Gen5 Glocks in 40SW are heavier?

[NWPilgrim]

I really like the Gen 5 .40s. The extra slide weight makes them run really smooth. Less selection in holsters though. Some holster will flex enough to accommodate but many are too fitted.

I mainly shoot 9mm these days but I got into pistol shooting when the G22/23 came out and really enjoy the cartridge. I have a few Gen2-4. Got a Gen5 22 and 23 last year and am enjoying them. If you like shooting .40 then I highly recommend the Gen5. I have a Power Pistol load that shoots like a laser. Shooting steel is more fun with the .40, for me at least.

[gloob]

I weighed the upper on a standard Colt 5" 1911 at 18.3 oz, including barrel, spring guide, and bushing. The new G23/22 should be pretty close to the same mass. Plenty of people stick a heavier spring and a 10mm barrel in a 1911 and call it good. New G22/23 could be a beast with the right ammo. Heavier spring and the right cast loads, and it could possibly hang with 10mm 1911's.

Edit: I guess the spring guide should be considered part of the frame. So maybe 18 oz. This is about what I had previously estimated the Taurus TH10 to weigh.

To anyone who finds their 40SW handgun to be unpleasantly "snappy," I suggest they look at their case rims for claw marks. I happened across a review of a light weight 40SW pocket gun, and the reviewer noted the gun had an snappy recoil... and was having some failures to extract. It's a world of difference in recoil when you're getting sticky extraction. You really don't want your gun operating there; even if you don't mind the sting, you can't possibly depend on the gun like this, because of how fast this destroys the springs. Finding an ammo that doesn't do this might relegate your gun to a 9mm with less ammo capacity, but at least it will shoot consistently!

I imagine the recoil spring suffers accelerated damage by the sudden jerk when the slide slams deadstop into the frame at full speed. Spring "floats" briefly, then load suddenly returns when the case unsticks. Kinda like how the spring in a breakbarrel airgun gets damaged when you shoot pellet that way too light for the power, and it will quickly degrade. The pellet leaves the barrel while the spring is in the middle of doing its thing, and the resistance gets suddenly taken away. So this issue is just the start of worse problems.

I wonder if this is the reason some find 40 objectionable. They may have experienced sticky extraction. Stock guns, factory ammo, this definitely happens. The recoil is sudden and stings your hand, especially when the frame is light weight. When operating normally, 40SW has virtually the same recoil feel as 9mm, IME. Just a wee bit stronger.

The missus actually got tendinitis in her hand and elbow after just two range sessions with my first 40SW Glock, before I figured out this issue. Turns out she can shoot pretty good lefthanded, which she did for the next couple months.

[Bigslug]

If you want to better understand the unpleasantness of the .40, try shooting some older generation blowback-action pocket pistols.

The Walther PPK and Colt Pocket Hammerless are the two biggies that come to mind. These were originally designed to be .32's, and the .380 was shoehorned in later. Very pleasant to shoot in .32; in .380, notably less so.

I was working in gun shops in the early 1990's when the .40 S&W initially dropped. There was definitely a rush to get to market with "the next best thing", and maybe not so much time spent on R&D. Change the barrel/open up the breech face/push them out the door was the order of the day. There was a lot of development of the "wondernines" in the '80s and those got refined to a very high level of durability/reliability. The .40 suffered from a combination of marketing haste and maybe a little engineering hubris that the new round could simply be stuffed into those existing platforms and all would be fine. The guns simply had a tolerance range that the new ammo exceeded. I think the guns were still running on the ragged edge of that tolerance as long as they stuck with roughly the original 9mm slide mass. The attraction to using the same holsters for both calibers died hard - probably due to the fact that most operators weren't running enough rounds to approach the point of chronic failures and a reluctance to drastically change tooling that could be used for multiple models and calibers. Also, your lightweight polymer frame concept takes a slap in the face when you boost the slide mass 10-20%.

I dunno about your sticky extraction concept - especially if you have to get away from stock guns and factory ammo to avoid it. If you crunch the numbers ,the .40 is dishing out about 40% more recoil than a 9 in an identical weight pistol. In most of the originally-9mm guns, the recoil spring is effectively the automobile shock absorber on an economy sedan being slammed into a speed bump you didn't see in time to slow down for. The springs bottom out; the impact gets transmitted to the chassis and then to your butt, or, in the case of a pistol, your arm. Delaying the unlocking might help, but there's only so much you can do in that arena of same-basic-gun/two-different-cartridges.

While I'm the "range guy" and not particularly recoil sensitive, there is a physical battering to the .40 that can't be discounted. When you are servicing a large sequence of guns that you then have to test fire, you definitely get to a point of "the fun factor is fading" when that shock hits your elbow a few hundred times. Similarly, trying to get the non-shooters to qualify - - especially the tiny hundred-pounders with no meat in their arms - - was often a vicious cycle of anticipation, re-attempt, and ultimate physical fatigue. Since we kicked the .40 to the curb in favor of 9mm, the need to re-attempt has plummeted.

A properly built gun 30 years ago might have saved the .40 from our ultimate reversal back to 9mm, but even then, the reality would have been that a "properly built gun" requires a pretty chunky slide, and the round's performance characteristics don't lend themselves to use in compact pistols, so that might have only delayed the inevitable. The Gen 5 .40 has hopefully gotten the engineering right, even if interest in the cartridge is mostly gone. Kinda funny really that it's the parent 10mm getting the interest as a hunting round today.

[gloob]

"I dunno about your sticky extraction concept - especially if you have to get away from stock guns and factory ammo to avoid it."

Not ALL stock guns. Just some. We can all maybe agree that many 40SW guns were originally designed to shoot 9mm. And this include maybe the most numerous/popular of them all, and certainly the first to hit the market. The Glock.

Wasn't sure why you called sticky extraction a "concept." I thought this was well understood. So I googled "sticky extraction," and it seems that most people don't even realize that this can happen in semi-autos. All the info I found pertains to revolvers and bolt action rifles, where difficulty to extract a fired case is obvious. But I'm sure a lot of wildcatters, like the folks who created 460 Rowland conversion kits, know of this issue in semiautos.

In a revolver, sticky extraction is usually due to machining marks in the chamber. The case has formed to these imperfections, and then it becomes difficult to remove the spent case.

In a browning or other locked breech semi auto handgun, the difficulty to extract is only temporary. Say you get a failure to extract. Case is still in the chamber, resulting in jam. Even though part of the rim of this case may be bent or ripped off due to this failure to extract, you can still easily pull that case out of the chamber with a fingernail. It easily slips into and out of the chamber with no force. So why did it fail to extract?

Even after the bullet leaves the barrel and the pressures go down, the case is very briefly imprinted into the chamber walls to a "molecular level," creating a vacuum seal. After the pressure goes down, it takes another couple microseconds for the case to unpeel itself from the chamber. This doesn't occur in a blowback pistol, because the case moves back the entire time, so it doesn't imprint like that.

"If you crunch the numbers ,the .40 is dishing out about 40% more recoil than a 9 in an identical weight pistol."

This greater recoil results in faster slide velocity. So a gun that was originally designed for 9mm might have operated normally even with +P+ 9mm ammo. But some factory 40SW ammo might cause sticky extraction. More recoil = greater slide velocity. If the slide moves faster, the gun might start trying to extract the case while it's still imprinted. In this case, the slide is essentially slamming into your hand at full slide velocity before the spring has had any chance to slow it down.

The slide is moving at peak velocity by the time the bullet leaves the muzzle. From there on out, the recoil spring slows it down. The slide velocity is nearly max where extraction occurs. Slide has only moved about 1/4" by this time. Where the slide hits the frame at the end of travel, it has moved at least somewhat longer than the length of a cartridge. Much more time for the spring to reduce this velocity.

If you think the slide slamming against the frame at the end of travel shocks your joints? When this occurs before the slide has been slowed by the spring, this is a much greater shock!

[gloob]

If you want to better understand the unpleasantness of the .40, try shooting some older generation blowback-action pocket pistols.

One of the blowbacks that I personally have found obnoxious, and which is reknowned for being unpleasant, is the "Radom" P64. The other thing that it's noted for is a super heavy trigger pull, due to a super hard hammer spring. Well, there's something else that is unique about this pistol. It has a rebounding hammer, similar to the Walther PP, which is also known to be snappy. (And it's one of the most popular early blowback pistols made).

I believe this is part of the reason for the unpleasantness. Just like with sticky extraction, the slide is nearly at full velocity when it runs into this very strongly sprung hammer.

With a magnum revolver, at least your hand is accelerated along with the gun when you fire it. Same raeson you learn to push a single shot 12 gauge hard against your shoulder when you fire it.

When the slide gets to full velocity first before slamming the frame into your hand, that's like holding this single barrel 12 gauge 1/4" way from your shoulder before pulling the trigger.

And when this same semiauto is operating normally, it's like holding that single shot 12 gauge 6"-8" away from your shoulder and gripping it firmly. So your arms and body slow the gun down enough that it just gently taps your shoulder. You'll still get pushed back by the power of this 12 gauge. But you spread the impulse out, same way the recoil spring can in a semiauto... when it's operating normally and not having sticky extraction.

I'll be able to test this theory out when I get some range time. I put in a much lighter hammer spring and also a lighter recoil spring, into my P64. And I predict it will be less snappy, even though I reduced the recoil spring. I believe this because I've fired the Bersa Thunder in .380. Even though the slide isn't significantly heavier, and the slide is very easy to rack, the recoil is super softer. But one notable difference is the lack of rebounding hammer. It has a half cock notch, but it has a normal hammer that rests all the way against the back of the slide.

[35remington]

The sticky extraction hypothesis does not hold up in a locked breech gun. The gun does not extract “sticky” because the extraction phase does not occur until long after the bullet has left the barrel and the pressure drops to zero.

The gun is timed to behave in this way, even in 40 chambering, to account for extraction occurring when the case is able to be extracted easily and with the impediment to extraction because of pressure holding things in place is gone. Any conversation with the engineers that designed the pistol would make it evident that this was accounted for. The problem, as BigSlug has noted, was durability, not sticky extraction.

One of the clues is the vast number of Glocks in 40 would have manifested very different problems right from the get go immediately upon being shot if sticky extraction was a player. They did not, and what was manifest was more directly related to the factors BS mentioned.

[gloob]

The sticky extraction hypothesis does not hold up in a locked breech gun. The gun does not extract “sticky” because the extraction phase does not occur until long after the bullet has left the barrel and the pressure drops to zero.

The gun is timed to behave in this way, even in 40 chambering, to account for extraction occurring when the case is able to be extracted easily and with the impediment to extraction because of pressure holding things in place is gone. Any conversation with the engineers that designed the pistol would make it evident that this was accounted for. The problem, as BigSlug has noted, was durability, not sticky extraction.

One of the clues is the vast number of Glocks in 40 would have manifested very different problems right from the get go immediately upon being shot if sticky extraction was a player. They did not, and what was manifest was more directly related to the factors BS mentioned.

You might believe engineers always make things work right, and extraction can't be sticky once the bullet has left the barrel. But I've had this happen in a Glock 40SW. Case left in chamber with a damaged rim from the force. Hand and elbow stinging like mad from the impact. That case slid in/out of the chamber with just gravity. No signs of excessive pressure anywhere. Same ammo fired completely normally in my other 40's (that stay locked visibly longer than the Glock).

I'm also a dummy that tried this multiple times. It wasn't an overcharged case. My Glock 40 can't shoot ammo that my other 40's can.

It's not pressure that causes this issue. It's the timing of extraction AFTER the pressure is gone. The case remains stuck to the walls of the chamber, briefly. The hotter the load, the quicker the extraction happens, unless you slow it down somehow (mass or springs).

This can also happen in gas-operated semiautos. Like when people use the wrong combination of parts in an AR, this can happen. The case doesn't kb, because pressure is low already. But the extractor pulls so hard on the case while it's still stuck, that the cases get stretched out and unusable.

An AR can operate fairly reliably in this condition indefinitely without the user knowing (if he's not a reloader). Extractor is that big and strong, and the gas power stays constant for that ammo. In a pistol, it can be reliable for hundreds or even thousands of rounds, before the recoil spring gets too weak and you get your first failure to extract.

The firmer your grip, the more likely you can get reliable function in a semiauto handgun that is having sticky extraction. A limp wrister will have a narrower window where sticky extraction will actually function and cycle.

So even if these gun were having sticky extraction, shooters either may have just accepted it as part of shooting bigger bullets. Or maybe agencies who shot a lot of 40 out of Glocks simply used ammo that wasn't that strong. Ammo that met FBI spec. But not all ammo is that weak. You can make ammo much more powerful and still stay well below SAAMI max pressures!

[jrayborn]

I don't believe "sticky" extraction exists in a auto pistol. Case comes out, or it does not. Sticky... Nope.

[35remington]

The timing of the gun is based on things you are not accounting for which are uncomplicated. Extraction does not happen “quicker” when the load is hotter, because the bullet also leaves the barrel faster. Unlock timing is the ratio of bullet mass to barrel and slide mass. The spring has very nearly zero to do with unlock timing because the preload of the spring is very small. The gun can be fired safely and will unlock and extract normally with no recoil spring present whatsoever. All of this is well known, and I will not argue the point further. It is simply in error to assert sticky extraction is a thing in this pistol, so I leave you to your misconception.

One must recognize that many police departments shot many Glock 40s as their primary duty pistol for many years, and if sticky extraction was a thing a modest amount of shooting would have evidenced what you claim and they would have discontinued using it long before they did. Bigslug’s interpretation is the correct one. Other hypothesis do not apply.

I’m out.

[gloob]

You assume I don't understand as much as you do on this.

The timing of the gun is based on things you are not accounting for which are uncomplicated.

I agree. This is not complicated, at all. It's basic physics. This is conservation of momentum.

Extraction does not happen “quicker” when the load is hotter, because the bullet also leaves the barrel faster.

I'll get back to this, later. Yes, the bullet leaves faster. But you're missing something.

Unlock timing is the ratio of bullet mass to barrel and slide mass.

I agree.

The spring has very nearly zero to do with unlock timing because the preload of the spring is very small. The gun can be fired safely and will unlock and extract normally with no recoil spring present whatsoever.

I also agree with this, if by safe you mean there will be no kb. Tendonitis won't count as unsafe.



I agree it's not complicated. The upper has a fixed mass. And the upper must move a fixed distance before the barrel unlocks. Even ignoring the recoil spring, this alone is enough to ensure that a bullet that is below a certain mass will exit the muzzle before the barrel unlocks. No matter how fast or slow the bullet goes, it will always exit before the barrel unlocks.

But that's not all. No matter how fast or slow this bullet goes, the slide will make it exactly as far back by the time the bullet leaves the muzzle. If the upper of a G23.3 weighs 16 oz, and the bullet weighs 180 grains, we can figure this out.

180 grains is 0.41 oz. Barrel length is 4.5" measured from the breechface. But I will round this down to ~4", since the base of the bullet starts ahead of the breech by at least half an inch.

The slide will move back a certain amount by the time the base of the bullet reaches the muzzle.

slide movement = barrel length x bullet mass/ upper mass.

(upper means slide plus barrel)

So the slide will have moved back 4" x 0.41 oz / 16 oz.

The ounces cancel, so the answer is in inches. The slide will have moved back 0.1025".

So where does the extraction occur on a Glock? I can push the barrel back on it by 0.172" This is where the hood has dropped and pushing the barrel back will no longer do anything. From there on out, the slide continues on its own. And thus I'll call it here, where the extractor starts to pull the case out of the chamber.

So between the barrel exiting the muzzle and the extraction starting to occur, that would be 0.172" -.103" = ~0.07" of slide travel.

This amount is fixed. No matter how fast or slow the bullet goes, the slide will move about 7 hundredths of an inch between the bullet exiting and the extraction.

I'm quoting you, here. The part that I said I'd get back to.

Extraction does not happen “quicker” when the load is hotter, because the bullet also leaves the barrel faster.

Distance and time are two different things. The distance is fixed. But the time changes with bullet velocity. At 900 fps bullet velocity, the slide will be moving at 276.75 inches/second. And that 7 hundredths of an inch will be covered in 252 microseconds.

At 1100 fps bullet speed, slide velocity is 338.25 inches/second. That 7 hundredths inch is covered in just 206 microseconds. So the extraction starts in a shorter time after the bullet has exited. So it happens "quicker" in time.

Just for funsies, I also measures my FN pistol. Slide on it moves back 0.28" compared to the Glock's 0.172". So it's not 3-4x as long, like I said before. That was wrong. But it's longer. Upper mass is only half oz heavier. So let's ignore that.

0.280-.1025" = 0.1775" of slide travel between bullet exiting and the extraction starting. That's 2.53x times the distance as the Glock. So at 1100 fps of bullet speed, the delay between the bullet exiting and the extraction starting is 522 microseconds. Over twice the delay of the Glock shooting at 900 fps.

[gunther]

Have seen a Glock 40, probably 1st gen, with the barrel pealed up to match the slide opening, The dealer who showed it to me remarked that Glock would not talk about the problem. However, the ammo manufacturer offered to buy the gun at full retail price because they knew Glock was having metallurgy problems. And that there was no possibility of a double charge with the powder they were using. Other manufacturers were having their own problems in that era (1990's). Mostly due to haste.

[35remington]

Gloob PM me if you wish to continue the discussion. The problem you have is that extraction is a fixed event relative to bullet travel. This eliminates sticky extraction. A stock 1911 can shoot 460 Rowland loads using suitably strong case support with zero problems with sticky extraction.

If the bullet always exits before the barrel unlocks as you admit, the gun doesn’t have a problem with sticky extraction. Pressure bleeds to zero before unlock occurs. If there is zero pressure there is zero force pinning the case wall to the chamber wall.

Battering the gun to death is the problem.

[Bigslug]

Have seen a Glock 40, probably 1st gen, with the barrel pealed up to match the slide opening, The dealer who showed it to me remarked that Glock would not talk about the problem. However, the ammo manufacturer offered to buy the gun at full retail price because they knew Glock was having metallurgy problems. And that there was no possibility of a double charge with the powder they were using. Other manufacturers were having their own problems in that era (1990's). Mostly due to haste.

Fortunately, we never had a barrel kaboom on the Gen 3's. If I remember my experiences correctly, we had two left rear frame rails break off (one of which was on the personally-owned compact G27 of a detective who shot it A LOT), and one slide that lost the very rear corner of its slide rail. Then there was my super-early Gen 3 that cracked the frame at the locking block pin hole. So call guns that got "destroyed" by use as less than one-hundreth of what we ever fielded. Not bad, really. Of course, that was with me proactively addressing the problem from about the 7-year mark by swapping out a lot of springs, pins, and such to prevent more of that. The only barrel we had destroyed by .40 S&W was when one of our SWAT .45's got a round of it loaded in the mag by mistake and had a round of Hardball fired behind it. Bulge city. Oops!

I never did have a lot of personal experience behind the very earliest .40's (1992-2003). I was selling a lot, of all the brands, but not really shooting them. When I got my foot in the door with my agency in 2003, we were in the process of swapping out the very last of the S&W 4006's and 4013's. Those guns were not terribly popular with the troops, but I never had much opportunity to dive into them as a repair guy, and unfortunately, my career didn't overlap that of the guy who could have told me about their issues. But figure at the end of a decade of use, the real problem children had either been repaired or retired long before I got to handle them.

Ultimately, the pitch I made was that 9mm worked just as well or better on bad guys; it cost less to buy; you wouldn't have to shoot as much of it remediating the recoil-sensitive; and you probably wouldn't be at a point of "we absolutely have to replace these worn-out beaters" after only a decade of use. Yes, you can keep them running longer than that, but when you need to dump in maybe a quarter of a gun's trade-in value worth of spare parts to keep it trustworthy to defend its user's life, multiplied by dozens and dozens, the far better insurance policy was to invest in 9mm's that have a history of running over 100,000 rounds than to keep putting effort into .40's that were presenting issues at less than 10,000.

I would guess that the period from the .40's initial "gotta have it" hysteria to the first agencies realizing it was not all that and a bag of chips lasted maybe 10-15 years. Maybe another 10 before "gotta ditch it" was the norm, and after another 5, it's "you're still carrying those?"

[gloob]

Just measured the barrel travel or lock distance of a Glock 21 and 20, and a Colt 1911.

To keep score


gun
slide+barrel weight
barrel travel/lock distance

G23/19 gen3
16 oz
0.172"

1911
18 oz
0.230"

G21/20
20.5/21.2
0.239"

FNX 40
16.4 oz
0.280"

Curious what FN did with the FNX-45 lock distance.

I've never loaded a 45 to more than 45ACP data, myself. Quick search shows that Rowland kits with comps are sold for 1911's, Glocks, and FNX-45's, at least. Probably more. A comp obviously adds weight to the upper and also slows the barrel with the porting.

I am sure you could fire upper end 45 Super/Rowland out of your stock 5" 1911 without a comp and not die. I bet it would be a single shot firearm, with a failure to extract, even with a 26 lb spring in it.

Found that one of the bigger makers of these kits is Clark Customs. Wonder if that is the same Clark that used to post his wildcatting exploits on the web.

[jrayborn]

I miss Clark!

[35remington]

No failure to extract for the reasons noted above. Killing the gun is the problem.

[Sandspider500]

Just measured the barrel travel or lock distance of a Glock 21 and 20, and a Colt 1911.

To keep score


gun
slide+barrel weight
barrel travel/lock distance

G23/19 gen3
16 oz
0.172"

1911
18 oz
0.230"

G21/20
20.5/21.2
0.239"

FNX 40
16.4 oz
0.280"

Curious what FN did with the FNX-45 lock distance.

I've never loaded a 45 to more than 45ACP data, myself. Quick search shows that Rowland kits with comps are sold for 1911's, Glocks, and FNX-45's, at least. Probably more. A comp obviously adds weight to the upper and also slows the barrel with the porting.

I am sure you could fire upper end 45 Super/Rowland out of your stock 5" 1911 without a comp and not die. I bet it would be a single shot firearm, with a failure to extract, even with a 26 lb spring in it.

Found that one of the bigger makers of these kits is Clark Customs. Wonder if that is the same Clark that used to post his wildcatting exploits on the web.

Whut?



No comp 460 Rowland

[gloob]

You got me questioning this. I've only experienced this problem in a Glock. Maybe it's because of the Glock extractor spring/rod setup.

I recall an improved aftermarket extractor for the Glock. In this extractor, they had a very short section of steel rod to push on the back of the extractor. Then the spring. Then a longer steel rod at the back to fill the hole to the slide plate.

The maker claimed that when firing, the momentum of the steel rod in a stock setup could compress the spring and reduce grip of the extractor on the case rim (presumably more an issue when the loads get hotter). By moving the heavy part to the back, this would be solved.

I suppose if the rod were bouncing hard enough in there, this could have made my extractor spring go noticeably soft after that few hundred rounds of S&B factory ammo.
If this is the case, it still doesn't explain the deep claw marks on the case rims, nor the weird stingy/painful recoil that completely disappeared with just a slightly different load.

I guess another explanation could be my chamber is cut badly to where it grabs a case just a tad bit longer than it should. But I can't see anything wrong with it. It's a Glock chamber. It is mandrel-forged and looks like glass.

There are other reasons besides lock time that might make my FN (and the Cougar I used to have) shoot soft and comfy with that ammo that the Glock didn't like. (Yet with the ammo the Glock shoots fine, the FN still feels the same. Out of the FN, I would be hard pressed notice any difference between these two ammos.)

The hammer might change the feel. There's an extra couple oz of frame weight. Slightly higher bore axis might make the FN shoot softer. And maybe the "bad" ammo was shooting significantly faster out of the Glock for some reason of the chamber or barrel. Setback or pinching or something that was increasing burn rate and velocity, but this didn't happen in the FN.

Edit: my gut still says that Glock knowingly compromised on the 40SW. Question is why they stuck with it for over 20 years. I guess they figured their gun would define what 40SW should be limited to.

They obviously used a different locking lug/block shape to keep the 45/10mm version stay locked longer. And they made the 9mm version stay locked shorter. The barrel travels 0.07" less... why? To reduce heat buildup, or to fit 0.07" longer barrel into the same slide length? W/e the reason is, they optimized that length of lockup for that gun. But for 9x19, not for 40SW. They just tacked that in to their existing gun to beat S&W to the market with S&W's own caliber. The fact they made the slide fatter to add 3 oz shows that after 20 years, they may have found some room for improvement.

[gloob]

Sandspider, thanks. I just noticed your post after my last one.

From RIA website, I pulled specs for the first otherwise identical 6" vs 5" 45ACP they list weight for.

6" Pro Ultra Match 45ACP 8 rd
2.49 lb

5" Pro Ultra Match 45ACP 8 rd
2.34 lb

Difference of ~2.4 oz. Unfortunately, the frames are a little different, too.

Going with 2.4 more oz added to the 5" Colt 1911 I just weighed would put it at the same weight upper as a Glock 21, close to a Glock 20. I wonder how much a
Rowland compensator weighs.

His load is pretty stout, too. 185 grain at 1440 is about 11% more recoil/slide-velocity than the "standard" 10mm load of 200 gr @ 1200. (But the lighter 185 grain bullet gets it out a little "quicker," with respect to how far the slide opens by the time it makes it out.)

I already know 5" 1911's are routinely converted to 10mm, and can handle 10mm, so a 6" with ~13% heavier upper doing 11% more isn't all that eye-opening. That's what you'd expect.

[Sandspider500]

You're missing the biggest contributing factor that keeps the slide and barrel locked....., the bullet.