Printable View
Picked up a new CT45. Liking the gun. But I notice that with a round chambered, the extractor does not stand proud of the slide and indicate in any way that a round is chambered. All of my 9mm Kahrs do show evidence of a loaded chamber via the extractor. I thought that was an intentional feature on all Kahrs. . CT45 owners - is this normal, or is mine defective?
I have multiple Kahrs in 3 different calibers (C, P, K and T lines) and none of them stand proud as a loaded indicator. Is it possibly an option for certain states/jurisdictions?Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeMe
My CW40's extractor stands proud with a round chambered, flush without.
I did talk to another CT45 owner who said his extractor is just like mine. Paying closer attention, the extractor is flush when a round is chambered but recessed slightly when the chamber is empty. It's different from whet I'm accustomed to, but also works.
Another issue with the extractor...
I was having some feed failures that I expected would go away during or after the usual suggested 200 round break in. That didn't happen, so I began to investigate the cause. The failure was the same every time. The round would chamber half way with the base of the cartridge hanging up low against the breach, with the extractor just beginning to engage the rim. More often than not, a sharp rap with the heel of my supporting hand against the bottom of the grip would cause the round to finish chambering. Experimentation and close examination with the slide removed lead me to suspect that the extractor was either too tight or out of spec.
I don't like to just send a gun back if I can fix it with little effort or expense, so I decided to try addressing the extractor and its assembly. Since the parts are cheap, I ordered a new extractor and extractor plunger - in case I boogered the original parts with negative results. I planned to try two approaches. One - I could shorten the plunger, thereby reducing the extractor's grip. Or two - I could either repair or replace the "out of spec" extractor. Upon removing the extractor and examining it closely under a magnifying glass, I noticed a couple of things. First, it was apparent that the bottom of the extractor was contacting and dragging along the top round in the mag during recoil. That may not be a problem, but it - along with the total dimension of the extractor hook - told me that removing a little material from the bottom of the extractor would probably not be harmful. Measuring the dimensions of the two extractors (a very slight difference) suggested that this was correct. Secondly, I could see that the original extractor had extremely squared off and sharp corners on the leading edge (bottom) of the hook. Could this be causing too much drag as the rim enters the extractor? That would be my first experiment.
So I chucked the extractor into the vice and addressed those surfaces with a fine file. I shortened the bottom surface ever so slightly, and rounded the edge that the rim rides over as it enters the extractor hook. Measuring the two plungers showed the original to be slightly (0.002) shorter than the new one - so I put the original back in. Reassembling the pistol, I manually ran some dummy rounds through, and it chambered them smoothly.
The next trip to the range, I put another 75 rounds through. In those, I had one round - a handload - hang up, but it popped into the chamber with a light rap to the bottom of the grip. All of the factory rounds chambered smoothly.
I'm still not satisfied. I want to see a couple hundred flawless chamberings before I pronounce the gun "reliable". The extractor does hold loaded rounds really tight after taking more effort than I think should be needed to slide one in from underneath, so I think I will shorten the plunger just a bit before the next range session. If my guess is right, it shouldn't take much, and extraction should still be 100%.
Plan "B" will be to simply put the new parts in and see what happens. I'm considering swapping out the mag springs to some with more power - but I don't like having to rely on that.
BTW - before anyone asks...
I clean the gun thoroughly after each range session. The breach looks perfect, as does the feed ramp. Four different mags (one, a 1911 mag) gave the same initial results. Some of the initial FTF's were with factory 230 gr loads. My handloads are mostly a selection of 230 gr round nose and HP that have run perfectly in both of my 1911's. However, there is one HP bullet profile that I am trying for the first time that has been more of a problem than the others. That one doesn't account for all the FTF's, but it may end up being a no-go.
BTW - the trigger on this CT45 is excellent! As good as my Elite '03. And accuracy has been very very good.
To be continued....
Okay, this has been on the back burner for months while I deal with more pressing matters. But now let's get back into it. A recent range trip showed better function, but still not perfect. During the following cleaning I looked closer at the breechface and realized that it is not perfect after all. It shows a lot of mill marks that are not present on my other Kahrs - not even my CM9. I'm always a little alarmed when I see the "D" word introduced to a thread, but this time I decided a little polishing was in order. And I mean polishing, as in only removing the high spots of millmarks. Of course, I couldn't get into the corners. But the rim of the round only slides against the middle of the breech until aligned with the chamber, so that should matter.
Now I need another range trip.
FreeMe I posted under the thread above about 380 extractor issues I had a few years back. I posted this before i read your thread. Amazing similarity in thought train and remedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeMe