I'm looking forward to the .380 CCP.

2255 Views 27 Replies 6 Participants Last post by Jimmo952, Dec 23, 2018

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · Dec 16, 2018

I'm looking forward to the CCP .380. There, I said it.

If the CCP 380 works, it might be a great gun for the Mrs. She is petite and recoil sensitive. She is not a hard core gun person. She shot the SLEAZY Shield and liked it. She likes the Glock 42. It would be great to have a Walther option.

I hope the dang thing works.

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

1917-1911M

· #2 · Dec 16, 2018

For people, men or women who don't train with semi auto pistols, know how to clear one immediately (and some stoppages can't be cleared immediately even if you know what to do) they might be better served with a small revolver. The CCP has a horrible record regarding reliability. I don't think the choices of .380 ammo spans
the same weight and energy of 9mm ammunition. That might make it a bit easier to fine tune the gas system/recoil spring/striker spring systems to .380 ammo. But, the revised 9mm version seems to be having a continuation of issues. When was the last time a PPQ or P99 jammed the striker spring into a tangled mess causing a complete stoppage?

Those small S&W revolvers still fit a small hand, have mild recoil and work very, very reliably. Perhaps a PPS in .380 might be a better route. Guess we need to wait and see how the .380 CCP runs....but color me doubtful. 1917

See less See more

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #3 · Dec 16, 2018

1917-1911M said:
For people, men or women who don't train with semi auto pistols, know how to clear one immediately (and some stoppages can't be cleared immediately even if you know what to do) they might be better served with a small revolver. The CCP has a horrible record regarding reliability. I don't think the choices of .380 ammo spans
the same weight and energy of 9mm ammunition. That might make it a bit easier to fine tune the gas system/recoil spring/striker spring systems to .380 ammo. But, the revised 9mm version seems to be having a continuation of issues. When was the last time a PPQ or P99 jammed the striker spring into a tangled mess causing a complete stoppage?

Those small S&W revolvers still fit a small hand, have mild recoil and work very, very reliably. Perhaps a PPS in .380 might be a better route. Guess we need to wait and see how the .380 CCP runs....but color me doubtful. 1917

I almost always have small revolver on me. I enjoy the challenge of shooting and training with them. I'm a fan. She is not. I've tried but she feels how she feels.

I realize it's a medium to long shot with the CCP 380. I'm hopeful for the reasons you mention as well as increasing maturity in the design and lower pressures in general ( hopefully the materials used will hold up better).

We will see soon enough as reports from early adopters start coming in.

23738

· #4 · Dec 17, 2018

Try the 9mm first. If it's too much....

To me the recoil of a single stack 9 isn't the issue, it's the racking of the slide. Single stacks tend to be harder to chamber rounds, especially the really slim ones...PPS comes to mind. The CCP is meant to be easier to rack, in addition to lesser recoil impulses. Supposed to...anyway.

I've NO love for the .380. I'd say the lower power might be a problem for a gas retarded system like the CCP...hence try the 9mm. Try several. They feel cheap and plasticy to me, but coming from a guy who's shot the hell out of PPQs and PPSs and P99s and SIgs and Glocks....yeah...

extremist

· #5 · Dec 17, 2018

Get the 380 Shield EZ, I'm taking my wife to shoot one this week to convince her she needs one to replace her Sig P238

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #6 · Dec 21, 2018

Thunderbirdsport302 said:
Try the 9mm first. If it's too much....

To me the recoil of a single stack 9 isn't the issue, it's the racking of the slide. Single stacks tend to be harder to chamber rounds, especially the really slim ones...PPS comes to mind. The CCP is meant to be easier to rack, in addition to lesser recoil impulses. Supposed to...anyway.

I've NO love for the .380. I'd say the lower power might be a problem for a gas retarded system like the CCP...hence try the 9mm. Try several. They feel cheap and plasticy to me, but coming from a guy who's shot the hell out of PPQs and PPSs and P99s and SIgs and Glocks....yeah...

If I remember right, HK ditched the gas piston system when they came out with the .380acp version of the P7. Makes wonder what Walther will do with the CCP. The gas system is probably not necessary with the 380.

23738

· #7 · Dec 21, 2018 (Edited)

That's what makes the CCP unique...IF such a thing can be said about it in the first place!

If Walther were to make a blowback CCP, it would be much like any other .380 gun...in other words...why? Especially since they've had nothing but great success with the CCP. (sarcasm font?)

Coming from a guy who's animosity towards the .380 likely stems from a Bodyguard 380...(hey, I think for the recoil, my PPS 9mm shoots softer, holds more, and fits my hand better, and is no less difficult to rack, even with a DPM RSA..)

I'm glad we have options (thanks for the Q5 Classic!) but another blowback .380? We've already got a PPK and a PK380. Unless this is to mark the end of that gun (PK380).....I've shot one, wasn't bad, didn't overwhelm me, make me want one of my own.

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #8 · Dec 21, 2018

Thunderbirdsport302 said:
That's what makes the CCP unique...IF such a thing can be said about it in the first place!

If Walther were to make a blowback CCP, it would be much like any other .380 gun...in other words...why? Especially since they've had nothing but great success with the CCP. (sarcasm font?)

Coming from a guy who's animosity towards the .380 likely stems from a Bodyguard 380...(hey, I think for the recoil, my PPS 9mm shoots softer, holds more, and fits my hand better, and is no less difficult to rack, even with a DPM RSA..)

I'm glad we have options (thanks for the Q5 Classic!) but another blowback .380? We've already got a PPK and a PK380. Unless this is to mark the end of that gun (PK380).....I've shot one, wasn't bad, didn't overwhelm me, make me want one of my own.

I think you hit it. The PK380 is long in the tooth. The CCP380 is the probable replacement. The PK380 was aimed at the same crowd as the Smith EZ Shield. It just showing its age a bit.

I shot the Bodyguard 380 once and decided to stick to the Smith J frames for the pocket gun niche. I was decidedly underwhelmed by the Bodyguard 380.

Reactions: 1

23738

· #9 · Dec 21, 2018

Jimmo952 said:
I was decidedly underwhelmed by the Bodyguard 380.

Me too.
I still own the thing, mainly because for my size, I can ankle carry it, though I can say I've only done it, 3, maybe 4 times, and then only as a backup to my PPS.

I'm not that accurate with it, don't even need to be carrying it. I ought to sell it, but I'd get scratch for it, so....it can sit awhile longer.

extremist

· #10 · Dec 21, 2018

extremist said:
Get the 380 Shield EZ, I'm taking my wife to shoot one this week to convince her she needs one to replace her Sig P238

Follow up: 380 EZ shield was a fail - she can't reliably engage the grip safety. - an issue I've seen with several shooters that try it. If you don't have a good high grip, it will not fire.

Let her try her P365 I bought her last summer and while she said it had more recoil, it was easy to rack and shot it well. Her new carry now. I'll put in some low recoil 115 JHP and she will be better armed than with the 380 anyway.

I'll certainly look at a 380 CCP if it comes out - I still like my 9mm CCPs I have now.

Reactions: 1

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #11 · Dec 21, 2018

extremist said:
Follow up: 380 EZ shield was a fail - she can't reliably engage the grip safety. - an issue I've seen with several shooters that try it. If you don't have a good high grip, it will not fire.

Let her try her P365 I bought her last summer and while she said it had more recoil, it was easy to rack and shot it well. Her new carry now. I'll put in some low recoil 115 JHP and she will be better armed than with the 380 anyway.

I'll certainly look at a 380 CCP if it comes out - I still like my 9mm CCPs I have now.

Thanks Extremist for keeping us in the loop. Let us know how that P365 works out for her.

1917-1911M

· #12 · Dec 22, 2018

I think Smith tried to do too many things with the .380 EZ. Things I like; very easy to rack slide, flare at the rear of the slide for easier grip for those who like to pull the slide rearward in that manner. Hand strength is a serious issue and not only for some women.

Things I don't like...the pistol should have been downsized a bit, not made larger than the 9mm. Drop the grip safety, drop the existing thumb safety. Walther uses the same on the CCP and the pivot point is on the wrong end of the lever. This means that when you grip the pistol with the purpose of pressing the safety lever down your thumb largely rests on the area where the pin is which means you can't press it down. You must rotate the forward portion of your thumb down to press the forward end of the safety down. It's backwards. The regular manual safety on the Bodyguard and Shield work fine. I like a manual safety but one that is ergonomically correct.

The smaller, optional thumb safety on other Smith pistols works better and if you don't want the safety on while carrying...just snap it down to the fire position and leave it there. It is pretty much non intrusive....not a big lever sticking out the side of the pistol. Still takes a lot of trigger to fire it.

Reduce the size of the pistol a bit, eliminate the palm grip safety, eliminate the backwards lever safety and install one like on the 9mm Shield.

Perhaps the CCP .380 will be smaller. Ergonomically Walthers are generally excellent. But I still think the entire rear of the pistol needs a total redesign. It has proven to be too unreliable for too many in the 9mm. This is entirely unacceptable for a carry firearm. With the .380 ammo running from, what, 92 gm to 100gm perhaps the pistol can be better tuned but the rear is still a mess in my opinion. No rails, striker spring concept problematic and firing pin block located too far rearward. I don't like the safety lever either for the same reason I don't like that design on the Walther made S&W M&P 22 or the .380 EZ. Same big old safety lever. Want to see it done correctly...pick up any 1911.

Slim the .380 Shield down a bit, get rid of a few things, make it a bit smaller and it would be ready to go. I have had absolutely no problems with my Shield or the Bodyguard for that matter or the LCP and in my opinion neither kicks like a PP in .380. My 2 cents. 1917

See less See more

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #13 · Dec 22, 2018

1917-1911M said:
I think Smith tried to do too many things with the .380 EZ. Things I like; very easy to rack slide, flare at the rear of the slide for easier grip for those who like to pull the slide rearward in that manner. Hand strength is a serious issue and not only for some women.

Things I don't like...the pistol should have been downsized a bit, not made larger than the 9mm. Drop the grip safety, drop the existing thumb safety. Walther uses the same on the CCP and the pivot point is on the wrong end of the lever. This means that when you grip the pistol with the purpose of pressing the safety lever down your thumb largely rests on the area where the pin is which means you can't press it down. You must rotate the forward portion of your thumb down to press the forward end of the safety down. It's backwards. The regular manual safety on the Bodyguard and Shield work fine. I like a manual safety but one that is ergonomically correct.

The smaller, optional thumb safety on other Smith pistols works better and if you don't want the safety on while carrying...just snap it down to the fire position and leave it there. It is pretty much non intrusive....not a big lever sticking out the side of the pistol. Still takes a lot of trigger to fire it.

Reduce the size of the pistol a bit, eliminate the palm grip safety, eliminate the backwards lever safety and install one like on the 9mm Shield.

Perhaps the CCP .380 will be smaller. Ergonomically Walthers are generally excellent. But I still think the entire rear of the pistol needs a total redesign. It has proven to be too unreliable for too many in the 9mm. This is entirely unacceptable for a carry firearm. With the .380 ammo running from, what, 92 gm to 100gm perhaps the pistol can be better tuned but the rear is still a mess in my opinion. No rails, striker spring concept problematic and firing pin block located too far rearward. I don't like the safety lever either for the same reason I don't like that design on the Walther made S&W M&P 22 or the .380 EZ. Same big old safety lever. Want to see it done correctly...pick up any 1911.

Slim the .380 Shield down a bit, get rid of a few things, make it a bit smaller and it would be ready to go. I have had absolutely no problems with my Shield or the Bodyguard for that matter or the LCP and in my opinion neither kicks like a PP in .380. My 2 cents. 1917

What is your take on the LCP?

I don't have a lot of experience with that genre of pistol. I have a few decades of experience with J frames though and that is my frame of reference.

Have you found a smaller 380 that you like as much as the J frames??

DeutschlandUberAlles

· #14 · Dec 22, 2018

1917-1911M said:
I think Smith tried to do too many things with the .380 EZ. Things I like; very easy to rack slide, flare at the rear of the slide for easier grip for those who like to pull the slide rearward in that manner. Hand strength is a serious issue and not only for some women.

Things I don't like...the pistol should have been downsized a bit, not made larger than the 9mm. Drop the grip safety, drop the existing thumb safety. Walther uses the same on the CCP and the pivot point is on the wrong end of the lever. This means that when you grip the pistol with the purpose of pressing the safety lever down your thumb largely rests on the area where the pin is which means you can't press it down. You must rotate the forward portion of your thumb down to press the forward end of the safety down. It's backwards. The regular manual safety on the Bodyguard and Shield work fine. I like a manual safety but one that is ergonomically correct.

The smaller, optional thumb safety on other Smith pistols works better and if you don't want the safety on while carrying...just snap it down to the fire position and leave it there. It is pretty much non intrusive....not a big lever sticking out the side of the pistol. Still takes a lot of trigger to fire it.

Reduce the size of the pistol a bit, eliminate the palm grip safety, eliminate the backwards lever safety and install one like on the 9mm Shield.

Perhaps the CCP .380 will be smaller. Ergonomically Walthers are generally excellent. But I still think the entire rear of the pistol needs a total redesign. It has proven to be too unreliable for too many in the 9mm. This is entirely unacceptable for a carry firearm. With the .380 ammo running from, what, 92 gm to 100gm perhaps the pistol can be better tuned but the rear is still a mess in my opinion. No rails, striker spring concept problematic and firing pin block located too far rearward. I don't like the safety lever either for the same reason I don't like that design on the Walther made S&W M&P 22 or the .380 EZ. Same big old safety lever. Want to see it done correctly...pick up any 1911.

Slim the .380 Shield down a bit, get rid of a few things, make it a bit smaller and it would be ready to go. I have had absolutely no problems with my Shield or the Bodyguard for that matter or the LCP and in my opinion neither kicks like a PP in .380. My 2 cents. 1917

Sounds like all the CCP shortcomings (and then some) can be corrected by purchasing another gas retarded (HKs marketing words, NOT mine), carry 9mm.

This even has over 1/2 addition barrel length, and 5 addition rounds. Sometimes the IDEAL tool comes with a premium. HK P7M13 (shipped to my FFL yesterday)........

See less See more

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #15 · Dec 22, 2018

DeutschlandUberAlles said:
Sounds like all the CCP shortcomings (and then some) can be corrected by purchasing another gas retarded (HKs marketing words, NOT mine), carry 9mm.

This even has over 1/2 addition barrel length, and 5 addition rounds. Sometimes the IDEAL tool comes with a premium. HK P7M13 (shipped to my FFL yesterday)........

The P7s are great. I owned three of them at one time. Two in 9mm and the slightly smaller .380 version. They just plane worked.

Selling them was not one of my better ideas. They were certainly of excellent quality and performance.

I wonder if the CCP's designers studied the P7 when designing the CCP? If they did, maybe they should have studied harder.

Reactions: 1

DeutschlandUberAlles

· #16 · Dec 22, 2018 (Edited)

Jimmo952 said:
The P7s are great. I owned three of them at one time. Two in 9mm and the slightly smaller .380 version. They just plane worked.

Selling them was not one of my better ideas. They were certainly of excellent quality and performance.

I wonder if the CCP's designers studied the P7 when designing the CCP? If they did, maybe they should have studied harder.

So true.

I've yet to see where ANYONE has seen even a SINGLE feed/extract/ejection failure on ANY firearm in the P7 PSP/P7 M8/P7 M13 line.

Even with the extractor removed, the fluted chamber STILL extracts/ejects. Insanely effective design can be produced, but only when the bean counters are LOCKED OUT of the engineering/design phase, and the upper level execs have approved clean sheet design machine tools/tooling to produce the final product.

No wonder it was the world most expensive production handgun while produced. Perfection costs!

The lesson here; For personal protection, Buy once, cry once!

See less See more

Reactions: 1

Wildtoad

· #17 · Dec 22, 2018

Can’t imagine there is need for another .380 in the Walther line unless one is going away. .380’s are more expensive to shoot on an ammo cost basis, and from what the “internet experts” will write, is not good enough for self defense. (Not sure I buy it though).

1917-1911M

· #18 · Dec 23, 2018

Jimmo952 said:
What is your take on the LCP?

I don't have a lot of experience with that genre of pistol. I have a few decades of experience with J frames though and that is my frame of reference.

Have you found a smaller 380 that you like as much as the J frames??

I got one of the second runs of LCPs. Shot it 4,000+ times without a stoppage. It barely had sights, of course for the purpose it served you don't really need sights. I sold it. Bought a later version with larger sights...sister borrowed it, five years ago. I got a Bodyguard too. No problems with either. At the time the Bodyguard had better sights, slide hold open after the last shot and a manual safety. Double strike capability too. The LCP had none of those features but ran 100%. Both pistols are easier on my wrist than the PPs in .380. That blowback really drives the pistol rearward...hard. The LCP and Smith both seem to spend some of their recoil energy in flipping the muzzle up a bit. I've shot each a couple of hundred times at a sitting with no ill effects. That is a bit too much for a PP unless it is the beautiful .32.

None of them are soft shooting .22 or .32 caliber though. I don't carry the Bodyguard but keep it handy in the truck only. Both are just too inexpensive and small to totally discount in my opinion. And, they both work reliably. I don't have too much trouble hitting a 12" steel at 50' so that is good enough. I think I mostly keep it loaded with 100 gr something. But, everything I've tried has worked. I think it is an adequate caliber for self defense especially when I'm not likely to run into any issues. When I have to go into more dangerous areas where there might be a problem.....I'm carrying at least 9mm.

My wife shoots the revolvers. They shoot good and group good. I prefer more rounds and a spare mag or two. I also like slimmer pistols in an outer waistband holster. She likes the simplicity of the revolver. If I only had one shot I'd prefer the .38 spl over a .380. But the LCP is a good .380 from my experience....what is it??? 10 oz or so. No excuse to be without it unless you are carrying something more powerful. 1917

See less See more

Reactions: 1

1917-1911M

· #19 · Dec 23, 2018

DeutschlandUberAlles said:
Sounds like all the CCP shortcomings (and then some)

Well, not exactly. The Smith is reliable..... .380 or 9mm. Just a few too many features that I don't think are needed. And, perhaps it should have been smaller than the 9mm, not larger. If the CCP was 100% reliable...I'd be all over it. But sadly it isn't and I'm not holding out much hope for the .380 version either. Never seen an HK .380 with gas. I'd want that P7 in the 9mm version though. 1917

Reactions: 1

Jimmo952

Discussion Starter · #20 · Dec 23, 2018

1917-1911M said:
Well, not exactly. The Smith is reliable..... .380 or 9mm. Just a few too many features that I don't think are needed. And, perhaps it should have been smaller than the 9mm, not larger. If the CCP was 100% reliable...I'd be all over it. But sadly it isn't and I'm not holding out much hope for the .380 version either. Never seen an HK .380 with gas. I'd want that P7 in the 9mm version though. 1917

The HK P7K3 "squeeze cocker" was blowback operated. If I remember right, it used some sort of buffer thingy to retard the slide. I didn't shoot it much. I shot the sheep out the P7 9mms though. Loved those things.

A nice thing about the HK P7K3 was the ability to change calibers. It could be converted to .32apc or 22lr. I bought it thinking i'd get a 22lr kit and have a trainer with the same battery of arms as the P7 9mm version. Never bought one though. They were rare and expensive even then.

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.