Appreciate the catch of my mistake. I meant to type Gen3 into Gen4 and not Gen2 into Gen3. The dual spring RSAs officially started in the Gen4s but I believe they may have shown up in one of those infamous "rolling updates" in a Gen3.5 type scenario. Again, I could be wrong. I updated my op with an ETA and posted credit to you for the catch, thanks.Originally Posted by JCN
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost." -Arthur Ashe
I think the rsa is one of the reasons the 365xl is a more thought out design than the g48. The g48, they just stuck the 43 rsa into it. Sig went with a completely different rsa for the 365xl
Glocks, M&P's, P320's...six of one or a half dozen the other. They're all good guns.
I'm writing a big long post I'm going to stick up in the next couple days about departmental police duty gun process/selection.
No clue. Armorer's manual and the very knowledgable instructor said 5k. So I'll go with that. Like I said before, "When in doubt. Swap it out."
For duty use 1911's we recommend swapping out the spring at 2500 rounds. On a Gen3 Glock 22 we swap them out at 2000 (stupid temperamental guns).
Both of those guns have springs or RSA's that are under $10. The P365's RSA is around $34-40. For my own gun I'll wait until closer to the 5k mark.
A little thread drift...
The Gen2.5 (no grenade texture between finger grooves) G26/G27 made in mid-to-late 1996 were the first two Glock with a double-captive spring followed by the Gen3 26/27 and the Gen3 29/30.
After the Gen3 Glock 22 light shenanigans (a personal living hell for all police armorers in the mid-to-late 2000's) Glock carried over the double-captive spring over to all of the Gen4 guns thinking it would mitigate their problems. It caused more.
All Gen2 and Gen3 Glocks used the same spring in the same size guns....so a G17 and G22 shared the same RSA, the G19 and G23 shared the same RSA, as did the G34 and G35. Their slides were also essentially the same. See the problem here?
When the Gen4 guns came out they were a hot mess (some of you will remember that) . They did the same thing with the springs trying to use the same one across calibers..only this time it was a double-captive spring designed for the G22. It was way over-sprung and caused malfunctions in the 9mm Glocks and only half-assed solved the 40 S&W issues. There were a bunch of variations that were supposed to "fix" the issues. It took about five years for them to get it right and by this time the Gen5 was already in the works. I find it somewhat amusing that it took Glock nearly thirty years to do what they should have done in the first place with the 40 S&W and use a heavier slide like most other manufacturers had done...and by the time they did the caliber is basically dead. In my humble opinion they would have been better off using a G20 re-chambered to that caliber rather than a G17.
All of this is to say that recoil springs matter and trying to share recoil springs with differing slide mass and/or caliber is a mistake.
I like that SIG didn't take the easy/cheap route with the P365XL by trying to share the same spring as the P365.
Man, @KevH I’m so glad you’re here.
Thanks for the clarification.
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost." -Arthur Ashe
In a recent interview Phil Strader said the p365 has a return to factory failure rate of .01%. The lowest of all sigs. Outside of the initial 1,000 pistols which had issues due to a new parts mfgr they’ve been rock solid.
I would venture a guess that once they were beyond
their original faulty striker manufacture, a large number
of those returned were for dim / dead sights, rather
than any catastrophic mechanical failure.
Reply With Quote
