Walther Forums banner
21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
No it wasn't. I've got some similar, boneheaded moves in my past. :)


A P7K? Wow, just wow. Didn't know they existed.
Moon
The correct name was the P7K3. If with a straight blow ack that used a buffer to cushion the final slide movement.

It was designed to be convertible between 380, 32acp and 22LR. I think of it as P7 meets HK4.

While P7 9mms would feed rocks I found the K3 to.be a little temperamental. Blasphemy I know but it's just another data point to support the straight blowbacks are not quite as reliable theory.

Even then, the calibre conversion kits were as rare as hens teeth.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
Jimmo, googled it up, and found some of the same reservations you noted. It sounds like a response to European restrictions on gun buying or limits.
More blasphemy; my P7 actually ran pretty well on .380s. Not that I recommend it.
Moon
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Jimmo, googled it up, and found some of the same reservations you noted. It sounds like a response to European restrictions on gun buying or limits.
More blasphemy; my P7 actually ran pretty well on .380s. Not that I recommend it.
Moon
Thanks Moon. There's a story there somewhere. I would have never even thought to feed my P7s .380 :) They were pretty expensive guns even then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
FWIW, at one time I had a P5C, S&W 3914NL (styled like the Ladysmith model), and a Beretta 9FS Compact Type M (single stack). The Beretta was only slightly thinner in the grip than the 92FS Compact Type L (13 round), due to the wood grip configuration. The S&W was the thinnest of the three, and had a very sweet trigger, shorter and smoother than the Walther or Beretta, and was slightly more accurate than either the Walther or Beretta. All were top quality in fit and finish, and utterly reliable. It really gets down to what you like personally. The P7 was just a little too "off" for me, mostly due to being muzzle light, or too much weight, proportionally, in the hand. The P7, however, might be the most intrinsically accurate (true fixed barrel). A friend carried a P7M13 for years on his police department, but thousands of rounds had him replacing the striker retaining plate several times, with a sometimes "difficult" HK customer service. That CAN be a factor to consider with the choice of guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,489 Posts
Re: Comparing P5C/P6/P7 I have not shot a P6, but used to have a P239. Of the three, I say the Walther was softer to shoot than the P7 or SIG single stacks. Anyone else care to compare?
The P5 is probably a tad softer shooting, but the P6 is a rock solid design and it fits and balances beautifully in my hand. I would feel confident with either pistol as my only 9mm handgun. I have not (yet) shot a P7, so I cannot make any comparison there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimbo80

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Jimmo, googled it up, and found some of the same reservations you noted. It sounds like a response to European restrictions on gun buying or limits.
More blasphemy; my P7 actually ran pretty well on .380s. Not that I recommend it.
Moon
FWIW, at one time I had a P5C, S&W 3914NL (styled like the Ladysmith model), and a Beretta 9FS Compact Type M (single stack). The Beretta was only slightly thinner in the grip than the 92FS Compact Type L (13 round), due to the wood grip configuration. The S&W was the thinnest of the three, and had a very sweet trigger, shorter and smoother than the Walther or Beretta, and was slightly more accurate than either the Walther or Beretta. All were top quality in fit and finish, and utterly reliable. It really gets down to what you like personally. The P7 was just a little too "off" for me, mostly due to being muzzle light, or too much weight, proportionally, in the hand. The P7, however, might be the most intrinsically accurate (true fixed barrel). A friend carried a P7M13 for years on his police department, but thousands of rounds had him replacing the striker retaining plate several times, with a sometimes "difficult" HK customer service. That CAN be a factor to consider with the choice of guns.
I agree with you on the Smith 39** series guns. Excellent and underrated guns. I have a few in different configurations. The best of them is an early PC3953.

Alas, you cannot really get parts or service for those guns either any more.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Not long ago you could buy two 39xx series S&W's for the price of one German PPK or P5. Come to think of it, you probably still can! Who needs spare parts when you can just toss one and pick up another?
Ha! That certainly would work!

I have a good size collection of Smith 845s, 952s and other more odd ball PC guns like a 4" 3953, a 5" 5903, ...
I used to shoot the snot out of some of them. They've gotten too valuable and too hard to fix if something breaks though.

I kind of believe the guns I shoot a lot should be easy to get parts for and fix. Any gun you put lots of rounds through will eventually need help. Therefore the old PC guns have been retired to a quiet existence in the back of the safe.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
Jimmo, presume the 952 is a 9mm 52, which seems like a long journey to get back where you started. :)
I've gone thru' about 3 39s, and several had sear trouble, which led to doubling. They were used, and perhaps the victims of bubbasmithing. Found a 439 NIB, and that will be a keeper.
None of my older stuff really sees too many rounds. The .380s-in-the P7 experiment was shortly after I got it, and it wasn't worth a ton of money. The thot' was that the gas system would be self-balancing, and it did work; headspaced on the extractor.
I'm always surprised at how small/heavy the P7 is.
The new Glock 48 is a poly single stack 9 that feels good in the hand.
Moon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Does anyone really think the (or have they heard a rumor) that the PPK/S is going to be released in .32 sometime in the future?
I’m a big believer in shot placement over caliber size but I have zero experience or knowledge about the .32
However I am willing to learn from the multiple threads here about the .32 as a possible defense cartridge.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Jimmo, presume the 952 is a 9mm 52, which seems like a long journey to get back where you started. :)
I've gone thru' about 3 39s, and several had sear trouble, which led to doubling. They were used, and perhaps the victims of bubbasmithing. Found a 439 NIB, and that will be a keeper.
None of my older stuff really sees too many rounds. The .380s-in-the P7 experiment was shortly after I got it, and it wasn't worth a ton of money. The thot' was that the gas system would be self-balancing, and it did work; headspaced on the extractor.
I'm always surprised at how small/heavy the P7 is.
The new Glock 48 is a poly single stack 9 that feels good in the hand.
Moon
Yes. The 952 was meant as a more modern take on the 52. Chambered in 9mm with 9 round magazines it was more versatile than the old 52. It was available with 5 or 6 inch barrels. If you like accurate 9mms, the gun is a treat.

The guns, as far as I know, were built by one guy at a time. Numbers produced were never high. The triggers could be tuned to the sub 2lb range though I think most delivered to the US market were more in the 4lb range.

The 39 itself I've never owned. It's hard to say if the sear issues are the result of overzealous gunsmithing or high round counts. I've seen both cases with Smiths and suspect the design to be susceptible though not likely to be seen with a factory or non-competition gun.

Congrats on the 439. A piece of Americana. In my opinion, all the Smith 39 descendants feel good in the hand.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
Yeah, I've got a 52, left over from the days I thot' I could shoot bullseye. It is an absolute sweetheart, and worth some money I suppose. The 5 shot magazine, to deal with the .38WC, is a real Rube Goldberg contraption, tho' it works.

Shudder to think what the 9mm version is worth.
Moon
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,914 Posts
Does anyone really think the (or have they heard a rumor) that the PPK/S is going to be released in .32 sometime in the future?
....
Rumors? Of a .32? Some people on this forum are still trying to wrap their minds around the rumor that a .380 will be released sometime in the future.

M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
My test results are back. It seemed that me wearing a carpal tunnel brace for 3 weeks before the actual test helped in this regard,.

Not enough CTS damage for them to warrant surgery.

Good news for me, but they said it has more to do with my elbows than my wrists...HMM..

Anyhow, I have to put some elbow pads on my computer chair and wear the brace when my hand flares up.

This does mean that the DA trigger pull on my new, but lightly used stainless PPK/s might get some use.

I've pretty much gotten away from guns, and the PPK/s is the last of very few I will be owning.

I look at it as my retirement pistol, however, my wife likes it and can pull the trigger better than me:(



So, I might be looking at buying a Fort Smith blued PPK/s later this summer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Austin Powers

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,715 Posts
Clarkston', if you're having wrist, hand or arm issues, you're likely better served with something less rappy than a .380 PPK/s.
A 9mm Government or Commander would be a better bet.
Moon
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
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