Originally Posted by Any Cal.
There is very little difference between 1911s and Glocks in their operation. Neither are blow back designs, they are both a short recoil operated design. The locking block on the Glock works exactly like the barrel link in the 1911,(disengages the barrel from slide), and the barrel hood on the Glock works exactly like the barrel lugs on the 1911,(locks slide to barrel).
The Glock doesn't have a hammer, but it doesn't have much to do with the lockup anyway. The hammer spring does provide additional resistance to the movement of the slide, but once again, this is more relevant to slide movement than lockup.
Different wording for basicly the same operation...some use either to describe the action of the forces acting on the slide's breech face to drive the slide and barrel back from the locked condition. SORRY! Not trying to be argumentive.
Here is where I do see a difference in my setup with a Glock-29...
I use the Wolff Gun Springs non-captive two piece recoil rod and matching 21 lbs springs. I would venture to say that the non-captive spring generates slightly more spring pressure than a captive stock unit in the locked position...Why do I say this? Because I have to compress the recoil springs to get them inside the notched pearch on the barrel lug.
Now the question for those who rattle off numbers and stuff...Does this increase the dwell time holding the barrel and slide locked? Keep in mind this does increase the amount of force needed to rack the slide, therefore it is more force than the stock captive system. No I haven't measured the differences but someday I just might.
If it takes more energy for me to pull the slide rearward, then it must be working to hold it closed a little tighter than the stock arrangement. Does this hold the slide and barrel in lock for more time? I say yes! Why? Every action has and equal and opposite reaction!
I agree that the maximium spring poundage is seen at the full compression. These dual springs tend to stack their poundage faster being shorter than that of the longer G-20 units. I think the newer Gen 4 G-20's are now using a dual spring arrangement.
BTW, the S&W1006 uses a non-captive spring system and it takes quite a bit of compression to get that spring inside the notch on the barrel lug. This is a great deal of pressure being applied to hold it into battery, and it too needs to be over come to break the locking arangement of the slide and barrels as it is cammed downward out of lock. (If you loose control of the recoil rod and spring during instalation, it will fly for quite some distance or force.)
I not a 1911 guy, but it is my understanding that the the recocking of the hammer against its mainspring, works to add drag to the slide to help control the slide velocity more so than the recoil spring in its action, with the recoil spring providing the slide return. ???