WaltherForums
 

Go Back   WaltherForums > Walther Firearms > PP and TP Series

Like Tree1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-08-2008, 09:34 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22
PP Sport .22LR

Sponsored Links
Just took custody of her yesterday.




Looks like the Manurhin markings were ground off before refinishing.
Only one magazine and Earl gets $150 for one of these (probably with plastic base?).
Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2008, 09:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22




Lost three-out-of-four screw-plugs as well.

Russell

Last edited by Parabellus; 06-22-2008 at 11:51 PM.
Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 01:44 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
Russell, that's a very nice gun. I had not focused on it before when you posted pictures. It's also a very early gun, and extremely unusual in that it appears to have a straight-sided slide (same width as .380 and .32), unlike practically all other postwar .22s which are dished out and thinned down on the sides. Probably there are lightening cuts on the inside walls where it doesn't show to reduce the slide mass. Normally one sees this only on Zella-Mehlis .22s. It was more complicated and expensive to machine the slide this way, so it was not continued postwar, except --apparently--for a short time. I've never seen a postwar one like yours; didn't know any of these were made by Manurhin.

I'm guessing the grips are original. You didn't lose "3 out of 4" of the wooden grip plugs -- just one. The plugs only cover the 2 nuts on the right side, not the screw heads on the left (otherwise you wouldn't be able to remove the grips).

The slide's been reblued and left side markings are little faint, but so what? It's an elegant gun and infinitely preferable to ANY of the current crop of .22 tinker-toy pistols.

M
Thank you Mike.
I really do like the look of this gun.
The grips have a great feel and the long barrel is perfect for the type of shooting I hope to do.
First takedown for cleaning and lube job before going to the range for shakedown.


Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 01:45 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22
Of note is that there seems to be no discernable difference between the slide of this .22 and the .32 PP.
The difference seems to be all in the spring, which is much lighter.




Now for the bad news.
I fired at least 250 rounds of mostly high-velocity Remington HP from the bulk pack.
I also tried some standard velocity PMC lead rounds.
Usually it would FTL the first round unless the magazine was inserted with breech closed or I manually angled the first round. There were a few FTF besides. Weak magazine spring?
There were nearly 10% misfires with no second strike success in the Remington even after re-chambering the round. Short firing pin or weak firing pin spring?
The good news is that it shoots to point-of-aim at fifteen yards which was all I tried today. Next time, after some adjustments, I hope to stretch it out to twenty-five and even fifty yards.

Russell
Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 02:19 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Nevada
Posts: 17
308Sako .22
Great photo's

Russell, Thanks for the look inside your sport! I was curious as to how the front sight was attached to the barrel. Is it indexed in anyway?

A little over 30 years ago there was a part time gunsmith (and I use that term lightly) on Long Island who made "sport" style barrels for .32's and .380's... I guess it was the Man from Uncle era.

I will have to disassemble the PPK and the PP side by side to show that the PPK barrel is not the same method of affixing to the frame. I was mildly disappointed in this as I am planning a longer threaded barrel for a suppressor in the future.
308Sako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 04:21 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22
The front sight is adjustable by loosening the set screw add rocking the angle of the blade.




The rear sight blade dislodged while firing early on as the drift screws were not sufficiently tight.

Russell
Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 04:42 PM   #7
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Backwoods Virginia
Posts: 7,716
MGMike .38
The bad news

Russell:

I realize that it's a big disappointment to immediately encounter these functioning problems in what was probably an expensive gun, and one that was expected to live up to its reputation of excellence.

Bear in mind that your particular pistol is approaching Social Security age, and, from the internal views, shows it. Plus the fact that your pistol is a very, VERY early example of the PP Sport, with a lot of features that soon disappeared in later production, while Manurhin was still feeling its way around on the manufacturing learning curve. I can't make out the proof marks but I imagine that it was proofed in Paris during the earliest years, not at the St. Etienne proof house, where later guns went. By 1963 the serial numbers of the long-barreled (206mm) Sport model had reached 68,000 L, and they were not hot sellers-- too expensive-- so you know yours is a real early one. Were it not for its very low serial number and the full-width configuration and inscription of its slide (very clearly factory roll-marked "PP Sport cal. .22 LR"), my first reaction would have been that it was some gunsmith's confection.

Note that the top rib of the slide is milled away in the front sight area and the stippling is not carried all the way forward; the hammer is standard double-action rowell-type, not the Sport spur-type; the grips are wood and hand-made, not cut on production machinery, and both the rear and front sights are of unusual pattern. Many cosmetic and functional changes were introduced as production went along, and it is possible that some of your difficulties may be related to the slide's not being lightened as were the prewar and later postwar guns.

.22 autoloaders are by far the hardest type of pistol to make work reliably. In your case the difficulty of diagnosis is compounded by the fact that the gun has been worked over, and it's hard to tell now what was done or why. It is apparent that it's been refinished by somebody who either did not take care to preserve the markings, or who had to polish heavily to remove pitting or other damage); it's also apparent that the frame was completely dismantled and the cocking piece removed for some reason (the rivets were inartfully peened back in place). And there is evidence of earlier problems: the recoil spring looks to have been cut to reduce its resistance (at best a makeshift remedy), and there seems to be a lot of scuffing and burring (and spots of rust) internally from maldroit handling. So-- to get it in shape, you really have to start from Square One, and assume nothing.

I would detail-strip the gun completely (except for the barrel and the cocking piece) and carefully inspect every single part, deburring or replacing as necessary. Scrub out the chamber by rotating a .25 cal brush in it until it's squeaky clean and make sure the chamber mouth is not dented in from dry firing. Check the recoil spring: it should be .041 wire, about 21 active coils closed and ground at each end (total about 22 coils) with a free length of about 5-3/4". Dismantle the mag and check it carefully in a strong light for dents, distortion or rust inside. The spring should not be kinked. The follower should drop back and forth freely without the spring installed. Clean out the firing pin and extractor channels in the slide with Q-tips and compressed air. The firing pin should drop freely back and forth without its spring. The spring, incidentally, is a return spring only; unless it's kinked and/or offering too much resistance, it's not the cause of light primer hits. The extractor should pivot smoothly when installed. Look for any parts that are bent, buggered or show unusual wear. Unfortunately, parts for .22 Walther PP-series pistols are scarce and expensive..but you already know that.

The most likely cause of feeding malfunctions in the Walther PP series .22s is the magazine. The mag lips are problematic. Best way to test the mag is to try it in another gun that is known to function well. The next most likely cause is the ammunition. Buy some CCI or Federal ammo for your next test. IMO, the frequency of misfires with Remington .22 ammo is a disgrace to an otherwise superb product line, and I would not regard any test using it as conclusive of a problem with the gun.

M
MGMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2008, 07:50 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22
The only thing more amazing to me than finding this vintage pistol almost hidden in the bottom of a display case on consignment at a local gun shop is not that I was able to get it for only $500 (down from $595 asking price). No, it is that someone out there can discern so much from a few pictures and knows so much of the history of such pistols.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
I realize that it's a big disappointment to immediately encounter these functioning problems in what was probably an expensive gun, and one that was expected to live up to its reputation of excellence.
I am not all that displeased with the malfunctions especially after reading all Mike wrote about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
I would detail-strip the gun completely (except for the barrel and the cocking piece) and carefully inspect every single part, deburring or replacing as necessary.
My comfort level is not high when it comes to trying to detail strip a fine pistol like this. I have a long history of ten thumbs.
Nevertheless I am determined to find a way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
Dismantle the mag and check it carefully in a strong light for dents, distortion or rust inside. The spring should not be kinked. The follower should drop back and forth freely without the spring installed. Clean out the firing pin and extractor channels in the slide with Q-tips and compressed air. The firing pin should drop freely back and forth without its spring. The spring, incidentally, is a return spring only; unless it's kinked and/or offering too much resistance, it's not the cause of light primer hits. The extractor should pivot smoothly when installed. Look for any parts that are bent, buggered or show unusual wear. Unfortunately, parts for .22 Walther PP-series pistols are scarce and expensive..but you already know that.
I dismantled and cleaned the magazine this morning as well as the gun

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
The most likely cause of feeding malfunctions in the Walther PP series .22s is the magazine. The mag lips are problematic. Best way to test the mag is to try it in another gun that is known to function well. The next most likely cause is the ammunition. Buy some CCI or Federal ammo for your next test. IMO, the frequency of misfires with Remington .22 ammo is a disgrace to an otherwise superb product line, and I would not regard any test using it as conclusive of a problem with the gun.
CCI Mini-Mags are at the top of my shopping list now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
Bear in mind that your particular pistol is approaching Social Security age, and, from the internal views, shows it. Plus the fact that your pistol is a very, VERY early example of the PP Sport, with a lot of features that soon disappeared in later production, while Manurhin was still feeling its way around on the manufacturing learning curve. I can't make out the proof marks but I imagine that it was proofed in Paris during the earliest years, not at the St. Etienne proof house, where later guns went. By 1963 the serial numbers of the long-barreled (206mm) Sport model had reached 68,000 L, and they were not hot sellers-- too expensive-- so you know yours is a real early one. Were it not for its very low serial number and the full-width configuration and inscription of its slide (very clearly factory roll-marked "PP Sport cal. .22 LR"), my first reaction would have been that it was some gunsmith's confection.
Can you estimate about what year this must have been made?
Thank you, Mike, for all your information and encouragement.
So here are some more pictures.
I decided to have some fun by photographing the Sport and the Post-War PP in a slide-by-slide comparison.
In all three pictures the PP Sport is at the bottom.



And here is the feed-ramp.

A lot more rust shows up in the photo-flash than I can see otherwise.

Russell
Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 12:18 AM   #9
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Backwoods Virginia
Posts: 7,716
MGMike .38
Russell: My guess would be 1952.

M
MGMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 01:15 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Parabellus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SF Bay
Posts: 1,126
Parabellus .22
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGMike View Post
Russell: My guess would be 1952.

M
I'm beginning to think I may have stolen some poor schmuck's collector piece.

Russell
Parabellus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   WaltherForums > Walther Firearms > PP and TP Series


Search tags for this page
manurhin pp 22 lr sport
,
manurhin pp sport
,
manurhin pp sport 22lr
,
manurhin-walther pp sport model .22lr
,
pp
,
pp sport
,
walther pp .22lr feed ramp
,
walther pp 22lr sport
,

walther pp sport

,

walther pp sport 22lr

,
walther pp sport parts
,
walther pp sport sights
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.