as the topic says i'm a little bit confused on the pros & cons of
1. 1911 wilson combat buffers
2. wolff xtra power recoil spring
in a mini 14

i see both sides and in the net users state the one or the other side.

i suppose the purpose is to increase gun life time, by minimizing the impact of the slide assembly on the receiver (on its backwards motion) and gas block (on its forward motion)

i, more or less, understand the purpose of the 1911 buffers, but not of the xtra power recoil spring.
if the factory spring is too weak it must have been fully compressed and the slide assembly would still have power to move further back, otherwise it would be strong enough.
it can't be connected with the volume of gas left in the system after firing either, because of the holes in the slide assembly and the opening of the gasport after the backwards motion of the slide assembly begins, all the gas left will expand in the stock, not in the slide assembly any more and therefore the xtra power spring will not save the slide assembly from gas overpressure/force and speed, because there is not more gas left, than with the weak factory spring, or am i getting something wrong here?

please help me to understand why some people recommend buffers and xtra power spring ( or just the one and not the other) and some dismiss these "improvements"

First and foremost, let me state that I'm a big believer in the Wilson Combat Shok-Buff 1911 buffers. I have one fore and aft on my Mini, and have never had an issue.

Some believe that the stiffer recoil spring slows the operating rod and reduces the amount of force with which it strikes the receiver after a shot is fired.

However, it only makes sense that the stiffer spring is also INCREASING the force with which the operating rod strikes the gas block upon the return to battery. Seems counterproductive to me to reduce one force by increasing the other...

This is why I recommend buffers.

What is the benefit of the buffers? Reducing or eliminating damage to optics due to what some have called the "unique" (BOOM-Bang-clang) recoil signature of the Mini series rifles.

Reduced diameter gas port bushings (another topic for another day...) may also help with the banging and clanging, but they will definitely help keep your brass in the same county as your target.

__________________
Come on over to PureGunTalk.com: No Politics. No Religion. No Bullsh¡t.

i understand the use of the buffers, no prob at all
i ride one fore and aft myself in my mini.
i even hadn't to sand down the front buffer (also not the rear buffer), both fitted like they came from wilson.

just to get it right:
the slide assembly must have enough play before moving the bolt, when the front buffer is installed and the rear buffer must still allow the bolt to be catched and released, am i right?
anything else to regard with installing the 2 buffers?

i still don't understand the purpose of the xtra power spring, unless someone has issues with closing the bolt in the forward motion (but i never heard of this prob with a mini 14)

You're absolutely correct.

1. There must be a bit of play in the operating rod with the bolt closed. This ensures that the bolt will return to battery so the next shot can be fired.
2. The operating rod must cycle rearward far enough to lock open on an empty magazine.

From what I understand, the extra power springs were intended to do the same thing as a rear buffer (and were actually available long before buffers were).

__________________
Come on over to PureGunTalk.com: No Politics. No Religion. No Bullsh¡t.

thanks for the explanation, my friend

just being curious:
if the slide assembly has a little bit less backwards play than before installing the front buffer, will this lead to a little bit of prematurely opening of the bolt, 'cause the way the slide assembly has to move backwards is a little less than with no front buffer installed (due to the thickness of the front buffer on the gas pipe).

for sure nothing to worry about, but theoretically something to think about?

One con and pro I can think of for the buffer is that it can cause your brass to eject at an upwards angle rather than straight out from the side. This is not the case with every Mini, but it is so with mine and some others on here. On my Mini, I had a recoil buffer only installed in the rear and I have a .050 gas bushing. The problem with the brass coming out at an angle is that it can hit your scope. The pro is, if you don't have a scope and your Mini has this affect, it makes it so your brass doesn't fly out as far.

okay, but my mini has no probs with the wrong ejection angle, got buffers in front and rear with factory standard gas block and the angle of ejection is at 4 o'clock some 10-15 ft away

I had buffers front and back but recently went to a back buffer only. One reason for this was because I took it to the LGS and Smith there said it effects the timing of the gun and the buffer should not be on there! He was pretty adamant about this. I also read on here somewhere that the operating rod should stop just short of hitting the gas block. But with the thickness of the buffer it is causing contact between the operating rod and gas block.

I found a significant difference in my Mini-14 accuracy (series 195) with a buffer mounted on the gas block. Accuracy systems says that buffers should never be placed on the gas pipe.

Regards,
Richard

@glenwatkins:
the slide assembly (i suppose you mean that with "operating rod") hits the gasblock anyway. without a buffer it hits the gas block with full force. please correct me if i'm wrong.
so i can't see, why the front buffer (if the rifle cycles correctly) will increase contact between slide assembly and gas block, the oppposite should be achieved by installing a buffer on the gas pipe.

@ssb73q:
the front buffer made your accuracy worse, if i'm getting you right.
does accuracy systems say why the front buffer affects accuracy of the rifle.