- Messages
- 67
- Reactions
- 27
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The biggest issues I see are the recoil spring and extractor. 40 s&w has a larger case head and I would assume the extractor is shaped or adjusted to accommodate it. By going to the smaller case head of 9mm, it would seem the extractor might not get as good of a bite on the rim.
A 40 s&w recoil spring would be too stiff. A 9mm spring would be a cheap thing to get.
Good to know about the springs. It seems counterintuitive given the differences in recoil. Seems as if the spring was too light, the 40 would cause excessive wear on the frame. If it was too heavy, 9mm might show signs of insufficient slide velocity.
1911s have all sorts of springs for this length or that load. I only assumed Glock would be the same way. Come to think about it, werent there complaints of pre-gen4 Glocks with longevity of the 40/357 frames? And then with the Gen4 and the new double recoil springs (meant to make 40 less snappy from what I hear) having weak extraction with 9mm/brass-to-face issues?
Seems like those issues could be explained by Glock trying to use the same spring across the board. Or, I'm over thinking it.