|
Recoil Spring
Guide Rods
Guy Neill
The original design of the 1911 recoil spring system versus
the full length guide rod system is a subject
almost guaranteed to start a debate anytime a
handful of 1911 aficionados get together. It
likely started the first time anyone used a full
length guide rod and continues today – without a
“right” or “wrong” answer. Both systems are
proven reliable, so it is either personal
preference or application that determines which
is best for you.
To perform as intended, springs must be constrained to
control the direction of movement. In the 1911
pistol the rear of the spring is fixed in place,
and the rest is controlled to only allow it to
compress and not move to the side – mostly. The
original design uses both an inside and outside
guide to control the spring.
The recoil spring guide is the inside control. It fits
inside the recoil spring and prevents the spring
from moving to the side. On the other end, the
spring fits into the recoil spring plug. The
plug, a tube, constrains the spring externally,
preventing the end of the spring from moving to
the side. There is a gap between the two that
closes as the spring is compressed.
Make note of all the other coil springs in the 1911. All are
constrained from moving any way but along the
axis. The plunger spring is in a tube. The
mainspring is in a tube, the magazine catch
spring is in a tube. The firing pin spring is
in a tube. All have controlled movement.
If you look at the sear spring, a leaf spring design, it is
also constrained. The tab at the bottom fits
into a slot in the frame. Then it is held in
place by the mainspring housing. This anchors
the end of the spring and allows the arms to
have something to push against.
So why did Mr. Browning use a tube and a rod to guide the
1911 recoil spring? Actually, the 1911 pistol
was not the first time he used this system. If
you look at the 1903 Pocket hammerless, a very
similar arrangement is used for the recoil
spring.
I suspect that, since the 1911 was designed as a military
pistol, the recoil spring system was the result
of ease of disassembly more than anything else,
as long as functional reliability was not
compromised. He knew it worked from past
designs, and was a fairly easy system to
dismount, so why go looking for something
different?
And that is the argument used by those eschewing the full
length guide rod. So why do we see so many full
length guide rods?
A large part of the answer to that question has to do with
the way shooting has changed over the last
thirty or forty years. Simply put, more guns
are shot more today than ever before. Using a
full length guide rod places more weight in the
gun, better countering recoil, as well as
working against muzzle flip. This added weight,
besides absorbing more recoil felt by the
shooter, helps the gun endure for the same
reason – more recoil is absorbed by the greater
overall mass.
On top of that, the full length guide rod eliminates even the
remote chance that the recoil spring will kink
in the small open area between the recoil spring
plug and the short guide rod of the original
design. This is in accordance with the demands
for reliability seen by today’s shooters.
Think about it a minute. While a single military 1911 may
see many rounds over its service life, it would
be unusual for one such pistol to see many
rounds fired by one individual. Today’s top
competitors have been known to shoot up to
100,000 rounds in a year. One man – one gun –
100,000 rounds. You bet they are looking for
anything that makes the gun easier to shoot!
I’ve seen guns that had no recoil spring guide rod, short or
long, work. It’s not recommended, however, and
it’s likely it would not have continued to work
reliably without a guide rod since the recoil
spring was buckling against the frame and barrel
inside.
The full length guide rod does make disassembly a bit more
difficult, but not insurmountable. Many like
the two-piece full length guide rod as it gives
them the benefits of the full length rod, but
has simpler take-down than a one piece rod.
I’ve used both two-piece and one-piece guide rods, as well as
the original design. In earlier days, when I
first began using a full length guide rod, I
preferred the two piece guide rod. It was
easier to disassemble the gun. Today it doesn’t
much matter to me. I’ll use any of them.
Regarding one-piece full length rods, I don’t
recall the older one piece rods having a hole
drilled for a take-down pin.
The take-down hole drilled in the one piece rods, combined
with a reverse spring plug makes disassembly of
the gun almost as simple as the original recoil
spring system. Purists will state that a tool
is needed whereas the original system could be
taken down without tools. That’s true, but I
don’t envision a circumstance where I’ll need to
disassemble the gun that it will be critical.
If the gun is down to the point I need to
disassemble it, I’m out of the running anyway.
For guns with barrel bushings, whatever is used to insert
into the take-down hole must not interfere with
the barrel bushing. If it interferes with the
bushing, it may (will) increase the difficulty
of disassembling the gun by wedging in the
barrel bushing. Thus, for bushing guns, the
take down hole should be clear of the barrel
bushing. Otherwise, deal with it as an
un-drilled one-piece guide rod.
Ultimately, you must determine for yourself whether or not
you should have a full length recoil spring
guide rod. Your decision should be based upon
your usage of the gun and how much you shoot the
gun. There is nothing “right” or “wrong” about
a full length guide rod, but that does not mean
the original system cannot do the job – as it
has been for almost 100 years. You pick the one
that’s most suited to you.
|
