CW380 Guide Rod--AGAIN!!

[boscobarbell]

If true--and I have no reason to doubt you--that is very disappointing. Like i've said a couple of times, I think my CW380 experiment is officially at an end.

Odd about the plastic deformation...are people seeing the same thing with, say, the CW9s or CW40s? You'd think with those hotter loads these problems would be even more apparent.

Another thing...is the Kahr polymer that fundamentally different from, say, HK's or Glock's or Walther's?

The poly Kahrs are made using a very soft plastic, and I too have seen deformation in that area. I'm starting to think the issues I had with the slide getting stuck were due to the deformed frame (which I fixed using an X-Acto knife as well). The slide has nothing but the plastic flange inside the frame to impact against during recoil, and I bet the deformation will return in time. How many times I can trim it before there's nothing left to trim remains to be seen.

[wyntrout]

Does the front sight screw fit flush enough to not cause problems? I don't have any "C" models, but I know that the front sight screws can be problematic if you don't know what you're doing.

[King Rat]

I owned four LCP's and shot the heck out of them. I ordered a stainless steel guide rod for one and the gun became a nightmare. It was alway's hard to put in and would make the gun unable to open for takedown. I called up the vendor and he resized it and did not have anymore problems. However, I wish I had just stuck with the OEM part. I also quite using Wolf or Gallaway recoil springs after using them at the beginning. I know too many owners that had problems with them and some guns resulting in frame cracks.
My LCP's alway's did so much better in the long run, by using stock OEM parts. I would alway's change out the recoil springs on a frequent basis. And I would just include the OEM guide rod as part of that maintenance. I am not a big believer in after market products. I now try and stick with what the Manufacturer's engineers designed for the gun. I notice that the Kahr store, sells a steel guide rod for the PM but not the CW380 and that is not the same size.
My Kahr is shooting 100% after 500 rds. so see no reason to start adding different parts at this point. My goal is to just do frequent replacement of recoil springs, guide rod and maybe every third Maintance schedule replace the striker guide rod.
I am even hesitant to install the Night sights, or let my Smith install them I will most like wait and get more rounds in. and then send the receiver up to Kahr and hold them responsible for any failures. Cost more, but then if something does go wrong, I know from the beginning it is the gun and not all the other aftermarket products that may have caused some minor adjustment in the cycling of the gun to cause a malfunction.

[Ed M]

King Rat - It's tough to fault your logic on aftermarket parts, but there is one flaw in it. Those 500+ flawless rounds out of your CW380 are courtesy of Wolff springs. Kahr OEM springs are made by Wolff.

I have no definitive proof, but I also heard that Kahr doesn't make their polymer frames in house - they're outsourced. IIRC, I read that somewhere on a Q&A section of Kahrs website.

Q. There is a chip in the metal guide rail of my polymer pistol. Is this normal?

A. This is a witness mark for the polymer frame manufacturer and is present by design.

I also have my doubts that the MIM parts Kahr uses in their guns are made in house as well. Same deal on the Lothar Walther barrels used in the Premium series. I see a pattern here. So in essence, you have a gun that was built using aftermarket parts. The difference is - Kahr put it together instead of the end user, and they stand behind it.

I look forward to the day that Kahr moves their entire production line down to Greeley so I can get a tour of their assembly line and see for myself. Maybe they won't let me see that though. That'd be a dead giveaway to me. I was told by Kahr employees that they DO plan on moving their production line down to PA in a year or so. Should be interesting...

[gb6491]

If true--and I have no reason to doubt you--that is very disappointing. Like i've said a couple of times, I think my CW380 experiment is officially at an end.

Odd about the plastic deformation...are people seeing the same thing with, say, the CW9s or CW40s? You'd think with those hotter loads these problems would be even more apparent.

Another thing...is the Kahr polymer that fundamentally different from, say, HK's or Glock's or Walther's?

I haven't seen any indications that the "poly" used in Kahr pistols is any "softer" than that used in the Glock, HK, CZ, Kel-Tec, EAA, DB, and S&W firearms I have that utilize poly in their frames. I certainly can't tell by feel, by pushing a fingernail into them, or looking at wear/usage marks. If someone can show me testing that proves otherwise I'm all for seeing it posted here. Otherwise, I'm of the opinion that anything suggesting otherwise is just that...an opinion. I wager that's how Internet myths begin.
Regards,
Greg

[boscobarbell]

I can tell you that I, too, certainly can't tell a difference by handling them. Polymer feels like polymer feels like polymer to me.

But don't you find it odd that people (like me) are required to deal with deformations in that poly frame, often multiple times in the same location? I've owned Glocks for 35 years and never once had to take a dremel to one. Granted, Glocks tend to be bigger per caliber vs. Kahrs, so maybe the Kahr tolerances are just less forgiving?

Beats me...I'm just struggling to understand it. And please bear in mind that I'm not Kahr bashing. After selling my first CW380 and vowing "never again," I so badly wanted one that worked (despite owning a rock-solid Pico and perfect-out-of-the-box RM380) that I bought a second one. And this is not to mention my MK9 and PM9. It is just frustrating beyond belief, and I'm really trying to wrap my head around it.

I haven't seen any indications that the "poly" used in Kahr pistols is any "softer" than that used in the Glock, HK, CZ, Kel-Tec, EAA, DB, and S&W firearms I have that utilize poly in their frames. I certainly can't tell by feel, by pushing a fingernail into them, or looking at wear/usage marks. If someone can show me testing that proves otherwise I'm all for seeing it posted here. Otherwise, I'm of the opinion that anything suggesting otherwise is just that...an opinion. I wager that's how Internet myths begin.
Regards,
Greg

[Ed M]

Something that may play a role in this is how you position the guide rod assembly on the "ledge" it sits on when you put the slide back together.

My CW380s don't seem particularly fussy about this, but my CM9 is VERY particular about placement. If I don't position the rear flange just right, it locks the whole thing up when I put the slide back on the frame. It can be a pain to get it apart again to reposition it. The slide just locks up, and I can't get it to move back far enough to put the slide stop in. Pushing down on the barrel hood while moving the slide works to free it up usually.

For all my Kahrs, I've found the best way to position the flange against the barrel "shelf" is to center the guide rod assembly side to side, and make sure it's level front to back in relation to the slide.

The flanged end of the guide rod assembly winds up offset on that shelf, and slightly above the shelf lip on my CM9. I think any other positioning other than that results in the flange having to reposition itself to slide into the guide rod pocket in the frame.

Maybe that's what is going on in your CW380, and might explain the "peening" on your frame pocket. Hope this makes sense...

[King Rat]

I can tell you that I, too, certainly can't tell a difference by handling them. Polymer feels like polymer feels like polymer to me.

But don't you find it odd that people (like me) are required to deal with deformations in that poly frame, often multiple times in the same location? I've owned Glocks for 35 years and never once had to take a dremel to one. Granted, Glocks tend to be bigger per caliber vs. Kahrs, so maybe the Kahr tolerances are just less forgiving?

Beats me...I'm just struggling to understand it. And please bear in mind that I'm not Kahr bashing. After selling my first CW380 and vowing "never again," I so badly wanted one that worked (despite owning a rock-solid Pico and perfect-out-of-the-box RM380) that I bought a second one. And this is not to mention my MK9 and PM9. It is just frustrating beyond belief, and I'm really trying to wrap my head around it.

Having owned 4 LCP's and shot them frequently, I later became very cautious about their Polymer frames, or should I say the cheap construction of the gun. I say this because over the years I had at least polymer grip cracks and split rail as shown in the photo below. I really love the way Beretta did the modular design and to Kahr's credit they provided steel inserts into the frame at stress points. Remington seems to have a very nice design in the all metal, (7075 aluminum) with a stainless steel receiver. All three designs appear to me to be quite superior for durability and the long haul. I have posted on another forum a number of different pictures of cracked frames with the LCP. Not to mention cheap take down pins that break, or walk out. One obvious proof of better quality in both the Kahr and the Pico is obvious when looking at their stainless steel receivers, especially the fact that they are so much more robust in build, which not only helps with recoil, but I would assume to aid in overall stress of the Pistol, Also the fact that proof in in the pudding, and these guns are rated and advertised for Plus P, or Hot ammo. I do hope future Kahr's do go modular down the road.
Look at the specs for the New Taurus Spectrum. Modular design, stainless steel receiver, they stole the idea of the fantastic take down of the Pico, which was a smart move. They cushioned up grip, gave it a wider trigger and is based on a good platform of the 738. Regardless, I doubt they will even come close to the quality of the Pico and the Kahr, and the Rm 380 is quickly becoming very popular, especially with the mild recoil as reported.



And now the steel inserts by Kahr at the stress points



Notice in this pic the steel inserts at the rear of the grip. This was a particular place of failure in the LCP grip.

[Ed M]

As a new Pico owner, I have to admit that all the things that turned me off initially about the design have proven to really matter very little.

One thing that is kind of annoying is the lack of room for my trigger finger. I've got fairly thick fingers, and it becomes uncomfortable to shoot a lot of rounds at a range session. I'm not overly concerned about this though, as it's not something I'll do very often.

The strengths of the Pico I initially saw have proven even better than I thought. It's built like a little tank. The sights are wonderful! The modular construction allows you to take the entire action out in a snap to really clean it well. A quick spray of gun cleaner, a spritz of oil and wipedown, and it's good to go.

That takedown "pin" is just genius. So simple and easy to use. The magazines are built as good as they look, and they look like miniature versions of high end 1911 mags. I could do without that huge pinky extension though, as it makes concealing the gun more difficult, and I have no trouble with a 1 1/2 finger grip on it. It's a soft shooter.

I still think it's kinda ugly, but pretty is as pretty does, and the Pico does great! I'm left wondering why these guns aren't more popular. Bad press maybe? Bad first impression? Different ergonomics?

I still prefer my Kahr 380s, but the Pico is a lot closer competition than I'd have guessed. That awesome Kahr trigger, and resulting accuracy give it the edge for me.

[Ken L]

If true--and I have no reason to doubt you--that is very disappointing. Like i've said a couple of times, I think my CW380 experiment is officially at an end.

Odd about the plastic deformation...are people seeing the same thing with, say, the CW9s or CW40s? You'd think with those hotter loads these problems would be even more apparent.

Another thing...is the Kahr polymer that fundamentally different from, say, HK's or Glock's or Walther's?

Just wanted to get an answer in here for you, sorry it's late. I have a CW40, and I shoot the heck out of it. Several thousand rounds thru it thus far, and no deformation of the plastic where the guide rod sits. Likely need a new recoil spring before long, but it just hasn't malfunctioned once I got thru the break in period and I profiled the extractor so that Fiocchi ammo will feed reliably.