Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by IrishRifles, Jun 13, 2012.
Do you use a recoil buffer in your Glock and why?
Never saw the need. And since most of my recoil springs are captured, it doesn't apply. Actually never heard anyone say they'd shot their Glock enough to create any measurable wear. Perhaps competition shooters with non-captured springs may use them? Until you posted this, I'd never even thought or heard about it. There's a fair number of things that can be added to a Glock to make it more accurate, or easier to shoot for some, but all my Glocks will outshoot me bone stock...and probably always will.
Not needed in Glocks. If the round being fired is so powerful that the recoil spring compresses completely, then a recoil buffer will absorb that shock. That also means that the current recoil spring is too weak.
Automobile shock have similar buffers due to high and constant vibration as well as the chance of the car or truck "bottoming out".
For pistols and their recoil spring, the shock transfers progressively from the spring to the slide. No "bottoming out" unless the spring is too weak or worn.
Never. Completely unnecessary.
They come apart after a few hundred rounds and may jam your pistol at the worst possible time.
I don't know about these guys, but I run 'em.
I have 7 in my G17.
One in front
One in back
2.5 each side
To OP: No, they are not necessary.
no, they are not necessary... useless...
I have one! Shot 2k + through my glock with it without a single issue, never had one break apart.
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
The polymer frame of the Glock is designed to absorb recoil. Recoil buffers for the Glock are a gimmick, like the thing that you stick on your gas line and supposedly get 40% better milage.
I run them in 17 of my 18 Glocks and have for years. They don't make one for my G30 or there would be one in it also. I have ran them 2 to 3 thousand rounds and never had one come apart. When you clean the gun after shooting and it shows that much wear then I replace it. As for why I do it, it's simple. I love my Glock and it reduces the slide to frame battering which will extend the life of the gun. NECESSARY, certainly not, USEFUL, definately. I also run them in my 1911's, AK's for all the same reasons. To each their own..
I wouldnt use one in a gun that didnt come with one from the factory. If the designer felt they were necessary, then it would be there. Some guns do come with them, most dont.
Having tried them in a couple of AK's reinforced that in my mind. The guns all ran fine prior to installing the buffers, all had constant malfunctions after they were. Once removed, back to 99.99% reliable. Thousands of rounds later, not a hint of the bolt carrier impacting the receiver anywhere.
It's honestly a gimmick. I've never seen anybody prove that they significantly reduce wear. I would only use a buffer in a gun that was designed to use one from the start.
How do you know that the buffer "will extend the life of the gun"? Do you have any evidence of prolonged gun life?
To the OP, don't waste you money on this snake oil product.
Not OEM so no. If needed Glock would have put them in.
Replace your RSA when it begins to show signs of weakening and you're good to go.
Of course not.
You have hit the nail on the head , all they do is cause problems.
I once bought a SKS that came with a recoil buffer, and it jammed like crazy until I took it out. People might say that they never had a problem and fired thousands of rounds with theirs, but not all recoil buffers are made the same and it really depends on the design. The fact that it's in there does leave room for a malfunction to happen.
Not necessary at all. Just mho.