Dual Captured Recoil Springs in M&P's

[Sheepdogged]

Is there any reason not to use a dual captured recoil spring and guide rod in an M&P? Glock uses them now in everything from a G43 to a G34. I was just curious. Below is a M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact vs. an M&P9 M2.0 Shield.

 

[swsig]

Are you having problems with the single-spring RSA in your M&P? My 40c has nearly 16,000 rounds though it, and I've found the factory springs to be quite reliable. However, they do seem to need changing every 4,000-6,000 rounds. On the other hand, the dual-spring RSA in my Shield 45 is still going strong at 7,500 rounds, so maybe there is some advantage to the dual-spring models. S&W used to send out replacement RSAs for free, but I had to pay for the last one I got for my 40c. The good part is that S&W charged me less than half of what you'll pay for one from a retailer.

 

[Sheepdogged]

Are you having problems with the single-spring RSA in your M&P?

Why? Was Glock having problems with theirs?

 

[swsig]

Why? Was Glock having problems with theirs?

I was asking to see if you'd had any problems with your RSA that other M&P owners might need to know about.

SIG also uses dual-spring RSAs in their P320s. My P320 .357 SIG has over 6,000 rounds and has its original RSA. I don't own a Glock, but based on my experience with my Shield 45 and my P320, the dual-spring design seems to be more robust, so maybe that's why Glock is starting to use them.

 

[Sheepdogged]

I was asking to see if you'd had any problems with your RSA that other M&P owners might need to know about.

SIG also uses dual-spring RSAs in their P320s. My P320 .357 SIG has over 6,000 rounds and has its original RSA. I don't own a Glock, but based on my experience with my Shield 45 and my P320, the dual-spring design seems to be more robust, so maybe that's why Glock is starting to use them.

With all due respect (and I mean that as I am not being facetious), if I was having problems with a RSA, I likely would have mentioned that.

As far as I am aware, the first fully captured dual-spring RSA was found on the Glock 26/27 circa 2004 which was a relatively late Gen2 release (other similar ones may have existed, but this is the first I am aware of). Only baby Glocks received them even years later when they released the Gen3 lineup. The idea was that using two springs would afford greater protection for the slide and other components given the shorter travel of its reduced-length/weight slide and also more finely tune the recoil impulse of the reciprocating slide (starting out with a spring capable of absorbing greater force and reducing the weight of the second spring as the slide is already starting to slow down [which would make the slide easier to manipulate than resorting to a shorter & heavier single spring]).

As I understand it, Glock went with dual-captive RSA's throughout their entire line of Gen4 and Gen5 pistols only after proving the reliability of the dual captive system after two generations of Baby Glock pistols (well, one and a half anyway). Not only did they manage to protect the pistol from a lighter higher velocity slide (which can generate more force than a heavier slower one), they proved more reliable than their single spring counterparts, so Glock started using them across the board.

I can attest from owning both Gen3 and Gen4 Glock 19's that they do reduce recoil. It wasn't a huge amount, but it was noticeable and welcomed on Glocks which are usually lighter than their competition.

Given the increasing popularity of dual captive recoil springs on other pistols from FN, Walther, Beretta, et al., and even S&W (i.e. the Shield), my thought is that, though the Gen2 & 3 Baby Glock patent is expired, the ones on larger Gen4 pistols might create a patent issue like S&W experienced with their Sigma pistols years ago, so unless a company has a unique enough captive dual-spring design (e.g. Beretta PX4 Compact & APX), or it is willing to pay rights to Glock or someone else, perhaps that is why they forgo it.

The M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact is a few ounces heavier than a Glock 26, so it's not like it isn't already a soft-shooting pistol for the type, but my point is that it would be even softer shooting with a dual recoil system unless there is some other reason I am not aware of, so that is why I asked.

 

[swsig]

...
The M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact is a few ounces heavier than a Glock 26, so it's not like it isn't already a soft-shooting pistol for the type, but my point is that it would be even softer shooting with a dual recoil system unless there is some other reason I am not aware of, so that is why I asked.

Based on my experience with my Shield 45, I believe that a properly designed dual-spring recoil system should result in a softer-shooting M&P. The S&W engineers created a Shield 45 that is softer-shooting that it has any right to be, given that it is a small, light pistol shooting a heavy caliber. However, since M&P owners are stuck with S&W's single-spring design, we'll never know if S&W could create that same magic for M&Ps.

Now there is a dual-spring aftermarket alternative for M&Ps, but the price is around $90. The manufacturer is called DPM Systems, and they make a non-captured dual-spring RSA for many popular pistols. It's non-captured because they supply you with two outer springs of different weights you can slide on and off to allow you to tune the recoil action to your preference. I have no personal experience with this product, but if you ask about it here, I imagine there must be at least one Forum member who has tried it. Here is their website:
Pistols Recoil Systems – DPM Systems Technologies Ltd

 

[mrmike7189]

glock 26 since 1994

Glock 26 was introduced in 1994.
It has always had a dual captive guide rod&springs.
The first ones had a polymer guide rod that could crumble&break.
The newest guide rods are metal.
Great guns imo...as are the M&P9c's......like them too!