Anyone Seen A CPX-3 Yet???

[Good Ol' Boy]

Ever since my search for a smaller CC and stumbling across the new CPX3 I've been waiting. Seen several supposed release dates but so far haven't found it available anywhere.

Picked up a Handgunner mag today and saw a ad for it as if it was available. Anyone know anything???

 

[Ibmikey]

I have checked Davidsons and others without success...some day there will be a glut of them.

 

[C0untZer0]

They're not out there yet...

 

[bannockburn]

Looks promising enough but I would wait awhile for it to be out and in use before I would consider geting one.

 

[jogar80]

I have been looking for one without success too. I wont hesitate to buy it as soon as it hits the market. Great experience with my cpx2

 

[Ibmikey]

Agreed, the CPX 2 has a good record with me and my neighbor who commandeered it so the .380 version should make quite a hit. Right now i have many of the popular Micro pistols and enjoy shooting most and dreading a session with a few others. In this case the pre release publicity seems to have many waiting anxiously but that can backfire as those people tire of the wait and buy elsewhere.

 

[BLU]

Had my hands on a Remington R51 a few days ago. Man, I really love the feel of that gun! I really do. But, I'm gun-shy, (pun intended). Too many failures shipped straight from the company. Okay... this is about the CPX-3, not the R51. Well I mentioned the R51 because I'm positive that SCCY would rather have a late release on the CPX-3 than to have to endure what Remington did. I suspect that's why there's a delay in production. (There's a possibility that SCCY has seen the Beretta Pico .32 ACP advertising and we haven't seen that option for a .32 ACP barrel materialize either! Last I checked their site, a .32 option isn't even mentioned.) I wrote SCCY yesterday and asked them about the CPX-3. Whatever they respond with, if anything, will be forwarded to THR. Let's hope it's positive information.

 

[C0untZer0]

SCCY would rather have a late release on the CPX-3 than to have to endure what Remington did

I don't buy it.

A functioning 9mm needs very little changes to have it work in 380 ACP. Shorten up the mag and the mag well, or leave them and put a spacer backing on the spine of the magazine and a new follower. Then it's pretty much just finding a lighter recoil spring.

Some minor adjustment might need to be made to the feed ramp.

I mean for crying out loud, half the 9mm semi-autos out there already chamber 380 when people load them by accident. Some of those guns actually fire off the 380 round, at least once anyway.

This gun hasn't come out because SCCY hasn't put resources on getting it out. Whether its a matter of prioritizing resources or they flat out don't have the people to work on it - I don't know. But I don't buy that the conversion creates incredible complexity and they've been spending the time conquering the engineering hurdles to make this happen.

This is bada bing, bada bang, bada boom - slam dunk.

 

[BLU]

You're probably right. I'm speculating that SCCY is having problems with that 'quad-lock'.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Yup, I don't think it's quite as simple as CountZero is making it out to be. They're not just taking a CPX2 and throwing a .380 barrel in it.

From what I've read that Quad-Lock is somewhat of a redesign of the original CPX series. I suspect there are some issues being worked out and that is why it isn't on the market yet.

 

[zaitcev]

A functioning 9mm needs very little changes to have it work in 380 ACP.

Although it is exactly what SiG has done with P290, re-barreling 9mm for .380 has some pitfalls. Glock had to learn it when their tried and true magazine design suddenly did not work reliably with .380, because bullets are too round when compared with 9mm [1]. SiG was lucky or else they knew the traps after releasing P250 in .380. So it's not always as easy as it looks.

In addition, for better or for worse, CPX-3 is not a rebarreled CPX-2. It uses a different geometry where the barrel hood meets the slide, and its size is a little different. Perhaps SCCY observed what a wet flop P290 was in the marketplace and realized that CPX-3 has to offer something different.

Given that it's not just CPX-2 in .380, the delay is understandable. I would not even be surprised if they ran into reliability or durability problems and went back to the CPX-2 style slide.

[1] I'm talking about the saga of the "03" magazine that finally solves the problem by including a rib and a matching slot in the follower. Note that G36 magazine does not have it and functions just like the original "01" magazine for G42. By the way, Browning had to design a new magazine for 1911-380 too. It is not a miniature 9mm magazine. Instead, it solves the .380 problem by having one coil of its spring to protrude beyond the magazine body.

 

[C0untZer0]

I was wrong, the CPX-3 is a different gun, it has a different frame and the Roebuck quad lock locking system.

So maybe they are taking their time and making sure that the reliability with the quad-lock system is 100% before releasing it...

 

[Ibmikey]

I am anxiously waiting for the .380 SCCY pistol to be released and the initial buying rush is over before pursuing the purchase of one. I do not wish to have one for concealed carry but simply to add another shooter to the already Gigantic pile of pocket pistols in .25, .32 , .380 and 9mm. It seems like i get a great deal of enjoyment from shooting the small, med and large frame pistols.....heck i just enjoy shooting , period.

 

[wally]

A functioning 9mm needs very little changes to have it work in 380 ACP. Shorten up the mag and the mag well, or leave them and put a spacer backing on the spine of the magazine and a new follower. Then it's pretty much just finding a lighter recoil spring.

Is there really much of a market for a sub-compact 9mm sized and weight pistol that fires a .380? I'd assume they are making something that fires a weaker round but is a smaller and lighter than their 9mm.

I understand the desire for "full sized" .380 pistols for the "recoil shy" but fact of the matter is most of these are blowback and thus tend to have similar perceived recoil as a 9mm of the same weight.

 

[C0untZer0]

Is there really much of a market for a sub-compact 9mm sized and weight pistol that fires a .380?

The SCCY sales rep at SHOT said it was for ladies who wanted a mild recoiling pistol, smallish / concealable but something that they could still grip comfortably (I'm paraphrasing) Some people have reported that their wives and daughters love the Pavona.

It was supposed to be released to distributors 60 days after SHOT Show

 

[BLU]

Well, having hunted with the 329PD using .44 mag loads, (with success!), I'm very tolerant of recoil. I'm fortunate. But, I'll take a SD catridge that's easy to control, (for follow up shots), all day long over the same sized gun in a snappier round. But that's just me. If I'm expecting the .380 to be enough gun for my lady, the least I can do is agree to carry the same cartridge, at least on an occasional basis. Honestly, I'd rather carry my 12 ga. Coach gun, but, they don't allow that here! I don't feel unarmed with a .380 though because I'm certain I can put the round where it needs to go. That is my interest in this gun. One week ago I wrote the sales rep at SCCY to ask what the status on the CPX-3 was. Still no reply. Hmmmm...

 

[BLU]

Update: Living in the Midwest, I emailed a 'local' SCCY representative on 01/04/17 to inquire about the CPX-3. Still no reply. This email is in addition to the email I sent to a Florida SCCY Rep on 12/24/16. I haven't received a reply regarding that email either. It's a moot point for me now, (as I've purchased a different brand .380), but, I wanted to give THR the latest word on this in case any of you were curious as to the company's position.

 

[C0untZer0]

What did you get?

 

[unclenunzie]

I'm thinking that with inexpensive but well known and well backed 380's on the market already, the risk to SCCY is they tool up and can't recoup their initial CPX-3 costs. How much could they sell the CPX-3 for, and is the double-stack going to be the most important differentiating factor from say Ruger's LC380 or similar? Then add in the low-recoiling 9mm ammo offerings from Hornady and probably others, and a family with only one gun purchase to make might decide on a 9mm anyway. Knowing that it can be cheaper to run, more established, and with the right ammo more versatile.

I'm saying that in an intensely competitive market, SCCY may have already judged the business risk is too high.

 

[C0untZer0]

It kind of occupies a unique position:

SCCY CPX-2
Caliber: 380 ACP
Barrel: 3.1 in
Length: 5.7 in
Height: 4.0 in (without mag extensions)
Width: 1.0 in
Weight: 15.0 oz
Capacity: 10+1 Rounds

Tanfoglio Pavona
Caliber: 380 ACP
Barrel: 3.6 in
Length: 7.3 in
Height: 4.5 in
Width: 1.4 in
Weight: 30.4 oz
Capacity: 13+1 Rounds

Ruger LC380
Caliber: 380 ACP
Barrel: 3.12 in
Length: 6.0 in
Height: 4.5 in (without mag extensions)
Width: .90 in
Weight: 17.2 oz
Capacity: 7+1 Rounds

 

[jhb]

that roebuck quad lock stamping/etching on the left side of the slide is what an ego maniac would do who needed to inflate his ego badly. other than that looks like a winner.

 

[BLU]

I went with a single stack Taurus TCP PT738. A fluff & buff and it eats the JHP's up nicely. No where as abusive on my hand as my LCP was. Not as sweet as my P238 but nowhere the cost either! It's going to make a nice summer carry piece.

 

[Ibmikey]

I just sent an email to SCCY CS and received a reply twenty minutes later, sorry nothing positive as there is still no suggestion of a release date on the SCCY CPX 3. No other information was provided.

 

[Big7]

I don't buy it.

A functioning 9mm needs very little changes to have it work in 380 ACP. Shorten up the mag and the mag well, or leave them and put a spacer backing on the spine of the magazine and a new follower. Then it's pretty much just finding a lighter recoil spring.

Some minor adjustment might need to be made to the feed ramp.

I mean for crying out loud, half the 9mm semi-autos out there already chamber 380 when people load them by accident. Some of those guns actually fire off the 380 round, at least once anyway.

This gun hasn't come out because SCCY hasn't put resources on getting it out. Whether its a matter of prioritizing resources or they flat out don't have the people to work on it - I don't know. But I don't buy that the conversion creates incredible complexity and they've been spending the time conquering the engineering hurdles to make this happen.

This is bada bing, bada bang, bada boom - slam dunk.

Where are you going to head space? 9 Para and .380ACP are NOT the same thing. Close but not the same.
That SCCY "brand" as in Kim K, have a reason. They are great guns. Either something is just not worked out yet
or they are letting market "hype" sell all of them the same day they are released.

Either way, they have a reason.

 

[TarDevil]

I mean for crying out loud, half the 9mm semi-autos out there already chamber 380 when people load them by accident. Some of those guns actually fire off the 380 round, at least once anyway.

The ONE time my LC9s didn't eject a round after firing was when I accidentally loaded a .380 round in the mag. Fired without a problem.