Walther Forums banner

21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Wow, what did I start? I guess, to my mind, he's not really gaining an advantage vs running a "normal" 5" PPQ M2, as the only functional difference is the mag release, but swapping slides certainly seems to violate the letter of the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
I agree that there's no competitive advantage, and practically he would never get called on it, but it is what it is.
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
The production list shows the same weight for the 4" and 5" PPQs so I'm assuming the slide lightening done is adequate to keep the weight the same.
Interestingly, that does not match the specs shown on the Walther website: PPQ M2 Walther Arms

The PPQ 4" is listed at 24.5 ounces by Walther, and the 5" is listed at 26 ounces, but USPSA has them both at 24 ounces even, which could cause some people to get bumped to Open when they shouldn't.

In fact, the production list seems to have a lot of incorrect weights listed for various versions of the P99 and PPQ. For example, my P99c is listed by USPSA as 20 ounces, but Walther lists it at 21.5. I guess the time I almost got bumped to Open for being 22.1 ounces (BT steel RSA was the "culprit") should not have been an issue at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
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 [email protected] 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Just in case anyone was curious, I haven't gotten any reply from Walther or USPSA, and the Production gun list still has a bunch of wrong weights for Walthers. Awesome on both ends. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
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 [email protected]"

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Thanks for posting that. I've never bothered paying for the membership level that gets the magazine, so I didn't see it. Hopefully Walther takes care of their end sooner rather than later.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top