I’ve told people for years that slamming an auto pistol’s slide closed on an empty chamber is abusive to the gun, and particularly so with the popular 1911 pistol. Over on the Wilson Combat channel, Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn have said the same. Ain’t too many folks know more about 1911s than those two experts. Some of their gunsmith staff have concurred. Yet I still see idiots on the internet not only slamming slides closed on empty chambers, but endorsing the practice. I guess they think it looks dramatic.
Nelson Ford has been a gunsmith for 45 years. He has an excellent series of tutorial videos on YouTube.
He agrees with us too, as you’ll see in a discussion that begins just before the four minute mark, here:
Lots of other good insights in the rest of that particular video, too.
Very detailed explanation from an expert, not just internet clickbait. Didn’t know that about Springfield 1911s.
I think it’s akin to dry-firing a compound bow (or any type of bow, really), which is why I definitely don’t do it.
I’m always up for being taught useful stuff by experts in any trade, so thanks for the link! 🙂
This was my thought exactly.
You don’t dry fire bows — particularly compound bows, but it applies to straight-limb bows, too — because the bow’s release needs the resistance of the arrow’s mass in order to be done safely. The mass of the arrow absorbs a significant amount of the kinetic energy and slightly slows the release. Without that resistance, the full force of the bow’s release must be absorbed by the string and the limbs, which also “snaps” back much faster (read: with even more force) than it would with an arrow.
On any bow, but especially “fast” bows with high draw weights, a dry fire could snap a limb or the string. Neither is good news to the person holding the bow or anyone standing nearby.
Off topic, but I stumbled over something I thought would interest readers here. (Slap me if I’m out of line.)
This miscellany column from TexasMonthly August 1973 includes an interview with “THE MAN WHO KILLED BONNIE AND CLYDE”. The last surviving one, anyway, Ted Hinton by name. (Scroll down past the piece about the purported UFO crash site.)
That was a good read. Thanks for sharing.
Hmmmmmmm. I never did hear a direct answer other than maybe not? What about the modern 9MM DAO that everyone sells (Glock)? Secondly, the spring theory was a little flawed. He did a GO, NO-GO test, where 10 worked, but 8 didn’t. Did 9 1/2 work? VERY knowledgeable but couldn’t really give direct answers.
He said in the video that when he did that “go/no-go” test, springs were available in 2-pound increments. So he had 8- and 10-pound springs. The implication is that 9 1/2 wasn’t an option. Maybe it is now and the test is worth repeating.
OTOH, I also have problems with the math involved; his version is GREATLY oversimplified. The formula for Force is “F = ma”, where ‘m’ is the mass and ‘a’ is acceleration (a.k.a. change in velocity). In his experiment, he used the same slide, so the mass is unchanged; only the slide’s acceleration changed. If it takes more than 8 pounds of spring force to strip a round and push it into the chamber, that doesn’t simply subtract those 8 pounds from the spring force slamming the slide into position. If it did, the slide’s acceleration would be reduced by nearly half with a 16-pound spring (16 – 8), or by nearly 80% with a 10-pound spring (10 – 8). You would notice if chambering a round took almost five times as long — if that tenth-of-a-second action suddenly took almost a half-second.
Alternatively, we can look at kinetic energy. The formula for that is “KE = 1/2 * m * v^2” (read: “Kinetic Energy equals one-half times the mass ‘m’, times the velocity ‘v’ squared”). Again, using the same slide, the mass is unchanged — only the velocity changes — and here his argument is a bit stronger; the KE in the slide’s motion changes exponentially as the velocity changes (reducing the velocity by 20% reduces the KE by 36%), so slowing the slide down even a little has a significant effect on the amount of KE it carries to the barrel and frame when it slams “home”. But just as in the last paragraph, the resistance of stripping and feeding a round doesn’t simply subtract velocity from the slide, so using a lighter spring doesn’t scale linearly, as he describes.
Does that mean he’s fundamentally wrong? No, not at all. But his argument isn’t necessarily as strong as he thinks it is because the forces and energies (and math) involved are much more complex than he’s making them.
All that said, in the meantime, I don’t slam the slide on an empty chamber on ANY of my pistols, and I don’t dry fire without a snap cap in the chamber for the same reasons; without the resistance of something for the striker to hit, the full force that would go into a cartridge primer must instead be absorbed by its retaining pin, and that rolled pin isn’t necessarily designed for that kind of shearing force.
I’m glad you posted this. I guess I’m getting old and grumpy, but when I saw the reaction videos to your original video, it just really hacked me off. I grew up in an era that saw people who were rude, ugly, mocking and disrespectful get called out to their face, or maybe even occasionally get popped in the mouth. But in this “enlightened” era, people feel free to be as nasty as they want, with zero consequences. Probably one of the worst consequences of the Internet age
There is a certain amount of drama to racking/handling firearms with rapid force. Slamming the slide on an empty-chambered semi-automatic pistol, flicking the cylinder of a revolver closed like some detective in an old “B-Grade” noir movie, slamming the bolt home on automatic weapons, etc., all look “cool” on film.
Like so much of what Hollywood shows on the silver-screen, doing such things in the real world is abusive. Just as it is foolish to try to emulate the “stunts” performed on a movie set, it is equally fooling to take your firearms training from what you see in a movie.
Unfortunately, some people cannot really differentiate between the movie fantasy World and the real world. One should keep in mind that what one sees on the TV screen, whether in a movie, or wrestling, or (for that matter) the nightly news, is too often pure spin and fantasy.
If you want to know how to handle firearms, in the “real” World, then invest in “real” training. You won’t learn anything of value from Hollywood!
Unfortunately, some people cannot really differentiate between the movie fantasy World and the real world.
Hence all the outrage over silencers/suppressors possibly being removed from the NFA.
In the movies, nobody uses silencers except assassins and other criminals who don’t want their murders to be heard. So in some people’s minds, obviously, THAT is the only practical use for them!
That they were designed, developed, and manufactured as safety equipment — same as ear protection and car mufflers — or that many countries strongly encourage or require their use, or that they do NOT reduce a firearm’s report to a barely-audible “pew” (again, like in the movies), seems to neither register nor matter.
OTOH, there are a lot of instances in which the anti-gunners’ attitudes toward any particular issue seems to be, “Anything gun owners want, we oppose.” It doesn’t seem to matter whar our reasoning is, or the logical or safety-minded arguments we make. If we support something, they oppose it. This may be another one of those instances.
(Sometimes I wonder if we could use that contrarianism for our benefit. But that would require far more message coordination and widespread “wink wink” understanding than I believe is currently possible.)
While you are partly correct, the real basis for the opposition to suppressors is, IMHO, the Prohibitionist mindset. In the Left-wing mind of a Prohibitionist, all weapons are an environmental source-of-evil that inhibits the creation of the left-wing utopia State. Progress (they name themselves as “Progressives”) demands a march toward TOTAL PROHIBITION. The worse thing that can happen is to “roll back” progress that is already made. As in all warfare, they don’t want to give up ground that they have already taken. So, once suppressors were put on the NFA list and heavily restricted/regulated, they will fight “tooth and claw” to keep them there!
The image of “Assassin’s Tool”, created by Hollywood, provides propaganda for their fight, but they would fight it anyway without that crutch.
This “Assassin’s Tool” image is fake like all of Hollywood. Only the ignorant found their beliefs upon what they see on the Silver-Screen. Let me give an example. A classic western is “The Good, Bad, and the Ugly”. You see all kinds of false firearm motifs in this movie. Ropes are shot in two just as men are hanged. The hats are shot off the heads of people in the crowds as an intimidation tactic. Targets are shot to flip them on end, and then shot in two sideways. Men are shot down with the speed of automatic weapons with percussion era revolvers. It is all as fake as it is possible to imagine. Only ignorant fools believe such shooting is possible.
Yet, as entertainment, this is a GREAT MOVIE. It has great acting, character development, costumes, fantastic camera work. The musical score is sublime! As entertainment, it is TOPS! As an example of reality, it is a joke. The anti-gunners could ban percussion revolvers if this movie is believed!
BTW, check out this version of the musical score for this movie on YouTube. It is better than the score in the movie, if you can imagine that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enuOArEfqGo
TN_MAN,
You are right about the music/soundtrack to “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” by Ennio Morricone. My favorite soundtrack.
Sure Mas, now you tell after i’d done it about half a million times. Should i just take that Officers model Colt and bury it in the back yard? Wonder what other stupid stuff I’ve done?
I recall being chastised by a couple of IDPA ROs (consider the source) for NOT letting my slide slam home after showing clear. One asked me why I didn’t and was quite interested in why I didn’t. Rule Nazis who don’t actually know the rules are a major pain.
Once upon a time a test was done on a 1911 .45. The G load on the slide in full recoil position with ball was 800 Gs. The G load going into battery while stripping a round was 850 Gs. Referring to the tech in the video, if half the spring (standard 16 lb) tension is required to strip and feed the round, the affect of not stripping a round is looking truly large.
That was VERY interesting information on Springfield barrels. I’ll take my barrels one piece, thank you very much. Back in the early days of comp guns, I discovered a certain brand of aftermarket barrel was also sleeved. The comp I designed was apparently effective enough to start pulling the barrel tube out of the chamber sleeve. No, the manufacturer didn’t stand behind it. I ate that barrel and my machine work & fitting.
I’m also reminded of my days in USAF Security Forces (aka Security Police) whereupon we were taught to slam the bolt forward on the empty chamber of the M16A2 at the clearing barrel. WTF seriously?!?!
Letting it slam home on a loaded chamber (round already loaded, not being stripped from the magazine) ain’t doing the gun any favors either.
I was thinking a slow-motion, animated video would help to prove this point. However, Nelson Ford gave an excellent explanation, so a video is probably not necessary.
Actually, we did do slo-mo video to explain this on Wilson Combat’s YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdsSJsNKU8&t=30s