View Single Post
Old 02-24-2008, 14:36   #20
Pierre!
NRA Life Member
 
Pierre!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lovin Sparks Nv!
Posts: 4,151
Thanks for the reports Calvin.

Again, you are a better man than I. I would have already returned the receiver and requested either my $$$ back, or a time line for the remediation of the previously undisclosed design flaw.

I build custom computers, and if they don't work right, I loose money. Period. It's made right or it's never delivered and you get your money back. Period. We are talking quite a bit more money.... and i guess that is my point.

It's a $350 receiver! Stop selling it till you get it right, or it's $275 for the 9mm version of the pistol that is dependent on a $9 consumable part to run...

I'm sorry but I really don't think that AFTER the purchase is the time that you should have heard that they were having issues with different bullet weights. For some reason, it just doesn't seem fair... or did I get that part wrong Calvin?

Glad you have been open with your ordeal. They rate a "Not Ready for Production" sticker from me.

$700 to $800 for a metal framed Glock that depends on a $9 part to run just isn't going to rate as a "must have" pistol for quite a few of us. We buy designs that run, or those designs generally .... uhm... go away.

I predict a rough evolution for CCF RaceFrames. After reading through their FAQ it is VERY clear that these frames will not be suitable to a large number of us Glock owners. They seem to have "improved" on the Glock frame design. Unfortunately, they have improved the frame to the point that makes all of my current accessories incompatible or in need of gun smithing to be used...

Not the best display of Accurate Thinking if you ask me... Perhaps they will decide that they would rather SELL Frames and make some changes to their product design...

Hope that they treat you fair in the long run!

Last edited by Pierre!; 02-24-2008 at 14:41..
Pierre! is offline   Reply With Quote