Lighter recoil spring on a Shield 9

[ammodave]

My old hands find it difficult to rack the slide on my Shield. I've tried all the techniques but it's still troublesome. I could install a TacRack but I'm not fond of the "ears" sticking out on the back of my slide. Has anybody tried switching to a slightly weaker recoil spring to address this problem?

 

[.38SuperMan]

Same issue here. Arthritis can make racking difficult. I just purchased my Shield 2.0 3” a week ago and love it otherwise.

I’m a 1911 shooter and been shooting them at least 40 years. I’d guess My experience with 1911’s Would transfer over to the Shield. With a 1911 the spring needs to be balanced to the load to reduce recoil or muzzle rise or prevent diving of the muzzle if the spring isn’t balanced to the load. The danger of too weak a spring is pounding the frame and damaging it. When I shot hot 38 super loads in my compgun and my 45 I used shock buffers while running lighter springs. This helped prevent pounding and damaging the frame.

I’m not sure how much pounding a polymer frame will take and don’t want to find out.

 

[Execpro]

ammodave: I literally feel your pain! I sold my 9mm Shield for all the same reasons you mentioned and got a 9mmEZ.
To answer your question, NO, but would call S&W Customer Service and ask them.
Wolff springs make reduced recoil springs for some full sized M&P pistols,
so you could also give them a call. Sorry I can’t be of more help.

Be SAFE and Shoot Often!

 

[Univibe]

Problem is, the recoil spring (and the mass of the slide) regulate the speed of the ejection and loading cycle. The mass of the slide is a constant, so the spring is the variable. If the recoil spring is too heavy, the ammo won't cycle the gun. If the recoil spring is too light, the slide will go too fast, causing loading problems and possible adverse gun wear.

 

[yanici]

I changed mine to the SS Guiderod. Smith & Wesson(R) Shield 9mm & 40 cal Guide Rod by Stainless Steel Guide Rods • Stainless Steel Guide Rods

Lessens the stiffness quite a bit but functions fine. Been using these for years. Goes 2000 rounds between changes.

 

[stansdds]

Univibe is correct, S&W spent time engineering every part that goes into their firearms, including the weight of the recoil spring. A lighter spring will make the slide easier to rack, but it will also let the slide move faster during recoil, which will unlock the breech earlier, the ejection of the spent brass will be quicker, but it is also possible that next round in the magazine may not be forced up fast enough for the rim of the cartridge to be in front of the breech face as it moves forward, resulting in the breech face catching or overriding the body of the cartridge case. Making compact pistols reliable takes a lot of work, it takes very little to turn them into jam-o-matics.

 

[gc70]

One more issue that has not been mentioned: the recoil spring in a striker-fired gun has to be strong enough to pull the slide forward AND to cock the striker as the slide closes. A weaker recoil spring might result in unreliable cocking of the striker.

 

[ammodave]

I've contacted customer service to get their input.

 

[jurek]

One more issue that has not been mentioned: the recoil spring in a striker-fired gun has to be strong enough to pull the slide forward AND to cock the striker as the slide closes. A weaker recoil spring might result in unreliable cocking of the striker.

Wrong direction....

Weaker spring has nothing to cocking the striker. Has to be strong enough to let the slide get beck into battery and drive a cartridge out of the magazine feed lips to the chamber.

 

[gc70]

Wrong direction....

Weaker spring has nothing to cocking the striker. Has to be strong enough to let the slide get beck into battery and drive a cartridge out of the magazine feed lips to the chamber.

Sorry to inform you that you are wrong.

A hammer is cocked when a slide opens and a striker is cocked when a slide closes (except for the Beretta Neos, High Standard Duramatic, and Colt Cadet).

You can see it easily in the following video (starting at 1:14).

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2RDitgCaD0&feature=youtu.be&t=73"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2RDitgCaD0&feature=youtu.be&t=73[/ame]

And there is this explanation from the CEO of Ruger:

Q. I really like the Ruger LC9s® Pro. I also like the Ruger LC380®. Can you tell me if Ruger has any plans to release a striker fired model of the LC380®?

Striker-fired guns are typically "cock-on-close" and, as a result, they require a recoil spring that is substantially stronger than the striker spring so that they can compress (cock) that spring when returning the slide into battery (on close).

 

[jurek]

Sorry to inform you that you are wrong.

A hammer is cocked when a slide opens and a striker is cocked when a slide closes (except for the Beretta Neos, High Standard Duramatic, and Colt Cadet).

oh Sugar Honey Ice Tea.... gc70... my apologies...
Of course you are right...
Looks I've started this long weekend too early...




I am ashamed now....


I've tried to watch this video flipped to convince myself that perhaps there was a chance I was right.. Didn't worked...

 

[jurek]

I've contacted customer service to get their input.

Let us know their answer.

I usually use recoil spring 2lb less than the factory one and never had any issue. (however not Shield model)

 

[gc70]

I am ashamed now....


I've tried to watch this video flipped to convince myself that perhaps there was a change I was right.. Didn't worked...

LOL; if I didn't write a LOT of stuff down, I would be the unchallenged king of getting things backwards!

 

[TMan51]

Univibe is correct, S&W spent time engineering every part that goes into their firearms, including the weight of the recoil spring.

I'm thinking, unless you load your own, taming the already marginal "9", the guys are correct. You can't just drop the recoil spring weight.

Having owned and used, (and like), compact auto variants, including the .45 Auto's, smaller/lighter = more effort working the gun due to spring requirements. Newtonian physics in action.

 

[ultratec00]

I respectfully disagree. The Shields are a mass produced polymer firearm engineered to work "acceptably" for wide range of ammunition available to the general public. Bullet weights for the 9mm typically run anywhere from 90 gr to 140+gr with each individual having their own preference.

Those who have tinkered with autoloaders over the years know one can achieve better accuracy, yet maintain reliability, by matching a load to a particular spring weight. I've experienced this personally on numerous occasions, to include my Shield 9 and 45s for the ammunition I was using. Reliability was not impacted in either case and accuracy was improved.

I'm thinking, unless you load your own, taming the already marginal "9", the guys are correct. You can't just drop the recoil spring weight.

Having owned and used, (and like), compact auto variants, including the .45 Auto's, smaller/lighter = more effort working the gun due to spring requirements. Newtonian physics in action.

 

[gwpercle]

Might be time for a new pistol ... look for one that advertises easy racking ( 9mm or 380 EZ ) since they are designed for the hand strength impaired there is no question about what happens with lighter springs and how light a spring to use ... the designers have designed the package to be easy to load .
Another option ... old school but still not bad ... the Revolver .
When my 1911 became too much a 45 acp revolver took it's place .
I don't feel under gunned .
Gary

 

[ultratec00]

Might be worth picking up a SS guide rod and trying 115gr JHPs. That combination worked for my Shield. Rest assured the manufacturer does test their product with the respective firearm before going to production. Cheaper than buying a new firearm.

Might be time for a new pistol ... look for one that advertises easy racking ( 9mm or 380 EZ ) since they are designed for the hand strength impaired there is no question about what happens with lighter springs and how light a spring to use ... the designers have designed the package to be easy to load .
Another option ... old school but still not bad ... the Revolver .
When my 1911 became too much a 45 acp revolver took it's place .
I don't feel under gunned .
Gary

 

[ammodave]

Customer service responded but didn't really address my question. They simply said that S&W didn't offer a lighter spring for the shield. I've got a rack assist handle (similar to the TacRack) on my Glock 19 that works well. I think I'll just buy a TacRack. I only use the shield as a house gun anyway.

 

[armorer951]

Another option would be to add some anti-slip material to the slide. ArachniGrip makes one specially for the Shield. Apply the material to the slide. Easy to install.

I'm still strong enough to rack the slide, it's getting a firm hold on the surface of the slide that's the problem for me.

ArachniGrip Slide Spider - Smith & Wesson M&P Shield

 

[TMan51]

Those who have tinkered with autoloaders over the years know one can achieve better accuracy, yet maintain reliability, by matching a load to a particular spring weight.

No doubt. But that assumes the OP can develop a load to accommodate the reduced spring. I've used reduced power springs on a Colt NM .45 for target work. But you need to know what you're doing. If you don't have the resources and knowledge, you can't just drop spring weight and shoot away with any ammo you happen to find.