Just thought I would provide an update to those who read my previous post on my PF-9 project gun and where it stands now. (for those who have not, I bought this PF-9 as a badly damaged and non functioning pistol from another KTOG member several months ago) The slide was not only badly peened, but both the barrel hood and slide had been filed down, as well as other "modifications" made to the pistol.
As a first step, I sent the barrel and slide to Kel Tec, who kindly replaced both under warranty. I then replaced the grip from my stock of parts (it too had been altered in such a way that it was not safe to use in my opinion) as well as some other parts. Frame itself was okay.
As assembled, with the replacement slide and barrel, the pistol functioned okay, but had some failures to extract, even using my favorite ammo from PMC and Remington UMC. As a result of this, I added a second spring to the extractor set up which corrected the extraction issues with my normal range ammo but, like my first PF-9, it would not reliably extract the "dread" Winchester White Box. My Gold Dots also fed and extracted just fine. Using the second spring set up, I put some 500 rounds through the pistol over the next couple of months, experiencing no problems with peening or other issues, other than it would not reliably use WWB. Diring this period, I also added Pops aluminum trigger to the project, as I had done to my other PF-9.
But, being an unreconstructed "tinkerer", and based upon the success some others have had with "tuning the extractor" I decided to see if I could make this PF-9 better. So I started doing a bit of judicious filing on the extractor to improve the "bite" on the case rim/groove. I started with removing .004 from the extractor flat, going back to a single spring also, and then tested that out at the range. Result was improved performance with the WWB (but still 3 failures to extract out of 50 rounds) and continued 100% performance with my normal ammo choices. So I removed another .002 from the extractor flat (total .006) and went back to the range today.
In all, I ran 120 rounds through the PF-9 today (normally I would not run that many in one day, but this was a test). Ran 50 rounds of WWB, 25 each of PMC and Magtech, and finished with 20 rounds of Speer Gold Dot. I did not clean or do anything with the pistol during the entire test period. The PF-9 ran perfectly with every thing I fed it. The WWB fed and extracted/ejected like they were my best PMC or Remington rounds, and even though the pistol was very dirty by the time I ran the Gold Dots, feeding, extraction, and ejection continued to be perfect. The pistol is now dead on reliable with anything I feed it.
An interesting side note during my extractor tuning process is that I obtained several new extractors from Kel Tec to work with (also had several around) so I was able to measure a half dozen of them prior to starting. Measuring through the "flat" of the extractor, I found that they were pretty consistent, varying no more than .015, ranging from .0855 to .0870. Given the consistency of the extractors, leads me to believe that the major factor in extractor "bite" (and thus possibly, the ability of a given pistol to reliably extract a case) may be more a factor of the depth of the milled extractor slot in the slide. Unfortunately, I don't have current access to sufficient numbers of slides to make enough measurements of the slot depth to see if there is significant variation. But I suspect that is where the variation is greatest from pistol to pistol. Fortunately, although tuning the slide would be a major job, tuning the extractor with a little judicious filing is pretty easy, and will achieve the goal just as well.
At any rate, my project PF-9 will now become my EDC PF-9, while I decide whether or not to send my other PF-9 slide and barrel back to Kel Tec for an upgrade to Hard Chrome. have about 2500 rounds through this earlier PF-9 and the bluing is a bit worn now, so an upgrade to HC seems like a good way to go now.
Jim R
As a first step, I sent the barrel and slide to Kel Tec, who kindly replaced both under warranty. I then replaced the grip from my stock of parts (it too had been altered in such a way that it was not safe to use in my opinion) as well as some other parts. Frame itself was okay.
As assembled, with the replacement slide and barrel, the pistol functioned okay, but had some failures to extract, even using my favorite ammo from PMC and Remington UMC. As a result of this, I added a second spring to the extractor set up which corrected the extraction issues with my normal range ammo but, like my first PF-9, it would not reliably extract the "dread" Winchester White Box. My Gold Dots also fed and extracted just fine. Using the second spring set up, I put some 500 rounds through the pistol over the next couple of months, experiencing no problems with peening or other issues, other than it would not reliably use WWB. Diring this period, I also added Pops aluminum trigger to the project, as I had done to my other PF-9.
But, being an unreconstructed "tinkerer", and based upon the success some others have had with "tuning the extractor" I decided to see if I could make this PF-9 better. So I started doing a bit of judicious filing on the extractor to improve the "bite" on the case rim/groove. I started with removing .004 from the extractor flat, going back to a single spring also, and then tested that out at the range. Result was improved performance with the WWB (but still 3 failures to extract out of 50 rounds) and continued 100% performance with my normal ammo choices. So I removed another .002 from the extractor flat (total .006) and went back to the range today.
In all, I ran 120 rounds through the PF-9 today (normally I would not run that many in one day, but this was a test). Ran 50 rounds of WWB, 25 each of PMC and Magtech, and finished with 20 rounds of Speer Gold Dot. I did not clean or do anything with the pistol during the entire test period. The PF-9 ran perfectly with every thing I fed it. The WWB fed and extracted/ejected like they were my best PMC or Remington rounds, and even though the pistol was very dirty by the time I ran the Gold Dots, feeding, extraction, and ejection continued to be perfect. The pistol is now dead on reliable with anything I feed it.
An interesting side note during my extractor tuning process is that I obtained several new extractors from Kel Tec to work with (also had several around) so I was able to measure a half dozen of them prior to starting. Measuring through the "flat" of the extractor, I found that they were pretty consistent, varying no more than .015, ranging from .0855 to .0870. Given the consistency of the extractors, leads me to believe that the major factor in extractor "bite" (and thus possibly, the ability of a given pistol to reliably extract a case) may be more a factor of the depth of the milled extractor slot in the slide. Unfortunately, I don't have current access to sufficient numbers of slides to make enough measurements of the slot depth to see if there is significant variation. But I suspect that is where the variation is greatest from pistol to pistol. Fortunately, although tuning the slide would be a major job, tuning the extractor with a little judicious filing is pretty easy, and will achieve the goal just as well.
At any rate, my project PF-9 will now become my EDC PF-9, while I decide whether or not to send my other PF-9 slide and barrel back to Kel Tec for an upgrade to Hard Chrome. have about 2500 rounds through this earlier PF-9 and the bluing is a bit worn now, so an upgrade to HC seems like a good way to go now.
Jim R
