CCF Frames Anyone Really Happy?

[larryccf]

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

Edited December 23, 2008 by larryccf

[dnuke146]

Just asking,Are you with a police department? And wouldnt it be a liability issue if you or anyother members carried these pistols built on CCF frames? Sounds like it would be like me using handloaded ammo for self-defense! ( Not a good idea)

Just curious.

Jeff

Jeff,

Yes I am with that police department and have been an armorer / Firearms Trainer for 10+ years(stopped counting after 10). I can't think of why it would be a liability issue if the weapons end up being more reliable than what we started with, meaning the issues we are having with the new 3rd Gen guns with Tac lights and reliability issues with them. Course I am not an attorney nor do I specialize in Liability, other than day to day patrol type liability, so I could be very wrong, my Sergeant would say it wasn't the first time. We are just trying to find a solution to the problem that neither Glock or the Ammunition companies can fix.

BTW, just went to my 3rd Glock Armorer's recert last week.... we ran the problems we are having with the 3rd Gen guns / the problems we weren't having with the 2nd Gen. Gun and the steps we had taken to try and resolve the problem ourselves, ammo, springs - mag & recoil, all suggested by manufactuer to cure the problem, and the success we had with the CCF frames, by the contract instructor from Glock. He didnt have have an answer and was puzzled too, covered his Glock shirt patch with his hand and said, "the things arent perfect".

I dont think it would be like using handloaded ammo. CCF is an established company, it's not like their in their bathroom making them in the bathtub, oh wait that's Meth.

Like I said we were looking for some options, we are in the very early stages and still just shooting the dog pi$$ out of them trying to put as much wear and tear on them as possible to see how they hold up... but reading above it sounds like some people are having good results with the frames with far more rounds than anyone of our guns would see in the weapons lifetime, which is about 1K a year for 10 years which is our replacement time frame.

Doug

[chirpy]

larryccf...as you stated I said "might not be around I did not say WOULD not be around." I don't believe anyone is trying to feel important or undermine your company or anything else. Other posts on this thread speak loud and clear about your product - good and bad. For those who have had positive experiences I am happy for you and them. For the others...

I am truly sorry if I misled anyone. I believe my post was FWIW. I also truly hope that your company overcomes all the problems caused by customers not following your recommendations as noted in your owners manual. Also, thru R&D I hope you are able to supply buffers and whatever items shooters need to make your product viable (ie as reliable and long lasting as the original) and a force in the market place.

Thanks for finally setting the record straight. Hearing from someone in the know is refreshing!

Richard

PS: Time will tell!

Edited December 22, 2008 by chirpy

[larryccf]

larryccf...as you stated I said "might not be around I did not say WOULD not be around." I don't believe anyone is trying to feel important or undermine your company or anything else. Other posts on this thread speak loud and clear about your product - good and bad. For those who have had positive experiences I am happy for you and them. For the others...

I am truly sorry if I misled anyone. I believe my post was FWIW. I also truly hope that your company overcomes all the problems caused by customers not following your recommendations as noted in your owners manual. Also, thru R&D I hope you are able to supply buffers and whatever items shooters need to make your product viable (ie as reliable and long lasting as the original) and a force in the market place.

Thanks for finally setting the record straight. Hearing from someone in the know is refreshing!

Richard

PS: Time will tell!

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

Edited December 22, 2008 by larryccf

[larryccf]

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

Edited December 23, 2008 by larryccf

[chirpy]

larryccf, I didn't get that idea or impression...just the opposite, I truly believe they were hoping, and continue to hope your company remains a strong part of the industry, as do I. I, in fact, hope for and aluminum frame for the 19 sized Glock.

Richard

[larryccf]

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 ??

Edited December 24, 2008 by larryccf

[Rising Sight]

It's hard to believe that there are aftermarket barrels that vary that far dimensionally from stock and are still considered "drop in". Having to re-machine a barrel to make it fit properly isn't exactly "drop in".

So if somebody decides that they would like to build a gun on a CCF frame are they forced to contact the manufacturer of the barrel and specify that they would like their barrel to have tolerances that more closely resemble a stock Glock barrel?

[Rolex]

NO just use the stock Glock barrel

[jsykes]

NO just use the stock Glock barrel

But I dont wanna.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing if CCF has any recommended barrels other than the Glock ones. I have a KKM in one of mine and I looked at this yesterday, and while I did not have a set of calipers handy, it does look damn close and it does have the angled cut on it like the Glock barrel.

There are a lot of folks that dont want to run a Glock barrel, some think others are more accurate, some just want to shoot lead out of their guns and others might want a fully supported chamber (.40 cal users), so there are good reasons to not run a factory barrel. There has to be something out there that will work with these frames other than simply Glock parts.

Edited December 23, 2008 by jsykes

[larryccf]

.... So if somebody decides that they would like to build a gun on a CCF frame are they forced to contact the manufacturer of the barrel and specify that they would like their barrel to have tolerances that more closely resemble a stock Glock barrel?

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.

Edited December 24, 2008 by larryccf

[vkosty]

All,

I just built my first CCRF Glock with a G17 aluminum frame. Have not had a chance to shoot it yet (tomorrow), but will post if I encounter any problems.

Except for the frame, everything else is a stock Glock. I am not a competitor, military, LE or other armed professional, just a regular civilian gun enthusiast.

I have owned and shot a number of different pistols, including aluminum framed Sig P226 in .40 and CZ P01 in 9mm (not the same thing, I know, but a good reference point for alloy frames). P01, for example, which is based on CZ 75 - one of the most reliable LE and military gun platforms in the world, does require 300-500 rounds shot through it before malfunctions stop. And we all know about 1911s, regardless of the brand. I understand that stock Glocks are expected to operate 100% reliably out of the box, but it seems that most of complaints with CCRF frames come from people who modify their guns for competition etc..

I did talk to a couple of people (firearms professionals), who have had experience with CCRF frames, and neither tried to talk me out of getting one (they would have if they had experienced or were aware of any problems).

Hope not to offend anybody, but I am not surprised, however, to hear of problems with the guns modified for competition or otherwise. CCRF specifically explains on their web site that the frames are designed for stock parts only.

Another thought – perhaps we should hear from Robar Extreme pistol owners since the company uses the CCRF frames.

[matt2ace]

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.

+1 Larry......you have my full support for ALL statements you made. As you know from our many correspondence, I was one of the early purchasers of your SS frame (serial #350). At that time, your were recommending gunsmith fitting for barrels. I experimented a great deal with barrels and slides with this frame, without taking any steps to properly fit the barrels. Stock barrels worked great, as you state in your FAQs and I even found a Caspian/Shuemann barrel (G22-hybrid configuration) that worked fine for many 1000's of rounds, but the fit was not perfect which eventually resulted in not only a broken locking block, but also a cracked slide through the recoil rod hole (that might have been due, in part, to all of slide modifications. I also tried out a G24 configuration and cracked the locking lug on 2 barrels (<10 rounds before they broke) due to incorrect fit.

CCF and you personnally were very generous to offer me a replacement at a discount despite the fact that it was clearly a barrel fit issue that caused the locking block failure. I have since completed a CCF-G24 with a FITTED BARREL that works flawlessly.

So, this is not just my opinion, but my experience that without proper fitting, problems will occur if you try to build an all metal Glock. Nobody builds a 1911 gun without proper fitting, why would anyone think that an all metal Glock would be any different.

My G24 open 9mm major gun cost me ~$1600 to build, including the slide cuts and barrel fitting. Not bad considering an STI starts at $3000 (yes, I own one of those as well). IMHO a custom build CCF-Glock is pretty economical for IPSC limited or open divisions.

Edited December 24, 2008 by matt2ace

[Mad Scientist]

What do I think of the CCF race frames???

To start with the platform is worth the effort . I personaly am running a ss frame in open division with a Caspian slide , hybrid barrel and one ofour 5 port comps. I use the c-more optics with one of our mounts .I am also runnning one of our magwells (highly modified) on the frame.I am very happy with our frames We have 4 for our personal use my open gun is very fast and has helped me gain alot on my clasifiers as of late as much as 15 % in this format over my plastic frame gun . the extra weight really helps me settle on the shot.I have @ 4000 rounds on mine and my partner has @ 5000 on his. no frame related issues to report on these 2 guns.

Some thing that needs to be said here is that we (the consumer) are a stuborn bunch. We happily spend our money on an Idea then throw out the instructions from the originator of said Idea. I am as guilty as the next . I havent even opened the instructions on any of the frames I have worked on. What would be the fun in that.

That being said I think I have paid in ahead and can take such liberties. Any way something that also needs to be pointed out is a little history lesson.

Think back to the days of the first Tangfolio open guns at the old power factor of 175 they were fantastic if you could keep a slide stop in them. The factory units would break after a few matches. Until EGW made a tool steel version that lasted and lasted. These were the guns that were winning for some time as they were the gun with the highest capacity at the time. Then along came para with there kit.Caspian with there frame Both had some start up glitches but have sense become fantastice frames in there own right. Then Virgil came out with the polymer handeled steel framed high capacity frame kit now familiar as the 2011 design .Im sure that Virgil can tell stories of his growng pains

So you ask why the history lesson ?? Because the facts are there in the past that directly show us that with any new product that goes to market there are always things that are discovered after the fact that need to be adressed . Not because the product is unsutiable for an application.because it wasent envisioned in that role.Take for instance an open gun built out on a ccf frame. Easy enough we build polymer frame guns every day. Wrong Two totaly diferent approches. the CCF guns take longer and are billed as such. So what are the diferences ? The fits are far more critical : the slide to frame must not have any bind, the barrel fit must release without any bind ,the lock up cant be so tight as to push down on the lock block.Some things that I have learned using after market barrels is that there is a wide range of dimensions between the diferent manufactureres. That is why we use one brand specificaly and each barrel is hand fitted using milling machine and stoneing. the key is just tight enough without any bind as the barrel comes out of battery.

Things to remenber when mixxing parts .

CCF recomends using stock barrels . Knowing that They raise the bridge to tighten things up.

My formulation is based on the stock bridge location so I return the bridge cut to stock height

all drop in fit barrels have extra material on the lock up surface to take up that same slop that CCF took up with the added material

on there locking block.

as one might see there is material that has to come off from one of these 2 parts the barrel or the lock block.

When one fits up the barrel to mate the block there can be no friction as the barrel comes into battery.

The stroke is also one area that I adress.

ussing the shock buff shortens the stroke by the thickness of the buff. this can upset the dwell time at the rear of the

slides stroke . This does not alow enough time for the rounds to come up out of the magazine.

my solution is to machine the rails and the frame stop back by the thickness of the buff returning the stroke to a stock

(polymer) configuration.

In conclusion I think that these frames are the future of the Glock and the natural evolution of the custom Glock .I think that CCF is listening and wants to produce the finest product available . To want less dosent make sense.My main comment is that CCF is at a crossroad in that they need to decide what market they are after. be it LE or the civialin /competition

If LE is there goal then dont change anything. If the civ/ comp market is there goal then make a couple changes and life is good.

Either way a pistolsmith that is familiar with the glock action can make one of these frames sing .The words go like this SOFT<FLAT<A'S all day long.LOL

John Nagel

sjc pistolsmith

[jsykes]

Hope not to offend anybody, but I am not surprised, however, to hear of problems with the guns modified for competition or otherwise. CCRF specifically explains on their web site that the frames are designed for stock parts only.

Kind of ironic dont you think, considering they're called RACE frames.

[Rolex]

Thank you "JN" you explained things

very well. to you!

[TruStreet]

Hope not to offend anybody, but I am not surprised, however, to hear of problems with the guns modified for competition or otherwise. CCRF specifically explains on their web site that the frames are designed for stock parts only.

Kind of ironic dont you think, considering they're called RACE frames.

Maybe thats show room stock racing not Super Stock or Pro Stock Racing

[larryccf]

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.

Hope not to offend anybody, but I am not surprised, however, to hear of problems with the guns modified for competition or otherwise. CCRF specifically explains on their web site that the frames are designed for stock parts only.

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 -

Edited December 24, 2008 by larryccf

[abn-rgr]

Ok. Ill man up and admit I was over the top in my comments. I didnt realize at the time how my comments could cause damage to CCF. For that I apologize. The main person Im thinking of is Charles P from MO. He sent his frame in twice with broken locking blocks. He was running stock parts except for maybe a connector and striker spring. His frame is now sitting at home with the third block broken and he finally gave up on it. He actually has two frames with broken blocks. I really had hoped to be able to run a CCF with aftermarket stuff and i see this wont happen. I have had a smith working on my CCF for over a year. he is fitting an aftermarket barrel on a caspian slide. Im just frustrated that it seems like it still wont work right. CCF originally said to have a gunsmith fit the parts. Now we are being told only run them with stock stuff. I again apologize for my over the top comments. I hope the bugs are worked out because I think the concept is a great idea.

[jsykes]

I was just giving you a little jab in good fun there Larry (hence the wink) and apologize as well if it was taken wrong.

I have shot with several guys using these with stock components and they really do like them. Unfortunately, I want to use one to make a race gun out of it using aftermarket components and I guess that just isnt going to happen.

I like the Glock platform, but cant stand the grip angle, I just do not shoot it well when I go back and forth between other guns it screws me all up. I am desperately looking for a frame that will give me a 1911 feel with the Glock upper.

Have you found ANY afermarket slides or barrels that will function well with your frames? Also, how much does the slide matter? For instance, does a Lone Wolf slide work with a stock Glock barrel, etc?

Edited December 24, 2008 by jsykes

[Mad Scientist]

Larry,

Thanks for the props.The frames are great I would like to thank you and Ray for the support

that you guys have offered. First rate. I am so convenced that these frames are the real deal that I just finished up my new limited gun. the build went off without a hitch using

CCF ss frame

caspian model 24 slide

kkm gunsmith fit barrel

bomar sites

dawson fiber front

sjc mag well (modified)

stair tread grip treatment( thanks Tim)

Shot a magazine out of this rig last night and man I am here to tell ya look out . supper soft and flat. I think I will be able to shoot this set up like an open gun. biggest problem now is the choice open or limited. nice thing the buffer dosent have a mark on it(grey) . talking about buffs my open gun has the same buff in it since day one. and is still servicable.( made from delrin) I am going to run that one till I cant nomore.

john

[larryccf]

I was just giving you a little jab in good fun there Larry (hence the wink) and apologize as well if it was taken wrong.

I have shot with several guys using these with stock components and they really do like them. Unfortunately, I want to use one to make a race gun out of it using aftermarket components and I guess that just isnt going to happen.

I like the Glock platform, but cant stand the grip angle, I just do not shoot it well when I go back and forth between other guns it screws me all up. I am desperately looking for a frame that will give me a 1911 feel with the Glock upper.

Have you found ANY afermarket slides or frames that will function well with your frames? Also, how much does the slide matter? For instance, does a Lone Wolf slide work with a stock Glock barrel, etc?

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

[larryccf]

Ok. Ill man up and admit I was over the top in my comments. I didnt realize at the time how my comments could cause damage to CCF. For that I apologize. The main person Im thinking of is Charles P from MO. He sent his frame in twice with broken locking blocks. He was running stock parts except for maybe a connector and striker spring. His frame is now sitting at home with the third block broken and he finally gave up on it. He actually has two frames with broken blocks. I really had hoped to be able to run a CCF with aftermarket stuff and i see this wont happen. I have had a smith working on my CCF for over a year. he is fitting an aftermarket barrel on a caspian slide. Im just frustrated that it seems like it still wont work right. CCF originally said to have a gunsmith fit the parts. Now we are being told only run them with stock stuff. I again apologize for my over the top comments. I hope the bugs are worked out because I think the concept is a great idea.

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.

Edited December 24, 2008 by larryccf

[uscbigdawg]

I'll just say this. Larry is not saying that you should only use stock parts in that they are the only thing that will work. (Larry please correct me if I'm wrong). What he's saying for the home Glock assemblers (i.e. not gunsmiths 'cause there is a difference) if you want to assemble parts and go, then use factory parts.

If you want a custom or 'race' Glock, you need to understand that it is not a Glock that it is a fine machine and its pieces need to be fitted (i.e. like a 1911). Guys like John Nagel, Matt Kartozian, et. al. will do that better than anyone and with that comes a price. Sorry, but if you want to play with guns of that level, that's what you're going to have to pay. Otherwise, stick with the polymer frames.

Just my $0.02.

Rich

[larryccf]

I'll just say this. Larry is not saying that you should only use stock parts in that they are the only thing that will work. (Larry please correct me if I'm wrong). What he's saying for the home Glock assemblers (i.e. not gunsmiths 'cause there is a difference) if you want to assemble parts and go, then use factory parts.

If you want a custom or 'race' Glock, you need to understand that it is not a Glock that it is a fine machine and its pieces need to be fitted (i.e. like a 1911). Guys like John Nagel, Matt Kartozian, et. al. will do that better than anyone and with that comes a price. Sorry, but if you want to play with guns of that level, that's what you're going to have to pay. Otherwise, stick with the polymer frames.

Just my $0.02.

Rich

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

Edited December 25, 2008 by larryccf