Pics: PSW vs CFW Bolt Differences

[Hey]

They both shoot great.

This CFW is the final version with the ”dot” between the letters versus the new PSW.



The PSW does not have a provision for the detent if using a top charging upper.


Yes dirty, but can still see some differences.

-The firing pin is slightly taller on the PSW
-The magazine channel cuts are larger on PSW
-The CFW has more of a radius at the breech face

PSW on the left



PSW on the right, different extractor channel slopes


PSW on top

PSW weight


CFW weight


MAC10 weight (stripped)

 

[Hey]

Uzi full size weight (stripped)


Sorry no video shooting this time, but will say they both ran great. Both tungsten bolts were set up and tested running 9mm in .380 size guns.

Pictured with oem .380 setup at that moment

 

[A&S Conversions]

Thank you for the pictures. Looking at the first two pictures in the thread, there seems to be a lot more spring coils in the PS bolt with a smaller diameter wire in the PS bolt. As I recall Tom had custom springs wound for the CF(W) bolts. Do you have a standard bolt? If so, how does the PS bolt recoil spring compare to the standard steel bolt recoil spring?

Scott

 

[Hey]

You’re welcome.

My CFW had a much cut down spring in comparison to the PSW (not mine) that had a different spring trying all kinds of variations. I didn’t mention springs because that’s a variable and I was only interested in the base physical differences. I was there for pleasure shooting this time, only a few spring swaps were tried. I snapped a few pictures to share.

Between myself and friend we’ve had every bolt from the first version that had a cube tacked on to every one of Tom’s bolts before they were up for sale while testing. So a lot of ground has already been covered both m11 and m11/9.

The PSW bolt feels like a CFWa if you were to put the same spring. Any minuscule difference in weight isn’t something you will notice in rof. The PSW is reliable, no issues with function.

Side note for anyone that didn’t see this yet… from Tom during a-bolt testing.

 

[LawBob]

What’s a psw

 

[LawBob]

Never mind

Had to remember what cfw was

Coffee Freak
Vs
Practical Solutions

 

[csietsema]

Im a little bummed they didnt drill out the detente and spring retention holes. My charging handle just spins around all loosey goosy

I have no plans to get a side charging upper

 

[Hey]

^ Can use the m11/9 low profile hockey puck style.

 

[Gaujo]

You’re welcome.

My CFW had a much cut down spring in comparison to the PSW (not mine) that had a different spring trying all kinds of variations. I didn’t mention springs because that’s a variable and I was only interested in the base physical differences. I was there for pleasure shooting this time, only a few spring swaps were tried. I snapped a few pictures to share.

Between myself and friend we’ve had every bolt from the first version that had a cube tacked on to every one of Tom’s bolts before they were up for sale while testing. So a lot of ground has already been covered both m11 and m11/9.

The PSW bolt feels like a CFWa if you were to put the same spring. Any minuscule difference in weight isn’t something you will notice in rof. The PSW is reliable, no issues with function.

Side note for anyone that didn’t see this yet… from Tom during a-bolt testing.
View attachment 43328

Irreplaceable indeed. A good man.

 

[CKxx]

Im a little bummed they didnt drill out the detente and spring retention holes. My charging handle just spins around all loosey goosy

I have no plans to get a side charging upper

I was a bit let down as well. I was going to take it to the range and just back tracked and uninstalled it.

Will running a normal knob damage my upper if the knob rotates a bit mid stroke? Otherwise all original MAC M-11 380.

 

[MitchWerbellsGhost87]

I was a bit let down as well. I was going to take it to the range and just back tracked and uninstalled it.

Will running a normal knob damage my upper if the knob rotates a bit mid stroke? Otherwise all original MAC M-11 380.

It depends on the upper that you have. If it’s the earlier version of the 11/9 OEM upper that has the charging handle takedown hole 2/3 of the way down the charging handle slot, yes, it will damage it if the handle rotates during cycling.

If it’s the more common post 1985 production version of the upper with the hole at the very end of the slot, no it won’t damage anything if it rotates

I’d recommend using a hockey puck handle with these bolts.

 

[CKxx]

I will look into that. It's an original 1972 MAC model M11, not M11/NINE, if that helps.

 

[MACsAlot]

We set the bolt up to use the easiest to get and cheapest charging handle which is the hockey puck for the M11/NINE and we sell it on our website if anyone needs one. We were trying to make these bolts as inexpensively as possible to keep the cost down. If we had made with the provision for the detent, it would have increased the cost.

The springs are the same. Perhaps the spring in the bolt pictured has more coils, that may very well be the case, but the spring itself it the exact same spring as what Tom used. All of the PSW bolts have the same spring they're just cut to different lengths depending which gun we set the bolt up for.

Yes, Tom did have custom springs made, but they didn't work. He called them "wonder springs" because he wondered what he would do with 1000 unusable springs. He sent them to us in hopes that one day we would find a use for them. They are in my office waiting for their day to shine.

 

[trilogymac]

We set the bolt up to use the easiest to get and cheapest charging handle which is the hockey puck for the M11/NINE and we sell it on our website if anyone needs one. We were trying to make these bolts as inexpensively as possible to keep the cost down. If we had made with the provision for the detent, it would have increased the cost.

Can you tell me the size, location and depth for the detent hole? I'm going to drill my bolt for use with the early cocking handle.