The gun the OP is talking about is a CHP 4006TSW. Which according to the SCSW was made in 2006-07. I'm not sure that it qualifies as an early gun. If it was an early 4006 (1990-1999), then that would be "early."
There's what appears to be a typo on page 370, where it lists 4006TSW production as 2000-2001. Which is beside the point here.
I'm far from a .40 3rd Gen expert, but I thought that the early single stack, like the 4013 were built on .45 frames, and the later double stack guns were built on frames originally designed for 9mm. Or maybe I have that backwards, but the SCSW doesn't specify.
If this was a later production CHP gun and frame cracking was a known issue, I'd think we'd have heard about it by now.
There's what appears to be a typo on page 370, where it lists 4006TSW production as 2000-2001. Which is beside the point here.
I'm far from a .40 3rd Gen expert, but I thought that the early single stack, like the 4013 were built on .45 frames, and the later double stack guns were built on frames originally designed for 9mm. Or maybe I have that backwards, but the SCSW doesn't specify.
If this was a later production CHP gun and frame cracking was a known issue, I'd think we'd have heard about it by now.
You guys have to remember early, and the 4006 counts as early, 40 cals were largely rebarreled 9mms. HPs, 4006, Sig 226 in 40, Beretta 96, all were based on 9mms.
This was a common concern when these guns first came out. Browning redesigned the HP with a third locking lug and recontoured frame, why do you think they switched from forged to cast frames? Beretta had to reinforce the 96 slide to avoid cracks.
The fact this crack is right where the barrel cams down just tells me it's a wear and tear issue from firing a round the frame was not designed to handle.