I cannot say I would describe mine, purchased from a normal retail outlet, as:

"Everything about it screams quality, from scarcely visible mold lines to the texture, feel, cleanness, sharpness, uniformity, stiffness, etc."

 

Yeah I did see some of the ridiculous CCP examples on here with file marks, holes, etc. Mentioned it in the review, actually, so readers can be aware of it. But the two units at my FFL, which did come through the normal distribution process, looked amazing. Best polymer quality I think I've seen anywhere, and the machining was excellent, sharp, and clean as well.

 

I see the following, about 50 paragraphs into the story (a number of paragraphs later):


"[M]y production CCP, quality is top notch. It’s a really nice pistol and I expect it to prove reliable and accurate for people. I’ve already seen a couple horror stories on the Walther forum of what were allegedly “leaked,” pre-production guns with appalling QC, but judging by the two legit, distributor-shipped, production CCPs I saw at my FFL I think this will be a good little gat."

Initially we saw the tool marks, which might give pause where one, as I gather you did, encounters some feeding problems. We've now seen a striker spring break, as well as a number of slides that were milled improperly, creating holes.

Would you write the review the same way now?

 

It's good to know that there are some perfect CCPs out there and mine has been a joy to shoot, but have we really determined that the ones with problems are the minority? It would seem like this forum indicates a significant portion (compared to normal) of these guns shipped with some sort of manufacturing issue.

* this is more for discussion purposes than a critique of your review. I appreciate you mentioning the issues. I hope Walther gets things together and responds to me, or someone else on this forum with some answers.

 

Very good review JeremyS and thanks for the good pictures, especially the underside of the slide. I notice that there are no wear marks on your barrel. And, are you saying the chamber entrance on your pistols did not show the filing or grinding marks we've seen here? If so, I wonder what that is all about? Something Walther should get sorted quickly in my opinion. And the left side of your breech block did not have a hole into the striker spring chamber. Thanks.....now I want a P7 M1911

Oh yeah, welcome to WaltherForums.

 

...I notice that there are no wear marks on your barrel. And, are you saying the chamber entrance on your pistols did not show the filing or grinding marks we've seen here? ...And the left side of your breech block did not have a hole into the striker spring chamber. Thanks.....now I want a P7

All of the photos you see in the write-up are after my first range session with it, so there's 150 rounds through the gun. No hand filing or grinding anywhere that I could see. Barrel had no obvious finish wear after I was done with it. I can't say I looked down inside of the slide feed strip area specifically to see if there was a hole into the striker channel, as I had returned the pistol to my FFL the day before I saw the relevant photos on here. If they still have it, I may swing down there today to take it apart and give it a closer inspection. Nothing of this nature stood out, though, and I did give it a close look just to generally check for mistakes, tool marks, etc.

And you should want a P7!!! Just wait until next week when I put together that "why is the P7 the coolest pistol ever?" article haha ...you can find decent examples starting as low as $600, so they aren't ridiculous, out of reach collector's items or anything [yet].

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to do your review. It's certainly comforting to see 'some' CCP's come through like they all should. With all the conjecture out there I would never buy one of these unless I got to inspect it first. SO; no internet buying of a CCP for me and I will happily sit back and see what develops for some time before I consider protecting myself with this particular handgun. I hope they get it sorted out; on paper it looks like a good idea..

 

The gas chamber comment made me die laughing, literally. I am typing this while being defibrillated.

 

Jeremy you put up the best picture yet of the chamber, gas port, etc. but the chamber entrance is out of focus. Having said that, I don't see where the blueing or whatever finish that is has been removed so perhaps your pistol didn't get any butchering.

That makes me wonder if we should begin a list of serial numbers...whacked on pistols and non whacked on pistols. I'm not sure if this would show an improvement in machining based on progression of serials or.....if there are multiple machines running and some were set up more accurately which would mean we would likely find mixed serial numbers. Some properly milled, some not. What I do see is that Walther stamped the serial number under the slide and is now milling it off for clearance of what I assume is to provide proper clearance for the ejector.

I lightened your picture so we could take a look at your striker spring. The coils are all still tightly wound. That bump is likely the striker running into the striker safety and or the lower frame insert bumping into it and smushing it down. Perhaps a little smoothing at the appropriate spot would make is function smoother.

Is there any reason the spring catch can't simply be removed? It looks easy enough from the exploded diagram. Or polish the rear of the hook on the plate and smooth up the bottom edge of the spring catch so it will slide much easier. One of my early questions was what held the slide on and I wondered if it might be possible for the spring to kink say, on the short guide rod, and in the process yank the take down stop forward, allowing the slide to come off. Apparently H&K thinks something needs to insure the rear of the slide doesn't get loose. M1911

 

That makes me wonder if we should begin a list of serial numbers...whacked on pistols and non whacked on pistols. I'm not sure if this would show an improvement in machining based on progression of serials or.....if there are multiple machines running and some were set up more accurately which would mean we would likely find mixed serial numbers. Some properly milled, some not. What I do see is that Walther stamped the serial number under the slide and is now milling it off for clearance of what I assume is to provide proper clearance for the ejector. M1911

I finally got ahold of someone at Walther and sent my pictures/serial number there way. Maybe we'll get an update on what went on soon. I'd like to see a nice picture of a chamber entrance that hasn't been hand chiseled to see how they compare as far as the width of the opening.

 

WALTHER'S FACEBOOK PAGE, RE: THE NONEXISTENT CCP

Walther actually told the truth about their fudging on the release of the CCP. Typically, less ethical companies, like Kel-Tec will promise you that their new releases, like the PMR-30, are due out any day, and "any day" never comes. Surprise. I actually got to fondle one yesterday, so, at least I know they exist.

Walther, on the other hand, had an announcement at the top of the page with a video of the CCP followed by the real truth about this gun's true availability after they had promoted it like crazy since before even being seen at Shot Show 2014, that, if you want one, and I quote, "...it won't be available any time soon." end quote.

In their same post, tyhey started off by saying they had distributed a "limited quantity" of them, which sold out quickly due to high demand (ya think?) and, basically, "good luck," trying to get one.

Jeremy's review was excellent, by the way. Part of me is actually happy he hated the trigger. After reading Walther's Facebook page, that admitted the CCP would NOT be widely available - either this month or any subsequent month as they had earlier promised - I realized that I had been wasting my time in waiting on this Wonder Gun. I purposely delayed the purchase of other guns I had in mind on the promise that the CCP was "the greatest innovation since sliced bread."

Now that Jeremy has literally laid it bare and demonstrated that it has its share of unforgivable flaws - especially in light of how much hype Walther has devoted to it. It was also reassuring to read that Walther, like every other company waiting for patents to expire, did not revolutionize the gun world but had instead reinvented the H&K wheel by copying their blowback system.

So, I am not as ticked off as I might have been.

 

Does anyone else feel like they've been taken for a ride? Or, is it just me?

Can't speak for others....but no, pretty much what I expected. Seems no manufacturer can get a new firearm off the mark on time and without some hiccups. I'm sure Walther will get the machining straightened out, perhaps they already have.

I called a local gun shop today to ask if they had any CCPs in that I could look at, they just laughed, yep we got in some...they went out the door fastern .22 ammo. M1911

 

The TTAG web site had a contest soliciting pistol reviews, which ended Dec. 25th. I managed to take mine to the range a couple days before, and submitted a brief review. Evidently the folks at TTAG opted for Jeremy's review instead.

I won't post here the full review I submitted to TTAG. I will, however, merely reproduce a few remarks I've now posted on the TTAG site, in reply to the review on TTAG.

Kingsfield

***

Ahhhh … what I might call the “Custom Carry Pistol”.

I submitted a review of the CCP to TTAG on Dec. 26, a week before the review by Jeremy S was posted. Mine was more critical. It appears editorial discretion has been exercised by TTAG folks in favor the subsequent review by Jeremy S. Let me share some of the observations that I made in my review, in case anyone is interested.

The entrance to the chamber on mine, when I received it, looked like it had been to someone’s “custom” shop. There was clear evidence of manual shaping of the chamber opening. There are gouges consistent with some sort of hand filing. And there was additional flaring over a wider area, with a more polished appearance. The irregularity of the interface with the chamber for this additional work seems ad hoc, and inconsistent with something that was planned.

Pictures of this were posted on the Walther Forum on December 19. I gather my pictures are some of those referenced in the above review. I’ll provide a link to one picture:

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8ea575a1.jpg

And yes, the three marks at the top, near the chamber entrance, and the one at 11 o’clock, are evidently additional remnants of improvident use of a hand tool.

I purchased my CCP through a normal retail transaction from an FFL/retailer. I have no reason to describe mine as an “allegedly ‘leaked,’ pre-production gun[]”.

The firearm was quite dirty when I received it. Whether that is because Walther personnel did some firing of the pistol, identified issues and then sent it to the “custom shop” is something only Walther folks can address.

In my review, I discussed a few bobbles in the functioning of my CCP. I’ll leave it at that.

Let me now expand beyond matters contained in my banished review:

When I received the pistol, there were obvious irregularities in the milling of the slide. I did not comment on that in my brief review. The import of those irregularities was not clear to me at the time. They are depicted here:

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1752d14d.jpg

After seeing some other posts on the Walther Forum, I confirmed that the irregular milling in this area in fact fully penetrated the milled wall, creating a slight hole or crack. I’ve put a piece of paper through it, as depicted in this picture:

http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psb88513da.jpg

That may be a material concern. Why? Well, this irregular milling has created a hole in the wall of a channel that holds a spring. Likely a hole having an acute angle on its perimeter. And at a location where the spring may rub.

Ahhhh…. now we have something additional that merits some thought.

Someone posting on the Walther Forum, under the name “Jeremy S”, first introduced the Walther Forum to the TTAG post. In later discussion of the review on TTAG, that individual notes, “Yeah I did see some of the ridiculous CCP examples on here with file marks, holes, etc. Mentioned it in the review, actually, so readers can be aware of it.”

In response to a question, “Would you write the review the same way now?”, Jeremy S replied in part:

“I did write the review that way. We’re a blog, not a magazine, so it isn’t like I submitted copy two months ago [emoticon with tongue displayed]”

I do not know whether the “Jeremy S” posting on the Walther Forum is the same Jeremy S who wrote this TTAG review.

Had I been posting a review a week later than I originally submitted one, I would have chosen to mention the additional above concerns.

 

I do not know whether the “Jeremy S” posting on the Walther Forum is the same Jeremy S who wrote this TTAG review.

...this new gas-retarded system...

I, for one, think it's a pretty smart system!

 

I don't feel like I've been taken for a ride. I think they are working with something fairly new, and probably ran into a few issues. The fact that all the magazines ran covers last month and Walther wasn't able to ship the guns, coupled with the fact that a few of us received varying levels of production experimentation, it's clear that they've been running into some hiccups.

I think it is a really cool gun and I really enjoy shooting it, but it won't be for everyone. The people that may feel like they've been taken for a ride are those new shooters and elderly they've been trying to sell the easy manipulated slide to. I've been pitching this thing for months to new shooters and old people but I now know there's no way they'd be able to use this thing. The amount of dexterity needed to take this thing down far exceeds what is needed to manipulate a standard handgun slide.

Kingsfield: Have you gotten in touch with Walther yet? I will PM the contact info of the rep I contacted today and maybe we can push to get some answers.

 

Kingsfield, your comments, reports and photos have been a valuable contribution here. I for one thank you and keep the report coming. You have put up some pretty good pictures and I can't help but believe that the cut into the striker channel is anything but a misalignment of the tooling machine. However, if the walls are as thin as they appear to be...either the spring or the striker or both are going to wear through anyway.

I will have to admit, JeremyS put out a good review and video. Better than I could do. What I wonder is did he shoot all those trees down? Very good input from both of you. I'm wondering why we are seeing these differences in the pistols? M1911

 

What a thing of beauty. Kingsfield, your Photobucket account is open. I had to rearrange your pictures and give em alllllllll another name. There are privacy settings if you don't want people messin' about.

Any issues with Walther replacing slides if they have the serial number stamped on them that they are half way machining off. I'd be wanting one if my chamber and breech rail looked like some that have been posted. M1911

 

Oh dear Lord...this looks for all the world to be twisted knickers...

Can we all just agree that the gun is trickling out, reviews are continuing to come forth and that everyone is entitled to an opinion?

 

..;.
Can we all just agree that the gun is trickling out ...

Right. Like an incontinent bladder.

M

 

M1911: I actually like the P7. It's a solid, reliable gun, impeccably manufactured. It's not a be-all-to-end-all, and can claim no miracles in easy slide retraction, etc., but it's serviceable and competent, on a par with the Walther P5 or SIG/Sauer P6.

On the other hand, I would regard the CCP pictured in your post #23 as an embarrassment to the people who sold it.

M

 

Jeremy, I noticed in the front-on photo of the gas cylinder that there appears to be a seam surrounding the cylinder. Can you verify whether or not the cylinder itself is a steel tube pressed into the polymer frame? I've been following the discussions here on the CCP but I don't recall seeing any references to this aspect of the CCP.

As I was watching the video, it occurred to me you look and sound like the actor Edward Norton.

 

...Can you verify whether or not the cylinder itself is a steel tube pressed into the polymer frame?...

As I was watching the video, it occurred to me you look and sound like the actor Edward Norton.

My take was it's a stainless steel or other high quality steel cylinder insert pressed into the cast steel block (or it goes in the mold first and the block is cast around it). This is a lot like how many modern vehicles engines are made, where they cast the block from aluminum or other light weight material and then insert ductile iron or other suitable metal cylinder sleeves to properly handle the pressure, heat, and mostly wear of a piston going up and down inside of it.

That 'block' holds the barrel and the gas cylinder and has the "frame" part of the feed ramp milled into it, and is pinned into the polymer frame.

The barrel is likely pressed into the block and then it's also pinned in. You can tell the block is a cast piece (could be MIM) in part from the two dots on the left side of it just below the centerline of the barrel: http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CCP_P7_2.jpg and in that pic and the following one, the two pins in the frame below it are some or all of what's holding the block into the frame: http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CCP_P7_1.jpg

...and I like Ed Norton a whole heck of a lot (25th Hour is a great movie nobody saw), so I'll take that as a compliment even if you're clearly legally blind and deaf

 

Hey Kingsfield,

I asked our Managing Editor to look for your review in his collection and he found it and forwarded it my way. I gave it a read. He also said it will likely make it onto the site, but as it was one of the very last submissions you're going to have to wait. The volume of submissions was pretty dang good, and they haven't all been read yet let alone published.

Considering your commentary on here, I was surprised just how much we agreed on the assessment of the CCP itself. Your feelings on nearly all aspects of the pistol mirrored mine almost exactly, from grip size to trigger quality and description of the trigger's feel. The only meaningful difference is the condition of the CCP you received vs. the condition of the two CCPs I saw and the one I shot.

Knowing what you know now -- that some CCPs are shipping in perfectly acceptable, as-new, untouched, properly-machined condition -- would you like to update your review to mention that? I did add in mine that some of them, like yours, had shipped pretty F'd up. Maybe you should mention that some of them didn't

Actually, all joking and ribbing aside, I was shocked to see that you gave it a HIGHER star rating than me!!! 4 stars? Solidly above average? For a pistol that looks like a drunk coal miner filed on it left-handed (we're assuming he's a righty normally) and looks like the mill slipped and broke into the striker channel? I'd have a hard time giving it a single star just to put it on the scale haha

Jeremy S, or so I aver

 

Hey Kingsfield,

...

Considering your commentary on here, I was surprised just how much we agreed on the assessment of the CCP itself. Your feelings on nearly all aspects of the pistol mirrored mine almost exactly, from grip size to trigger quality and description of the trigger's feel. The only meaningful difference is the condition of the CCP you received vs. the condition of the two CCPs I saw and the one I shot.

Knowing what you know now -- that some CCPs are shipping in perfectly acceptable, as-new, untouched, properly-machined condition -- would you like to update your review to mention that?

That's an interesting question you ask.

I yesterday withdrew my submission, and any claimed associated copyright permission for TTAG to publish my review. (It's in an email to the address from which I received confirmation of receipt on Dec. 26.)

In connection with that decision, I draw your attention to information that became available between the time my review was submitted and the time your review was published (Jan. 2).

My review was in the nature of a current development (or hot news). As best as I could tell, as of the time I started writing it, there was little or no commentary, in venues like TTAG, of the as-delivered CCPs.

On occasion, it appears that, for whatever reason, new firearms are issued and prominent reviews do not detail potential concerns. I thought a contribution addressing obvious issues merited dissemination, although the format of the venue provided by the TTAG contest was not precisely suited for these purposes.

I did not have the opportunity, before my submission, to review sakas7's post of Dec. 28, showing a large hole milled into the striker channel, or, e.g., the post of PPQrules, on Dec. 31.

***

As of the time my review, the only evident potentially major functionality problem was with feeding. We did not have any identified mechanism, that might be attributable to the manufacturer as opposed to the user, for the the spring failure. (We, of course, did as of Dec. 28.)

And, as my review indicated, I could get some self-defense ammunition to feed without apparent problem, although other ammunition was problematic. As of that time, the CCP seemed clearly superior to an alternative like the LC9, whose trigger is so dismal one wants to use two fingers to pull the trigger, and which has substantially worse recoil characteristics.

I would think that the LC9 or LC9s is at least average for one looking for a pistol that: (i) is single-stack; (ii) is not a 1911; (iii) is in 9mm; (iv) is compact; and (v) has a thumb safety. Without the milling problem, as long as one can get the firearm to feed, the CCP does seem to me superior to the average of firearms like the LC9 (or even the LC9s), even if the CCP is dirty when delivered, and has unexpected marks at the chamber entrance.

Most of the poor milling on my slide looks bad but, as best as I can tell, is only cosmetic. It's an innocuous-looking depression that is the source of concern (the hole in the channel).

With the problematic milling of the slide, I believe first identified on Dec. 28, after I submitted my review but before your review was posted, the pistol is currently (pending correction) a no-go in my view.

Your review does reiterate some matters I brought to TTAG's attention a week before your review. On the other hand, I provided detail on the time differential in a quasi-Bill Drill between a USP Compact and the CCP ("quasi" because I did not then have a suitable CCP holster), which I thought a good way to illuminate the functionality of the trigger.

I do not normally shoot a pistol from a rest. I am at something of a loss to explain the accuracy you experienced, I gather shooting from a rest at 15 yards. I'll attach a picture of the last six shots I fired (7 yards, two-handed, unsupported). The high one was after a stovepipe, to which I would prefer to attribute the loss of attention. In any case, I'm confident it's not a problem with the firearm's accuracy. So, I would think the firearm's accuracy in slow-fire meets the objectives.

Two nuggets from my review that still seem relevant:

"Perhaps some manufacturers do special work to firearms provided to professional reviewers. This sample, bought in an ordinary retail transaction, did not benefit from special attention. It showed."

***

"RELIABILITY: In Progress"

 

These good photos that are finally showing up give a much clearer indication of what the pistol looks like. Mike, I expect if you came across a P7 with chamber work like that you would pass expecting a closer inspection might show all sorts of bubba work on the inside. I have to agree, I see no reason for releasing any firearm with that type of work. Something is broken in the chain of command.

Cropped image from the excellent picture by JeremyS in his TTAG review of the CCP. Good to finally be able to see the shape of the hook on the rear of the plate. Now I can see what is causing some problems with the tool trying to pry the catch up. If the machining is a bit rough the polymer tool might not be up to the task. Man, I just love pictures....you know the saying.."A picture is worth......"

The frame appears to be only about 2" long and appears MIM'd to me. And yes, it appears to be held in the grip by two pins. Interesting that the gas cylinder might be an insert. I was wondering what might be done should the gas cylinder be damaged as it is a part of the serialized frame. I haven't seen any grip off the frame pictures but I've wondered how the gas block plate was installed and if it is removable. I bet it isn't. Should it be left out upon reassembly there would be a problem with hot gasses forcefully blowing out the bottom of the frame.

Odd way to me to make a pistol frame. Very short frame, very short striker/safety assembly. One assembled into a polymer grip behind the other. But I see this isn't new. Hope that polymer holds up.

And then there is the issue of bubba smithed guns vs factory correct ones showing up with no after production bubba work. I don't get that. M1911

 

Good to finally be able to see the shape of the hook on the rear of the plate

I'm glad to see posting my photos in fairly large format (if you click 'em and sometimes click a second time to expand them fully) is paying off . Yes, if that hook were closer to vertical -- I guess making it more of a ledge than a "hook" -- then the locking tab would slide up it so much more easily. Since it's angled to the rear it's a lot harder to get the tab to move upwards on it.

...

Yeah pretty standard for a polymer-framed gun to have two inserts -- one front and one rear. Usually locking block / recoil lug plus front slide rails on the front insert and fire control parts plus rear slide rails on the rear insert.

Pretty easy to see in this CZ P-07, since it's a green frame and the metal inserts are black:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...k2uqpXTzEY/USgzO6edIdI/AAAAAAAAWKo/emXYswI9_g4/w952-h577-no/20130222_190027.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...u0fLVkU6Q/USgzO4TzF3I/AAAAAAAAWKw/vZt-WOFDfRI/w1044-h575-no/20130222_190021.jpg



...I did find it interesting that, despite the stubby little striker in the CCP, the HK P7 managed to design a shorter overall striker channel area (that's sealed and looks stronger): http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CCP_P7_UNDER_SLIDES.jpg ...the placement of the breech face farther rearwards allows for that pretty-dang-vertical magazine angle and it also allowed the P7 to fit an appreciably longer barrel than the CCP into a slide and frame of almost the exact same length.

 

I'm glad to see posting my photos in fairly large format

Hope you don't mind. If you do I will remove it. I've become so used to posting stuff that shows up all over the net that I most of the time don't give any of it a second though. What I put on the net stays on the net and is now spread all over creation. The P22 bible attributed to me is even linked at Wikipedia. And, I didn't even create it. Someone took a number of my threads and linked them into a document and called it the P22 bible. So it goes on the net. M1911

 

I noticed the placement of the chamber on the P7 as well and the longer barrel....yet, the CCP seems to be getting excellent marks for accuracy. A polymer .22 is one thing....these manufacturers using the polymer grip to retain high impact parts in 9mm, .40 and .45, and especially non full frame parts must have a lot of confidence in that polymer. M1911

 

...these manufacturers using the polymer grip to retain high impact parts in 9mm, .40 and .45...must have a lot of confidence in that polymer.

In many cases it proves more durable, as the polymer can flex and absorb impact. It stays strong over time whereas metal can eventually crack from those impacts. Plenty of GLOCKS with literally hundreds of thousands of rounds through 'em showing it works just fine. And lots of them running much more powerful calibers than the ones you listed, like 9x25 Dillon, 10mm, .45 Super, .460 Rowland, etc. I really don't like shooting GLOCKs at all, but chose a G20SF (10mm) for my woods carry gun because no other 10mm on the market can so reliably handle maximum power 10mm over and over and over. Plus the 15+1 capacity, the aftermarket support for long barrels, and the fact that 10mm is actually softer shooting in a polymer frame because that bit of flexing and stuff seems to absorb some of the recoil shock...

But the pistol I would call "my gun" and the one I shoot sometimes in competition, etc, is a CZ SP-01 so I definitely have no bias towards polymer frames.

Hope you don't mind.

Not at all. I was sincere when I said I was glad to see the extra large size paying off. I certainly wouldn't complain if you somehow attributed/linked them back to the review on TTAG but no worries.

Haven't heard of "25th Hour". Guess I'll have to hunt it down.

Hunt it down for sure! Or PM me your address and I'll mail you a copy. The wife and I are doing a big "purge" of all sorts of crap in the house and garage that we don't regularly use, and the entire DVD collection is going. 25th Hour is in there and I've seen it quite a few times but if I feel the need to watch it again we'll just Netflix it. ...Getting rid of an entire bookshelf of space by selling all the DVDs

 

BTW the P7 also has a gas cylinder sleeve inserted into the frame:

 

^ The review unit is listed on gunbroker as well.

 

Kingsfield:

That hole in the slide sure gives me great pause in buying one. That is just not acceptable quality.

 

Yeah, I'm going to wait until they are available in stores to check and see that its not Bubba fixed.

 

Without removing the slide you will only be able to see the chamber entrance. Nothing else of importance under the slide. M1911