You may have a point that a linkless system, like the one in this case, is perhaps weaker, inherently, than the classic Browning design of the 1911 for the time-pressure curve of a 10 mm. Glock, on the other hand, seems to handle 10 mm power without problems but it has no locking lugs to damage to begin with. So, we're coming back to the locking lugs and the reason for the damage. I still believe that the main culprit here is the metal treatment. Another point that I see referred to very often is the recoil spring role in the whole issue and I believe that there's a lack of understanding, to a certain extent, of what the recoil spring really does. A recoil spring in its "relaxed" position (slide all the way forward) does not exert much of a force on the slide-barrel assembly, as evidenced by the easiness of insertion after disassembly. So, upon firing, the initial recoil speed of the barrel-slide system is limited only by the mass of the system not the strength of the recoil spring. As the latter compresses, it starts retarding the slide-barrel speed rearward but it's still the mass of the system that plays the major factor until the barrel tilts out of the way, an event that is defined by geometry of barrel-slide and locking mechanism rather than spring rating. So, the main role of the spring is to reduce recoil impact of the slide against the frame and to return the slide-barrel back into battery. Increasing spring strength is the wrong way to attempt to correct an early barrel-slide separation or metallurgy problems.
