[Anderson3754]

If one chooses to run a shok buff, and has a need to release a locked back slide with the over hand technique we all know most or a lot of pistols will not allow this because of the added thickness of the shok buff, anywhere from .090 to .110 in thickness. This requires one to use the slide stop to be used to release the slide to go home into battery.

The gun in question is a 5" 9mm Rock belonging to my daughter, the gun shoots super soft now with the way it's sprung and the light load 100gr FMJ. The use of the shok buff even reduces felt recoil and muzzel flip even more for her. She shoots CQB with me a couple times a month which incorporates the use of carbine /rifle as the primary weapon, with transition drills from rifle to pistol requiring one handed shooting and reloading with the use of the overhand technique of the pistol during a reload.

The slide does retract slightly with a shok buff in place, but it is short approx .035 of retraction to allow the slide to kick the slide stop down, to utilize the over hand technique.

I have the rear of the dust cover taped off at the rear .035, and my favorite number 2 cut file ready to remove that needed .035 from the back of the dust cover to allow the overhand technique to be used with the shok buff in place.

I've been looking at this modification now for about 10 hrs trying to discern if there is going to be a timing problem for feed,fire, extract, eject, or a valid reason not to do this modification with the shok buff in place, or if the shok buff is removed after the .035 as been removed.


So there is the long question of; can one remove approx .035 from the rear of a dust cover to facilitate the use of the overhand technique to release the slide into battery with a shok buff in place.

 

[45Driver]

I'm not a 'smith but it occurs to me that for only .035" you could remove that much from the rear of the recoil spring guide rod head.

Better to modify the cheap, replaceable part than the slide. :thumb:

 

[knedrgr]

The rear of the dust cover is also known as the Visible Impact Surface (VIS). This is where the barrel lug hit when the barrel link is cam down to the max position.

If you remove that surface, then the lug wouldn't hit it anymore, thus causing a greater amount of stress on the barrel link, link pin, and slide stop.

 

[Quack]

before doing that i would try a square bottom EGW firing pin stop and just break the corner of it.
the reduced radius of the FP Stop will reduce the felt recoil.

When i had my DW Guardian, the recoil on that felt less than what my 9mm SACS has. which is what would be the opposite of what one would think. the difference is that DW uses the squared off FP Stop.

http://www.egwguns.com/firing-pin-stops/oversized-series-70-firing-pin-stop/

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=164678

 

[Anderson3754]

Yes.......... thought about that, my guide rod head is .090. .090 minus .035 = .055. I'm thinking thats gonna be alittle on the thin side,don't know????

The guide rod is a easy part to replace though, slides are a little pricey. LOL LOL

 

[knedrgr]

I agree with the square FPS method. I have it on one of my 1911, and is really nice to feel the difference.

 

[Quack]

yet another option is using a STI RecoilMaster. that will change the recoil impulse and it'll be less snappy compared to a standard recoil setup.

 

[Earlsbud]

Reduce the thickness of the buff.

 

[Anderson3754]

Quack HI

Yes yes........ I already have a EGW firing pin stop installed with a small radius, 12lb recoil spring, and a 21lb mainspring. The gun runs about as slow as you ever ask for, the cases dribble out 4-6 in, and just fall to the ground. I'm trying to take this recoil reduction right down as far as I can go, with the shok buff it is lessened. Now I have to set it up to use the overhand technique to release the slide.

 

[Anderson3754]

Reduce the thickness of the buff.

I spose that could be done, mine are .090 thick reducing the thickness each time to replace it is just not going to be feasible. Now if I could buy some that are only approx .050 thick, that I would try.

 

[Quack]

try clipping a coil or 2 off the recoil spring.

 

[Anderson3754]

I'm starting to think part of the answer may be in the min and max length of the dust cover, and the min thicknees one could reduce the recoil spring plug flange down to.
Wished I had a blueprint.

 

[Anderson3754]

Gotta go........... but I'll be back................ The Betterhalf just walked through the door with a 12pk,and a large cheese and sausage PIZZA.

 

[Earlsbud]

try clipping a coil or 2 off the recoil spring.

That would work but would it be a good idea to clip a spring a pound or two heavier?

 

[Kokopelli]

Is the spring going into spring bind? It shouldn't be. Ron


PS: I believe I actually have a blueprint but just the image

 

[Joe C]

The rear of the dust cover is also known as the Visible Impact Surface (VIS). This is where the barrel lug hit when the barrel link is cam down to the max position.

If you remove that surface, then the lug wouldn't hit it anymore, thus causing a greater amount of stress on the barrel link, link pin, and slide stop.

Oh man, there are some serious opinions on this topic...and some wrong info, no offense Knedrgr, in here as well...The area Anderson is talking about is not the VIS. The vis is that area located inside the barrel leg channel just forward of the frame ramp where the back of the barrel legs contact during recoil. The dust cover he seems to be referring to is the part on the slide that houses the recoil spring plug. Therefore, filing that area forward approx. .035 would not affect in any way how the barrel strikes the vis.

Regarding the small radius FFP, I personally don't suggest the use of them. While they can appear to lesson recoil, all they are really doing is providing more resistance to the slide and hammer relationship which in the long run puts stress on the hammer and can cause them to break or crack (yes I have seen this).

Cutting coils off of springs can also be a very bad idea. Depending on the spring being used, you can take a 16lb recoil spring and cut 2-3 coils off of it and it will be a 14lb...not good if you wanted or needed a 16lb. So, skip that idea unless you are going to do what Earl said and use a heavier one and clip it...still not a great idea.

Can you file the dustcover of the slide forward? Sure you can... Just make sure you file the back of the recoil plug as well and the front of the recoil rod, if it is a GI the same amount. If you don't, and it is a GI, it will cause some major problems, like knocking the front of your plug out! LOL!

All of the above comes from my own experience of building and shooting 9mm 1911's for the past nearly five years. And as most of you know my daily carry is a custom 9mm I built myself. So, what do I do to reduce recoil and make the gun shoot flat while still being able to release the slide however desired? Well first of all I don't use a shock buff or a small radius FPP, and I don't clip coils or any of that...

Right now I'm using a 13.5lb ISMI recoil spring with a 20lb Wolff mainspring. I have used as high as a 15lb recoil and a 23lb main but found it didn't work as well for various reasons. The first combination keeps the gun shooting very flat and fast with minimal recoil and no risk to damaging the gun. And if you really want to keep the muzzle down you can do what I did and put in a tungsten full length rod...it works...

Regarding those shock buffs...I don't like them. I know, people have told me they've had them in for years with no problems...but I've also seen them fall apart and lock the gun up so you had to beat the slide off with a mallet. That is the kind of failure you don't need in an emergency...unless you carry a mallet with your gun, which I doubt. ;-)

Bottom line, a properly sprung gun will shoot as soft and flat as you want with a variety of loads across the board and won't cause any potential damage to the gun either. And if you need proof ask someone like 1911brewer who has shot my personal 9mm with the above set up...it works, and well.

 

[knedrgr]

Oh man, there are some serious opinions on this topic...and some wrong info, no offense Knedrgr, in here as well...The area Anderson is talking about is not the VIS. The vis is that area located inside the barrel leg channel just forward of the frame ramp where the back of the barrel legs contact during recoil. The dust cover he seems to be referring to is the part on the slide that houses the recoil spring plug. Therefore, filing that area forward approx. .035 would not affect in any way how the barrel strikes the vis.

You're right Joe. My bad on that. I was thinking of the wrong area I had originally read the post, thus my incorrect answer to his problem. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Anderson3754]

Is the spring going into spring bind? It shouldn't be. Ron


PS: I believe I actually have a blueprint but just the image

Okay...... I'm back


No.. I'm not having a recoil spring bind problem, the gun runs out just beautifully. My problem is when the shok buff is in place, the slide cannot be released by grasping the top of the slide with your weak, hand pulling it back to release it (the slide) into battery.

I need to gain some more clearance where the rear of the dust cover makes contact with the shok buff. Right now I believe my only options are to shorten the dust cover's rear, the thickness of the shock buff, thin up the recoil guide plug flange or a combination of both. This would allow the slide to be pulled the approx .035 further to the rear, allowing the slide to kick the slide stop down, which inturn will release the slide to go home into battery, instead of having to use the slidestop.

 

[Joe C]

Okay...... I'm back


No.. I'm not having a recoil spring bind problem, the gun runs out just beautifully. My problem is when the shok buff is in place, the slide cannot be released by grasping the top of the slide with your weak, hand pulling it back to release it (the slide) into battery.

I need to gain some more clearance where the rear of the dust cover makes contact with the shok buff. Right now I believe my only options are to shorten the dust cover's rear, the thickness of the shock buff, thin up the recoil guide plug flange or a combination of both. This would allow the slide to be pulled the approx .035 further to the rear, allowing the slide to kick the slide stop down, which inturn will release the slide to go home into battery, instead of having to use the slidestop.

:frusty::frusty::Cry::Cry::frusty::frusty:

Seriously...get rid of the shock buff...LOL! Go read what I wrote you Anderson.

 

[Anderson3754]

:frusty::frusty::Cry::Cry::frusty::frusty:

Seriously...get rid of the shock buff...LOL! Go read what I wrote you Anderson.

Joe HI thanks. I actually dislike the use of a shok-buff, it is something that I'm willing to try for my daughter's 9mm for practice, to gain every ounce of recoil reduction possible shooting one handed and weak hand. The gun shoots very soft now without a shok buff, and I may be just chasing my tail on this.

If I understood correctly, the modification can be done with out harm. Care must taken to ensure the recoil spring plug does not bottom out with the recoil spring guide rod flange, the nose of the recoil spring guide does not bottom out inside the recoil spring plug and of course the recoil spring does not enter into coil bind. These clearance issues would also have apply if one decided to remove the shok buff and shoot the gun.