Originally Posted by sebbie
A little more background to my earlier statement. I have been talking with guys who run some serious government security at some of the facilities I work at. They all shoot a lot of ammo yearly. Several have had their 1911s lock up after the recoil had peened the guide rod recoil pad wide enough to wedge it in the frame making the gun inoperable and a bitch to take a part. So we set up a look and see shot with high speed xray. The full length guide rod was bouncing the back end of the frame by about 3/16 of an inch with standard 45 loads and more with +P. Higher energy springs would be the fix here. A Kimber was the source of study for the shot.
One guy has been shooting a Colt series 70 since like dinosaurs were pets or something. Except for springs he claims no trouble since buying it in Marion Ohio in 1974. My opinion as a wannabe engineer slaving for her PhD is that John M. Browning had a lot of intuition and skill building this gun. Leave it at that.
Very interesting posts & thank you for clarifying your 1st post (because no, I am old as dirt and do not remember high school physics). I have one gun (a Springfield) that came stock with the FLGR & another (and EB) that came with the GI style. I totally agree with others here that neither setup has any difference in function (of any one range trip) or accuracy of the guns. I also do not get bothered at all by the way either dissasembles. I enjoy fiddling with things and taking things apart anyway. I look at it like this - both systems work & so at this time I have no need to change or want to change the stock FLGR system out in the SA. It has around 1500 rounds through it now - when the recoil spring wears out I might make the change to the GI style in that gun.
But anyway, what you say is good to know though. I will keep a close inspection/eye on the guide rod recoil pad when I dissassemble & clean from now on.