First of all I would like to give credit to Sccy Forum member "Navy Steve" for providing his CPX for comparison purposes.
The KT parts fit into the CPX with no problems. They were a little bit harder to install since they are loose parts, and not one assembly. The CPX encapsulated design is already partially compressed, which helps make it easier to install. The gun went back together perfectly with no issue. The slide functioned perfectly, but with a little more snap when racking. The P11 spring set seemed a little stiffer. The PF-9 spring set might be a touch lighter, due to the shorter size. The P40's springs may make it stiffer, but with less recoil. We assembled and dis-assembled the gun several times with no problems. We plan on hitting the range in the next couple days, and will provide a range report as to how well it functions.
The top picture shows the guide rods and spring sets for both the Kel-tec P11 and PF-9. P11 parts on the left side of the PF-9 parts. The guide rods seem to be identical in size. The P11 spring set was a couple turns longer than the PF-9.
attachment=0]PF9 and PF11 guide rod and spring sets.jpg[/attachment]
The bottom picture shows the CPX assembly next to the kel-tec.
The bottom set of pictures shows the KT guide rod assy. installed on the CPX barrel laying in the slide.
The top set of pictures shows the factory CPX guide rod assembly installed on the CPX barrel laying in the slide.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson ***PERMANENTLY BANNED MEMBER OF THE HPFF**