[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Walt- what you just described are springs that are designed to be sacrificial.
Whether the springs are designed that way is irrelevant. The manufacturer knows the springs will be over stressed and recognizes it. I'd call that sacrificial. Whether it's "improper design" is up to the individual's interpretation.

So, if they're designed to be sacrificial, why do you continue to say they're improperly designed? Or somehow poorly made. Or made from poor materials? I've said, time and again, that some of the new guns require springs to be renewable resources -- that is, they are made to work well for a time, because there is no free lunch: they are sacrificial springs. The Rohrbaugh R9 recoil spring is clearly one of them. Rohrbaught recommends replacing them every 250 rounds -- and I don't think they'll get rich from selling recoil springs. I've seen similar recommendations from some of the makers of compact and sub-compact .45s: recommended replacement after 500-1000 rounds rather than 3000-5000 rounds.

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

All springs take an initial "set" when first compressed. They should not get "weaker." Some must, as there is so much talk about it. Until Wolff started selling springs, you never heard about replacing springs unless they were rusted or overheated (except for competition shooters). This was before the "modern" guns came out, too.

Horse hockey. Before modern guns came out, springs weren't pushed to the limits they're pushed to today. Springs do get weaker when pushed to their limits. Some aren't pushed to their limits. But some are and can be. JohnKSa's tests results show that. You continue to make claims that are refuted by tests, by experience, and by scientific analysis.

Will most guns continue to function properly without replacing springs frequently? Many certainly will. It's only the extreme cases that really cause problems. Like the Rohrbaugh R9, or some of the very high-cap mags.

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

I own, and have owned more guns than most people. I have worked on those guns and others. I can recall exactly ONE mag spring that failed by getting weak-a factory S&W 6906 magazine.

I've heard of many magazines thrown out because they didn't function. Wonder why they didn't function? Wouldn't feed, etc. Think it might have been weak springs?

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

I repair antique switchblade knives. I make gun springs. I have made MANY hundreds of them-maybe over a thousand. I make 3-4 a week. Four have failed-all from the same piece of steel. I have seen many springs that are over 150 years old that work fine. I have never seen another spring-knife or gun, get weaker.

And how many of THOSE springs are coil springs designed to fit in a very small gun that fires a very powerful round? Or in a high-cap magazine? Are your switchblade springs coil springs? You're talking about conventional springs that are designed for conventional weapons, arguably much older guns -- where springs simply can't be found easily. I believe that you've not had many problems with those springs. But they aren't the kind of springs that cause a lot of problems.

The point you overlook is that until relatively recently, when gun makers started much smaller guns in larger calibers or started making higher capacity guns with shorter and shorter barrels and shorter grips -- the areas where spring function really becomes critical -- it wasn't much of an issue.

While you make a lot of springs, I'll bet you're not asked to make springs for those newer kind of guns -- because those springs are readily available from other sources. You're probably asked to make springs for guns and knives that aren't available from most sources. You're providing a needed service.

Double-stack mags are still kind of new in the gun world. While the BHP had a 13-round double-stack in the late 30's, it was one of the few guns to do so for almost 40 years. SIG didn't start making double-stacks until the mid '70s (with the P226), and Glock and CZ were right there with them a year or two later. Double-stack mag springs do much more work than single-stack mag springs with each reload.

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Until Wolff started selling springs, you never heard about replacing springs unless they were rusted or overheated (except for competition shooters). This was before the "modern" guns came out, too.

That doesn't mean -- as you seem to suggest -- that until Wolff came on the scene springs didn't fail. Until Wolff started selling springs, folks did one of three things: 1) threw the mags away and got new ones, 2) folks just contacted the gun maker to get new mags or new springs, or 3) went to a gunsmith. Many still do that -- as not everybody knows to order their own springs from spring makers. (You read it here on the this forum with some frequency: "I just toss'em.") Wolff didn't really have a MARKET for their products until the very nature of guns began to change and guns started getting smaller and double-stack mags became a quasi-standard for the U.S. gun buying public.

Your experience and knowledge of spring making is certainly valid as far as it goes, but until you start making coil springs for Rohrbaughs R9s, for small sub-4" barreled .45 1911s, or for the hi-cap mags used in S&W M&P Pros, 17 round Ruger SR9s or 18-round CZs, your experience with spring durability may not apply to this discussion. All springs are not created equal.