Walther Forums banner

My PPQ Competition Aftermarket

7K views 32 replies 6 participants last post by  olstyn 
#1 · (Edited)
I just added Springer Precision Base Pads to the mix and I think that besides some serious gunsmithing and cosmetic cerakote I'm max-ed out for USPSA production.

Below is my list, Im curious to know what paths others have taken.

My list of aftermarket parts is short and sweet:

Dawson Charger Rear Sight (.210 Tall x .145 Notch) $40:


Dawson Fiber Optic Front (.180 Tall x .100 Width) $40:


BT Guide Rod $64:



Springer Precision .375in Base Pads (you can also see the Dawson sights) $16/ea:














All-in, $240 in aftermarket and no regrets.
 
See less See more
16
#3 ·
Sights

Hey Lef-T,

A few questions if you don't mind:

1. Any particular reason you prefer the plain black rear sight as opposed to the one with the two fiber dots?

2. With the sight heights shown does it shoot sight pic #3 ? i.e. center of the front dot

3. Similar question on the slot width and front sight width you choose - what do you like about the more narrow front and wider rear?

Thank you,
Dave
 
#5 ·
Always happy to answer questions:

1. Any particular reason you prefer the plain black rear sight as opposed to the one with the two fiber dots? I like the simplicity of the plain black rear so that the front sight is the only thing that calls attention to my eye. It helps more when tracking the front sight at close/medium range at full speed. For far or difficult targets you'll slow down to better align your sights with or without dots. Overall I found it easier to focus on one dot rather than three.

2. With the sight heights shown does it shoot sight pic #3 ? i.e. center of the front dot
For most distances yes, but I found it can shoot a little high within 1-3 yards. It's only something to remember for close and thin no shoots.

3. Similar question on the slot width and front sight width you choose - what do you like about the more narrow front and wider rear?
I fell in love with it from the first moment I shot them. Having more space between the front and rear makes is so easy to speed up on close and medium range targets. I can still hit the far stuff easily, but it takes getting comfortable with. It can be difficult at first to get precision at greater distances but it comes with practice. The speed benefit of seeing the target zone through your sights is immediate and so worth the cost of the learning curve at distance.
 
#8 ·
The following isn't meant to be accusatory in any way; I'm really just looking for some clarification.

Isn't that a 5" top end from an M2 swapped onto an M1 frame? Doesn't that make it not legal for production, since that's not a factory configuration? Even if that doesn't do it on its own, there's a limit of +2 ounces over factory weight for production. The base pads and the BT spring put you at +1.853, and I doubt that an inch of additional slide length doesn't put you over. (I was once allowed to slide by at +2.1 with my P99c because the scale being used was only accurate to +/- 0.1 ounce, but that's not something I'd want to count on.)

From my perspective, it looks like you've got a really nice gun for shooting Limited, but I'm of course willing to be corrected if I've misunderstood the rules. (Do those base pads add capacity, or just weight?)
 
#10 ·
Interesting catch on the listed weight. I can't drop mine on a scale at the moment, but the stock 5in seems heavier and could the 6 holes in the slide really even it out?

As for the 5in w/paddles, it depends because the PPQ falls into an interesting spot because the paddle is an OFM option. Obviously you can't put a longer slide on a gun, but appendix D4 (21.6) does allow the use of a larger OFM mag release if it's available on an approved model:

  • A factory/OFM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides a larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OFM part available on an approved model of gun.

The way I see it, I'm not putting a longer slide on an 4in PPQ, I'm using an OFM paddle mag release on my 5in that's available on an approved model.

I haven't found any specific rulings to the contrary. I'd be willing to run it at a major and this would be my defense if it falls into question. Worst case scenario, I'd get bumped to open, but I'd be curious to see which way it landed.
 

Attachments

#11 ·
Running it in a major like that is a bold call.

Why not just send Troy an e-mail and get a ruling from DNROI ahead of time? That way you are not forced to "defend" yourself at a major if it becomes an issue (not that I expect it would). If you are spending ammo, hotel, match fee, and travel time to go to a major, I'd sure as hell want to know that I'm good to go before I invest.
 
#13 ·
C'mon devil what's the fun in that? Gamers gonna game. To me it makes sense and since it's a specific exception in the production rules I'd have just as much fun stirring the pot as I would shooting the match. Of course I could email Troy and ruin the fun, but why?

With that said, if anyone is curious and wants to clarify with DNROI I'd have no hard feelings, but would get slightly less excitement when I run my (cough cough) Production legal (cough cough) Franken-Q.
 
#16 ·
shoehorning his interpretation of the rules to fit his desired result.
I could be accused of the same.

I had a similarly interesting experience when I was running the P99 AS when I first started. Every RO would tell me I had to decock before the beep and I would argue that a striker is not a hammer per the rules. I finally got confirmation when I took my RO class. The Walther designs are unconventional and since the bulk of the rules were written without them in mind it leaves some room to game.
 
#23 ·
It would take an RO who is familiar with Walther at a major match to realize that something is not quite kosher, and the odds of that happening are pretty slim. Which is why I can understand someone wanting to skate in that way, and play the odds that you won't get noticed. It's definitely not an advantage...
 
#25 ·
Unfortunately the weight on the production list and not the manufacturer website controls. I believe to get a firearm certified for production the manufacturer has to submit the request and supply requested data, which I assume includes weight. So probably a mistake on Walthers end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#26 · (Edited)
I understand that the weight on the Production list controls for competitions. That's the point; people could easily be getting bumped to Open when they shouldn't. They can't both be correct, so one of them needs changing. My bet is that it's the production list that's wrong, as there are several things there that just don't make sense, like the full-size P99 QA being listed at 5 ounces lighter than the full-size P99 AS. I could understand if the difference in firing mechanism accounted for a tenth or two, but not 5 full ounces.

ETA: Also, this means that assuming the Walther website's weights are correct, the gun that's the subject of this thread is DEFINITELY getting bumped to Open if it gets weighed, as it'll weigh almost 28 ounces.
 
#27 · (Edited by Moderator)
If the Production list is wrong, that's on Walther.

Walther does not send a gun in to DNROI to be weighed, they fill out the paperwork and send it in. If there was separate paperwork sent in for the M2, it would appear that someone (most likely at Walther) cut a corner, and did not put on the correct weight.

This is not a new issue though, we've seen it posted related to USPSA in terms of the listed weight for quite awhile. Despite seeing it here repeatedly, I wonder if anyone has ever made Walther aware of the error so they can take the appropriate steps to correct it.
 
#28 · (Edited)
I wonder if anyone has ever made Walther aware of the error so they can take the appropriate steps to correct it.
I sent email to dnroi@uspsa.org about it yesterday. Granted, it's Walther's mistake, but if nothing else, USPSA should be aware that they have the wrong information now, and I can't imagine they want it to remain that way.

ETA: I just used the contact form on waltherarms.com to send them a message about it, too. Hopefully between the two, some corrective action can be taken.
 
#29 ·
Problem is that it's not up to USPSA to stay in contact with every manufacturer to verify weights that are given, that responsibility does, and should, fall squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturer.

Being honest, I hope that it does get taken care of. The remaining issue of mating the 5" barrel to the M1 frame is probably a fight for another day. I really believe that people don't want to make the case to DNROI because they'll probably lose, and they want to shoot their gun in matches the way that they want to.

Unless DNROI were to notify each and ever MD to have the RO's running chrono at a major match check it though, I can't honestly believe that anyone would ever catch it. If Walther picks up some more presence at matches then maybe it would get noticed.
 
#30 ·
Well, like I said, I contacted both ends of the problem, so hopefully it gets resolved.

As far as the 5" M1 issue goes, the frame is the gun, so swapping to a slide of different length would seem to break the rules. That said, in terms of competition, there's no actual advantage gained vs running the M2 frame; it's simply a preference of which style of mag release you prefer, and because of that, I think it would be reasonable to grant an exemption, if that's possible.
 
#32 ·
DNROI actually addressed it in the latest issue of Front Sight, where he said: "All the weights for the guns on the Production list have been supplied by the manufacturer, not researched by USPSA or NROI. In 2016 I plan to query all the manufacturers for an updated weight list, and the weights will be updated as they are provided by the firearm manufacturer."


Earlier in his "answer he said:

"If for some reason you find that the actual weight of your Production gun is not correct, you should contact the manufacturer and request that the submit an updated weight to dnroi@uspsa.org"

I think Troy is doing the right thing by reaching out to the manufacturers, but that doesn't change my mind at all, that getting the right info out really should have been handled (and in this case was not handled) by the manufacturer. If you want your product to appeal to an audience, and market to that group, then the manufacturer really bears the brunt of the responsibility.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top