If both are in .380...why? Both talk about ease of racking the slide, both talk about concealability, they look very much alike...etc. Why have two models that look and function pretty much alike?

I think it's mostly because the PK380 got there first. It predates the CCP380 by a good number of years.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Umarex phase out the PK380 now that they have the CCP available in 380. Sales number talk though. I imagine they make those decisions based on sales numbers and production capacity.

 

Some folks prefer a hammer and some folks prefer a striker... Easy as that.

 

That's probably as good an answer as any.

 

The other comparison to be made is the one between Walther's two single-stack, sub-compact strikers, the PPS and the CCP. Between them I think there would be universal agreement that the PPS is the more reliable of the two, but I believe that Walther had something else in mind when they introduced the CCP. I believe that Walther wanted to introduce something revolutionary to the market to win a bigger share of the burgeoning sub-compact market. That revolutionary thing would have been what many have described the CCP to be, "the poor man's P7", with its fixed-barrel accuracy, its low-recoil impulse and its easy to rack slide.

If not for the reliability issues of the 1st gen, the CCP may well have taken a larger market share, but I believe that window of opportunity has now closed. The "must have" feature of sub-compacts now is uber-capacity, and I don't see that changing for quite some time.

 

The other comparison to be made is the one between Walther's two sub-compact strikers, the PPS and the CCP. Between them I think there would be universal agreement that the PPS is the more reliable of the two, but I believe that Walther had something else in mind when they introduced the CCP. I believe that Walther wanted to introduce something revolutionary to the market to win a bigger share of the burgeoning sub-compact market. That revolutionary thing would have been what many have described the CCP to be, "the poor man's P7", with its fixed-barrel accuracy, its low-recoil impulse and its easy to rack slide.

If not for the reliability issues of the 1st gen, the CCP may well have taken a larger market share, but I believe that window of opportunity has now closed. The "must have" feature of sub-compacts now is uber-capacity, and I don't see that changing for quite some time.

Seems like Walther was going for the same market the Smith EZ Shield is targeting. Walther got there first but...

Reports of reliability issues, parts breakage and in the M1 version, odd takedown for maintenance probably hurt the guns acceptance.

For all I know, those issues have been resolved or at least improved upon. But the gun has gained a certain reputation.

For the general EDC market, I agree it's moved on to higher capacity designs. Walther, Smith, Beretta and other will have to respond to that change in buyer expectations.

I also wonder how much Walther and it's Umarex parent company cooperate on their product decisions.

 

It seems Walther is shifting its exterior ergonomics toward the PPQ design theme. The P99 theme has passed. Witness the revised P22, PPS, and the CCP, etc. After that it probably comes down to what sells best and right now that is the Q theme I expect. The two main advertised features of the original CCP were a soft recoil and easy to manipulate slide....both due to the gas system. How all of that worked out is history now. The PK380 utilized several P22 parts or perhaps it was vice versa, trigger, trigger spring, trigger bar, hammer, hammer spring but I've never looked one over closely. It looks dated when placed next to the Q styling. I was always under the impression the slide was easy to cycle though. And leave all the big print off my pistols please. 1917