I didn't say it didn't work. I said that 9 mm is a better choice for a number of reasons.
The .380 Auto is a 9mm.
Felt recoil is subjective and affected by a number of things: bore axis, grip design, individual shooters physiology.
Which is why I reported free recoil. Felt recoil cannot be quantified, but it is a function of free recoil. By the way, the bore axis is lower on the 83 than it is on the 75, which contributes to a lower felt recoil for the 83.
Get an 83 in .32 Auto and the free recoil drops to 0.85 ft?lb, an 83% reduction relative to the PCR, and with a one round increase in capacity over the PCR.
Since when is a gun "crippled with a decocker"? Between my 75D pcr and my Sig 228 I have thousands of rounds fired without a single decocker issue ... crippling or otherwise. I get that you like your 83s. Good for you. The OP wanted to know why people aren't buffing 83s. My answer stands.
Since the decocker prevents the pistol from being carried cocked and locked like it was designed to be carried. Condition 2 carry results in degraded first-shot precision. Apparently the decocker also degrades trigger pull somewhat.
I'm happy to know you've never experienced a decocker failure. Some decockers, however, have failed, thereby imposing a safety hazard. Is it the decocker on the CZ 52 that is affectionately regarded as its second trigger?
People are buffing 83s and 82s, just nowhere as many commercial options as for the 75s. Ask the commercial 75 buffers why they don't buff 82s and 83s, and many will tell you because they don't need it, primarily because their broken-in triggers are so darned good. Perhaps a bigger reason is that no one is combat gaming with them. Most of the buffing is done by the owner, often with great results, as evidenced in the show-off-your-refinished-82 thread. Then, of course, Winslow appears to be doing some very sophisticated commercial buffing.
