RECALL NOTICE: Walther CCP Being Recalled Due To Drop Safety Issues - Page 36 - WaltherForums
WaltherForums
 

Go Back   WaltherForums > Walther Firearms > CCP

Like Tree61Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-27-2017, 02:04 AM   #351
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 8,774
1917-1911M .38
Walther has changed the original video to a newer one...but here is a link to the old one. 57N is what they say compared to 90N in other similar pistols. 1917


1 newton equals 0.2248 lb force so 57 equals about 12.8 something lbs of pull.

Last edited by 1917-1911M; 09-27-2017 at 02:09 AM.
1917-1911M is offline   Reply With Quote
Register
Old 09-27-2017, 07:40 AM   #352
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 229
GP1935 .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1917-1911M View Post
Next, removal of this material will let the striker move forward as the slide rebounds and until the sear catches it. It is essential that the firing pin block continue to have some clearance so that the striker does not interfere with it as it sits forward 3/16" or 1/4". Is this clearance still there? If not, the face of the sear will need to be modified to provide clearance.
I made a mistake about the drop safety (firing pin block) when I sad the "striker moves behind it before the breech face is behind the round in the mag." The striker doesn't move behind the drop safety until after the round is stripped and the slide returns to battery. IOW, the sear holds the striker as the slide and drop safety move forward. Just eyeballing it, it does look like the drop safety may not be able to move forward of the striker if the striker lug is moved rearward on the striker body. If so, then the notch in the side of the striker that interfaces with the drop safety would need to be moved rearward. Alternatively, the drop safety would need to be positioned more forward in the slide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chandler5566 View Post
One area I do not have an answer for.....if the lug was at the rearmost position would that require an increase in recoil spring force?
Since the striker spring is held between the rear face of the striker and the locking catch, moving the striker lug rearward effectively moves striker face forward, which would result in less compression of striker spring as the slide returns forward. And since the recoil spring and striker spring work contrary to each other, the recoil spring would have a slightly easier time returning the slide to battery.
GP1935 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 08:36 AM   #353
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,192
chandler5566 .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by GP1935 View Post
Since the striker spring is held between the rear face of the striker and the locking catch, moving the striker lug rearward effectively moves striker face forward, which would result in less compression of striker spring as the slide returns forward. And since the recoil spring and striker spring work contrary to each other, the recoil spring would have a slightly easier time returning the slide to battery.
Right....which is why my earlier comment to 1911 about the 3/16th's reduction in compression of the striker spring was made. That could be enough reduction to pose an issue with FTFi and the striker spring would also need to be changed.

Just one more consideration. If Umarex makes the mod suggested by 1911 that would signal the need for yet a second drop safety recall. Think they would do that?
chandler5566 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 09-27-2017, 10:46 AM   #354
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 8,774
1917-1911M .38
They will after someone drops the pistol and shoots themselves in the butt. I'm not one bit sure what the current recall is correcting from the parts listed. People are getting different stuff, one guy get new counter plate and striker assembly, next guy doesn't. Next guy gets a solid pin through the front roll pin that holds the counter plate...next guy doesn't. New sear? New disconnect? New springs under them? New cylinder with a slight change to cam angles? No one has taken a very, very close look.....but, none of these seem to in any be able to address the problem of the pistol short stroking, chambering a live round and not have the striker be caught by anything....block or sear so it returns to slam into the chambered round and remains there. This is bad enough because the owner has no idea this has happened until he pulls the trigger only to find his pistol isn't cocked and ready to fire....bad for a CC pistol and based on the video....in this condition, if the pistol is dropped on the rear end...it will fire, nor does the manual safety have any way of addressing this.

The only thing I can see without a total and major redesign is to modify the cheapest part...striker only...so that the lug is moved rearward to insure it gets behind the sear before the breech face can get behind a round. Sure, a weak round or limp wrist could still make the pistol short stroke but it would no longer be able to chamber a round without the striker being caught. If the slide does not move far enough rearward to allow the striker to be cocked...a round cannot be shoved into battery. That is all this does. I doesn't address any other issues...dropped mags, striker spring failure, premature slide lock back, etc.

I think Walther will discontinue the pistol before a major redesign. Part of my concern with this is that when the lug is moved rearward, the striker body will sit forward of its present position when the sear catches the newely positioned lug. So does the front of the striker body still sit behind the firing pin block. It must. Don't modify the block...modify the nose of the striker adjacent to the firing pin block. Kind of like a small cutout on the top of an automotive piston to provide clearance for valve heads. Seems simple enough to me. If all that can be sorted. We can think about springs later. The less that has to be changed...the more likely this could happen. I'm thinking....redesigned, drop in striker only. Walther isn't the only one that could manufacture this part. But the pistol firing when dropped is very serious. I realize it only can occur with a short stroke...still, that apparently can happen and definitely should not. 1917
1917-1911M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 12:53 PM   #355
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,192
chandler5566 .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1917-1911M View Post
The only thing I can see without a total and major redesign is to modify the cheapest part...striker only...so that the lug is moved rearward to insure it gets behind the sear before the breech face can get behind a round. 1917

To move the striker lug rearward 3/16" to 1/4" the striker head would need to be lengthened to accommodate the new lug position and maintain the same lug dimensions. The lug must be tapered (wedge shape) because the CCP striker lug is used to compress the sear down and out of the way as the slide is forced rearward. Also, the striker lug will be captured and held by the sear only when the slide short cycles. Otherwise it's the striker safety that holds the striker back and it's the striker safety release that now controls firing the pistol when the trigger is pulled.....not the sear.
chandler5566 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 06:58 PM   #356
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 8,774
1917-1911M .38
I was afraid of that. Talked to Mr. Chandler today and we went over a few things...gun in his hands. The striker body is 3/4" long not counting the firing pin nose......that is short. It appears to Mr. Chandler we are talking about moving the striker lug rearward appx. 1/4" to make sure the lug is rearward of the sear before the nose of the breech can get behind a round in the mag.

This then of course theoretically lets the striker move 1/4" forward of its stock position. This presents a problem that I figured we would run into. The firing pin block that hangs down inside the striker channel hangs appx 1/16" in front of the stock striker body when caught by the sear......so, allowing the striker to move forward 1/4" means something will have to be modified to accommodate the firing pin block, keep it functional and allow the striker to move forward enough so that the sear is what stops forward movement....not the firing pin block. So....what to do while still keeping with the concept of modifying only one part if possible. Simple...but not quite that simple.

A pie shaped or even a semi circle area of striker nose needs to be removed, 1/4" toward the rear to accommodate the firing pin block. This area needs to extend from appx. 11 am to 1 pm. That would all be easy enough except for the second problem.....like about everything else we see on some of these pistols....the metal at the nose measures appx 1/32" thick which means any such cut would extend into the hollow space inside the striker. That might not be a problem strength wise but it will certainly be a problem with regard to the striker spring. The firing pin block and spring would interfere with each other. For manual test purposed....JB Weld could fill the striker nose to a depth sufficient to let 1/4" of material be removed and still provide a smooth base for the spring to rest against. That leaves about 3/8" for the spring to fit inside the striker cup.....so, if there is room for the striker spring to be compressed an additional 1/4" and the striker body was extended 1/4" or 3/8" and did not hit any rear slide components....then things should be back to normal function and there would be no way for a round to be picked up and chambers until after the striker hook passed the sear. Perhaps a coil or two needs to come off the striker spring.....who knows.

Other wise, only one part has been modified....the striker. What do they cost???? 15 cents. That would cure short stoke, round chambered, striker not caught, dropped pistol firing....I'm sure the guys in Arnsberg are working on it right now. Or, perhaps they are at Oktoberfest. 1917
1917-1911M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2017, 09:07 PM   #357
Senior Member
 
Hobe Sound, FLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hobe Sound, Fla.
Posts: 1,193
Hobe Sound, FLA .22
Question

Question: is this just American made Walthers this is happening to? I hope it is not german made Guns, as we all recall the S&W PPK disaster German Weapons should be made in Germany. the one exception was the Inter arms Ranger Arms PPK/S and PPK Pistols from the 1980's. I.M.O. You take away the all Metal Frame, you take away the Hammer, you take away the removable Grips, you take away the Firing Pin, you take away the safety, or Decocker, and you take away the old Chart for Years of MFG. on German Pistols, You end up with all these Problem! The Glock again, Plastic Pistols. I am Glad Glock is Dead! Paul
__________________
Honored Nephew, of RM2. Robert E. Truitt, CA-35, U.S.S. Indianapolis, 30-July, 1945.

In Loving Memory of CW4. Paul E. Truitt, 22-September, 1929, 23-February, 2018.

Last edited by Hobe Sound, FLA; 09-29-2017 at 09:10 PM.
Hobe Sound, FLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2017, 09:47 PM   #358
Senior Member
 
Kar98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: DFW
Posts: 2,540
Kar98 .22
There are no American made Walthers available currently. There are Ulm/Germany made ones, and those from Arnsberg, also Germany.
Kar98 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2017, 08:02 AM   #359
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Backwoods Virginia
Posts: 13,622
MGMike .38
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1917-1911M View Post
...

I think Walther will discontinue the pistol before a major redesign...
You got that right. This discussion is academic.

A quick mod to a 15-cent part is wonderful in theory; in practice things almost never seem to work out that way. One change engenders another, which raises a new problem, which requires another change, then another, and another....

M
MGMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 10:40 PM   #360
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 601
TheWatcher .22
Scanned through all 36 pages and didn't see a direct link to a demonstration of the failed drop safe test and why it occurs . For those who are visual learners I submit the link below. If it does not work, the youtube channel is LFD Research and the title is Is the Walther CCP Drop Safe.

https://youtu.be/dZE-KaXEDag
__________________
HK USP .40 for duty
PPK .380 or PPS M1 .40 for concealed

Currently looking for .380 PPK and PPK/S frames or parts guns. Please PM me if you have one to sell.
TheWatcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   WaltherForums > Walther Firearms > CCP


Search tags for this page
ccp recall
,
how to tell if walther ccp recall was taken care of
,
news
,
problems with a walther creed 9 mm
,

walther ccp 9mm problems

,
walther ccp 9mm recall
,
walther ccp m2 9mm problems
,
walther ccp recall
,

walther ccp recall serial numbers

,
walther creed problems
,
walther pps m2 recall
,
walther recall what is fixed
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.