JonInWA
03-01-2011, 02:30 PM
I've been mulling over some thoughts on this subject, which recently bubbled to the surface when I had the trigger return spring on my Beretta 92D break. While a bit of a surprise (while realizing that prudent preventive maintenance includes replacing recoil, trigger return, and trigger bar springs every 5K rounds, I probably have less than 2K rounds downrange on the gun, which despite being manufactured in 1996 I obtained brand new in 2006-but I also have a significant amount of dry-fire practice triggerpulls on the gun, which in this case needs to be factored into the replacement matrix), it wasn't the end of the world, as 1) Beretta has a built-in feature where a broken trigger return spring can be simply flipped around, as the spring only acts on returning the trigger after the trigger pull-the triggerpull itself is controlled/dependant upon the triggerbar spring, and 2) Beretta reportedly has significantly redesigned/strengthened the spring after repeated reports of premature (at least in the eyes of both individual and organizational users) breakage, and 3) Wolff Gunsprings produces what appears to be an ingenious replacement unit based on a captive coil spring with a far greater longevity. For peace of mind, I've decided to try out the Wolff unit-report to follow.
What I realized as I dug into both the problem and the pistol is not only how well (and elegantly) engineered the Beretta is-but also how utterly dependant it is on some relatively fragile and somewhat exposed (particularly the triggerbar spring) components.
My thoughts then drifted towards comparing contemporaneous Glock (Gen 3, possibly Gen4) and HK platforms, where my thoughts are that while on a component-by-component, material-by-material comparative basis the HK is probably the superior pistol, due to superior materials (i.e., higher quality steels), ergonomics (particularly in the P30 and HK45 series guns) and engineering (i.e., regarding component integration and packaging within the platform)-but that in an overall user sense, while I certainly don't denigrade the HK, I consider a Glock to be the superior weapon.
Here's why: First, they work (especially the G17 and G19 9mm Glocks)-the quality of materials and engineering is "good enough" without being needlessly over-engineered for tens of thousands of rounds. Second, they are exceptionally user friendly in terms of both field- and detail-stripping and parts replacement. Third, they have a singularly low reliance on fragile, complex sub-components-and if something does break/malfunction, an average user with less than a half-day's worth of training (or less) can easily and competantly remove and replace the erring components. Forth, components and magazines are easily available, at reasonable prices, and Glock after-market support for both individual/commercial users and organizations is legendary (in a good sense).
I'm not ignoring ToddG's extensive and high round-count testing of the HK P30 and HK45-but I'm also remembering that while they demonstrated superb ergonomics, durability and quality engineering and component quality, when things/springs did go south, despite Todd's experience, familiarity with the platform and higher than than average bear skill set, the guns really needed to go to HK for tuning, repair, and parts extraction/replacement, as relatively specialized tools and gunsmithing skills really were required-Todd, definitely correct me if I'm wrong on this.
All of this applies in spades to the 1911 platform. Realistically, if (and if we're being brutally honest here, it's not an "if" but a "when") something goes wrong on a 1911, it's usually going to be a gunsmithing sort of day, particularly regarding the specialized and individualized fitting and tuning of individual components to a specific 1911. Throw in the much higher lubrication and more frequent spring replacement intervals inherent to the 1911 platform, as others have stated, it makes me think of it as a beautifully engineered hobbyist gun, not something to trust my life on in the field (especially on an extended/extended deployment situation, particularly given limited access to maintenance resources, parts and timely support).
So-What's my point? First, I'm hardly blind to the vicissitudes of the Glock platform- for example, OEM sights have been justifiably criticized for both fragility and a somewhat constrained sight picture (concentrating on the staked in thick polymer front sight blade-although the current OEM polymer front sight is both somewhat thinner and more securely screwed in), the OEM magazine release (why Glock hasn't made commercially available their mid-length release apparently exclusively produced for and provided to the FBI contract Glocks is totally beyond me-but I suppose it's great for LAV and Tango Down's bottom line). The jury is still out on the Gen4 guns, especially the non-.40 caliber ones. I have no doubt that Glock will sort things (i.e., springs) out, if they haven't already-but why they felt compelled to screw with the very much proven Gen 3 recoil assembly on the 9mm platform guns other than for reasons of potential manufacturing commonality and an incrimental increase in spring life is also beyond me...my personal thoughts at this point would have been a better/less problematic route to go on the G17 and G19 Gen4s might simply have been to massage the Gen 3 receivers for the new cubid checkering mold and the new magazine release, and called it good...
As I review the inhabitants of my gunsafe, as well as thinking back to guns that I've previously experienced, more and more I'm realizing the value in depending upon a weapon/weapon system that works in a holistic sense.
Thinking back-I've only had two trigger/trigger return springs break on me-that in the Beretta, and one in a Ruger Security Six (ironically, literally immediately after a detailed examination and refurbishment by Ruger-they immediately in turn provided me with a shipping label, went through the gun again, and it's been 100% to date some 7 or 8 years later); both springs have been of what I call the "mousetrap" type, dependant on leveraged tension achieved by the spring end(s) positioning against an immovable surface. Interestingly, I notice that one of the virtually unmentioned changes from the -Six series revolvers to the GP100/Super Redhawk series is that the trigger return spring on the latter is changed to a horizontal coil set-up-any complaints that I've ever experienced and/or seen surfaced on them concern their relative over-strenght tensility (easily resolved by Wolff aftermarket lower-weighted alternatives), not their breakage.
Similarly, Glock has over the years modified their OEM coil trigger spring in several aspects-providing a more durable, modified finish spring, with concurrently enlarged spring-end mounting point holes in both the trigger housing mechanism and trigger bar, and most recently a revision to the trigger bar mounting point, which now features not only the enlarged hole, but also a modified bend angle and inclusion of a channel, all aimed at reducing spring fatigue and subsequent material failure-and then, of course, there's the NY spring alternatives, combining a captive coil within a polymer leaf spring structure.
In one sense, we may well be in a golden era of capable choices. My conclusion is that individual/organization choices need to be made within the framework of individual use, capabilities, environment, and higher level support (and the availability and timliness of such support). What is "the best" is dependant upon each individual criteria matrix-but I certainly appreciate the choices we have (and the resources for comparisons that we have, and the dedication of members of our community.
Rant off! (and how's this for a first forum post?!):)
Best, Jon
What I realized as I dug into both the problem and the pistol is not only how well (and elegantly) engineered the Beretta is-but also how utterly dependant it is on some relatively fragile and somewhat exposed (particularly the triggerbar spring) components.
My thoughts then drifted towards comparing contemporaneous Glock (Gen 3, possibly Gen4) and HK platforms, where my thoughts are that while on a component-by-component, material-by-material comparative basis the HK is probably the superior pistol, due to superior materials (i.e., higher quality steels), ergonomics (particularly in the P30 and HK45 series guns) and engineering (i.e., regarding component integration and packaging within the platform)-but that in an overall user sense, while I certainly don't denigrade the HK, I consider a Glock to be the superior weapon.
Here's why: First, they work (especially the G17 and G19 9mm Glocks)-the quality of materials and engineering is "good enough" without being needlessly over-engineered for tens of thousands of rounds. Second, they are exceptionally user friendly in terms of both field- and detail-stripping and parts replacement. Third, they have a singularly low reliance on fragile, complex sub-components-and if something does break/malfunction, an average user with less than a half-day's worth of training (or less) can easily and competantly remove and replace the erring components. Forth, components and magazines are easily available, at reasonable prices, and Glock after-market support for both individual/commercial users and organizations is legendary (in a good sense).
I'm not ignoring ToddG's extensive and high round-count testing of the HK P30 and HK45-but I'm also remembering that while they demonstrated superb ergonomics, durability and quality engineering and component quality, when things/springs did go south, despite Todd's experience, familiarity with the platform and higher than than average bear skill set, the guns really needed to go to HK for tuning, repair, and parts extraction/replacement, as relatively specialized tools and gunsmithing skills really were required-Todd, definitely correct me if I'm wrong on this.
All of this applies in spades to the 1911 platform. Realistically, if (and if we're being brutally honest here, it's not an "if" but a "when") something goes wrong on a 1911, it's usually going to be a gunsmithing sort of day, particularly regarding the specialized and individualized fitting and tuning of individual components to a specific 1911. Throw in the much higher lubrication and more frequent spring replacement intervals inherent to the 1911 platform, as others have stated, it makes me think of it as a beautifully engineered hobbyist gun, not something to trust my life on in the field (especially on an extended/extended deployment situation, particularly given limited access to maintenance resources, parts and timely support).
So-What's my point? First, I'm hardly blind to the vicissitudes of the Glock platform- for example, OEM sights have been justifiably criticized for both fragility and a somewhat constrained sight picture (concentrating on the staked in thick polymer front sight blade-although the current OEM polymer front sight is both somewhat thinner and more securely screwed in), the OEM magazine release (why Glock hasn't made commercially available their mid-length release apparently exclusively produced for and provided to the FBI contract Glocks is totally beyond me-but I suppose it's great for LAV and Tango Down's bottom line). The jury is still out on the Gen4 guns, especially the non-.40 caliber ones. I have no doubt that Glock will sort things (i.e., springs) out, if they haven't already-but why they felt compelled to screw with the very much proven Gen 3 recoil assembly on the 9mm platform guns other than for reasons of potential manufacturing commonality and an incrimental increase in spring life is also beyond me...my personal thoughts at this point would have been a better/less problematic route to go on the G17 and G19 Gen4s might simply have been to massage the Gen 3 receivers for the new cubid checkering mold and the new magazine release, and called it good...
As I review the inhabitants of my gunsafe, as well as thinking back to guns that I've previously experienced, more and more I'm realizing the value in depending upon a weapon/weapon system that works in a holistic sense.
Thinking back-I've only had two trigger/trigger return springs break on me-that in the Beretta, and one in a Ruger Security Six (ironically, literally immediately after a detailed examination and refurbishment by Ruger-they immediately in turn provided me with a shipping label, went through the gun again, and it's been 100% to date some 7 or 8 years later); both springs have been of what I call the "mousetrap" type, dependant on leveraged tension achieved by the spring end(s) positioning against an immovable surface. Interestingly, I notice that one of the virtually unmentioned changes from the -Six series revolvers to the GP100/Super Redhawk series is that the trigger return spring on the latter is changed to a horizontal coil set-up-any complaints that I've ever experienced and/or seen surfaced on them concern their relative over-strenght tensility (easily resolved by Wolff aftermarket lower-weighted alternatives), not their breakage.
Similarly, Glock has over the years modified their OEM coil trigger spring in several aspects-providing a more durable, modified finish spring, with concurrently enlarged spring-end mounting point holes in both the trigger housing mechanism and trigger bar, and most recently a revision to the trigger bar mounting point, which now features not only the enlarged hole, but also a modified bend angle and inclusion of a channel, all aimed at reducing spring fatigue and subsequent material failure-and then, of course, there's the NY spring alternatives, combining a captive coil within a polymer leaf spring structure.
In one sense, we may well be in a golden era of capable choices. My conclusion is that individual/organization choices need to be made within the framework of individual use, capabilities, environment, and higher level support (and the availability and timliness of such support). What is "the best" is dependant upon each individual criteria matrix-but I certainly appreciate the choices we have (and the resources for comparisons that we have, and the dedication of members of our community.
Rant off! (and how's this for a first forum post?!):)
Best, Jon