cledford

I forgot to mention - there is no ammo involved. This is with an empty chamber. Calvin

I have a gunsmith fit Barsto barrel in my G22-40. (This was a full fit, not drop-in or semi) The barrel was fit by Barsto. It does not go fully into battery when the slide is cycled by hand. It does when the slide is dropped via the slide release or when the slide is actuated by shooting. I'm just leery of it in light of the potential KB issue - alhtough there might not even be a problem. The barrel *is* fully locking up into the slide - it is just that the slide is not fully forward on the frame. It is far enough forward that the trigger can depressed. Attached are 2 pics - I'm not sure if they show the issue well - but, pic 1 is normal. In it, the frame actually sits about 1/16 of an inch behind the rear of the slide - this is with the Barsto barrel all the way into battery, or with the stock barrel. In the 2nd pic, the rear of the slide over hangs the rear of the frame by about a 1/16th of an inch. This totals 1/8 or more total difference between the two. When you push on the back of the slide with your thumb in "out of battery" situation, you can feel the top-end slide a bit further on the frame and you hear an audible click when it stops. Again, this does seem to be an issue when shooting (I carefully fire one shot at a time and check for battery)- but I'm leery to shoot it fast. Due to expense associated with the cost of shipping, etc I would prefer to NOT send this back unless I can't figure it out. My question is, for those with fit barrels - did you see something similar? Is this part of break in? For those who've fit barrels - what does this indicate to you? Does it seem to be something requiring a bit more tweaking/fitting? What area specifically? For those who's advice is "why not send it back?" Again, the barrel was fit by Barsto. I'm not attempting to trash Barsto - they make great barrels. I do have issues with how much they charge to fit a barrel and personally feel that as a customer I wasn't treated well by them for that expense. Their position was "send it back on your dime and we'll fix it." For over $500 (barrel, shipping and fitting fee) it should have been right before it left. To me, it seems they are either trying to actively discourage people sending them guns for fitting, or are gouging on the fee which is is very high compared to everyone else's prices I've come across. The barrel (in this case) is no where more accurate (at any range) than the stock and sometimes a bit less. This also should have been caught before it left. Shipping costs $100 for the round trip and I'm just not all that confident in footing that cost to give them a 2nd chance. Thanks! -Calvin

OK, I’m at wits end – either I can’t shoot Glocks, or the Glocks can’t shoot. I’ve owned a 21, 35, 24, 22, 27 and 17L. Out of all of them, the only one I’d say I had adequate groups with were the 21 and the 22(?!) The rest, including the long slides were/are pitiful when I’m involved. I’ve been a bullseye shooter (several custom 1911s) IDPA (Beretta 92), police officer (38/357 revolvers & Beretta) and have dabbled in bowling pin and action shooting with the M21 and various 1911s. Based on my skills with guns other than Glocks I would rate myself as a very good shot. This is a not a “bash Glocks” thread – I’m truly trying to figure this out. As I mentioned the only one I’ve owned that had close to one hole accuracy up 15yards and shot around 2-3 inches at 25 was the 22! I found this very surprising given the assumed accuracy of the “target” Glocks. The 35 & 24 were just plain horrible, even at 7 yards it was difficult to put 5 rounds touching – while any of the other guns I’ve owned, well I’d be embarrassed if I couldn’t put all shots through a single hole at 7 yards. This just doesn’t make sense to me. Today was the latest twist. I took my new 17L out to the range, along with my carry Sig P250 compact, to burn up some premium federal 9mm ammo. This was the first outing for the Glock since purchase. The groups at 7 again (I guess my starting off point) were lousy – it was very difficult to put all shots close to touching. At 15 yards, the group opened up to about 4x6!!! This is after a week of dry firing the glock. I then break out the Sig p250 (double action only, which anyone would expect to be harder to shoot) and one hole (repeated 4 times of 5 shots at 4 1” pasters) at 7 yards and then about a 3 inch group at 15. I had purchased the 17L as I guess I’ve always wanted a tack driving Glock. I’d guessed that my issues with the 35 & 24 were actually related to their barrel length – in that the extra velocity might be messing with accuracy – I came to this conclusion based on the outstanding accuracy I’d experienced with the 22. So, I sold them and bought the 17L as the 9mm is actually a very inherently accurate round – more so than even the benchmark 45acp. I figured if I were to find a truly accurate Glock, the longest barrel and the fundamentally most accurate cartridge would have to be it. I was pretty disappointed today. Anyhow, I’ve seen this over and over. I can shoot my 1911s, my berettas, sigs and revolvers (even under timed conditions) – but not Glocks. I’ve now simply got to find out why. I cannot figure how I can take a defensive pistol (Sig p250) with half the length of barrel and a DAO trigger and shoot twice as good groups (using same ammo) as the target pistol. I can shoot single action pistols just fine and am just about as good with the DAO kind. Having said that, could it be something weird between me and the striker system of the Glock? I would say that when dry firing the Glock that, unless I am very careful I will often notice a lateral movement (to the right and back to the left) of the front sight if I do not pull the trigger perfectly. I seldom if ever notice this with any other handgun. Could it be something like the trigger in conjunction with the grip angle or size? I’m not sure, but would really like to figure this out. Thanks for any input and sorry if I seem to be picking on Glocks or immodest about my opinion of my shooting skills, I just really want to figure this out. I’m ready to go out and dump a ton of cash into a Fulcrum trigger with all of the goodies, but am concerned that ~$300 later, I still might not be seeing what I like, if the issue isn't the trigger pull, but more related to some wierd dynamic with the striker system. It may seem silly and a lot of people have said, “why keep messing with them if they aren’t for you?” I guess it is the challenge, figuring out the unknown and the fact that I *really* like the guns – just can’t see to shoot them half as good as any other pistol I’ve ever picked up… -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

Now that weather is warming and I've increased spring weight buffers lasting much longer - problem solved in my book. Thumbs up to CCF. -Calvin

I've been saying this all along and expect that CCF won't be with us much longer if they don't wake up. They are hanging on, waiting for that "one big one" (contract) to come along - while mean while they are pissing away a whole market that is delivering themselve to their door step. Let's look at the facts: 1. The BIGGEST reason Glock has made it to the top of the heap in LE is due to cost per unit. Bean counters love 'em and add that they are darn fine service weapons COMBINED with low cost per copy and they trump a sig, beretta, HK, etc. Bean counters are NOT going to go for first buying guns that sell on the LE market for somewhat less then another brand and THEN upgrade it for $300+ bucks (making it MORE expensive then Sig, Beretta, HK, etc) just to make a gun heavier, less reliable and supported by a rinky-dink company (read shallow pockets if anything ever goes wrong...) *IF* they ever start working (see #2) special units *might* want them, but again, at the near the LE cost for a Kimber, SA, etc - why? 2. They are completely unreliable and have been so for more then a year with the most common LE round - .40s&w. There are design flaws (shoke stroking, buffer) and things they did not take into consideration. No department is going to take the AK-47 of the handgun world (meaning the utter reliablity of Glock) and reduce it to what ever the life span of a small piece of plastic buffer might be. 3. The best fix CCF has been able to offer in a years time of dealing with the .40 issue is to tell people to send their $320 frame out to *a* gunsmith (as in excatly one currently working on the problem) to have the short stroke issue "fixed" - which does not even "fix" the issue of requiring the buffer (which any firearms instructor will tell you is failure waiting to happen), it just ensures it does not get beat up as quickly... all for around $200 more. Their second bit of advice is to blame Glock for using too weak a recoil spring and advising customers to upgrade the spring weight (on their own dime) although Glock has a *team* of engineers who figure things out and CCF is 2 guys, only one with an engineering back ground. They are essentally using their customers for R&D time and $$$ without telling them and yet they expect a big LE contract is going to wash upon them at any time? Yeah, right. -Calvin

Anyone know if there is any real difference between the EGW and the Lee U? I called EGW and they stated that they do NOTHING to the dies, but Lee does manufacure them to "their custom measurements." -Calvin

If CCF can get the bugs worked out, and offer the stainless frames IDPA ready for a G17 slide, I'd consider one for carry. I'm not sure what the future bodes for you. I went back tonight and read all the posts in the initial 11 page CCF thread here and put together a little timeline. The more I look into this the madder I get. It appears that the owner of the company seems to know better than everyone else what they want and moves at a glacier pace in making changes whatever the case. Let's see - a frame that from outset won't make weight in IDPA. A frame in which they decided to change the locking block from Glock OEM dimensions to their own, precluding the use of aftermarket barrels other than their own - without gunsmith fitting. And we buy Glock why? Personally, I do so I don't have to have everything fit by a gunsmith... This major design change was made by two guys, only one an engineer, while Glock has a TEAM of engineers who set the timing and dimensions in the first place... The change alters the timing for the whole gun. They put a picitinny rail on a gun that has never had one (before the 21SF) so 99% of the accessories out there - DON'T FIT. So the rail, which contributes to the overweight issue also serves no valid function either. Other examples include the fact that realize that they have a problem with short-stroking and buffers (over a year and a half after the frames debuted and 6 months after being released for sale to general public) and owner states publically (here on this board in a post) that last Oct that he would have newly designed, more dependable buffs available “soon.” This was almost 6 months ago. I spoke to him last week, no mention of new buffs at all. He did mention their new guide rod assembly (which looks to be very nice) that will be available “soon” that does nothing more for the problem then come apart easier then the stock – so that you can more readily add washers from Home Depot. (and how many police agencies are going to buy gun parts at Home Depot?) I was told regarding my issue (failure of buffer in less than 100 rounds) to buy a 20lb ISMI spring and ship the gun off to Glock Jockey to fix the stroke issue. When directly asked if they would be fixing it at the factory I was told "no, we are set up for one off work." When I directly asked about the frame cut, was told "if we decide to do it and that is not a given, it would not happen for at least 6 months." That last bit tops all. The rest of it I can chalk up to someone who thinks he knows better than his customers, but not instituting a fix for a *known* issue that has been out in the public realm for more than 6 months as soon as possible into production? That is pretty lame. If they aren't willing to make that change, then how likely are they to redesign a whole mold for a cast frame so users can really use the “race” frame in competition? I'm piecing together slowly but surely a picture of some guys who have a great idea, have produced a very nice frame, but failed to understand their market and the impact of design changes they made. Now that problems are cropping up they don't want to be responsible for them and instead want to have the customer fix the issues on their own time and expense. This is because their true intent is to somehow make it big by marketing these to the law enforcement market. They are so focused on this they are missing the people who really want the darn things. I still think the frames are very cool and have HUGE potential. However, after reading through the old thread tonight, seeing that the frames actually debuted back in 06 and that the owner of the company has known (publically) about the stroke issue for at least 6 months and they are still not prepared to do anything about nor willing to even mention it to purchasers *ahead of time" or in the manual or on the website is very deceptive. I don’t think it was an accident anymore that no one mentioned to me when my credit card number was taken that the far and away most commonly found .40 factory ammo was having issues. I shouldn’t have read the thread as now I’m angry about the issue. Before I thought this was something fairly recent – now I see that it’s been out there for a while and frankly should have never occurred in the first place if they had tested the thing correctly. Who *doesn’t* test a product with the most commonly commercially available ammo? -Calvin

Bummer, that puts me in the same boat and I'm one of the wierd people who get hung up on such details... I figured as much when looking at it last night, which is why I made the post. Looks like I'll be selling it (it's the last straw, it is a "C" model and I've already had it with the soot all over the factory front...) and buying a 35. -Calvin

Wow, thanks VERY much for taking the time to take the photo - that was very cool of you. Take care, Calvin

I've got a G24 with the open top slide. Was thinking of upgrading the front sight to a fiber-optic model. I was looking at the 24 tonight and thought most fiber fronts appear on the "longish" side - will the Dawson or other recommended fiber fronts over hang the the slide lightening cut-out? I'm assuming the 35 is the same, but the cut my be further back. Also, FWIW, my 24 is Gen2 (old parkerized finish) and even says 40S&W on slide and barrel! I just point it out in case they make have moved the slot from one gen to another. Thanks, -Calvin

I've got a ton of once fired .40S&W brass that has come out of Glocks with OEM barrels, some from XDs. Basically, I pick up all of my brass when shooting at the local indoor and the other shooters (most of whom are shooting .40 Glocks or XDs) don't mind if I pick theirs up either. Since the range doesn't allow ammo other than what is purchased through them I know it is all once fired stuff - and the great part is that it is all mostly one head-stamp. (They carry federal for the most part but every once in a while sell WWB) So, I'm about ready to start reloading for .40 - but have heard for years about loose Glock chambers, budged (Guppy) brass and KBs. Add onto this I called LWD yesterday about a cut rifled barrel and was told I would likely have reliability issues in his (LWD and KKM) barrels with reloaded brass out of Glock OEM barrels - stating that the LWD & KKM barrels have "match" chambers and that since dies don't actually full-length resize (taking the chamfer for the die mouth and the top of the shell holder into consideration) some cases would end up not chambering. Any advice on this issue? I currently would be reshooting the loads in a OEM Gen3 G22 barrel. I’m also considering picking up a LWD or KKM cut rifled barrel if I decide to shoot lead. I've heard of some companies producing extra long dies, but JR said even then there might possibly be a problem. It seems a huge waste to toss the brass but also don't need KBs or unreliable guns. Thanks for any input. -Calvin

I’m starting to dabble into building an open gun and need some feedback on the best comp to go with. I may be trying to do too much, but would like the option of switching back and forth between 9mm major and 40S&W (if possible) on my Glock 22. I’ve decided on the G22 as after having owned a G35, G24 I shoot the 22 much better for some reason. At this point I'm investing the money to obtain an education and to play but intend this to be a serious process to build the best system for when I get serious. First, will I even be able to make major out of a G22 length barrel for either caliber, with a comp? Next question, if I end up only being able to go one route or the other – which is the better at working a comp (9mm or the 40)? I realize that with the 9mm I can stuff more rounds in the mag – so would think that it would be preferred if only picking one – but which is actually going to work better as open cartridge? Next question – I really like what I see with KKM as far as the profile of their comp. For me, performance is important, but I’d like the gun to look decent as well. The KKM comp looks MUCH nicer IMHO then the LWD. In this area however, KKM only has 3 port comps for 9mm diameter bullets, vs. their 4 port 40 comps. Would it be a detriment to the effectiveness of the 9mm to only have 3 ports? Would it be better to go with the 40 4 port comp and run it on a KKM 9mm to 40 conversion barrel? Any feedback on the LWD comps? They appear to be more complex then KKM (so I'm assumign possibly mor eeffective), but also are made from aluminum and are ugly as sin… Any feedback on the SJC comp/mount combo? It looks like a real slick piece of hardware – but how effective is it going to be compared to a dedicated (barrel mounted) comp? Am I going to lose performance over however much either of the cartridges would work a dedicated comp? How much? I really like what I see with their product and they have an awesome rep – but want to do due diligence because, at $400, it is a very expensive accessory. Finally, what is the worth in going with a G35/24 length setup with ports in the barrel AND a comp? Is it worth considering for the extra expense? (LWD suggested it) How much more (if any) does it make achieving major? Any other advice going down this path would be appreciated. Thanks, -Calvin

The answer would be NO. Bought mine last week from CCF and it came with the old. Mine only lasted 100 rounds!!! And that was with only 50 reliable shots. Spoke to CCF this morning and to John Nagle (Glock Jockey) this afternoon. CCF is about ready (sounds like a couple more weeks) to release the new guide rods - I assume these will be "Available for purchase." CCF did not mention new buffers at all. They also suggested sending the frame out for milling to John Nagle to reduce the short stroking. John Nagle (AKA glock jockey) suggests continuing to run a buff AFTER milling the frame - but I think he is assuming a 17/22 length slide - which is prone to snap the tab on the muzzle off due to battering the slide on the frame if buffer is not used. I know that he recommends the 17 slide for 9mm major guns due to slide lightening cuts on the inside of the 34 slides, BUT if using a 35 slide I can't see where/how anything would/could break, buff or no. My bottom line is that buffs (any good firearms instructor will tell you) are a failure waiting to happen. Anyhow back to the issue, CCF admitted to me this morning that they did not test 180 grain .40 rounds during development of the frames/buff which led to this. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they are having issues with 45GAP also. I don't get it on the .40 as 180 is the predominant ammo available out there in .40, not sure how they did not test it. I don't expect them to be too concerned about competition shooters - but the guns won't run in stock fashion with target ammo - that’s a problem to me. CCF is sending me a couple of extra buffers, but their idea of the fix appears to be A) buy a heavier ISMI spring (20lb), waiting on the new guide rod and/or sending the frame out to be machined. Bottom line, CCF states (and it does make sense) that the same 17lb spring is used in ALL small frame glocks. Going up a few pounds does makes sense, but the real issue is that they made the frames to stock dimensions, but failed to take into consideration medium differences (steel vs. plastic) and therefore that the steel frame will kill a 17/22 slide, whereas the OEM plastic won't. I personally think that they A) either owe existing frame owners their new recoil kits, or need to modify the frames. They said they WOULD NOT be machining frames as they are "not setup for one off work." In the end they have a design issue and are now putting it on the customer to fix it - at a bare minimum I think they should be shipping 20lb springs with the frames. -Calvin

I own a P14 and SERIOUSLY considered a P16 with the funds I invested in this project. To boil it down - *IF* the frames can be made to work, you have a means to build/tech your own gun for 1/3 that of a gun that just to be built takes 12 months or more and thousands of dollars... Don't get me wrong, I'm a big 1911 fan and own several - but am done with shipping guns "over night" to sit around at someones shop for twice the time quoted for virtually anything that needs to be done. I figured I'd take a chance on these and see how it goes. -Calvin

I would like to find the closest to *stock dimension* cut rifled barrel for a G22. I need it to be as close to stock size as possible as I’d like to run it on a CCF Raceframe which is very intolerant of oversized barrels. It also MUST have the best chamber support as I have a ton of once fired “guppy” brass that I will not refire in a stock Glock barrel with minimal case support. Case support trumps sizing - if neededI'll have fit. I AM NOT interested in Barsto - too expensive, to long a wait, too oversized, and from a .40 perspective, over engineered for an inaccurate round. (Ie. the barrel can be the best in world, but if the round is inaccurate there is only so much that can be obtained from the barrel, then you are just wasting time/money) Thanks, -Calvin

Do you have conatc info for SJC? Thanks, -Calvin

Hi Jim, Thanks for all of the great info! I'll likely go the milling route and still think the frame is a VERY important step for Glocks, action pistol shooting and gun ownership. Having said that, I agree with everything you said, but would through this caveat out to new purchasers or those considering a purchase. The CCF frames are awesome pieces of workmanship and potential, however whether the manufacturer is willing to state it or not, they are still in "Beta" (pre-production) status from my perspective. While it should be assumed when going off into the competitive shooting "deep end of the pool," you are on your own to sort through things, I do not believe new purchasers should be UNAWARE that due to the newness of the product THEY are on their own also. I say this as the frames should function reliably with most common version of readily available target ammo when plinking at the range. Currently they don't and to run them otherwise voids your warranty. Jim, any recommendations on who to send the pistol off to? Thanks again for the help and I really am impressed with the frame, just not so impressed by what I see as a less then "all over it" response from the vendor, who while very polite to me, seems under-whelmed that their guns are highly unreliable as shipped and they are in full swing as far shipping them. I'd like to see them at least update the manual/website to reflect what they've learned about the issue. -Calvin

Spoke to CCF first thing this morning and came away with a “warm fuzzy” so am currently satisfied they’re well away of the issue and working on it – although I’m not sure I like their solution (#1 interim, #2 their preferred), we’ll see what the end result is. Here is what was communicated to me and it all makes sense: 1. Glock used the same captured 17lb recoil spring/guide rod for ALL of their 9mm/.40/.357sig/45gap large frame guns. 2. Both the stock Glock frame and the dimensionally faithful (at least in the guide-rod channel/ dust cover/ slidestop area) CCF race-frame both have too little room built in the guide rod channel to allow the slide to travel through a compete cycle and therefore all the guns in all the calibers ALL short cycle with the slide hitting both frames every round. a. The Glock frame being polymer compresses a bit and is the final bit of cushion for the slide on stock models. Glcok does not care about the issue as it isn’t one from their perspective. b. The weak 17lb spring (from other then a 9mm perspective) only increases the velocity at which the slide batters the frame. c. The CCF buffer contributes to the issue as it further reduces the room to travel for the slide while not being strong enough to take the battering from the heavier bullet weights like the 180 grain .40 and the 230 .45 GAP. Here is where I’ve got some hesitation as to what I was told. It was stated to me that during development testing CCF saw 2000-2500 rounds life for the buff using 9mm target loads. He also stated that they saw 1800-2000 life for 165 grain .40. He stated that the issue kind of crept up on them as they did not test 180 grain bullets! I really question this, but am not going to call them untruthful – I just wonder how going up 15 grains in bullet weight reduces the buffer lifespan of 20 times or that they failed to test the market leading (in a huge volume from what I see on my gun store shelves) 180 .40 bullet weight. Anyhow, I was told there are currently 3 solutions to the issue with the 180 grain bullets (he mentioned the .45GAP also, but did not mention the .357sig although that could have been an oversight): 1. Replace the stock 17lb spring with a 20lb ISMI flat wire spring and continue to use the buffs. A normal buff life span should be expected. I’m a little bother by this as it puts the resolution on the customer to buy a part to make their gun function correctly with the far and away market leading .40 S&W load. I guess after all of the money I spent on the frame, plus the lower parts I should be worried about the cost of a spring – but it is a little annoying never less. Pluse it assumes that you are still going to run the buff – I’m not crazy about them at this point. 2. Wait for their almost ready proprietary, adjustable guiderod/spring kit. I’ve got the same issues as above with this solution, unless they end up giving their existing customers the rods since there was no announcement regarding the 180 grain issue and had there been I (we) might have waited out the issue to see what the solution was. 3. Send the gun to a gunsmith and have the slide stop milled back a bit to allow the slide to fully travel without smacking into the frame. (What stops the slide then) I don’t like this as it is going to require much more $$$. I’m guessing $150 to $200 more when you figure in overnight shipping both ways (I’m assuming the frames have to shipped just like guns, over night carrier only) plus at least $50 to $100 for the work. I could deal with the this *IF* it resolves the issue AND allows one to dump the buff altogether. The big issue here is that you now have around $570 invested (assuming frame cost, shipping, transfer fees, lower parts+shipping, plus shipping and labor for milling) to get the frame up and running. That’s a lot of cheese as my dad would say… All in all, I was treated well on the phone and he took a lot of time to explain the issue to me. I can’t say I’m crazy about the situation or totally impressed with the customer shouldering the cost of fixing the issue – but I’m also assuming this to be the case and who knows how they’ll actually handle it. The gentleman was very cool to send me a couple buffs free of charge. -Calvin

Took the CCF out as promised today and was VERY, VERY, VERY disappointed! The shock-buff matter is a HUGE PROBLEM! Was shooting 165 Speer "lawman" factory loads and after only 2 mags the slide was sticking - as in it would cycle to rear hang there for a second then slide forward in slow motion. Another mag and it would not go back into battery at all - not without a tap to the rear of the slide. Eventually (another mag) and it bound up completely. I took it apart and the 'buff was DESTROYED - this is right at around 100 rounds total - 50 180 grain federal (yesterday), and in the 45 range of 165 grain Speer Lawman ammo. The Speer is actually target stuff and I’m not sure why they call it lawman but I point this out as it is not super hot or anything. The severe mushrooming of the buff is what caused the gun to cease cycling. This is completely unacceptable. Since I only bought the frame (direct from CCF) last week and the buff included has got to one of the latest – so I’m not sure how after being on production for the number of months they have that this could happen. And Robar is building guns on these? Do they use the buffer? The CCF manual states the following: "We recommend these buffers as they keep the slide’s guide ring from impacting the frame at the rear of its cycle travel." "Operating your new alloy frame without a polymer buffer will result in damage to your frame and/or your slide. "If your recoil spring has weakened from use, the buffer will impact too severely & require more frequent replacement." First they call the buff "recommended" in the first sentence. Then, in the second they *explicitly* state that frame damage will occur if one is not used. Third, they then suggest that if it fails it is likely your spring and not the lousy buff – very nice. This does not hold water in my case. I took the top end off a practically BRAND NEW G22 that had less then 500 rounds through it - the spring is fine. Should anyone suggest it is not, I know there are ways to measure the compression resistance of a spring - I'll pony mine up for testing any day of the week if necessary. So, I take back what I said yesterday - as discussed in other threads, these are a neat idea, but not ready for production at this point. I'll be calling CCF tomorrow to find out what they are going to do for me - but even if they sent me 20 of their $8.95 buffers (!!! Can you believe the price on them?) If I cannot get more then a 100 rounds down range without chewing one to pieces, I cannot risk the mere thought of using this thing for defense/carry/match shooting (where I've paid an entry fee...) - it is now currently on "plinking status" which is NOT GOOD for a $385 (including shipping, fees, etc.) upgrade. FWIW, I was shooting with a LE officer with a major agency in MD. He thought the whole thing (steel framed Glocks) was an awesome idea and immediately thought of the SWAT team. The guy I was with was the former Head of firearms training for the agency - so would know what they would want on SWAT. Well, his interest lasted as long as it took to get 45ish rounds down range and then he was shaking his head ruefully as I was walking my $320 dollar paperweight back to the car. I was a little too embarrassed to mention that some owners are buying plumbing washers from Home depot to keep their guns running – I was guessing that such things wouldn’t be viewed too favorably by a guy who’s life depends on his firearm. My new verdict, the frames might work entirely different with 9mm factory loads, but are not suitable for .40 S&W. Sorry for the bad news - I'm really disappointed and not just because of the money invested, I had high hopes for the frame for a lot of reasons. FWIW, It shoots like a dream with .40, it just cuts the recoil in half or more. I hope they can figure something out as it would make an awesome gun. I'll post here as soon as I get CCFs take on things and find out how they plan to take care of the situation. I will also attempt to take a pic of the destroyed buff and post it. -Calvin

My initial impression is "as I wrote it" and unchanged immediately below - however due to complete failure of the CCF gun to function on only the second box of ammo (total 100 rounds), my original recommendation on these has changed to DO NOT BUY AT THIS TIME. Please refer to 2nd post down for details. I've updated this thread with more info about the buff issue. CCF Raceframe: Initial Impression… -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The short of it is, I've been considering one of these for almost a year - since I first heard about them - I've ended buying this or that and never really making it a priority as I was hemming and hawing and figured I'd get to it at some point - BIG MISTAKE, I REALLY wish I'd bought the frame a long time ago -it would have had A LOT of influence on other decisions I'd made. If you are interested in these things, PULL THE TRIGGER and buy one - I doubt you'll be uphappy. Even if they don't end up working out for sport shooting - THETY ARE JUST PLAIN FUN. The rest of my "mini" review is below. Took the Raceframe out today for the first run since putting it together. For the time being the gun is: - SS frame - All Glock OEM lower parts (save the ones provided by CCF), match version of parts when available (I.e 3.5 disconnector, extended mag latch, extended slide release) - Glock 22 complete upper – right off a G22 gen3 pistol Gun ran fine, albeit I only put 50 rounds through it – will likely put about 300 more tomorrow. I was shooting Federal factory 180 FMJ ammo. All I can say is WOW – the thing Rocks! I put 30 rounds down range with the 22 and OEM frame first, just to be able to compare the 2. (30 not included in the 50 put though the CCF) After owning a 35, 27, 24 and 22 (all .40s) I can say the thing I LEAST like about glocks is the trigger bite – shooting the OEM gun first reminded me of this. After running the 2 mags through the OEM gun I switched over the top end. It couldn’t have been easer – just drop the top end off the OEM pistol, pull the guide rod, put in the “shock-buff” (more on this in a bit..), put back the guide rod and reassemble on the CCF frame. 60 seconds tops, and this was to include a liberal application of gun oil to the CCF frame rails – screw all the “run your glock dry” crap – I oil and oil liberally. Anyhow, I shot it at 15 yards first, at a 6 inch blaze orange stick-on target with a 1 inch black “shoot and see” paster in the center of it. First shot went directly through the paster – I couldn’thave been happier… I shot the gun at both 7 and 15 yards only. Groups were only slightly smaller at 7 (telling me it mechanically did not make the gun more accurate), but they were MUCH improved at 15 – which I attribute to the weight and that influence on follow-up shots. Things were just much tighter, the groups BETTER then my G35 with Barsto at same distance. Noticed the trigger was… different. Not bad, just different. I’ve trained myself to let off just to the Glock trigger resets, which on a stock frame is a very noticeable *CLICK* - not so on the CCF – it is very mellow – I even missed it several times. All in all trigger felt noticeably smoother although I did no polishing to either the trigger components or frame, although I intend to. I’m a little put off by missing the reset (I’m guessing the weight of frame + full mag deadens it) although the smoothing out of the trigger in general is a nice trade off. Time will tell on a final verdict, although I’m guessing I’ll get used to the diminished click and continue to rock the trigger as in the past with the OEM frame. All in all, I’m VERY, VERY pleases with this initial, although limited outing. Only function issue was a single incidence of the slide not locking back on an empty mag. I then loaded 3 sets of 3 rounds into the same mag and did not have any issue with it locking back again. I then continued to use the same mag for the rest of the outing and had not other issues. This leads me to believe I may have been riding the slide lock a little with my grip… Otherwise, If I could right this minute, I’d buy at least 2-3 more CCF frames. One to build a dedicated 9mm gun, one for a long-slide and one to “tuck away.” Providing that they (CCF) finishes debugging them (locking block issues and shock-buff) these will truly revolutionize sport shooting with Glocks. As far as other uses? Not sure, but I can say the look (the grey just looks killer with the contrasting black slide and hardware), the “feel” (the weight, heft, or whatever you want to call it…) and finally the way it mellows out the .40 cartridge – it is well worth the purchase assuming you’ve got the cash. My gut tells me that sport shooters would be the biggest market for these, however, I would advise ANYONE with the spare cash and the inkling to buy a second Glock just to have fun with, skip the OEM Glock and buy a CCF frame – they are a lot of fun and it’s also a great learning experience about your gun by having to order the parts and assemble it. On the shock buffs – what a joke. I put 50 on mine today and it looks rode hard and put away wet – there is no way on god’s green earth that the buff will make it past 400-500 rounds. At $8.95 retail they REALLY need to figure this out – the buffs SUCK. Finally, on the changeable backstrap. I ordered both and tried each – moving back and forth. They stay on with friction and I did not install the CCF provided roll pin to secure either at this point. I’d have to say that with my hand size (on the smaller side) going in I was leaning towards the “1911” insert. It felt more comfortable dry firing at home. To my surprise, I found the grip changes on the CCF (beaver tail, relieved undercut trigger guard, checkering, weight) all helped to make the OEM configured grip the one I preferred by the time I was done – which I would have never guessed going in. It looks like with the CCF I’ll be sticking with the OEM grip config, although I’d take a grip reduction on the OEM *FRAME* any day. My 24 is a gen2 but I get this on all of the OEM frames to some extent – the snappiness of the .40 cartridge just does not allow me to keep the same grip on the gun shot to shot, the darn grip just slips all over the place. This thing (the CCF) was CEMENTED in my hand and moved NO WHERE. Last and not least, THE F’ING TRIGGER BITE IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope this helps, -Calvin

Hi Jagar, Our paths cross again As you can see I'm bumping some older posts trying to get some excitment going about things. Looking forward to shooting mine this weekend. -Calvin

Any new news on this issue? I picked one of these up yesterday (waiting on it to arrive at FFL dealer) and am going in with open eyes (seems like there is still some debugging to take place) however see a huge market for these frames if they become "race capable" given that outside of sport use I could imagine why anyone would want one. To sum that, up CCF please cater to us, the sport shooters as we're going to be your biggest market. Looking forward to getting mine this week to play. Also, the lady at CCF who took my order was as nice and helpful as you could ever ask for - I had a good initial experience with them. -Calvin