Walther Mark II PP in .22

[James1]

Here are pics of a 1950's era Walther Mark II PP in .22, one of the first post-WWII Walthers imported to the USA. Marked made in France, with "France" marked chromed mags, but no mention of Manurhin. And the first gun I have seen with thumbrest grips that was imported before they started being needed to be considered importable, at the end of 1968, with the Gun Control Act. Here's an ad from the July 1956 issue of Guns magazine:

[searcher451]

That's a beautiful pistol; many thanks for sharing it with us, James. I'm not sure that the ad you've provided isn't even more entertaining than getting a look at the pistol, however. How would you like to be able to find those prices today?

[alfonzo]

I have one of the mark II PPK in .22lr (dural frame-superlight). The
grips were marked Manhurin, but marked Mark II Walther on the left
side of the slide. Low serial number probably 1955-1957, not marked
PPK/L as later Walthers were but just PPK. Serial # range 5007XX.

al

[MGMike]

The Walther Banner-marked "Mark II" pistols, marked "Made in France", were the brainchild of Samuel Cummings of Interarms, who recognized the superior drawing power of the Walther name. He brokered an arrangement between Walther and Manurhin, principally if not solely for the U.S. market (for which by then he enjoyed an exclusive distributorship) to allow Manurhin to mark the guns intended for export to Interarms to be marked with the Walther Banner. Apart from this special arrangement, under the terms of its earlier license Manurhin had been forbidden to use the Walther Banner. Thus most Manurhin guns both before and after this special arrangement were marked with Manurhin's own name, prominently appended with "Ex. Lic. Walther".

A subsequent agreement was reached whereby Walther received unmarked, "preproduced" PP-series pistols from Manurhin to be completed at Ulm and marked "Made in W. Germany". These were offered by Walther to Interarms beginning in 1961, and the Mark II disappeared. Thereafter Manurhin continued to make PP-series pistols under its own name for France and other designated markets --excluding the USA but including Berlin-- as well as preproducing for Walther.

Twenty years later, c. 1981, when USA production was delayed, Cummings resurrected his earlier idea, and negotiated a supplemental license from Walther that again permitted Interarms to import Walther Banner-marked pistols directly from Manurhin. These of course had to be marked "Made in France", and bore Manurhin's trademark water-wheel discreetly on the bottom of the butt. This went on for a couple years until USA production could fill demand. Thereafter the Manurhin guns (which were more expensive than the US versions) were phased out by Interarms. Manurhin was understandably unhappy and decided to set up its own US distributorship. It also tried to claim a right to mark its guns as "Walthers", but the US trademarks were owned by Interarms. That led to litigation that Manurhin ultimately lost.

Not until a few years later did Walther undertake for the first time (postwar) to produce PP-series pistols at Ulm from scratch. It proved much more costly than Walther had imagined. Prices were very high, sales were disappointing, and German production was soon discontinued.

M

[searcher451]

Once again, that's superb information. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge, MGMike.

That sure is a beautiful pistol; wouldn't mind owning a handful just like it.

[IPSC]

Another factoid---> Samuel Cummings, founder of Interarms, always had the following statement discreetly added to the bottom footer of his Interarms ads and documents.... "Interarms, a member of the Cummings International Associates Group"....or somesuch.

Do the abbreviation.... Cummings International Associates.... CIA.... yeppers, that was Samuel's stomping ground and employer for many years before he set up "Shop" as Interarms. One area was the civilian market, like importing Walther pistols and Mauser Mark-X's and the like....the "other" and more silent part of the operation was being an international arms merchant for ...let us say.... more clandestine purposes, including his large cache warehouse full of more military oriented stuff in England. The US gov't reportedly used "him" as a private sub-supplier of arms when it was "convenient" to have some plausible denial for US involvement in some other unstable area of the world.

More---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cummings

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/05/wo...and-scale.html

BTW...Mike....I see you offering a lot of information as you have here...on the history of these guns. I have no doubt at all that you are correct, but can you sometimes site your reference source, like is done for a professional white paper ....to underscore your welcome points that are made?

[MGMike]

Originally Posted by IPSC

...
BTW...Mike....I see you offering a lot of information as you have here...on the history of these guns. I have no doubt at all that you are correct, but can you sometimes site your reference source, like is done for a professional white paper ....to underscore your welcome points that are made?

It's just something I remember reading somewhere on the internet.

M

[Pdx boatjockey]

Originally Posted by MGMike

It's just something I remember reading somewhere on the internet.

M

Good one!:

[IPSC]

Mike...however...It's nice to know whether you are one H%ll of a story teller...or if there is some actual fact behind the points you make. Even in other scholarly sectors, reference citations are often given because fine-points of detail cannot be committed to memory or may be in dispute. Do take my comment seriously..as I am amazed at your encyclopedic historical knowledge.

[Pdx boatjockey]

Originally Posted by IPSC

Mike...however...It's nice to know whether you are one H%ll of a story teller...or if there is some actual fact behind the points you make. Even in other scholarly sectors, reference citations are often given because fine-points of detail cannot be committed to memory or may be in dispute. Do take my comment seriously..as I am amazed at your encyclopedic historical knowledge.

Certainly there is a lot of disputable info floating around forums, however, if these well-educated (self taught, researched, whatever) folks had to footnote everything they share, I'm not certain it's worth their time or the reader of the post. IMHO it might be better for one to question a specific detail if you doubt the accuracy. There are enough scholars on this forum to "challenge" questionable statements when they pop up....again IMHO.....