[SargeMO]

View attachment 978481
A few minutes a day, every day, until you become a strongman and become capable of pulling back a 17 pound or so spring.

You should post that in all the threads with people crying about '9mm recoil'. LMAO.

I carry a G17 Gen 5 at work (miss my gen 3 Model 22 a lot) and what really irritates me is the stupidly strong double recoil spring setup. I have a 1911 setup in 9MM with the factory 14 pound Colt spring and it is a delight to operate. The new Model 17 feels like a 10MM or something. Someone tell me why they would make a light caliber like the 9MM hard to operate when other 9MMs are just fine with half the poundage? CC

It's because the 1911 is a superior, balanced design which doesn't require boxcar springs to keep from busting its plastic frame.

 

[Schrag4]

Sorry if this question has been answered, but how is the weight of a dual recoil spring assembly measured? It seems to me that you'd need 2 measurements: the weight of the one spring, during the first "half" of the slide's rearward travel, and the weight of both springs, during the second "half" of the slide's rearward travel (I get that it's not a 50/50 split). Is 17lbs an average of these 2 numbers, perhaps a weighted average taking distance travelled into consideration? I have my doubts that it's the heavier of the two.

 

[Hiih8r]

If you’re not in good enough shape to rack the slide of a G17 then you’re not in good enough shape to work a job that requires you to carry said gun. That’s my opinion.

 

[harold63]

If you’re not in good enough shape to rack the slide of a G17 then you’re not in good enough shape to work a job that requires you to carry said gun. That’s my opinion.

This is a little harsh but I suppose it's true. To answer the OP's question, IMO, is the G17 is designed to shoot all the +P you want to put in it. Some 9mm +P ammo approaches normal .357 Sig target ammo, so it goes without saying...it's made that way to take the abuse without failing. Who knows how much +P you can shoot in a 1911 with a 14lb RS before peening starts to rear its ugly head, somewhere.

eta - FWIW, I can't tell the diff racking a Gen 4 34 to a Gen 5 17 and the Gen 4 34 uses the same RSA as the Gen 4 17. I've never compared a Gen 3 to a Gen 5, back to back, but I can't see how it would hit the 'ridiculous' level on the meter if comparing new springs.

 

[SargeMO]

The 1911 is like any other pistol. Match the spring weight to the heaviest load it is going to shoot on a regular basis. FWIW I ran a gallon bucket of 255 grain SWC @ 900 fps through a 1945 Ithaca with zero peening; but I used a 20# spring which, incidentally, also functioned perfectly with milspec 230 FMJ.

I've also shot an 9mm, Officer size 1911 quite a bit with 124 grain NATO ball. You ain't gonna strain a 1911 much with any 9mm load.

 

[fastbolt]

Don't believe everything they say at the armorers courses, since different instructors may have a different bend on what they understand, and not always absolute. And what you hear might be interpreted incorrectly from what they intended to project.

The compound spring RSA were already used quite extensively, and with good results, in the gen3 glock26/27 before the gen4 was formally introduced.

Since no one has stepped up to actually testing these compound springs assemblies with a simple designed spring dynometer (that I know of that is posted on the internet), it is all just hearsay and assumption.

I learned that it's not a rare thing for some gun companies to have information not completely shared among the engineering, production, repair, armorer training and sales depts. Sometimes I'd have to speak to people in 2 or more of the depts in order to get clear info on something, especially if conflicting info was initially received.

Fwiw, according to a couple of sources in Glock, the very first revision of the gen4 RSA involved a change to the front end cap of the assembly, due to the rear of the slide's guide ring not having a bevel at first. Nothing was said about the spring rate for the bigger 9's until later.

 

[familyman357]

Now I remember that there was a reason I didn't come here often to post - although I do come and lurk occasionally, or look up information.

I have gotten more insults here in one post than in THOUSANDs of posts on more adult, civil firearm forums - feels just like Junior High. Fortunately, I have a thick hide, I know what I know and that appears likely to be a bit more than most people who are inclined to reply to strangers with an insult instead of reason. A bit Sensitive about "Glock Perfection", are we? After I personally changed out about 30 Model 22 frames for frame tab defects, (my agency changed out over 100 frames in total) I got over the slogan.... I do like my personal 20 and 22 Models, but I am under no illusion that anything build by the hand of Man is perfect.

As a Glock Armorer for over ten years (as well as a Remington Factory Trained LE Armorer and Colt AR Armorer), and an IPSC and Service Rifle competitor, and an FBI trained Firearms Instructor, let me point out a couple of things.

My question was sincere - I wondered if anyone here might actually know why the heavy spring - when nothing else in 9MM seems to need it. My point is that the heavy spring serves no necessary purpose and is thus a negative - the newer is less "user friendly" and more difficult to operate than the old. Seems counterintuitive.

I fired the original Glock Model 17 the very first month it came out in the US and it was easy and quick to manipulate and impressed me (though only a 9) - and I was a pretty good IPSC competitor with tuned 1911s in 10MM (also 20lb dual springs) and .45 at the time.

Secondly, Center fire Glocks (I am leaving out the new .22) ALL have LOCKING BLOCKS, children. I just pulled my new Gen 5 M17 out of my duty holster and looked at it while scratching my head from the posts above - even though I know that from cleaning it. At least I know how all my guns work and what the parts are called. And we are required to be well over 300 rounds (in our first day's range session) before we would ever be allowed to carry a brand new issued pistol.

The recoil spring's job is to return the slide, pickup a round from the magazine and lock the pistol - a locked breech pistol can be fired without the recoil spring (at least a 1911 can) without harm - it just won't cycle - the locked breech takes the pressure, and unlocks after the pressure drops. The recoil spring is not a substitute for a locked breech.

If the original Model 17 that made Glocks popular got by on half the poundage ( and most other 9MMs on the market do as well) I was merely commenting on the oddity of unnecessarily making the "newer and better" model noticeably harder to use - particularly when Glocks are frequently Department Issued to the "lowest common denominator" average new officer, whether 5'2"/90 lb. or 6'6"/220.

A light round like the 9MM does NOT need a dual recoil spring - while a Glock 20 or a Delta Elite in 10MM certainly should have one. An unnecessarily stiff spring does not make a pistol "better" in any way - except, perhaps, as a maintenance thing, you should not have to change it as often. We used to change our Model 22s spring assemblies at 3000 rounds. My understanding is that the double spring may go to 6,000 - and that could be Glock's reason. That is an accountant's reason - not a using street officer's.

Part of my training was to learn to reload and manipulate a handgun with only one hand (hands get hit in gunfights, or you may be holding a door, child, etc.), and a heavy slide makes that near impossible. Give it a try and you might see my point.

But from what I see here, if Gaston Glock did it, it should NEVER, EVER be Questioned....
Well, Cheers and best wishes to all, anyway.
CC

TL;DR.

OP posts a "question" in an inflammatory manner, he predictably gets flamed, and then he gets all butthurt. I guess tthe Internet isn't for everybody.

Anyway, the short answer is that for a marginal increase in stiffness the Gen4+ RSAs better handle the hotter 9mm that most of the rest of the world uses and it extends recoil spring assembly life by at least double.

 

[BoBo522]

Very simple reason:

 

[GAU-8]

I carry a G17 Gen 5 at work (miss my gen 3 Model 22 a lot) and what really irritates me is the stupidly strong double recoil spring setup. I have a 1911 setup in 9MM with the factory 14 pound Colt spring and it is a delight to operate. The new Model 17 feels like a 10MM or something. Someone tell me why they would make a light caliber like the 9MM hard to operate when other 9MMs are just fine with half the poundage? CC

Ok, I have maybe some utterly non-scientific good news. I got out my tried and true all original mid 90's Gen2 17 and compared side by side with two brand new identical Gen5 17's. First, there is definitely a perceptible difference in effort required to rack the slide but it's not nearly as pronounced as I originally thought. As another poster stated, I'm not sure the additional resistance is all the spring assy. It feels like their is additional drag on the slide itself. After handling specifically for this issue I think the difference is minimal. Also most importantly. I did some one hand manipulation drills comparing the Gen2 and Gen5. I had no problems at all racking the slide on the Gen5 using my gun belt. In fact it was hard to tell the difference and all 3 of these 17's have factory plastic sights. Both my Gen5's are going to get steel Trijicon night sights so that should make the one handed manipulation even easier. One difference that is very pronounced is trying to release the slide lock over an empty magazine. I can do this easily with the Gen2 but not so with the Gen5. This is not a big deal as normally one does not perform that operation. So at this point I think the strong spring issue may be more perceived than real. Try some of the one handed drills and I think you will be surprised.

 

[OXMYX]

It's not only Glock doing this, Kahr as well