[danez71]

I understand exactly how springs work. Thanks for the animation.

Do you really think the engineers that designed them didn't take into account the maximum required compressive strength of a spring?

This isnt a pass or fail issue. Its a rate issue.

In an effort to put more rounds in a smaller space, engineers have implemented deisigns that allow the springs to compress deeper into their elastic range, thus sacraficing spring life.

Springs are a consumable item. The real issue is the rate of consumption; not a works/doesnt work - pass/fail - consume/not consume issue.


A 13 round fullsize BHP mag may last 50k cycles or 20yrs compressed storage life.

The tiny subcompact 9mm Rohrbaugh is 6 round but since its a single stack will take up relatively close to the same linear space as the 13 round BHP (for illustrative purposes).

The Rohrbaugh mag is roughly 1/2 the length of the BHP mag even though they both need roughly the same amount of linear mag spring travel.

Rohrbaugh recommends changing after only 200 rounds. Rohrbaugh themselves down graded from 500 to 200 rounds.

Thats due to the rate of spring degradation as a result of it being compressed deeper into the springs elastic range.

If that is indeed the case then how could you trust them to design any other part of the gun?[/

Simple. If they designed it to work for 200 rounds and it does, then their design worked and they seem to know what they're doing. If they designed it to last 50k cycles and it only lasts 200, thats another story.

There are many variables at work here. I tend to believe that a spring will operate properly when compressed within its limits of design and that the constant cycle of gaining and releasing energy is what causes the damage. .

So you acknowledge there are many variables but choose to ignore that degradation increases as its compressed deeper into its elastice range as one of the variables and choose to only focus on cycling....

A spring operates properly as compared to what the design engineer designed. Not yours, or mine, definition of "properly". If Rohrbaugh made a design that only lasted 200 rounds, their design is "properly" working.


You also have to keep in mind that none of the gun mfgrs say to store your gun loaded; hence the reason everyone talks 'round count life' and 'never compressed storage life'.


As I said above, If the # cycles was the sole predominate factor, we'd all be replacing recoil springs at a rate of 10 to ~20 times the rate of replacing mag springs and that assumng only 1 mag was used with a capacity of 10 to ~20.


But we're not replacing them at that rate which clearly indicates there are other predominate factors. Enter subject: Elasticity range.

But you continue to believe what you believe.

Sure thing. To recap, I'll continue to believe what science has proven and you can continue to acknowledge, but ignore, other variables; such as the range of elasticity for a given spring.