Shock-buffs and reliability

[drummer]

First of all, we all know that using shock-buffs can be detrimental to reliability due to shortening slide travel and increasing negligent slide locks.

But that's not what this is about. I've been thinking about this subject and wanted to see what others think. I've developed a bit of a theory that using shock-buffs can increase reliability.

Here is my reasoning. For sake of argument, lets talk only 5" .45s. In a non-buffed pistol, upon recoiling, the slide's spring tunnel impacts the guide rod, which is supported by the frame. That metal to metal contact creates a "bounce" which gets the slide started moving in the opposite direction.

A buff decreases that "bounce" by absorbing some of the impact. Therefore, the pistol, including remaining rounds in the magazine, is jolted less. Having less jolt places less work on the magazine spring and follower to keep the remaining rounds in place. Make sense?

Therefore, I feel that when using non-dimpled followers (for whatever reason) and short OAL cartridges (say less than 1.250"), a buff can actually help a pistol be more reliable by keeping the rounds in their places inside of the magazine.

Is that reduction in frame and slide "bounce" really enough to make a difference? What do you think?

[pa_guns]

Hi

The dimple only makes a difference on the final round out of the mag. The shock buff is there messing up *every* round.

Chunks of "stuff" from shock buff's *are* an issue ...

Bob

[Joni Lynn]

I've only ever had one shok buff come apart and it was the one that came in my LB PII. Some guns i run with them and some without. I don't see much difference.

[Hawkmoon]

In a non-buffed pistol, upon recoiling, the slide's spring tunnel impacts the guide rod, which is supported by the frame. That metal to metal contact creates a "bounce" which gets the slide started moving in the opposite direction.

A buff decreases that "bounce" by absorbing some of the impact. Therefore, the pistol, including remaining rounds in the magazine, is jolted less. Having less jolt places less work on the magazine spring and follower to keep the remaining rounds in place. Make sense?
No, it doesn't make sense.

Yes, the slide moves far enough back that the dust cover touches the flange of the recoil spring guide. But don't forget there's a recoil spring in there. If the gun is properly sprung, the slide dustcover should have virtually no remaining kinetic energy by the time it reaches the point of impact. If it touches at all, it should be just a very light kiss ... not enough to create any significant bounce.

Is that reduction in frame and slide "bounce" really enough to make a difference? What do you think?
Nope. See above.

[1911Tuner]

That metal to metal contact creates a "bounce" which gets the slide started moving in the opposite direction.

Yes...and you feel that John Browning and about 2 dozen of Colt's cream of the engineering crop were unaware of that...?

:)

[John]

That bouncing is needed for the proper operation of the pistol.

[pa_guns]

I've only ever had one shok buff come apart and it was the one that came in my LB PII. Some guns i run with them and some without. I don't see much difference.

Hi

It's not so much when they totaly shred apart. Some of them throw off tiny pieces of rubber (or what ever). It's tough stuff. When it gets in between the slide and frame it slows things down *a lot*.

A long time ago I ran them on *everything*. There were always odd things going on for "mysterious reasons". When I pulled them off, the pistols suddenly started running a *lot* better.

Bob

[hunterbench]

Hawkmoon says: "If it touches at all, it should be just a very light kiss ... not enough to create any significant bounce."

I seems to me the impact abutment on the slide ( the back of the "dust cover")
hits with a lot more than a "light kiss". I agree there is no significant bounce from three pieces of metal slamming together ( front impact abutment, recoil spring guide flange, rear impact abutment).
I don't think I want to fit a spring that reduces this impact to a "light kiss".
I have noticed my ejected empties seldom fall in a nice neat pile. As I reduce spring weight they don't go as far but there is still quite a variance in speed & direction. To achieve constant, positive ejection I'm thinking the impact abutment "sandwich" has to hit with reasonable force.
I just cleaned and and examined with a magnifier the used Talon I acquired. It operates flawlessly and has a shock buff. The imprint of the recoil spring guide flange is clearly imprinted on this buff. There was a lot more than "kissing" going on. Now it's possible Nighthawk's original setup was changed or perhaps Nighthawk set it up wrong, but I doubt it.
Also: The shock buff in this gun is made of sterner stuff than others I've seen. I can't imagine it coming to "pieces" unexpectedly given a normal gun cleaning and inspection regimen.
Sorry to be long winded but one more thing: I think more shock buffs are shredded by incorrectly assembling the recoil spring with the cut end against the buff than anything else.

[tombstone]

Hawkmoon - Thanks...after your brief explanation I get it: "Buy some spare recoil springs rather than shock-buffs!"

I just had to smack my forehead with the palm of my hand! On to Brownells web site.

[twin oaks]

Hunterbench, while shok-buffs (sb) are made from different materials, they all have one thing in common. They exibit, to one degree or another, plasticity. Not 'plastic', plasticity- the ability to deform, and in some cases, reform. Even metal has a degree of plasticity. Steel is much less likely to suffer a catastophic failure than a polyurethane sb. Steel is also less likely to suffer thermal decomposition than a sb. When the cat. failure of a shok-buf does occur, you'll have little bits of whatever compound the sb is made of running free in the guts of your pistol. I certainly won't have something that can stop the pistol in it's tracks if it breaks inside my 1911. JMB didn't have access to the magnificent chemical mixes we have today, so he just designed the pistol to function without them. One of the nice things about the 1911 is that it accepts tinkering when it's done correctly. There are those among us, though, that feel the disign doesn't really need the tinkering. A few examples of 'improvements' that work, but weren't really needed: Series 80 FP safety, Swartz safety, ramped barrels, FLGRs, two piece FLGRs, reverse plugs, torx head grip screws, mags with funky followers and incorrectly shaped lips, throat and ramp jobs to make things shiny, over travel adjustment screws on the trigger, large radius FPSs, and oversized controls. What Hawkmoon said about springs- If you have a properly set up 1911, you don't need to add things to keep it from going bump. If you don't believe that, ask Tuner how many rounds his beaters have through them.

[drummer]

My reason for starting this thread was to get some discussion on the issue.

My experience points to the fact that the use of buffs MAY prevent some malfunctions. Let me explain...

While shooting short OAL hollowpoints (about 1.210") in a stock 5" pistol, I would experience intermittent malfunctions, such as those experienced while not using a dimpled follower (magazine would lose control of the last and sometimes last TWO cartridges). Keep in mind, I was using a powermag or wilson magazine without a shock-buff.

Other people, using a pistol of the same configuration, same ammo, and same magazines experienced no malfunctions using shock-buffs.

Other factors may have been an issue, but the most obvious difference was the shock-buff.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating shock-buffs or non-dimpled followers. It was just an interesting phenomenon. Food for thought.

[1911Tuner]

Drummer...You'll find that these pistols are like women. No two are alike. While there are common things that all respond to...once in a while, one'll throw ya a curve.

F'rinstance...

I've got a WW2 GI Colt that'll break your checkbook tryin' to buy enough cheap factory hardball to make it stutter...until I put a shock buff in it...and then it goes into spastic conniptions. Take the buffer out...harmony returns...and nobody seems to understand why except the gun.

[auto45]

CP buffs are much tougher than Wilson's, for example. I can't "see" them splitting off pieces into the gun unless your "way off" on your spring weight, i.e. 12 lbs with hardball, etc.

The flip side of that, for discussion anyway, is the Wilson is softer which may mean it "protects" more. Just need to replace them more often on the range and your not "supposed" to use them on a carry gun anyway.

It would be nice to know if they "really" protect the frame/slide after many rounds.

[1911Tuner]

It would be nice to know if they "really" protect the frame/slide after many rounds.

Well...I can probably shed some light on that question.

Of course, anything that softens or cushions steel on steel impact offers a measure of protection...but whether or not it's an issue can be answered with a qualified "maybe."
If the steel is good steel...probably not enough to warrant the expense and the added possibility of malfunctions. For a range-only gun, or for range use...if the buffers make you feel better about it...by all means, use'em.

But you can come and have a look at what I refer to as my "Brace of Beaters" and judge for yourself. Two of them are approaching 300,000 rounds collectively over the last 16 years, and I don't shoot "softball" ammo through'em. They've never had a shock buffer in'em, and the impact surfaces of the frame and slide look fine.

Because the corners at the junction of the slide and its spring/plug tunnel are subject to stress risers, I may start using buffs in'em in order to soften the blow and preserve the slides...but 150,000 rounds per gun is a lot of use. It's much more than the average shooter will put through a gun in a lifetime. So it's a judgement call.

If your particular gun will run reliably with a buff, and you want to be a little more gentle on it during long, hard range sessions...go for it. I don't recommend buffs in a carry gun, though. As the old sayin' goes: "The more gadgets it's got, the more "Murphy" it gets. Murphy crashes my parties often enough without me handin' him an engraved invitation.

[auto45]

preserve the slides

Interesting points.

I've wondered if the benefit is more for the slide, than frame.

[1911Tuner]

I've wondered if the benefit is more for the slide, than frame.
Assuming good steel in both...Yes. The frame is only subject to compressive impact, while the slide is subject to shearing impact at the plug tunnel.

[pa_guns]

Interesting points.

I've wondered if the benefit is more for the slide, than frame.

Hi

That was the way they were sold "back in the good old days". The simple statement was "prevents slide cracks".

Bob

[auto45]

Makes sense, maybe I'll go back to them...not sure!

I didn't realize that's how they advertised them "way back".

Thanks