I purchased a CS40 and acquired it yesterday. On the good news front regarding the conversion, they did make this model compact in a 45ACP, which means there "should" be room available to make a 10mm function if there is a lot of commonality between the two pistols. I suspect there is definitely some commonality simply because economics of manufacturing the two models side by side on a production line would make sense.
On the positive side. The magazine won't hold a 10mm round, but there is a piece of stainless sheet metal bent and placed inside the magazine to make it smaller to fit the 40 round. I suspect that removing this will allow a 10mm cartridge to fit inside. It appears that this magazine is a modified version of their CS45 magazine, but I'm not sure. There's this metal spacer in the magazine at the primer end of the cartridge and a couple of crimps at the feed lips that appear to be what was done to size it down to the 40 round from the 45. So, in this light, there is hope.
I'm not ready to go right after this and start tearing this gun apart to make it a 10mm just yet, but a few properly placed 1/8" holes through 8 spot welds would free this extra spacer from the magazine. It appears it will require a 45 follower and bottom spring retainer to properly fit in the magazine itself to account for this extra length. So the question is, buy a 45 mag and tweak the feed lips like the 40 magazine, or buy both a 40 and 45 magazine, extract the spacer from the 40 magazine and populate with follower and bottom retainer from a 45 magazine. That does not make for a cheap magazine, but it does at least look realistic at this point.
The ejection port appears to be big enough for the 10mm round also. But that's just a guestimate at this point. I'm suspecting the CS40 and CS45 have the same slide dimensions with the exception of the breech face width due to the difference between the 40 and 45. But that's just me thinking of minimal differences in a manufacturing line, not that I've had a CS40 and CS45 to compare side by side just yet. The extractor groove difference mentioned might be an issue also.
The extra 2500 psi does not immediately concern me since the chamber area appears to have plenty of meat around it. I suspect the 45 and the 40 in this model share the same barrel blanks before the barrel hole is bored. However, the large difference in operating pressure between the 45 and 40 is nothing to ignore. I'm just saying there's about an 1/8" of wall thickness on this barrel, even more in the chamber area. Being an engineering type, I know there are considerable safety factors for parts that operate as pressure vessels. Chambers are supposed to be designed to handle proof loads, which are typically 2x operating pressure, so that is why my concern is not overwhelming in this regard at this point in time.
In short, it looks very viable. Now I just have to decide if it is something I actually want to take on and if I'm willing to do it. This will be largely determined by whether or not I can get another barrel. Like another poster stated, having both options would be nice, but going down to a 40 from a 10mm would be preferred in regards to design strength, and this conversion is definitely moving the other direction in this regard. But the 45 model in the same platform is promising since the 45 does offer a higher energy level and should be designed as such. (ft-lbs are ft-lbs if you've ever done any mechanical engineering homework)
It's still a dream as of now, but looks like a realistic dream. However, I'm definitely gonna put some 40s down the pipe before I go tweaking on a pistol that appears to only have had 100 or less rounds through so far. i got a smoking good deal on this pistol and don't want to take the chance on making it a 10mm until it has delivered me many days at the range.
I'm in no hurry, slow and steady, but moving forward is my motto. Obviously, I don't run a business. ;)
Edited by jeepmor, Jun. 16 2007 - 01:34 AM.