Walther Forums banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
AMA, the P7 is gas retarded rather than gas operated; it's not straight blowback. It's also remarkably self compensating; my former boss claimed you could shoot .380s in them, and he was correct.
The whole squeeze-cocking thing was rather complex, but it surprises me that others have not tried the gas system, as it is relatively compact and doesn't appear to require tolerances tighter than an ordinary blowback gun, save for the cylinder itself.
Perhaps you meant the H&K VP70; it was reputedly pure blowback and quite bulky. The High Point pistols look like a paving brick with a pistol grip; don't know if they actually work, but they are annoyingly ugly, and blowback.
But.... But.... Wikipedia says it's a blowback pistol :D

I stand corrected.

I love mine... (gun love, not love love ;-)) love the squeeze cocker - love the trigger - and even though there's no reason to throw 9mm kurz rounds in the gun, it doesn't surprise me that they might work. Just as spot-on accurate as my P5 & P88 too...

 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,524 Posts
But.... But.... Wikipedia says it's a blowback pistol :D

I stand corrected.

I love mine... (gun love, not love love ;-0) love the squeeze cocker - love the trigger - and even though there's no reason to throw 9mm kurz rounds in the gun, it doesn't surprise me that they might work. Just as spot-on accurate as my P5 & P88 too...
Ah-hah! Snookered by Wiki...LOL. :D

Yes, the lemon squeezer is a wonderful pistol. I have the older, single stack one, it's a ball to shoot, tho' that long but easy stroke on the trigger trips me up sometimes.
I doubted my boss' statement 'till I actually tried the stunt; it must be headspacing on the extractor. I don't recall the pistol ever failing to function with a whole range of 9mm loadings. It does shoot straighter than the road to hell.

There's a question we can bat back to Maestro Mike...why hasn't the gas-retarded action shown up on any other pistols? The slide and dust cover of the H&K are quite compact; it's only the squeezecocking paraphernalia that bulk up the magazine area. With the current interest in really small, concealable, powerful handguns, it seems like an idea worth exploring.

Speaking of Mike, those Astra 'squirt guns' always had an odd look, but they appear beautifully machined and finished. It is my understanding that they will accept (perhaps not with complete success) loadings as diverse as the 9mm Largo, 9mm, 9mm Glisenti and .38 Colt Auto. The recoil spring will induce a hernia.
Moon

ETA- We're guilty of Grand Theft Forum Thread, I fear.
M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I understand the PP and the PPK/S are made on the same frame. Is there any real difference between the two?
Anybody have information on early PPK pistols in .22 LR? I have seen one in a red box with a much lighter slide. It is a steel gun. I have seen a few aluminum engraved Walther pistols. Anybody?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Q: I understand the PP and the PPK/S are made on the same frame. Is there any real difference between the two?
A: The differences in slide and barrel length have been discussed. However to compare a PP frame (minus barrel) with a PPK/S frame (minus barrel) you would have to compare an Ulm proofed PP with an Ulm proofed PPK/S. For accuracy, you probably would NOT wouldn't want to compare a "German" PP (ZM or Manuhrin or Ulm) with an American made PPK/S (IA/Ranger or SW or Fort Smith.) Like wise, you probably would NOT want to compare a ZM PP with a Ulm proofed PPK/S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,606 Posts
Anybody have information on early PPK pistols in .22 LR? I have seen one in a red box with a much lighter slide. It is a steel gun. I have seen a few aluminum engraved Walther pistols. Anybody?
PPK or PPK/S? Quiet different questions...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,524 Posts
Love these Lazarus threads.
Depenau, the gripframe of the PP and the PPK/s are essentially identical; Walther, initially, just grafted a PPK slide on to a PP frame. This, to make the gun a smidge bigger to comply with GCA68.
There would be no compelling reason to change anything; the Ranger guns were reputedly built to Walther specs, tho' changes did find their way in.
Is there a particular reason you want to know?
Moon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Love these Lazarus threads.
Depenau, the gripframe of the PP and the PPK/s are essentially identical; Walther, initially, just grafted a PPK slide on to a PP frame. This, to make the gun a smidge bigger to comply with GCA68.
There would be no compelling reason to change anything; the Ranger guns were reputedly built to Walther specs, tho' changes did find their way in.
Is there a particular reason you want to know?
Moon
Yes. I have seen the PPK .22 LR that seems like the .380. Early on were there changes? (.22 LR only).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Examples of minor features that make not all PP and PPK/S pistols "essentially identical" are the "continuous" feed ramps and extended grip tangs found on Smith & Wesson and Fort Smith PPK/S pistols. These are features no PP pistol has. (This was meant to be the central basis of my point that one should compare PP and PPK/S pistols of like manufacturing origin.) My guess is that these two features also likely result in a slightly heavier frame that one might not feel in the hand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,674 Posts
Examples of minor features that make not all PP and PPK/S pistols "essentially identical" are the "continuous" feed ramps and extended grip tangs found on Smith & Wesson and Fort Smith PPK/S pistols. These are features no PP pistol has.
That may be because Smith & Wesson and Ft. Smith never produced a PP. That gawd awful tang is essentially an American design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Of course Smith & Wesson and Fort Smith (and Ranger IA) never produced a PP pistol. However, and again, my point is the Smith & Wesson and Fort Smith PPK/S frames are NOT "essentially identical" to any PP frame made by ZM, Manuhrin or Ulm. Saying all PPK/S and PP frames are "essentially identical" overlooks the significant changes to Smith & Wesson and Fort Smith frames. Again, my point (in response to the OP's question) is that it's best to only compare PPK/S and PP pistol frames of the same manufacturing origin. That said, I acknowledge that with the exception of cast vs forge & stainless vs carbon, Ranger/IA PPK/S frames are "essentially identical" to PP frames made by ZM, Manuhrin and Ulm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,606 Posts
That may be because Smith & Wesson and Ft. Smith never produced a PP...
Interarms/Ranger didn't do so, too. The 'invention' started in the later Ranger time, when they launched the investment molded frame (instead of forged).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,988 Posts
Anybody have information on early PPK pistols in .22 LR? I have seen one in a red box with a much lighter slide. It is a steel gun. I have seen a few aluminum engraved Walther pistols. Anybody?
I have seen the PPK .22 LR that seems like the .380. Early on were there changes? (.22 LR only).
I don't understand your exact questions and I don't see the connection to the quite aged part of the thread where the differences between PP and PPK/S were discussed. And looking at the posts of the last few days, I think some others feel the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Same grip frame, but the PP has a longer sight radius than the PPK/s.
The PPK/s was an expedient to import the Walther guns into the US when they were banned based on their dimensions. Too-tiny guns were baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
The PP is blessed with more mass in its longer slide as well as more sight radius.
Moon
^^THIS!!! I totally agree... Spot on @halfmoonclip .
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top