|
Recoil Comparisons in the G27.
Some people will say that the factory recoil springs are fine in Glock pistols. If you have a 9mm, that is probably true. However, the major calibers are undersprung. Glock calculates the recoil spring rate based on slide mass alone, and for the 9mm pistols, that is fine. But for rounds delivering 25-100% more energy than a 9mm, the practice just does not hold up under engineering evaluation.
It is rather difficult to quantify "felt recoil". With a given load, the recoil is the same no matter what spring you use, however the spring stores and then expends some of the recoil energy. What changes is how the recoil impulses are delivered to the shooter and then how the shooter perceives that delivery.
Let's start with the baby, the G27. With the stock recoil spring assembly, I found that a few of the very high velocity .40 loads actually have function problems on the last round. The slide velocity is so high that the slide stop lever does not become engaged due to the rapid rebound of the slide hitting the rearward stop. This means the frame (and the shooter) is absorbing a large amount of recoil.
With 135 grain rounds, I found that all but the Federal PDHS fully functioned the Wolff 20# recoil assembly when firing weak hand only, loosley supported. All other factory rounds tested fully functioned the 20# spring.
The amount of felt recoil reduction, again perceived, was actually felt to be greater for the lower energy rounds, which only makes sense. For a 135 grain at about 1250 fps, the reduction between the factory and 20# spring was about 15%. For the 180 grain rounds at about 950 fps, the reduction was about 20% and for the 155-165 grain rounds at about 1100 fps, the reduction was about 25%. With the 20# spring, the 155-165 grain loads had the least amount of felt recoil and were the most controllable in rapid fire. The nice thing is, they still expand reliably (the good rounds) at the slightly reduced velocity due to the shorter G27 barrel.
|
