Firearms => 10mm semi-auto handguns => Topic started by: SPDSR on January 13, 2018, 08:56:47 AM

Title: Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
Post by: SPDSR on January 13, 2018, 08:56:47 AM
According to Dan Wesson Tech support, the Valor 10mm (and Silverback) are identical internally to the Valor 45acp. I asked if any components were beefed up or altered for use with full power 10mm rounds, and they said no, it’s identical, just chambered for the 10mm. 1911’s are not my strong suit, but is this perfectly acceptable? I thought most of the higher quality 1911’s in 10mm have a few beefier tweaks compared to their 45 counterparts.
Title: Re: Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
Post by: 4949shooter on January 13, 2018, 08:58:43 AM
I don't believe they are beefed up. The only gun I see beefed up for 10mm is the Sig 220.

Other than that, the Glock was originally designed as a 10mm, and was later adapted to 45 ACP by scalloping out the interior of the slide.
Title: Re: Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
Post by: Canoe on January 13, 2018, 10:45:24 AM
That is my understanding as well.  No change to the frame or slide but the 10mm 1911s will have heavier springs/spring systems. 

There are claims that Springfield beefed up the frames on their new 10mm 1911's (frame thicker due to rail and extended to where slide stop is inserted into frame) but it has been observed that the dimensions are the same as on the 45 TRP frames.

I've read that with the developments in metallurgy, most newish properly sprung 1911's should not have a problem with a steady diet of even full power 10mm ammo.  However that does seem like speculation without any test result.  Also the definition of 'steady diet' varies a lot.
It would be interesting to see some destructive testing on some different platforms.

The Sig 220 10mm is definitely beefed up compared to the P220 45 variant and 1911.  Too bad it is not a slightly more refined package. 
Title: Re: Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
Post by: SPDSR on January 13, 2018, 01:04:13 PM
Good to know!
Title: Re: Dan Wesson Valor 10mm
Post by: sqlbullet on January 15, 2018, 08:45:00 AM
The 1911 was designed at the behest of the US army as a "going in harms way" firearm.  It was over-engineered like all mil-spec products.  Further, it was not designed by "whiz kids" out to revolutionize both small arms design and cost model.

The one issue the 1911 frame had when adapted to the 10mm was an inconsequential crack that developed in some models in the rail above the slide stop access hole.  Colt offered a fix that clearly speaks to the overall strength of the frame.  They just stopped putting rail there.  You can't crack what isn't there!


Typically there are recoil spring changes associated with different calibers.  Each manufacturer kinda does their own thing here, but in general they tend to follow the standards established by Colt:

38 Super/9mm:  14 lb recoil spring
40/10mm:  19 lb recoil spring
45 ACP:  16 lb recoil spring

The breech face has to be cut for the rim/head of the cartridge, and the extractor is a bit different on 38/9/40/10 than on 45.  Again, this is to accommodate a different rim circumference.

But other than required dimensional changes and a small change to recoil spring strength, nothing is done by most companies to tune for the 1911.

Now, to the more important question of what should be done?

Well, there are plenty of 10mm 1911's out there that run just fine with only a 19 lb recoil spring.  There are also lots of opinions about other changes.

I don't really favor jacking up recoil springs myself.  Look at the little tiny feet on the bottom of a 1911 barrel that are responsible for stopping the slide from flying forward off the frame.  Seems like the frame and slide are way better equipped to deal with some battering at the rear of slide travel than those barrel lugs are to deal with it at the front end.  Further, a reliable 1911 runs it's slide at a velocity that allows different things to happen....Run it too fast and you get three point jams.  This is even more likely with a ramped barrel that moves forward and up early in the feed cycle as the nose of the round impacts the feed ramp.

So, if we want to dump some of the momentum from the much higher impulse 1911 round (about double the energy of a typical 45 ACP load) what are the options beside a heavier recoil spring?

First, flat bottom firing pin stop.  Cocking the hammer is a first class lever relationship.  The hammer pin is the fulcrum, the mainspring is the load and the slide (or thumb) is the effort.  The closer to the fulcrum you apply the effect, the less reduction in force.  A flat bottom firing pin stop moves the effort about twice as close to the fulcrum as a standard tapered stop.  This means a bunch of momentum gets eaten up in increased effort to compress the mainspring.  And that momentum is not stored in such a way that it comes back later when we don't really want it.

Second, adding a couple lbs to the mainspring will give you more reliable hammer strikes, give you even more force to overcome in rearward slide travel, and only has the penalty of an oz or two in trigger pull weight.  A flat bottom firing pin stop and a 25 lb mainspring combined with a 19 lb recoil spring will give you a slide velocity very similar to a 45 ACP during recoil (compression).

As far as the rest of the gun, leave it alone.  It will be fine.