although I'm not sure the reason has anything to do with the springs. The gripping area on both of them is rather scanty. In fact on one pistol, the gripping area on the slide (and the whole slide) was so small and slick, that I had great difficulty in retracting the slide.

But I have always found Colt Government Model pistols and copies as well as Glocks to be easy to operate--and I don't have any of either!

 

[tim s]

It should probably be noted that this is going to lead to certain vintage comparisons made by folks unaware that recoil springs in 1911 pistols should be swapped out every couple thousand rounds, at least every 4-5 thousand rounds for fresh ones and I'd guess a lot of casual owners don't know/do this.

 

[Coyote_Buster700]

It should probably be noted that this is going to lead to certain vintage comparisons made by folks unaware that recoil springs in 1911 pistols should be swapped out every couple thousand rounds, at least every 4-5 thousand rounds for fresh ones and I'd guess a lot of casual owners don't know/do this.

Not with mine. My dad bought it new, and only shot it a few times. I myself have only put maybe 5 boxes through it. So my spring should be nowhere close to worn out. It's been a safe queen longer than I've been alive.

 

[mes228]

Springs

I'm not a casual owner. Neither am I weak. I've owned hundreds of pistols.I currently own ten. It's obvious to me that most quality pistols today are using much stiffer springs. Even youthful, strong men, have problems racking most Les Baer's, Springfield Professional, etc.etc. With out cocking the piece. I CAN rack them, however, it's MUCH harder than prior 1911's.

I know people that have sold off new Browning Highpowers recently for this. I know people that have cut several coils off the springs in new Kimber Custom II's and reworked other parts to reduce the effort to rack. As for changing out springs, do as you wish. I shoot about 200 rounds a week. Down from 600 a week or so, for many many years. If you feel that springs MUST be changed every few thousand rounds your experience differs from mine. If you fired a 1911, or Glock etc. until the spring HAD to be changed out or caused malfunctions. I suspect that you'd be shooting quite a long time. I've NEVER changed a spring that REQUIRED changing. They are very durable.

 

[ScottRiqui]

I could barely rack my 3" Springfield EMP when it was new. Now, I don't find it difficult at all. I've only put maybe 500 rounds through it, so I think it's mostly that my technique has improved.

 

[drail]

Racking a 1911 with the hammer down is tough for a reason. When the slide cycles back most of its inertia is consumed by the act resetting the hammer spring and also how much leverage the hammer presents to the slide for it to be fully recock it. This is why a square bottom firing pin stop (of the original design) works so well to slow down a slide without slamming it back forward so hard the lugs get peened. It gives the hammer significantly more leverage to be overcome by the slide. Most people believe the recoil spring is what absorbs the slide's energy when in reality all it does is return the slide forward. That's all it's for. Increase the recoil spring weight to slow down the slide and you get a lot more muzzle dip when it goes back into battery. If it's difficult to rack your slide then by all mean cock the hammer first. There's nothing wrong with your gun. Most polymer guns only need to partially recock the striker and so it takes considerably less effort to rack one. How often recoil springs need to be changed depends greatly on the quality of the spring and matching it to a load. Use cheap springs or heavy loads and they will wear down fairly quickly. A 1911 will run better with a standard (or heavier) weight mainspring under the hammer than it will with a heavy recoil spring installed. And a standard weight mainspring really doesn't mean the gun will have a heavy trigger pull. Trigger jobs are mainly dependent on the angles and finish of the sear and hammer hooks. If they are correct a standard weight mainspring will have very little effect on the trigger pull. I didn't used to believe that until I starting learning to do trigger work.

 

[tim s]

I know people that have sold off new Browning Highpowers recently for this. I know people that have cut several coils off the springs in new Kimber Custom II's and reworked other parts to reduce the effort to rack. As for changing out springs, do as you wish. I shoot about 200 rounds a week. Down from 600 a week or so, for many many years. If you feel that springs MUST be changed every few thousand rounds your experience differs from mine. If you fired a 1911, or Glock etc. until the spring HAD to be changed out or caused malfunctions. I suspect that you'd be shooting quite a long time. I've NEVER changed a spring that REQUIRED changing. They are very durable
Quote.

Friend, I'd suggest you do a bit of homework because every maker of 1911 pistols suggests the spring replacement cycle. I'd bet a master smith could point to wear damage of any 1911 that goes that long on it's only spring. Call Kimber. Better yet, swing over to the 1911 forum and pose your question or up your knowledge.As far as modern vs vintage Series 70's Colts used 16# rates just as Kimber does now on all 5" models. 40 years of history seems adequate. Commander size use higher rates, up into the 20's. Baer's cycling has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with springs since they're only bumped to 18#, and everything to do with tight fitment of /slide/frame when new.

Another point I'd mention to you, if I rack the slide, hammer down on my Kimber Eclipse Target it is noticably harder than My Baer Premier II in spite of the fact that the Kimber uses a 16# and the Baer an 18 1/2#, just as it is harder to simply cock the hammer because the hammer pivot geometry is a bit different between the 2 as well as the main springs, which have zero to do with recoil springs so shooting a lot and knowing a lot about how a 1911 functions is not really the same thing.

 

[mes228]

Springs

Well, my experience differs from yours. I am aware the manufactures say to change springs every few thousand rounds, some even more often. I've ignored that particular advice. I do not suggest anyone else do so. Multiple thousands of shooters are shooting pistols with quite old springs. Maybe I'm just lucky and have gotten by with it. However, I don't think so. I know and shoot with an older Bulls Eye Competitor that does not change his springs after a few thousand rounds. Maybe we're both lucky or senile.

As an aside, I believe I've been posting on the 1911 forum for 15- 20 years. I've had several Les Baers and put probably 20K +++ rounds down their tubes. I currently have a Monolith Heavy with several thousand rounds and the original springs (and it's still a "Baer" to rack (grin). I have 3 Glock's with several thousand rounds through each - all with original springs. I have a Custom 10X with several thousand rounds and the original springs. And both a H&K and FN Tactical with several thousands of rounds each and all have original springs. Actually I've not changed a spring in any pistol I own. All have multiple thousands of rounds fired. I field strip regularly clean and lube all my pistols and see no wear or battering of lugs etc. I do lube with Sentry Hi-Slip Grease and RemOil (even the Glocks - go ahead and laugh it's O.K.) I know it's anathema to many that read Glock manuals as gospel. I shoot NOTHING without grease. Even .22's pistols.

For the last several weeks I've been shooting about 200- 400 rounds once or twice a week (that takes all of about 20 minuets). As I'm trying to improve my accuracy shooting rapidly ie several rounds a second. I saw S&W factory shooter Mccullek (spelling??) shooting his normal speed of 11 rounds a second (from memory- I think that's what the commentator said). He is blindingly fast and relatively accurate to boot. So I thought I'd try to improve. I have fired a few thousand rounds as rapidly as I can pull the trigger. I have not yet had a malfunction of any kind.

 

[KyJim]

I think some of them may be harder to rack for a couple of reasons. First, some manufacturers use a slightly heavier recoil spring than standard under the theory shooters are more likely to shoot +P ammo. Probably the biggest reason is that many manufacturers build with a tighter slide to frame fit because that's what the public expects to see from a quality handgun. A lot of folks talk unfavorably about the old "Colt rattle" as a sign of mediocre fit (not necessarily true, of course).

 

[5RWill]

The one 1911 i've fiddled with was harder to rack than my Glock 21. Not ridiculous but noticeably harder.

 

[NJgunowner]

You'd hate my Colt then, it's the Delta Elite and has 24lb spring

 

[tim s]

I'm not a casual owner. Neither am I weak. I've owned hundreds of pistols.I currently own ten. It's obvious to me that most quality pistols today are using much stiffer springs. Even youthful, strong men, have problems racking most Les Baer's, Springfield Professional, etc.etc. With out cocking the piece. I CAN rack them, however, it's MUCH harder than prior 1911's.

Quote

Again: The average 1911 of 40 years ago used a 16# spring [ every 5"Colt]. The average 1911 of 2011-2012 uses a 16# spring...Fact. Some use 18# springs....hardly much harder. Conclusion......get a gym membership.


My only purpose here is to address the age old issue of making broad assumtions based on an initial incorrect premise, Spring rates have'nt changed in OEM/Custom 1911's in a long time. STD 16-18, target 12-14.

 

[mes228]

Rack

Tim s, I'm sure you are correct (in your mind at least(grin). But on a pleasant note, I'll have to disagree. I'm also sure you can show me spring rates etc.etc. that mean nothing (at least to me). I also am sure you are more knowledgeable than I am. But I assume nothing, my personal, hands on, OBJECTIVE experience says some newer pistols are harder to rack than older ones. If you do not agree with that then I feel you haven't owned or fired very many pistols. As EVERYONE I know that that shoots with me, all agree that new 1911's are harder to rack. That would be ten or so people that many would envy as shooters. With the caveat I haven't owned any of the lower end Philippine imports (they may be as easy as old ones to rack).

I defy you to go purchase a new Browning Hi-Power and then tell me they are as easy to rack as older NEW ones. I've owned perhaps 15 Browning Hi-Powers over the years. My personal experience tells me that the new ones are MUCH harder to rack. Perhaps it's something other than the springs - but they ARE much harder to rack.

I really can't address Colt 1911's that much. I've owned several Gold Cups and and had not a whit of trouble racking them. However, the last I owned was when the Taurus 1911's came out some years ago. When the Taurus out shot the last Gold Cup, I sold it off. I've owned a couple of Deltas I didn't fire, and a handful of Commanders I fired very little. However, I know that a Springfield Professional is a BEAR to rack. As are all the BAERS I've owned except a few of the TRS I've owned. The Premiers and Mono are quite difficult to rack. Though the Monolith Heavy is a great 1911 and my favorite. At any rate I disagree as my experience differs than yours. Best regards and peace.