Glock CCF Frame

[DrewBegley]

Today I saw a Glock 22 Alloy-type frame from CCF in Richmond. What are the cons and pros to this type of receiver other than weight and style? They had it priced, used, at 299.99 and told me it was a deal; though I've seen them new on the manufacturer's site for twenty more. When the salesman pieced a 22 slide on it to show me the feel, it was extremely stiff and he had to get someone else to try it and a stream of smoke poured out of the back end of the slide.

 

[voyager4520]

...it was extremely stiff and he had to get someone else to try it and a stream of smoke poured out of the back end of the slide.

Wow I've never heard of that before. I'd stay away from that particular receiver. I know of a few people who have them and they're happy with them.

 

[Sapper771]

I too was interested in getting one. As usual, I began reading reviews that had been posted online. I decided not to get one. I dont know if they have fixed the issue yet, but there were some reports of the CCF frames cracking. CCF stated that a shock buffer needed to be installed into the frames if they were to be fired. I saw one report that stated that CCF was still working on a design that would not require the use of a shock buffer. The need of a shock buffer gave me the impression that the design was a bit on the weak side. The information I received did come from the internet, so I cant testify to the validity.

Now that Lone Wolf has their TimberWolf frames in production, I am no longer interested in the CCF frames. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the the stock frame either.

 

[ny32182]

I am curious about them. I have a buddy who borrowed one from somewhere; not sure where he got it, to try out. I didn't see him shoot it, but he said his G34 top end started having extraction issues on the CCF frame (works fine on the normal frame) so I'm not sure what would cause that.

The weight of the assembled gun was a quarter ounce under the limit for IDPA ESP.

 

[jmr40]

I don't understand why someone would spend $300 to make their gun heavier and less reliable than when it left the factory.

 

[ny32182]

From a competitive standpoint, more weight can be good because it helps with recoil management. Of course I'd think it could also potentially slow transition time since you've got to get more mass moving, but a lot of the custom built guns are right near the weight limit. I have never personally tested near identical guns that only vary in weight, but, that is why I wouldn't mind spending some time with one of these CCF frames.

 

[LiveLife]

I don't understand why someone would spend $300 to make their gun heavier and less reliable than when it left the factory.

Some people like the Glock platform but hate the grip/grip angle. Some aftermarket frames like Lone Wolf ($199) offer 1911-like grip angle with removable back strap and rail option for shooters that want those features.

 

[Hk Dan]

The CCF Raceframes have been known for their reliability problems and quirky behaviors. Stay away from it and stick to factory would be my advice.

 

[Zerodefect]

Glock frames flex and flop around during recoil like an AK. That's why the slide rails are so short, a longer rail would bind when the frame is no longer straight as it flexes.

Probally not a good idea putting a rigid Al frame on your Glock, and possibly why the CC frames are less reliable.

That and the frames should be only $200 with out the billboard, $150 with the billboard. $300 is too much for something that still deosn't fix the Glock trigger.

 

[ny32182]

If you just want to increase the weight, and not change the grip angle, trigger, etc, the CCF frame appears to do that.

I did notice that the frame rails were longer than the Glock frame rails, and wondered if that was impacting the reliability. My guess is if they made them small and integrated them with the frame, they would not be able to flex and would probably be prone to break.

 

[farscott]

I have owned two, one I built up myself and one Robar made for me. Both were used to make 9x19 full-size guns. After quite a few fits and starts, I decided to sell them. The Robar one was and is perfectly reliable, but the one I built was erratic with respect to extraction and ejection until I replaced the spring loaded bearing with one made for a Glock 22 and used an older (prior to the chamber loaded indicator) extractor. Then it was 100% for up to 500 rounds at a time.

Issues with frame peening were seen with the one I built with a factory G17 slide. The one Robar built with the CCF slide did not peen the frame; it peened the slide. I am guessing whichever part was softer was taking the beating. And, yes, I ran the CCF buffer in the slide ring and changed them every 1000 rounds.

Good idea, but the execution was lacking. Bonding the oversized locking block to the frame was a horrible idea as lots of the aftermarket barrels had oversized lugs. The combination was a recipe for broken locking blocks.

 

[DrewBegley]

farscott: Sounds like quite the trial and error, I can only imagine how many rounds you put through those frames. I hear a lot of good news from Robar on all accounts though.

I liked the weight and feel of the receiver, not to mention the rounded guard and slightly longer beaver tail. I won't pay that much for an alloy frame unless it's new and has some beyond good reviews (considering I can get a new Glock or metal framed handgun for slightly more than how much CCF costs). I looked into the Lone Wolf and still am not sure about putting something built for a polymer frame on a metal type frame. For the meantime I'll be throwing money into the bottomless AR pit, but does anyone have some Pros other than lesser felt recoil/muzzle whip for the raceframes?

 

[RX-178]

I have a CCF stainless steel frame built up as a Glock 17L. All factory parts except for the frame, with a 1911 grip angle.

It has not been any more or less reliable than the factory Glock 17L that it got built from. It's very heavy, hefty, but in a way that I really like. It's the only handgun I have that can out-range my USP45 Tactical.