Walther Forums banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I haven't seen many posts here on the PPQ SC in general, so thought I'd share some of my observations and testing after having spent a few months shooting mine regularly (about 500 rds so far). Maybe some of you are curious...

Methods and materials:

I have a Q5, a Navy PPQ M2, and a PPS M2 for comparison (yes, I'm a Walther fan-boy, no apologies...). All except the Q, have Crimson Trace railmaster green lasers, and the PPS has the CT laserguard green they make for it. The Q has a Burris FF lll red dot. I usually shoot all 4 pistols at range sessions that last around 2 to 3 hours. I shoot a combination of off hand, and with a Protektor rabbit ear leather bag for accuracy testing and laser/red dot alignment at 7, 10, 15, and 25 yrds (the farthest I can shoot at this indoor range). Trigger pull weights are from a Wheeler Pro Digital Gauge, 20 pull avg. The accuracy testing was very consistent from the bag and very informative concerning the inherent accuracy these pistols are capable of with different ammo (some ammo is clearly better than others..). I zero my lasers at 15 yrds with point of laser = POI. At 7 and 10 yrds POI is about 1" high, at 25 yrds POI is about 2" low. My defensive round is the Federal 147gr HST, and my companion training/target round is the Speer Lawman 147 gr - ballistics/velocity are very close and recoil identical with excellent accuracy. My low power round is the ASYM 147 gr RN reman. All are subsonic.
After running around 200 rds through the SC (makes a huge difference) to loosen it up, I settled down to some specific testing of the trigger, accuracy, sights, and magazine compatibility.

Trigger:

First thing I wanted to see was just how close the SC trigger is to my other PPQ's. All the PPQ triggers have stock, well-worn in, smooth, light, and overall excellent triggers w/ approx. 4lb pull weights - 1/2 lb less is you use the trigger tip.. very spoiled by them. The SC and standard PPQ's have physically different trigger mechanisms, but have some similarities as to feel. The SC first stage pull weight and feel is very close to the PPQ, but a little grittier- that may smooth out more later.. The standard PPQ has a smooth, short, and light second stage travel to the break, about 1/2 to 3/4 lb from the first stage. The SC has a gritty, uneven, and longer second stage that's about 1 1/2 lbs to the break (5lbs total). Almost feels to me like there's a mini 3rd stage in there with a separate "mini-wall", then more creep to the break.
Two comments here: if I pull straight through fairly quickly from the first stage wall, I don't notice the creepy uneven feeling as much if at all. Personally when practicing for accuracy I like to pull through the second stage more slowly, which is just fine with the standard PPQ triggers and their short break, but drives me to distraction with the SC.
My other thought is that for a CC gun, that extra second stage travel and resistance might be just what would be most appropriate - similar to the PPS M2 trigger in that regard, also a CC gun. Under stress, or firing for speed, I didn't really notice the negative aspects of the trigger travel. Overall, and considering the fact that the SC is meant to be a carry weapon, I think the trigger does a good to excellent job - but it is not a PPQ M2 trigger.
Overall, I do prefer the SC to the PPS M2 trigger, mostly because I can stage it before I pull to the break. (But I still love shooting my PPS and CC with it is a breeze).

Accuracy (from a bagged bench rest)::

Overall, the SC shot just as accurate as the full sized PPQ's up close (7 to 10 yrds), but it was a little harder to line up due to the reduced sight radius at longer distances (15 to 25 yrds). I'd say exactly the same thing about the PPS M2 too. But from my testing, Walther has very accurate barrels in any length, and the SC is no exception.

Sights:

The LE phosphorus sights on the SC are exactly the same ones as on the PPS M2 LE. The dots are big and obvious to pick up for me, but many people don't like them. Standard white dots stand out a little more in daylight as many have said... I may grab some TFX Pros one day to try them out, but these LE's work well enough for me. Using the bag, having the tops of sights lining up, I got a sight picture #1 (6 o'clock) as most accurate and lines up perfectly that way at 15 yrds with the laser and POI. That was a surprise, since Walther calls them "combat sights", and others have said Walther sights use a "combat sight picture #3" (sight covers target). Before I started using a bag for consistency testing, I always thought that my Walthers used a #2 sight picture. All could probably work, depending on how you line up the front sight vertically with the rears. Actually, if you align the center of the "dots" only (not the sight or dot tops) to be centered in appearance up down, right left, you'll end up pointing the front sight down slightly. Then raising your POA to a combat picture puts your bullet path right back on target. The effect is hard to quantify if you dont have a stable and repeatable rest, but that's what I found. Using the laser's reference zero at 15 yrds, it's actually easy to see what front sight adjustments to use that make any sight picture work to achieve POA=POI.

Magazines:

One of my biggest disappointments with the SC, is that there is not universal compatibility with the PPQ M2 family of magazines, since I have many 17 and 15 rounders for my Q5 and Navy. Apparently, the springs in the standard PPQ mags are slightly weaker, and the dimensions are ever so slightly smaller than the SC's. That said, I tried using the standard mags with my SC anyway, with basically good results. The 15 rd mag sleeve from the SC mag fits perfectly with the standard PPQ 15 rd mags. When inserted, the feel very slightly looser (side to side, up down) than the SC one, as do the 17 rounders. But once a round is chambered, all the mags tighten up. The mag sleeve fits the standard 17 rounders too, but is too tall by about 1mm so won't allow quite enough insertion to grab the mag catch/release. I just run them without a sleeve for now. I'm getting a couple of new sleeves, and I can dremel one to make it fit. The only issue I've had using the standard mags in the SC, concerns the ammo type. My flat nose Lawman 147's will occasionally jam up against the bottom of the feed ramp. They don't do that with the SC mags (both 10's, and the 15 rd). But I haven't had any issues with any round nose ammo, or my hollow points (147gr HST's). I think the slight up down looseness or weaker mag follower springs are probably to blame. For range work, I don't see any major issues using the standard mags in the SC - just be aware some ammo may not function as reliably in them. For CC, I'll stick to the smaller dedicated SC mags anyway. Really like the 10rd with finger extention for that. Really don't like the fact Walther couldn't have designed the SC to use the standard PPQ M2 mags - so dimensionally close anyway, but just different enough... seems a shame not to have full compatibility.

Final thoughts...

As a carry alternative to my PPS M2, I like the SC a lot. I'll probably use the PPS for maximun concealability in warmer months, and the SC for more firepower and control ability in the colder months, but its still a good compact size for CC in general. A good to excellent trigger for CC, but not quite as nice for target shooting as the PPQ/Q5 triggers (but what is...?).
More accurate than I am, and totally reliable with any of its mags made for it - mostly reliable with standard PPQ M2 mags.
Could I live without it? Having a PPS M2 already, I'd say yes, but I'd rather have it than not. I like choices for CC besides lugging around a full sized PPQ.
Overall, I think the SC might be best described as a gun "in-between" the PPQ M2 and the PPS M2 in many ways, and that has some value to me. Maybe not for others...
Aside from my gripe about magazines, it's too bad they also didnt think to mill the slide for an optic as an option. I'm still not sold on one for CC, like what's offered on the new PPS RMSc. Hell, the cost with the dot optic is more than double what the standard PPS M2 costs w/out ($315 vs $650). Of course, if I had one, I'd probably love it and learn to work around any concealment issues, but thats what fan-boys do, right? :)

I'm curious as to others experiences with the SC, so please chime in.. (are you around, Imaoldfart...?), but please don't flame me too badly for using lasers and bench bags. I use them as tools for gathering accuate information about aiming, accuracy, and to give me any edge in a situation where I'll probably need all the help and luck I can get. But I train a lot without them too, and I don't rely on them.. I also don't rely on anything else working perfectly either, since there's many points of potential failure when using any firearm, at least in my experience.
Also, some people, like my ex, believe I must be from Mars, which might explain why I tend to be attracted to green lasers and green phosphor dot sights....:D

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Just thought I'd post a few pics of the gun you might not see in other places..

#1 is the SC with its 15 rd mag with sleeve.
#2 is with the 17rd PPQ M2 mag, fully inserted, without sleeve. Works just fine, if you don't slam it in, or use the wrong (flat nose type) ammo in it.
#3 is with the 17rd mag, with sleeve.You can actually press the mag into the well a little farther so there's no gap in the grip anywhere, but its still about 1mm from being inserted deep enough to catch the mag release. I should be able to dremel the sleeve enough to fix that as soon as my extra mags and sleeves get here - they've been out of stock everywhere for a while, but just now starting to show up at retailers.
Yeah, its a bit "Frankengunish" looking with the extended mag, but I kinda like it.

Firearm Gun Trigger Gun barrel Starting pistol


Firearm Gun Trigger Airsoft gun Starting pistol


Firearm Gun Trigger Starting pistol Gun barrel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,999 Posts
#3 is with the 17rd mag, with sleeve.You can actually press the mag into the well a little farther so there's no gap in the grip anywhere, but its still about 1mm from being inserted deep enough to catch the mag release. I should be able to dremel the sleeve enough to fix that as soon as my extra mags and sleeves get here - they've been out of stock everywhere for a while, but just now starting to show up at retailers.
Be careful not to dremel away too much.

The baseplate of the mag impacting the bottom of the magwell is what stops the feedlips from going high enough to impact the ejector. The ejector is not designed to take the impact of a mag being slammed into it.

If the 17rd mags don't work with the SC unless certain ammunition is used, it may not be worth it to modify anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Frankengunish, meet Frankenstein.....a specialized HD gun.

Beretta 30 rounder, modified to latch into a PPQ M1. Includes custom made kydex sleeve that slides over the mag to eliminate the possibility of the mag lips kissing the ejector on a 'forceful' insertion.

Very cool... looks totally awesome to me. Had no idea you could get mags that big to fit a PPQ. Just add a mini stock, and it's a MP5'ish short barrel Walther carbine.. I like it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Be careful not to dremel away too much.

The baseplate of the mag impacting the bottom of the magwell is what stops the feedlips from going high enough to impact the ejector. The ejector is not designed to take the impact of a mag being slammed into it.

If the 17rd mags don't work with the SC unless certain ammunition is used, it may not be worth it to modify anything.
Thank you for pointing that out. Very important not to over-insert the mags that aren't made exactly for the SC.There looks to be about 1.5mm clearance between ths bottom of the ejector, and the mag feed lips when fully inserted, so I'll cut the sleeve a little at a time until I get it to just click in, which should preserve that distance. Walther says (that I've read..) that the slightly stronger springs in the SC mags will be available separately at some pointl if I need to take further measures. The cost of the separate sleeves and springs will likely be more than just buying a new 15rd w/sleeve, so I probably wont go that route.

I'll be using my 17rd mags in the SC at the ranges only, for convenience more than anything. Most of the time, I can run a whole mag with the flat nose Lawman just fine, but not quite 100% reliable over several mag changes. Once I get a sleeve properly made for these, that might cure the issue altogether. We'll see. But I havent had any fails with the round nose or hollow points. They're clearly not "carry ready", but then I can't imagine carrying with a 17... Turns out, I have 7 of those 17 rounders, plus 5 of the 15 rds, so I'll make good use of them. I hate to waste time at the range reloading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Good review, mine is set up the same as yours, right down to the same laser. I have about 1000 rounds through my SC and it gets better with use. I purchased the SC specifically for a CC gun and find it to be perfect for the job. I honestly don’t notice any significant difference in performance from my PPQ M1 with about 5000 rounds through it. I did a trial run at 25 yards with good results, though I do agree that it is harder to get good groups with the shorter sight radius. The one thing that I thought was noticeably was the strength of the the return and magazine springs. I do not use any kind of loading tool so I can tell it takes more pressure to insert a round. Keeping in mind what the gun is designed for, it more than meets the need. It been my experience that not all CC guns are good range guns, most the recoil is not something you want to experience for more than 50 rounds. This is not the case with the PPQ SC. I can easily recommend this gun to anyone who may only have one gun for CC and range duties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
I find you coomets/observations on the trigger to be very interesting.

One would think that it would have a standard PPQ trigger.

I've lustd after a PPQ SC LE for a few months now, but biught a
sweet as pie used PPQ .45 ACP instead.

Unlike a PPQ M2 or a PPS M2 (my EDC) my bad back could support a SC
if I wanted a few extra ounces on my hip. I would neverthink that the
larger and heavier Q45 would work for me at all.

The SC would give me a few more ounces to packin a slightly wider
grip and slide than my PPS M2. A few more ounces for the extra
Double Tap 9mm +P ammo as well.

Thus, it sounds like a good propsect until one gets into the different
trigger and magzine aspects.

A buyer could place the trigger between a PPS,PPS M2 and PPQq triger
and just live with it.

Practice with PPQ M2 mags, but only carry the standad SC mags for
business. Something else that I could live with if I wanted to.

Still, other than that bigger magazine capacity in the spare mag...the SC is not going to give me any real-world advantages over
my PPS M2.

Some people have stated that they hope that the new Mysery Pistol is a double-stack
Walther to compete with the P365.

I would have zero interest ina PPS sized gun that would be heavier than what I already
carry, but some other would jump on such a creation.

However, a 20 ounce single or even double-stack .45 ACP Sub-Compact might
be even better.

It will be an interesting August for Walther fans.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
Hi, honestly yes, but that was when I was 52 pounds heavier.

Now that Code Red diet and I have dropped that 50 pounds..
I might try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dukes4aces

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
A competitor, who has a Q and shoots PPQ-M2 4" in action events, was unable to find a useful grip with the SC. The SC only provides two back-straps. With one, trigger finger was too far back, and with the other the trigger finger was too far forward. Got rid of the SC with some loss. In my opinion, it did not seem to have the quality of PPQ-M2

You have heard it many times, with so few choices, test the grip before purchase.

For smaller cost, look at M&P9 M2.0 4" it seems better, and less expensive, than SC.
Change the sear to Apex two-dot sear (easy to do with use of a punch and some care) and one has a trigger that is close to that of PPQ-M2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts


However, with some more time behind the gun, I'm thinking that the
SC is like a CZ 2075 RAMI, just a German, not Czech made gun.

I had 14 years of wonderful service from a RAMI, RAMI P, and
lastly, a RAMI BD.

Nice guns, except that I could no longer use them in DA mode.

For carry with a RAMI, one can use the 9-round or 14 shot mags for carry..
and go with the 10 and 15-round mag for the SC.

I'm liking the 15-round SC mag, more and more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Here is a pic of my modified SC mag sleeve for the PPQ M2 17rd mags, and what I used to trim it down. I had first thought a dremel would work to do this, but using a small sanding disk on a polishing lathe gave me the most control. That is needed, because taking just .75mm of material evenly from the top edge of the sleeve is a bit of a challenge if you try to do this free-hand. That was the final amount I had to remove in order to get the mag to just click in, without any over-insertion. I'd go for .5mm first, try for fit, and make very slight adjustments from there, including polishing the edge.
So far, it works very well, and I've had no issues with function using it. My flatnose Lawman 147gr bullets don't seem to hang up anymore, but I haven't tried a rapid mag dump test either - my local indoor range does not allow that type of shooting.
As a side note to other's comments, I agree one should try the grip before you buy. If you're highly sensitive to small dimensional differences to the backstraps, I suppose it could be an issue. Personally, I found the larger backstrap to be only slightly larger than the standard, and did not really change the positioning of my trigger finger on the trigger - it just felt more comfortable in my hand. I also like the largest backstraps on my full size PPQ's for the same reason. Had Walther made an even bigger backstrap for the SC, I'm sure I'd prefer that too. And no, my hands are not that large, just average, like the rest of me.. :eek:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
The only Walther pistols that I have found unacceptable are the early PPS and the PPQ-SC.
With the early PPS (?m1) the triggers were poor and distant from what is expected in Walther. The PPS-M2 is OK. PPQ-SC construction seems sub-Walther quality, has magazine limitations, and far too little "pull" adjustment. . . . and I can no longer remember about the SC's trigger. The S&W M&P9 M2.0 3.6 inch with a simple sear replacement way outdoes the PPQ-SC. Good trigger, great adjustable "pull," no issues with magazines that have existed, and a lower cost - made in USA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Sights, magazines, holsters, etc., etc. are all cosmetic but can be important to a lot of people. For me, I live with what can be had hoping for new items to eventually arrive.

As for guns, I've never seen a USA made pistol even close to a German made pistol. I'm a Walther lover but have more HK's and several West German Sigs. If you doubt this look at a German Sig and the one made in the Usa. Same goes and even more for HK's.

Don't get me wrong, I love American made, they just don't put as much quality into guns as Germany. Ever shot and handled a Ruger over/under and then handled and shot a Krieghoff. Yep, quality comes with a price tag. Not to offend anyone, these are just my thoughts.

Jim D
SE Texas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The only Walther pistols that I have found unacceptable are the early PPS and the PPQ-SC.
With the early PPS (?m1) the triggers were poor and distant from what is expected in Walther. The PPS-M2 is OK. PPQ-SC construction seems sub-Walther quality, has magazine limitations, and far too little "pull" adjustment. . . . and I can no longer remember about the SC's trigger. The S&W M&P9 M2.0 3.6 inch with a simple sear replacement way outdoes the PPQ-SC. Good trigger, great adjustable "pull," no issues with magazines that have existed, and a lower cost - made in USA.
I'm curious about a few of your observations with the SC.
What exactly about the SC's construction seemed "sub-Walther quality" to you?
How is the PPS M2, with a much smaller grip, proprietary mags, a trigger that's no where near a full size PPQ, and no adjustment at all to LOP, acceptable ("ok") to you, yet the SC (which is far closer to a full size PPQ in these areas), is not?

I'm not trying to criticize your opinion. I can totally understand that you may prefer other weapons, like the S&W, for many reasons. I just have not observed any "quality" issues (which I define as fit, finish, function, feel, and reliability) or other significant quality problems between the SC, my PPS M2, Q5, or Navy. I actually have come to appreciate, and very much like the SC, its consistantly reliable operation, and most of the design decisions Walther had to make, to make it a compact enough for CC - the slight dimensional differences in the mags (compared to PPQ-M2 mags), the only notable exception. But there are more than reasonable mag work arounds that really don't bother me, not to mention I would only carry it with it's more compact mags that come with it anyway. In practice, it's really a minor and moot issue for me.

Clearly, many, if not most, people who have shared their experiences with the SC, have been quite happy with it. But I am always interested in reading about and understanding other's negative issues with any of the guns I own, so I can be better prepared or alter how I'm using them. This is the reason for asking my questions about your observations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
A feeidn of mine thinks the PPS is a better gun than the PPS M2.

I've had both, and think he's right.

The PPS had a far better trigger pull, but not as good as my PPQ SC,
which has replaced both for ccw.

Even with the modified appendix carry, my PPQ .45 is a bit big and heavy for
me to carry without some back pain after a few hours.

The Goldilocks SC, seems just right!
 
1 - 20 of 32 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