BradNC

I don't blame you. It's taken a long time to get my TP9SFx into good usable shape. Canik had installed a poor striker and plunger and trigger bar and I only found this out by replacing them on a whim, after which it's a whole new gun. There's no excuse for that, so I would not repeat the adventure. I don't want to be negative, but there are other options in the market.

UPDATE: Ameriglo replaced my failed Haven totally free of charge. It took 2+ weeks all said and done from my shipping it to receiving a new one back. Not too bad. The new one is just that, a new one. If it fails I have about 2 more years of warrantee coverage on it. If this one fails I'll go elsewhere next time I buy, but until then I still like it as it meets my needs OK and has held zero well during my use at a range with 9mm basic and +P ammo.

You could spend a lifetime tuning that rig! Sprinco provides at most 3 combinations. I use two (my lighter ammo and heavier ammo, with some tolerance if you only use either spring across all ammo), controlled by changing the main recoil spring. Good luck understanding the nuances of 8 different settings!

UPDATE: My Haven failed last week at the range. It seemed to be eating batteries lately (dot goes away, new battery install fixes it, repeat as needed). But last week it died one day after I put in a new battery. It died at the range, turning on/off erratically. I asked Ameriglo for an RMA and they gave me that quickly, but now I'm waiting on a shipping label.

Keep a watch on it and let us know if it happens again. The mag being installed might be pushing the trigger bar sideways, and you can't see that easily, except maybe from above with the slide removed? I can't see how the trigger bar gets scuffed near the plunger other than the plunger. This is unusual, so interesting education for all.

Lots of folks have had very similar experiences with stock TP9SFx's. The typical approach is to shoot higher power ammo for a while to "loosen" (break-in) the stock recoil spring. Mine worked OK after about 3-4 boxes of 124gr Norma or Sellier&Bellot (~380ft-lb)...generally the slightly higher power stuff than 115gr WWB, and certainly higher power than 115gr Blazer. (Which I won't buy because I don't like 335ft-lb ammo if I can use higher power stuff. I "warm up" using 335ft-lb stuff then use 360-400ft-lb for the main session, but that's just my preference.) So keep shooting it using more powerful ammo if possible. I bet it'll work fine pretty soon.

I'm not 100% sure since the pic is confusing to me, but it looks like the trigger bar is not riding on top of the safety plunger, but rather to its outside. I notice in my TP9SFx that the trigger bar does not contact the plunger on its center, but rather off to one side. It looks like in your case the trigger bar is to the side of the plunger and that's why it has all that metal worn away on the bump you show. You can see this problem in action if you put the slide on, rack the slide to cock the assembly, then look through the mag channel with a flashlight (no mag in place of course). You'll be able to see the interaction there as you pull the trigger. (I'm not too impressed with how in my TP9SFx specimen the trigger bar does not ride the plunger surface centrally as you'd think would be best.)

I would have been surprised if the 4lb had worked. I'm using 6lb and it's 100% across my ammo types, but I would not go lighter.

Way cool if it works as advertised. It makes sense that it's only possible to put a coil-over shock into a pistol at this time since it (probably) requires very precise manufacturing to make a very small, tuned shock. So designers up to now probably couldn't use the idea is maybe why we have only had simple springs till now (but maybe simpler is better...).

I'm surprised you don't feel much difference with the lighter spring setup you have (I have never tried a 4lb striker spring - 6lb is my limit!!!). Have you done the polishing procedure to the safety plunger and the trigger bar, to get them to slide more smoothly across their contact surfaces? If there's a lot of frication/drag in those sliding areas that friction might be the primary thing you feel, so lighter springs won't make as much difference. It's just a thought based on my TP9SFx experience (and Weapon here knows all about this stuff, so find his posts for more info). I'm pretty happy with my trigger pull after lots of polishing, the lighter Galloway safety plunger spring and a 6-7lb striker spring. (Is the trigger award-winning at this point? I don't think so because in my TP9SFx specimen I still have some inconsistency in trigger "steps" as I move to the wall, plus my wall-to-release is a little inconsistent, but I think I've taken this Canik as far as it can go, so I quit trying to improve the trigger - "it is what it is" as they say.)

I like the grip texture change Canik has on this. (That's a "gripe" I've had for a long time.) I like it surface-feature wise, except for the compensator (which is the point of the TTI model!) that I don't need. It'll be interesting to see if it suffers from the RIval-S "consistency" issues.

I hate to admit it here, but personally, I don't like the styling of the Rivals compared to the TP9&METE SFx era. Too many cuts and angles for me. I know I'm "out of style" compared to others here, and I get the reasons for the Rival shape angles, but I don't like them at all. In fact, I find the Rivals unpleasant to look at. Add to the appearance of the Rivals all the issues the -S version has and it looks to me like Canik has been following the styling fairies instead of engineering & manufacturing considerations. But they have their drummers they listen to, and it's working somewhat for them in terms of gaining a following as evidenced by folks here that buy lots of them. So in many ways they're taking some good steps for their future. I'll very probably not buy Canik again because I won't buy something I don't like to look at, and I've had enough debugging with my specimen of the TP9SFx, but they're checking lots of feature boxes for lots of folks. Who knows, maybe they'll build a steel-framed version that's not styled like a MadMax movie prop, in which case I'll get interested. (Sorry if I've stepped on toes here by babbling against the popular recent models.)

Lots of times these days products are essentially designed by marketing folks. They decide on features&functions, then engineers build to that. Marketing folks follow trends, etc, to maximize revenues... (Some might lead trends, but lots follow.) Well, maybe "marketing folks" are not literally trained marketeers; "product managers" might be a better phrase, but product managers are often not engineers, they're more following and analyzing trends in the market, so to me they're marketing folks...sorry for my rash descriptions here.

In my TP9SFx (and I use the Freedomsmith trigger, so we're "on the same page" as folks like to say) I've been using the Galloway (lighter) safety plunger spring for 1-2 years (I forget). I also tried their lighter trigger tension spring, but for me it made the trigger too light, so I went back to the stock Canik trigger spring. The Galloway trigger spring produced the expected result, a reduced tension trigger pull. But I don't have any measurements, I just go by how I like the results. Have you also installed and tested a lighter striker spring (a 6-7lb striker spring from a Glock or other products)? (FYI, I use the Sprinco recoil spring system in my rig to achieve a lighter than factory setup overall - and this is why the Galloway trigger spring was too light for me I think - with no downside that I or others can report.) All these springs can be inter-related, so you'll want to study what others have reported to understand the best things for you to do.

I bought mine in approx Oct 2020 from BassPro. But it could be a specimen that was produced before that and was laying around, I don't know. The reason I suspect mine is older is that it was plagued with the inability to use lighter striker springs that others were benefitting from (and lighter recoils springs that require the lighter striker spring to work, etc) -- until I replaced the original striker assembly. In its stock configuration it worked fine after break-in, it was just that it could not be ungraded with lighter/appropriate recoil springs (e.g., the Sprinco recoils spring system, etc). Plus it had a lot of slide-to-frame slop that others didn't seem to mention. All added together I think it is an older specimen. (Don't know if you saw another post of mine recently, but I bought a new TP9SFx fluted&threaded barrel from Canik that I had to file to fit correctly in my slide...)

In other posts I noted (for my TP9SFx that is): (1) my original striker could not work with lighter striker springs, but putting in a new striker worked with lighter springs; (2) I had to file&fit the Canik's TP9SFx fluted/threaded barrel because as it came it did not properly mate with the TP9SFx slide I have. These are two examples of their continual "evolution" that makes parts not perfectly interchangeable. I view all this as DIY adjustments we have to make - they sell us parts and we finalize them to our preferences. I'm not complaining really, it's just the way it is, but we have to learn this by decoding issues.

I've been using one for 6-12 months (I forget when I got it). I really like it. It works well for me, but I shoot at bullseye targets indoors, not in battle or sunny days in the South. I'm sure it's not as damage-tough as a Trijicon, but for me it works perfectly. I have astigmatism and still like the dot - it's about as good as it can be for my eyes. I really like the window size&shape compared to others. I would definitely buy it again at this point in the market. In fact, if I equip a new pistol I'd probably just buy another one to avoid studying them again (went through that for months), plus I'm trying not to buy known Chinese-made optics if I can avoid it (Holosun, etc).

Interesting. The new one I put in is NOT black in color, but it's definitely slightly different from the one that came in my TP9SFx. No broken tip or anything on the original, but a sufficiently different contour on the large section adjoining the firing pin tip. So probably the replacement I got is not the MIM piece as you showed (although it does not look like a typically machined part with sharply defined edges/corners, etc). The one I have that works looks most like the top piece. I honestly think the problem has to do with the angle of the cut after the firing pin, and that has to mate with the machining inside the slide's striker channel (that I can't study very easily!) Maybe I have a freak slide with machining error inside the striker channel's breach end.

I fully enjoy my TP9SFx after optimizing it to my liking (FS trigger, Sprinco RSA, LokGrip backstrap weight, trigger&plunger polishing, magwell, etc). But there's something I have not seen anyone mention. Here's the story that might apply to your SFx (mine is apparently an old specimen). I tried several times to run a lighter recoil spring with a light striker spring and plunger spring, etc - like everyone else says they do. I could NOT eliminate light primer strikes when using a 6-7lb striker spring! No way. As a result I could not get lighter recoils springs to work right like lots of folks do. Well, about this time I got interested in Sprinco's RSA (I use a light/laser as muzzle ballast so no need for the W74 tungsten ballast guide rod). I emailed and asked Sprinco if their system would work with the STOCK striker spring. In response Alan Dugger (Sprinco owner) and I talked (great customer service!). He said Canik's striker spring is about a 16lb spring and there's no way his RSA would work with that. He also said I must have a freak TP9SFx since my attempts using 6-7lb striker springs couldn't work. That made me study a replacement striker assembly I had bought in reserve. I found that my stock striker shape near the firing pin was NOT the same contour as the replacement (a MIM part I think). So I put the replacement striker in, first with a 7lb Glock spring, then with a 6lb Wolff striker spring, and VOILA it all works now using 6-7lb striker springs and lighter recoil springs! (I use the Sprinco RSA now.) Canik had originally used a poorly shaped striker, and to make it work with their slides it NEEDED a mega-power striker spring! I actually suspect this is the origin of their super-power striker springs, or if the origin was to work with stiff Russian ammo their spring choice allowed them to overlook a poorly shaped striker tip at the same time. Either way the solution was the new striker shape. All's been well after that, including Sprinco's RSA, etc. So it all works well together now. I view my TP9SFx as a DIY gun - you get the parts but it's up to you to make it work well. BTW, I just added Canik's threaded/fluted barrel and had to gunsmith that to get it to fit correctly with my slide. The chamber hood "lug" was made too long, so I had to file off about 1-2mm of metal. I think Canik did this to make it work with any slide that's produced, but it does require metal work, no question on that.

I've spent too much time getting my Canik TP9SFx to my liking (reliable trigger action, appropriate springs, extra grip weight, extra grip traction, too many issues to repeat here) to throw it aside, but if I could I would opt for the M&P. Plus, the Canik grip is not nearly as good as the M&P for my hands. But the M&P Competitor was not available when I started with Canik, so at the time the Canik was my best available choice.

If I were buying again these days I'd pick the M&P Competitor too. I really liked the grip for my hands, the trigger is OK and is improvable, and it handled well when I played with it. Aftermarket parts are available so there's no strong down-side. (I enjoy a Canik TP9SFx that I've spent time and money optimizing, but selecting again I'd go with the M&P instead.)

And I just bought their fluted/threaded barrel for my TP9SFx...(using their great 30%-off sale) It has not been updated since they probably don't care about an old pistol version. I'll see how long it lasts.

Century/Canik really ought to make sense of this and post it on their website so it's all documented forever more. It would save them and customers work in the long run. They really need to improve their rigor game overall if they want to grow market share. They make "design" changes and no one knows it, but we know it when things don't work right. Griping won't matter, but maybe Century reads this forum.

Canik/Century needs to start the addendum naming convention for designs and parts. Like Rival-S A1, A2, A3, etc for the successive updates/addendums. Without that system it will be a nightmare. But they haven't done that so the cat's out of the bag at this point. Too bad.

That's an easy one. But I only know that with my TP9SFx the firing pin block is still working with an FS trigger. I look into the magazine channel with a flashlight and watch the plunger being moved by the trigger bar as I cycle the FS trigger. Someone with a Rival X can do the same thing as explicit evidence that the plunger's still active and not being eliminated by the FS trigger geometry.