Sccy cpx2 fde

[berettabone]

I could carry my inox Beretta, or my Sig P220, and NEVER worry about perfect functionality........................but they're large...................when you go to the smallest firearms, they are all potential problems just because of the small size...........that being said, I would rather have a small carry gun, which is proven over time and has quality, to reduce the percentage of possible problems, than a plastic fantastic, which has a history of problems 100 times greater than a Kahr. Are Kahr's perfect? No, but the odds are, you will have a firearm that can be used a lot, because of the quality, and will most likely have less problems overall than a cheaper small firearm. Hence, why I said..........embrace it, shoot it................have fun, but would I use it for carry................not on my life..............................

[pbagley]

I am an actual owner of a CPX-2, and I've posted most of what follows previously in the Other Firearms Discussion page of this forum.

First, the SCCY is a cheap gun. Period.
- It is unrefined. Crude even.
- The trigger is not great, and the only other trigger I've found equally distasteful is the "improved" Ruger LCP. Both make my index finger sore in a small number of rounds fired.
- The barrel is poorly rifled. The barrel delivered in my gun keyholed at 25 yards. SCCY Customer Service was good. They sent a replacement barrel that is rough inside with some straight down the bore cuts across the rifling. It does not keyhole, and with decent ammo (either Critical Defense or one and only one handload so far) it shoots a reasonable group for a subcompact 9mm.

Second, the positives:
- It has been functionally reliable for me. I begin to have some FTE's after 60 or 70 rounds of fun at the range. My CM9 had some initial issues during the first 200 or so rounds, then improved.
- It was inexpensive, especially for a 9mm.
- It is compact - only slightly wider than a CM9, otherwise fits in pretty much the same size box.

For me, the CPX-2 is a keeper. I would use it for carry, but as always this is recommended only after a 200 round break-in if the particular example was showing high reliability.
I like my Kahr's better, of course, but they did cost more, they hold fewer rounds, and they do have their own set of issues.

[Bawanna]

Somebody the other day said they thought I had issues? Ya think it's the same thing?

[Acasper708]

The CPX is a clone of the Keltec P-11. Supposedly better.
But the P-11 has a lot better reputation. I will get a P-11 one of these days but don't think I'll waist my $ on a SCCY.

[DeaconKC]

Every semi-auto needs to be broken in regardless of who manufacturered it. Never carry an unproven gun. Some guns go through the break-in without a bobble, some don't.

There is the gist of the matter, whether it's a HiPoint or Sig, it has to be reliable.

[smokersteve]

Every semi-auto needs to be broken in regardless of who manufacturered it. Never carry an unproven gun. Some guns go through the break-in without a bobble, some don't.

Not entirely true. All my Smiths, Glocks, and Rugers didn't require to be broken in. Of course I'm going to shoot enough rounds through them to where I'm comfortable carrying them.
The only guns I've owned that required to be broken in is Kahr and Taurus.

[muggsy]

Every one of the guns you mentioned has a break in period. Each improved as the parts married with each other. Any malfunctions or defects in materials or workmanship would have materialized during the break-in period and could have been corrected by the factory or competent gunsmith. That's what's known as a break-in period. Everything mechanical goes through a break-in period. It isn't something to be feared or reviled. It is as it should be.

[smokersteve]

I am an actual owner of a CPX-2, and I've posted most of what follows previously in the Other Firearms Discussion page of this forum.

First, the SCCY is a cheap gun. Period.
- It is unrefined. Crude even.
- The trigger is not great, and the only other trigger I've found equally distasteful is the "improved" Ruger LCP. Both make my index finger sore in a small number of rounds fired.
- The barrel is poorly rifled. The barrel delivered in my gun keyholed at 25 yards. SCCY Customer Service was good. They sent a replacement barrel that is rough inside with some straight down the bore cuts across the rifling. It does not keyhole, and with decent ammo (either Critical Defense or one and only one handload so far) it shoots a reasonable group for a subcompact 9mm.

Second, the positives:
- It has been functionally reliable for me. I begin to have some FTE's after 60 or 70 rounds of fun at the range. My CM9 had some initial issues during the first 200 or so rounds, then improved.
- It was inexpensive, especially for a 9mm.
- It is compact - only slightly wider than a CM9, otherwise fits in pretty much the same size box.

For me, the CPX-2 is a keeper. I would use it for carry, but as always this is recommended only after a 200 round break-in if the particular example was showing high reliability.
I like my Kahr's better, of course, but they did cost more, they hold fewer rounds, and they do have their own set of issues.

Interesting that you think the cpx2 as crude. Besides the trigger which I got kind of use to after 100 rounds, I find it more refined than both my Kahrs. My CM9 has more up & down slide movement than any pistol I've ever owned.
The cpx2 I got must have been a Thursday gun

[muggsy]

Somebody the other day said they thought I had issues? Ya think it's the same thing?

Oh, you've got issues alright, but nothing like the issues that were mentioned. You'd need someone like Sigmund Freud to sort out all of your issues. (You do make a good straight man, Bawanna.)

[pbagley]

Interesting that you think the cpx2 as crude. Besides the trigger which I got kind of use to after 100 rounds, I find it more refined than both my Kahrs. My CM9 has more up & down slide movement than any pistol I've ever owned.
The cpx2 I got must have been a Thursday gun

Crude... Perhaps I should say unrefined. Some things seem to be larger and heavier than necessary. That is an opinion, not a fact. Perhaps they were going for rugged. I've watched two CPX2 torture tests on youtube (after I bought) and I was impressed.

The trigger I'll call crude. It works, but even after rounding the sharp edges I have not become used to it in over 500 rounds. The Kahr trigger is much nicer. The LCP is about equal. It's been a while since I tried a KelTec, but if my memory serves then it was in the same class. Once again, this just my humble opinion.

Kahr refinement - I think it's there, but sometimes the execution strays from the plan. That up and down movement of the slide is a good example - did you have the short front rail issue? I'll admit that I like my Kahr's, but my CW45 leaves some room for improvement in build quality. Oddly, the blemished Kahrs I purchased have been the highest in quality. That is a very limited experience, and perhaps a dash of blind luck was thrown in for good measure.

Back to SCCY - I like the product and I like the company. Danice was very nice when I called about my barrel issue, and good customer service goes a long way toward building a solid customer base. I'm waiting to see what they bring to market next.

[O'Dell]

The CPX is a clone of the Keltec P-11. Supposedly better.
But the P-11 has a lot better reputation. I will get a P-11 one of these days but don't think I'll waist my $ on a SCCY.

I had a P-11 many moons ago. It was reasonably reliable for the couple of hundred rounds I put through it. However, I simply could not stand the trigger. I sold it to the first person that would take it.

[O'Dell]

Not entirely true. All my Smiths, Glocks, and Rugers didn't require to be broken in. Of course I'm going to shoot enough rounds through them to where I'm comfortable carrying them.
The only guns I've owned that required to be broken in is Kahr and Taurus.

If you mean they were reliable from the first shot, then all my SIG's, HK's, S&W's, Kahr's, M&P's, Rugers, Browning's, Springfield 1911's, and the HP Carbine qualify. The XD45, Kimber UC II, KT PF9, and Tauruses didn't make the cut. The XD eventually worked itself out after 500 rounds and the Kimber just needed better mags, but the Tauruses and PF9 were hopeless, and I got rid of them. Those are two piles I'll never step in again.

However, I think all mechanical devices need a break in. Be it a car, airplane, or gun, they will function smoother and with less effort after the various parts wear in together.

Like some others, I will never carry or depend on a pistol until I consider it properly "broken in".

[muggsy]

You can get a lemon in any make or model. I don't judge a manufacturer or product line by one gun alone.

[jocko]

if anyone owned a kel tek, then IMO there wasonly one way u could go after that and that was UP. Just sayin. George Zimmerman was lucky his KT went off, Travon was unlucky. end of sotry.

[yqtszhj]

That KT statement about sums that up. I wonder what their manufacturing cost is on a pf9? I've handled one once and it couldn't have cost much.

Side note is when i held the pf9 the guy behind the table said "spend another $100 and buy this," he then handed me a cw9 and i never regreted putting down the KT.