Walther Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Put another 150 rds through my PPS today without any failures what-so-ever.

CorBon DPX is my round of choice but today I did reliability and accuracy testing with Winchester Ranger 124+p. Worked perfectly but not as accurate as the DPX. I still prefer the lighter bullet weight DPX in the PPS because of the short barrel.
Trigger seems slow to reset but they may be because I am able to stay on point with fast repeat shots.

I am becoming very comfortable with the little Walther.
I am looking forward to a dedicated holter for it. I suppose we will have to wait for wider distribution of the black model before the holster makers respond.
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Thanks for the update, Jim.

Our department mandates the use of the 147 gr subsonic WW Ranger ammo. I wonder if the little PPS will have any trouble digesting those? I know the velocity will suffer in the shorter barrel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'm not a fan of the 147g in anything but longer barrel 9's but have participated in testing with a Dept in Indiana that uses them only, We used live hogs and evaluated expansion and penetration of various 9's and 40's.
I was surpised to find that the 147 Winchester Ranger round was nearly as effective as the 180 g 40 cal in shorter barreled weapons.

The newer 147's have come a long way from the original ones that sought to duplicate the ballistics of the then ubiquitous 38 special. The new 147 g does expand reliably even at 950 fps and should work just fine if you do your part.
I wouldn't squawk if I was required to carry the round. They are good at breaking bone and going deep. I think you are losing a bit of
Check 6
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
OOPS,
intended to say losing a bit of expansion and shock but still not enough to worry about
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Ballistics, Ammunition and Power

General Question...

Is it really the weight, the speed, the hollow point, the metal jacket that makes the difference in stopping power? I'm using the formula below for Defensive Power Factor, which seems to indicate that a 115 gr. can have more stopping power than a 147 gr. It will be interesting to get numbers when the .40 caliber is released.

These are all shot, without any problems, through the Walther PPS 9mm:

Mass (gr.)
Velocity (fps)
IPSC's Power Factor (PF)
Defensive Power Factor (DPF)

Buffalo Bore GDHP (24A)
gr. 115
fps 1316
PF 151.34
DPF 53.73

Buffalo Bore GDHP (24B)
gr. 124
fps 1217
PF 150.91
DPF 53.57

Cor-Bon JHP
gr. 115
fps 1278
PF 146.97
DPF 52.17

Winchester Ranger subsonics
gr. 147
fps 991
PF 145.68
DPF 51.72

If I am interpreting this correctly the 115gr. Buffalo Bore has more stopping power than the 147 gr. Ranger Subsonics?

I can post my complete PPS Ballistics list (perhaps as a new thread) if anyone wants it. Of course the next question is how will DPF affect accuracy?


Using the formula:

Defensive Power Factor (DPF) = Bullet Weight in Grains times Caliber times Velocity divided by 1,000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
CorBon DPX is my round of choice but today I did reliability and accuracy testing with Winchester Ranger 124+p. Worked perfectly but not as accurate as the DPX. I still prefer the lighter bullet weight DPX in the PPS because of the short barrel.
I re-read Jim's comment above and compared it to the accuracy that Patrick Sweeney wrote about in his Guns & Ammo article:

The load that posted the first "I've got to take a picture of this" group was the Black Hills Red, a 115-grain JHP going just over 1,100 fps. Once I'd taken a slew of photos, I then sat down and shot equal groups with three other loads. So this gun, anyway, isn't some drama queen that insists on one and only one load to shoot well.
Looking at my PPS Ballistics Table, these two had something in common:

Cor-Bon DPX
gr. 115
fps 1155
PF 132.83
DPF 47.15

Black Hills JHP (red)
gr. 115
fps 1150
PF 132.25
DPF 46.95

And I'm thinking that this may be the load that is most accurate in the PPS. Any thoughts? Is it the weight, the speed or the DPF? Here are two more loads that have a DPF of about 47 (but have the heavier 147gr). It would be interesting to compare accuracy to those above:

Rem Golden Sabers (as reloaded by ought6)
gr. 147
fps 911
PF 133.92
DPF 47.54

Zero FMJ
gr. 147
fps 902
PF 132.59
DPF 47.07

Perhaps those shooting these can reply and give us a sense of the PPS' accuracy with the heavier load.

-Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Trigger seems slow to reset but they may be because I am able to stay on point with fast repeat shots.

Jim
Jim:

How slow is "slow"?

The most recent issue of Gun Test magazine was extremely critical of the new Kel-Tec PF-9 because of its trigger reset. They said multiple users experienced failures-to-fire due to some reset properties of the trigger.

I guess I am posing two questions:

1. How slow? (Or how fast are your splits if you are trying to shoot fast?)

2. Would the "slow" reset contribute to any sort of failure to operate properly at "self defense rates of fire"?

I am intrigued by the article in Guns & Ammo, and am ready for a reliable single stack 9mm to serve as backup to my EDC Glock 19. I don't trust my Kel-Tec .380 (for several reasons, including the inherent lack of penetration with expansion of most .380 rounds). So I am very interested in your reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Jim:

How slow is "slow"?

The most recent issue of Gun Test magazine was extremely critical of the new Kel-Tec PF-9 because of its trigger reset. They said multiple users experienced failures-to-fire due to some reset properties of the trigger.

I guess I am posing two questions:

1. How slow? (Or how fast are your splits if you are trying to shoot fast?)

2. Would the "slow" reset contribute to any sort of failure to operate properly at "self defense rates of fire"?

I am intrigued by the article in Guns & Ammo, and am ready for a reliable single stack 9mm to serve as backup to my EDC Glock 19. I don't trust my Kel-Tec .380 (for several reasons, including the inherent lack of penetration with expansion of most .380 rounds). So I am very interested in your reply.
Tried to find "edit" function, but no luck. Anyway, ETA:
I'm looking for a platform to replace the J-frame (.38 Spcl) that I am currently using with a pocket holster as a backup weapon. Hopefully the PPS will be what I'm seeking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Dawg,
That is not a question that can be answered by anyone but you. I don't know your skill level . A good revolver trigger is a smooth continuous process and a well trained shooter can empty a Jframe in about 2 seconds accurately into a CM size box at 15 ft.
I find the PPS reset slows me down. I can shoot faster than it resets. Will you find the reset point if the ball drops or will you just pull the trigger as fast as you can ?
I would concentrate on training and not be concerned. A small pistol like a PPS is a very close range weapon and the only thing you should be thinking about is how quickly you index the front sight... press trigger over and over......until nothing is in front of your front sight anymore.
Trigger reset point and speed of reset is not going to be on your mind in a gunfight. The PPS is a good reliable little pistol. The Kahr PM9 has a trigger more like your Jframe. It is continuous without a reset point
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Dawg,
That is not a question that can be answered by anyone but you. I don't know your skill level . A good revolver trigger is a smooth continuous process and a well trained shooter can empty a Jframe in about 2 seconds accurately into a CM size box at 15 ft.
I find the PPS reset slows me down. I can shoot faster than it resets. Will you find the reset point if the ball drops or will you just pull the trigger as fast as you can ?
Jim
That answers it pretty well. With my Glock I can keep everything in an IDPA COM zone at 21 feet at a rate of 5-6 shots per second. Sounds like the PPS will be a bit slower - but it would be for backup anyway.

Sounds like it isn't going to cause mis-fires like the Kel-Tec PF9 is reputed to do. And that is my main concern.

Thanks for the reply - I figured this was a better place to ask than over at Evan's forum.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
That answers it pretty well. With my Glock I can keep everything in an IDPA COM zone at 21 feet at a rate of 5-6 shots per second. Sounds like the PPS will be a bit slower - but it would be for backup anyway.

Sounds like it isn't going to cause mis-fires like the Kel-Tec PF9 is reputed to do. And that is my main concern.

Thanks for the reply - I figured this was a better place to ask than over at Evan's forum.:)
I se it your way Dawg. I think of the PPS as a BUG and trigger reset is way down the line from reliability, which PPS has.
Yes this is the only other forum that I participate in. I have a fondness for Walther's. My first pistol was a PPK which I carried while working for a PD during Law School. I still have it. It's a pre- ban PPK 380 which has thousands of rounds through it and has never burped .... not a single failure.
It's a safe queen now but many a time it gave me a secure feeling in uncomfortable situations.
I fully expect the PPS to become the PPK of the 21st century.
Onward !
Jim
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top