I’m not the best one to judge as I like em all. I think my favorite is the standard full size slide. But I’ve got an Inox Brigadier that I set up nicely that I shoot really well by my standards.
I’m not the best one to judge as I like em all. I think my favorite is the standard full size slide. But I’ve got an Inox Brigadier that I set up nicely that I shoot really well by my standards.
I’ve had a few compacts. I prefer the full size. The compacts shoot great, but a full size 92 just feels… right. To me anyway. A little softer. A little more stable. A little more of a satisfying whollop when the slide cycles. And, I mean, if you’re gonna get a big fat gun… get a big fat gun. I love the Beretta 92.
I took your comment to mean that Glock intentionally made the slide heavier in order to reduce recoil. I'm more interested in the mechanics of things. Most times that I've heard this topic discussed, a lightened slide is used to reduce recoil/flip, so I thought that there may be another reason why Glock chose to make the slide heavier.What is your impression of the difference between your statement and mine?
I’ll make the counterpoint that Gen 5 Glock 22 (40SW caliber) slides are heavier than 9mm to reduce recoil.
Glock and Sig made slides heavier in higher recoiling calibers.Originally Posted by balance
Nobody makes a higher caliber with a lighter slide to reduce recoil.
I think the “lightened slide to reduce muzzle flip” is an urban myth except when it comes to compensated guns.
I can’t think of any competition shooter with an uncompensated gun that chose to pick a lighter slide (which they surely can do by the rule set).
I probably have more rounds through P229s than any other platform, but it was only recently did I shoot identical 9mm and .40 guns back-to-back in the same range session.
Obviously the .40 had more recoil, but the slide was noticeably slower, as well. With the 9 everything was lost in the recoil impulse: the gun went up, the gun came down. Going from the 9 to the 40, I could sense the different stages: the fun went up, the slide came back, the slide “bottomed out” (best way I can describe it), the gun came down, the slide came forward. It was almost like putting your audio book on 3/4 speed—not so bad that the narrator sounds drunk (if you’re ever bored on a road trip, this is an amusing distraction), but enough to slow everything down.
I recently picked up (virtually stole) a new/old stock P228 that I’m almost certainly going to keep vs. flipping for fun and profit, and if I do I’m looking forward to a range session of the P228 vs. P229 9mm vs. P229 .40. My working hypothesis is that the lighter slide P228 will feel the flattest due to gas cycling and lack of slide dip, and that the gun will snap back to where I want it to be without any bobble.
I was recently discussing with another member that I actually shoot the .40/.357 SIGs more accurately, likely because the added recoil forces me to slow down just a hair and not outrun my headlights. Not sure if this translates to heavier slides, as the flip side of the coin is that less muzzle dip = less sight picture disturbance. I suspect that the P228 will be the magic bullet for me/the SIG ecosystem for fast, accurate shooting, and likewise would spec out a non-Brig slide Beretta for an ideal variation of a 92/M9, if I could be king for a day.
I understand this. Just looking at a Glock 20 and a Glock 21 slide side by side, you can tell how much more metal is in the Glock 20 slide, and I wouldn't put it past Glock to change the slide weight of the 22 to help with the issue they had years ago with weapon mounted lights which seemed to increase slide velocity, and had Glock making more powerful mag springs to push the rounds up the mag quicker.Glock and Sig made slides heavier in higher recoiling calibers.
Nobody makes a higher caliber with a lighter slide to reduce recoil.]
I may have misunderstood what you were getting at when I first quoted you. I just didn't think it was out of line to question whether a manufacturer intentionally made a slide heavier in order to reduce recoil, on a thread where slide weight is being discussed.
While I prefer a heavier slide, I saw this all the time in USPSA limited division some years back. Maybe the fad died out, but it was quite the rage.
So I think it’s an interesting proposition when a gun can be built from the ground up and designed differently to add more weight to the frame and reduce weight to the slide in order to reduce recoil. I think that’s where some of the discrepancy in understanding comes from?
Two cases in point:
Maxim 9 and Alien.
Both designed with LOTS of weight in the frame and consequently able to use less mass in the slide.
But if lightening the slide didn’t come with concomitant increase in frame weight… different ball of wax.
@Bucky
There’s also an interesting phenomenon depending on the skill level of the shooter so advice should be heavily contextualized.
If someone likes a fast slide but is splitting 0.25s, they’re catching it on multi oscillation, which is less predictable and ultimately slower.
It’s like someone saying they like a firmer ball for tennis but then hitting it on the second bounce each time.
Anything over a 0.20 split is a multi-oscillation shot.
So take recoil and timing advice from multi-oscillation shooters with big grains of salt.
Here’s a video of slow motion of my novice wife splitting multi-oscillation 0.27 splits versus sub-0.20 splits (peak 0.14).
So if someone wants a lighter slide so they get their oscillations tamed down faster so they’re more accurate at their normal 0.25 splits versus someone who wants a slower slide so they can see and time a perfect one bounce 0.15… there’s a big difference in the context and ultimate performance of the advice.
It’s like asking two golfers what degree loft do they want on their driver. It’s going to depend on the skill of the player.
I’ve shown this video before, but it’s an example of one bounce comfortable 0.15-0.16 splits with accuracy. It’s using a slower slide setup timed to that split speed.
I'm under the impression that slide weight is dictated by slide velocity; you can't have it too fast or too slow. Manufacturers make the slide weight close to the middle of the acceptable range, but competition shooters seem to want it a little on the lighter end of the spectrum to improve the sights returning to target. It makes sense that the lighter the slide and heavier the frame, the less disruption you'll have when the slide moves. I've never heard of a reason the slide weight would depend on frame weight. I think you can just get the frame as heavy as possible and still stay within the rules. You might even get a small reliability bump when the frame doesn't leak energy by moving.
Guns with gas systems like the Laugo Alien can get away with a light slide because the gas system retards slide velocity.
JCN's write up on comped guns is very interesting, I had never considered those things.
Reply With Quote