larryccf

yes, but mainly because after seeing this thread, i asked customers that were running our frame if they wouldn't mind posting - the negative posts at the beginning of this thread give a distorted view of the product - folks that have problems, whether operator fault or mfgr fault, are going to be the first to post - folks that are happy with their purchase generally just run them and aren't involved in web chat forums hopefully, you'll understand that we'd want those folks to report their results so viewers got a balanced perspective

abn-rgr: "...When I put my stock 35 upper on, it ran great for the 100 rounds or so I put through it. .." That at least gives some confirmation of what i've been saying about the aftermarket components. Again, this is not to attack them, but it's hard for CCF to accept the blame for failings in another supplier's components to maintain tight tolerances. And there are two areas in the Glock® slide that are extremely difficult to even detect, much less execute tightly; the angle in the firing pin well, and the extractor well itself. We've seen some aftermarket extractor wells that were as much as 17 thouandths too shallow, which meant the extractor would have had it's "reach" to the case's rim shortened by 17 thou. The extractor doesn't get that much bite to begin with, with no allowance for shortening that reach. We're using a very high end shop to fabricate our slides, and we've had to reject the first 3 batches of G17 slides. Normally they'd do "sample article units" but they thought the same data from the G22 slides would serve. On the last batch, there was a deviation we couldn't measure in house, and had to send them out to a shop with a CMM to pickup that one measurement, so we could pass it back to our supplier to help dial in their fixture and toolhead. We only knew it had to be off, as we test fired 3 of the slides and all exhibited FTEs. Once they get their fixtures and toolheads dialed in, then it's downhill from there. It will still be helpful to call me - some of the items i was going to go over with you regard the smith - if he's a 1911 smith, it will be difficult for him to diagnose that glock lockup sequence. The gunsmiths i've named here in this thread have spent a considerable amount of time learning the Glock® setup, and most of their education came from "trial and error" in figuring out the glock lockup sequence and what wear points to watch. And they had to be talented to deduct / learn what they have, as there have been a good number that tried and failed. Again, what's so deceptive about a Glock®, it's set up to loose tolerances for extremely reliable functioning, that users assume it must be an easy setup to tune. That loose setup sets you up for disappointment when you tighten one area and don't make the necessary adjustments in others. and can i ask you, kindly, to go back and edit that original post to a more accurate statement - leaving the stmt "several friends who have returned theirs 4-5 times" is kind of hard to look at and a lot of folks reading this thread will stop on the first couple of pages tks in advance

you hit it on the head, especially the G34 which seems to be problematic in tuning for rapid fire drills. Someone inside glock® actually admitted to me that they (Glock®) sometimes have G34s they can't diagnose the cause of the FTEs and they just replace the pistol. Given the anemic recoil energy of the 9MM, the extra mass of the Glock G34 slide, and the longer slide rails of our frame (which introduce a longer friction contact patch to drag a little more energy from the slide), you're on the cusp of reliable functioning, and rapid fire drills seem to aggravate the situation and push it over the cusp. John Nagel, to his credit, has built & tuned to my knowledge, 15 or more pistols, most, iirc, in G34 and all those customers report solid performance and reliablity. Maybe John has a bag of magic powder he dusts them with before shipping, i just know i haven't heard of any problems from the ones he's tuned. So it can be done - it's just critical it's done right

thanks for your response i know who you're referring to, and believe he had two locking blocks break on one frame, and one lock block on another frame - we supported him with a couple of the blocks but after that, i felt something in his useage was inducing those failures, possibly a lighter value spring as he is competing on your frame, as some here on this forum have reported, some of the aftermarket slides have been so far out of spec they were unrepairable and they sent them back. Surprisingly, there are a number of difficult areas of the Glock® slide to machine properly - one is the angle in the firing pin well, and with that well being stepped the way it is, it makes it difficult to pickup, whether at the machinist's station or at the gunsmith's bench - we picked that up fairly quick in modeling the glock slide. There's also a slight angle in the extractor well that is difficult to measure and confirm. And to compound the problem the fabrication (machine shops) shops, if you don't QC the slides tightly, they'll take shortcuts in their machining ops to save time in machining them, which means a savings in costs but the shortcuts also mean a loss in tolerances. If those areas are off, you'll have FTEs. We also noticed in one of the aftermarket slides, the inside front corners differed from the original glock®, and that shortcut is fine on a Glock® but the larger radius'd inside corners impinge on the front ends of the front slide rails And back to what we strongly recommend, ie staying with stock components for use with our frame. This is not to bash anyone's aftermarket components for use on orig Glocks® - it's just that we do not recommend them for use on our frames. without having the full details of your build, can i ask, have you tried the aftermarket slide on a glock frame and if so, did it run? vice versa, did you try a glock slide on your frame and did it run? if you can email me at larryccf@mindspring.com, that's my personal email address, identify yourself in the email and i'll throw you a phone number that hopefully we can have a conversation this weekend and maybe give you some suggestions. I'd rather your project ran than sitting on a bench at a gunsmith with you unhappy about it.

sorry - didn't see the wink not sure if you're aware, but we offer slides in 4140 chromemoly. Right now we've got G22 slides in stock, with G17s due in shortly and next after that will be the 34/35 slides check our website

Matt2ace and John Nagel appreciate the positive comments - Matt, as to your return, our goal has been from day one, to try make sure every customer has as positive an experience with our products as possible. John N - your comments (as well as Matt's) hit the nail on the head. As to the owner's manual thing, i think males, in particular, are genetically encoded to NOT reading owner's manuals (myself included). We actually emphasize the stock component aspect by stating to customers that "if they will run our frame with stock components, we'll be able to hear them smiling without the benefit of a telephone." One gunsmith customer called in recently that had already purchased some frames from us earlier this year, but i didn't recall the purchase. The minute i got to the phrase about "hearing him smiling without the benefit of a phone" if he'd run his with stock components first, he reminded me he had already purchased some frames earlier in the year by saying - " i recall you saying that the first time i purchased, and i figured you had said that for a reason. So i tried mine stock, and after the first 1000 rounds, i decided to leave the thing as is, as it was running so sweet. I've got 15 - 16,000 rounds on it competing in IDPA with it and feel like i'm cheating". It was actually satisfying to hear someone had actually noticed the emphasis we include in descriptions. Kind of ironic dont you think, considering they're called RACE frames. jsykes - i'll concede the name might lend some confusion, but our goal was for a customer to be able to improve their competition performance by simply substituting our frame for their stock glock® frame. In light of that, i think the name is applicable. It's the fact that the glocks® are built to such an exacting standard, in terms of tolerances, that we knew we could offer a product that, out of the box, a customer would be able to install it, and run it. Customers modifying or "tweaking" their pistol, there's an expectation that they know what they're doing, and if they are pioneering a "tweak", well, that that is their responsibility. The 1911 frame manufacturers, like Caspian or STI, can't offer their frames ready to drop into a customer's 1911 simply because there are so many 1911s offered by different manufacturers, that there is no one "standard". That's why their aftermarket 1911 frames are offered with every area that needs fitting, having excess material, so out of the box it needs to be gunsmith fitted from scratch. On our frame, if a customer decides to take their pistol's performance to the next level, by modifying it with various aftermarket components or other modifications, that's when they need competency in the way of gunsmithing skill or a gunsmith like John Nagel, Matt or Charlie Vanek. That is what they do for a living, and because they do, they know what to look for in the way of confirming proper fit & function. But our frame will run out of the box with stock components and give the user a serious competitive edge. That was our design goal. It's a little unreasonable to assign the responsibility to the frame when a user installs unknown components of unknown dimensions, especially when we've advised against non-stock components. That analagous to running oversized Baja 1000 knobbie tires on a Ferrari, and then wondering why when the suspension failed or the tires started showing uneven wear. Our frame has demonstrated that it enjoys advantages over even the 1911s, in competitions. By lowering the stock glock's® bore axis even further (and the glock® already has the lowest bore axis of any pistol on the market ) by keeping the rear grip strap vertical to a higher point before starting the upswept turn to the beavertail, coupled with the weight of a SS frame and with the addition of the short beavertail, muzzle control has been enhanced to a really sweet level and users enjoying guns that run flatter than they've experienced before our frame's introduction. Hoping that clears the confusion as a PS on aftermarket components - i just received, from a good friend, two trigger packs from an aftermarket tuner that he wanted me to "try". They were an obvious copy (and sloppy copy) of one of Charlie Vanek's tuned triggers - by sloppy, in their "tuning"they had totally eliminated the primary safety, and removed about 25% of the secondary safety. Guys, i can't say this strong enough - stay with the established & known names for tuning, the really known names like Charlie, Matt or John Nagel. They know what they're doing. anyway, hoping everyone stays safe & wishing all a Merry Christmas and a great New Year -

Rising Sun - those barrels were supposed to be dropped in - they came from the inventory i had from CCF Capital City Firearms and that mfgr sold those as "drop in". My point is, you don't know what you will, even when the mfgr describes or confirms they are drop in. To be real frank with you, i hadn't noticed the disparity on the bottom of the lugs until i put the photograph on the screen. I was going to get the image, then figure out how to insert the red lines in photoshop for the measurement indicators, then mike them and insert those measurements. I was on the phone with someone with the images on the screen when i noticed how much larger that aftermarket base was. i'd suggest you mike your barrel Our primary recommendation is stay stock. We recognize some customers prefer a true rifled barrel to use unjacketed ammo with - For those customers we offer our own barrels, with button rifling, that are exact to the glock's® dimensions. We've got G22 and G17 are in stock, 34 & 35 will be, hopefully after the first of the year.

abn-rgr - I contested your statement that "I have had several shooting buddies who had to send their frame back 4 or 5 times. .." but haven't seen a response. I noticed you were viewing this thread last night, so you have seen it. I would appreciate at least an explanation of why you'd post something that was not true ??

duke 146 you wrote: "...The Aluminum frame ran flawlessly with me the first mag and then handed it off to another shooter who started having failure to go into battery problems, large hands, high thumbs..." - especially if the user is a 1911 shooter - 1911 owners ride their thumb higher on the frame, bumping the slide stop lever ... until someone points it out to them

Chirpy, thanks for clearing that up - I just reread what i posted and realized something i said in my response to you might be mis-construed. When i said "...Some people or companies like to make statements, irregardless of how little they truly know, to make themselves look or feel more important, ..." I was not referring to you, but to the source that indicated that statement to you. I've edited my post to make sure it's clear to others

I've been asked to respond to some of the comments made in this thread to set the facts straight. While I don't care to get caught up in the arguments that seem to proliferate in web forums, after viewing this thread, some facts do need to be set straight. First, Chirpy or Richard, your statement that "...I have no experience with the CCF but I have heard they might not be around long $$$ worries..." has no basis in reality and I am one of the major owners of the company. I would suggest you find a better source of information. While I'm not saying this about you, but rather the individual that fed you the "rumor", some people or companies like to make statements, regardless of how little they truly know, to make themselves look or feel more important, I've never understood it but it's a fact of life. But whoever your source was, they are not in possession of any information I'm not. Second - abn-rgr posted "I have had several shooting buddies who had to send their frame back 4 or 5 times. " I'm sorry but that is impossible. There have been a small population, maybe 3 or 4 customers, that have returned their frames twice, for broken lockblocks. And of those, one finally admitted he was using an aftermarket barrel in the frame. So when you say "several" buddies return theirs 4 or 5 times, and i haven't had even one customer go beyond two times, I would really like you to identify those shooting buddies for me, even if only by first name, last initial & city state. I'd like to search my records to see if they even exist. I don't mean to be confrontational, but that was a pretty damning statement you made, that i know is not true. Statistically speaking, it's pretty hard to imagine one individual knowing so many customers that have "had to return their frame 4-5 times. knobcreekllc posted "I've got to wonder how many of the problems others are reporting are from "mixing & matching" various non glock components?" and Matt2ace posted "...IMHO once you are working with an all-metal gun, fitting becomes a very important element of the gun build. Glock shooters are very acustom to the ease of fitting for most internal parts, barrels, comps, etc. but with the plastic frame flexing and absorbing/transferring recoil shock in a completely different manner than an all-metal..." BINGO TO BOTH THOSE TWO POSTERS - if you will read the FAQ we're about to post in the FAQ section on our website, (added to the bottom of this posting) about aftermarket barrels , I think you'll understand why. The population of problems have primarily been from, as knobcreekllc wondered, from folks "mixing and matching" components that should not be used. On the issues of short buffer life - we accept the blame on that one. When we first tested the buffers, they were run on aluminum frames as those were the first frames we were in production with, and they were showing a respectable life on aluminum frames, 2500 in 9mm w/off the shelf ammo, ie not 9MM Major, and 1500 - 1800 rounds in 40 S&W, dependent on whether the user ran 165 gr or 180 grain, again w/ off the shelf ammo. Then when we started shipping stainless frames, customers running 40 cal 180 grain ammo started reporting 300-600 round life. We didn't understand why the different life expectancy until we spoke with one of the engineers at Swiss Arms (formerly SIG in switzerland). He mentioned that they had gone thru 6 generations of changes to their alum frames for the SIG 229 and had finally made relief cuts on the front frame rails to help their aluminum frame flex more closely match the flex of the slide. The instant he mentioned that, it hit - the aluminum frame flexes more than the stainless, and given the longer rails of our frames, the aluminum frame is flexing & causing the slide rails to bind a little in the slide's rail channels and robbing or draining some of the recoil energy from the slide that the stainless frame doesn't. Draining some of the slide's recoil energy obviously lessens the impact on the buffer in the aluminum frames. We've recently introduced our recoil rod system, that Bill Lester at Jaeger Products was extremely helpful in it's development. The new rod employs a rubber bumper at the rear end with the impact load being evenly divided between the grey polymer buffer and the rubber bumper. We're now seeing an honest 1500+ rounds in 40 cal to the grey buffers, with most users reporting a higher count such as "Golden boy" indicated. And, on our recoil maintenance kits, we've actually factored a $2.50 per buffer cost to the customer - we cut the price on that kit to bare bones to make it affordable to the customer to maintaining the recoil guide rod system. The main problem we did not foresee, that folks would be so used to just dropping components into their glock and it still running or appearing to running fine, and not understanding why those components don't work in the CCF RaceFrame without proper fitting. We actually indicate in our owner's manual twice in the seven pages of the manual, advising AGAINST aftermarket barrels & components. If you review the FAQ that I've attached as jpeg images, I think you'll understand why we advise against aftermarket components, and in fact, I think you'll be surprised how much the aftermarket barrels (and the other aftermarket components out there) deviate dimensionally from the stock glock barrels. What is deceptive to users, is that because of the glock's polymer frame, it will continue to run, no matter how sloppy the tolerances on the aftermarket components installed. Those out of spec components are still causing damage that just takes more time to demonstrate itself, and unfortunately too often, in a catastrophic failure. But because it ran so long with the aftermarket barrel or whatever component, the user assumes the glock itself failed, without suspecting the aftermarket component. We built the CCF RaceFrame to tighten the fit and performance of the Glock upper - our frame is built to the tolerances original glock uppers hold, and aftermarket components are nowhere near those - and in fact, the deviation we've seen is actually alarming. This is not meant as an attack on any particular aftermarket component supplier - it's a fact of life, they've not had to discipline their suppliers because of the orig glock's polymer frame apparent tolerance of out of spec components. If you need confirmation on the tolerance range of aftermarket components, ask some of the knowledgeable & experienced glock gunsmiths, Matt2ace, Charlie Vanek or John Nagel, what they've seen. The other reasons to build a replacement in metal are for the design goals that could not be met in polymer: 1) in stainless the weight, 2) the ergonomic contours that could not be achieved in polymer - for example, study how high the rear grip remains straight, on our RaceFrame, before turning toward the beavertail. That allows the frame to sit lower in the users hand AND deeper into the web of the user's hand, expanding the glock's® advantage of having a lower bore axis even lower - dropping the frame deeper into the web of a user's hand also reduces trigger reach making it more ergonomic for both large handed as well as small handed users. If you tried to raise that upswept arch to the beavertail on the glock® frame, it would weaken it and allow too much flex to occur while pulling the trigger is being pulled (that was one of the points we identified as flexing during trigger pull, resulting from pressure from the trigger mech housing being pushed by the transfer bar. 3) the scalloped relief around the mag button, also can't be executed on an orig glock® - folks at Glock told us, when Glock® first introduced the finger groove w/rail generation with the thumbrest channels, the 45 cal models went from muzzle flipping straight upward to flipping upward & torguing to the left, due to the grip panels being thin in the thumbrest channels. THat's not an attack on Glock®, just a fact of polymer. 4th) the trigger vagueness was eliminated due to the elimination of the flex in the frame during trigger operation, 5) limp wrist failures are virtually impossible to induce if there is any contact between the palm of a user's hand and the rear grip strap. Those limp wrist stoppages that a lot of user's report are not from the weight of the glock, but the flex of the polymer. Reason i state that is that the alum frame shows the same lack of limp wrist failures if there's contact between the palm of a user's hand and the rear grip strap, and the alum frame isn't but 3.6 ounces heavier than a stock glock frame. Police dept instructors really seem to take notice when we drop that benefit to them. I enjoy, at a demo, when i relay that benefit, watching them trying to induce stoppages when they take our frames onto the firing line, by gripping the frame (whether alum or SS) as loosely as possible, using only the bottom two fingers of their hand and their thumb to grip it. But, back to the point: Once you've reviewed the aftermarket barrel FAQ, for the s----s & grins of it, if you've got an aftermarket barrel in your glock, pull it out and compare it carefully with the original barrel. A visual comparison, and even better, if you have a digital caliper, mike it. I think you'll be surprised at what you find. Be sure to note the lack of any mark on the ramped wall in the frame, that was run with an orig glock barrel in FIG 4 Hopefully this clears up a lot - Page 1 for some reason the images are showing up reduced size on this forum, making the text a little difficult to read - in case, here's link to full size image http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/6133...relFAQ-PG1a.jpg Page 2 full size image http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/6133...relFAQ-PG2a.jpg and for a clearer shot of the angled cut on the bottom of the original glock's front lug

If possible, I'd like a price, too. Thanks! price is $200, and have one frame left, but what i wasn't clear on in earlier post, i only had them in the full size 9/40/sig 357/45gap calibers - glock uses the same frame for 7 models 17/22/24/31/34/35/37 don't know what model the last frame is (i'm across town from shop), but it will be on the plastic case label showing model and serial number

we've got some new original glock frames that we picked up just for the uppers and the internal parts for our demo guns, etc have maybe 3 left, new, never fired, with lock blocks and orig glock plastic case and owner's manual, serial numbered to the frame throw me a call 804-622-4277 after 9 AM EST

we are about to release our own polymer buffer and it will be fabricated using a denser and more abrasion resistant polymer as well as a plastic recoil rod to enable users to employ custom tension recoil spring we are currently selling buffers sourced from Buffer Technology and apparently their buffer employs a fairly soft polymer curious to ask what caliber, bullet wgt and if your recoil spring is new and original glock - if not original glock, what spring value are you running? - in 165 gr 40 cal, we saw 2000 - 2500 round life on the buffers, with 180 gr +p, users are reporting 200 - 400 round life one odd detail, users running metal recoil rods, buffer life went down by 50%, which was part of the reason we no longer recommend metal recoil rods

actually an interesting suggestion - what might work better is if folks put their shots or images up on a image hosting site and we could post thumbnails on our winners circle page that would also be the link to their full size hosted images, otherwise i'm afraid the page would soon be too long to review - let me talk to my partner btw, anyone out there real versed in website building & maintenance - our web guy is great but he's possibly moving on to other endeavors if so, email me at larry@ccfraceframes.com