Walther Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
That's not a hidden danger. That's a complacency in equipment and training. Nights sights are not a replacement for a weapon light, and yes the light washes out the dots anyway. What I've been trained to do is get the night sights up and aligned, then PID a target. AND night sights have a half life of 12 years, not 5.



Says the US Military with the Beretta 92 and the US Navy with Sig P226s. Oh lets not forget the German military with the P38 while we're at it. If aluminum is such a poor choice in a fighting pistol, explain to us why they have been in continuous use for decades.



You carry the pistol you are proficient with. If by some reason the OP wants to carry a SV Infinity (which is by and large a very expensive pistol) or a Janz Revolver, he could. Yeah the value will drop, and yeah he'll have to get a custom holster. Rare pistols? Probably. "Very Expensive"? Not even close. If he shoots the P88 and trains with it well, you can find a holster for it if he's willing to commission a holster maker.



You can find some carry worthy P88s and compacts for $700 for trade ins up to $1800 for commercial variants mint in box.



But, but.....the Sigs are aluminum?! Different guns fullfill different carry requirements for different people with different body types. You do realize the Glock 19 and Sig P229 are nearly the same size as a P88C?



OR you have Browning Hi-Powers that are exceptionally accurante that they keep up with a Sig P210 and P88 full size. Accuracy isn't paramount in a gun fight huh? Say that to the guy who made 8 out of 10 hits on a dude at 40 yards in a mall. You're suggesting "usually" along with all the other statements you made above are actually "absolute" advice?



Again, his money his choice. Would we be having this conversation back in 1995 when the P88C was released? It was sold as a defensive weapon, so he wants to carry it, how is this any different from someone carrying an old USGI 1911? He never suggested it was a collectable and if he did he wouldn't be here asking us about holsters and the lot. You seem very invested in downplaying his choice to carry what he wants. Before you do that, maybe it's best you give objective advice versus conjecture based on your small sample size of experience.
Your wrong on all counts. I forgot to mention aluminum framed handguns are also notorious for frame rail wear which causes a loss of accuracy. The gun writer George Nonte from Shooting Times magazine had a Smith 39 break off its frame rails at only 5,000 rounds and the two P88's used in the U.S. Military trials only lasted 7,000 rounds. That is not a lot of shooting. Colt Commanders were notorious for breaking their frame rails. And we are all familiar of the various Beretta 92 failures when the U.S. military used those guns.

AND HERE ARE TWO OTHER P88 FAILURES THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION DURING THE U.S. MILITARY TESTS.

P88 Standard[edit]
The Walther P88 was entered for the third and final JSSAP XM9 pistol trials conducted in 1983 to 1984 with interruptions. During the trials, the Walther P88 ended up being eliminated from consideration for not meeting a handful of the 72 “must” conditions. Firstly, it lacked the specified manual safety function. Also, the P88 failed the dropping tests, with the rear target sights popping off and the pistols frames cracking from 7000 rounds of sustained fire.[5][1] The P88 also failed both the wet and dry mud tests

I might add post war aluminum frame P38's also had frame failures although they did last a lot longer than the junk Smith & Wesson M39.

Aluminum framed handguns were originally designed to save weight NOT add to reliability.

The aluminum framed handgun is best ,as Jeff Cooper once said, "Carry it much but shoot it seldom". Good advice from a well know gun guru back in the day and damn good advice still today. But I am sure you will tell me you know more than Jeff did or the "hands on" experience I have had with catastrophic aluminum frame handgun failures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
You are wrong on all counts. I forgot to mention aluminum framed handguns are also notorious for frame rail wear which causes a loss of accuracy. The gun writer George Nonte from Shooting Times magazine had a Smith 39 break off its frame rails at only 5,000 rounds and the two P88's used in the U.S. Military trials only lasted 7,000 rounds. That is not a lot of shooting. Colt Commanders were notorious for breaking their frame rails. And we are all familiar of the various Beretta 92 failures when the U.S. military used those guns.

AND HERE ARE TWO OTHER P88 FAILURES THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION DURING THE U.S. MILITARY TESTS.

P88 Standard[edit]
The Walther P88 was entered for the third and final JSSAP XM9 pistol trials conducted in 1983 to 1984 with interruptions. During the trials, the Walther P88 ended up being eliminated from consideration for not meeting a handful of the 72 “must” conditions. Firstly, it lacked the specified manual safety function. Also, the P88 failed the dropping tests, with the rear target sights popping off and the pistols frames cracking from 7000 rounds of sustained fire.[5][1] The P88 also failed both the wet and dry mud tests

I might add post war aluminum frame P38's also had frame failures although they did last a lot longer than the junk Smith & Wesson M39.

Aluminum framed handguns were originally designed to save weight NOT add to reliability.

The aluminum framed handgun is best ,as Jeff Cooper once said, "Carry it much but shoot it seldom". Good advice from a well know gun guru back in the day and damn good advice still today. But I am sure you will tell me you know more than Jeff did or the "hands on" experience I have had with catastrophic aluminum frame handgun failures.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
186 Posts
Re Night Sights - my P88 has integral sights. ToolTech machined it to take Trijicon night sights, and installed them, front and rear, for just over $300. Big improvement in visibility
Very interested too.
Your wrong on all counts. I forgot to mention aluminum framed handguns are also notorious for frame rail wear which causes a loss of accuracy. The gun writer George Nonte from Shooting Times magazine had a Smith 39 break off its frame rails at only 5,000 rounds and the two P88's used in the U.S. Military trials only lasted 7,000 rounds. That is not a lot of shooting. Colt Commanders were notorious for breaking their frame rails. And we are all familiar of the various Beretta 92 failures when the U.S. military used those guns.

AND HERE ARE TWO OTHER P88 FAILURES THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION DURING THE U.S. MILITARY TESTS.

P88 Standard[edit]
The Walther P88 was entered for the third and final JSSAP XM9 pistol trials conducted in 1983 to 1984 with interruptions. During the trials, the Walther P88 ended up being eliminated from consideration for not meeting a handful of the 72 “must” conditions. Firstly, it lacked the specified manual safety function. Also, the P88 failed the dropping tests, with the rear target sights popping off and the pistols frames cracking from 7000 rounds of sustained fire.[5][1] The P88 also failed both the wet and dry mud tests

I might add post war aluminum frame P38's also had frame failures although they did last a lot longer than the junk Smith & Wesson M39.

Aluminum framed handguns were originally designed to save weight NOT add to reliability.

The aluminum framed handgun is best ,as Jeff Cooper once said, "Carry it much but shoot it seldom". Good advice from a well know gun guru back in the day and damn good advice still today. But I am sure you will tell me you know more than Jeff did or the "hands on" experience I have had with catastrophic aluminum frame handgun failures.
I got a sense you don’t like Walthers………lol….good for you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
So I'm wrong on the idea of:

-NIGHT SIGHTS are inherently dangerous because it makes people think the use of a LIGHT is no longer relevant when used on their pistol, as if it possesses some magical power to make anyone who uses it to shoot people without ID'ing them with a light before shooting? ✅

-All the other military and police forces globally who have invested time and money into their aluminum framed handguns were foolhardy into keeping them in service, especially when it comes to taming 9x19, which is the NATO standard. Because of something you read by Jeff Cooper and some publication by the US Army XM9 Trials, ALL aluminum framed weapons are garbage, including aluminum chassis for rifles I presume? ✅

-That the Israeli trade in P88s are not going to be sub $1K, and it will be worth more as a collectors item because YOU alone know the true valuation of a P88 for all of us to follow? ✅

-That unless YOUR EXPERIENCE with the BHP, P88, Sig P210, and other pistols is validated, our opinions of what we buy is complete trash. Because after all, you read it on the internet and through the opinion of a book or magazine written back then when aluminum technology was progressively getting better by the year, so therefore, what you say is gospel. ✅✅

-Accuracy isn't important so we're free to just spray and pray in a gunfight, even though the P88 is NOWHERE near on the same plane of accuracy as God's personal handgun, the BHP. ✅✅✅

-That the OP should look no further but to heed your advice, which was based on what YOU read, and what limited experience and data you have on the P88 in particular, is in fact, absolute gospel. 💯

I get you're passionate about the advice you have been dishing out here in the forum circa 1980 or whatever, but you, my friend, while you have validity in some of the posts youve made here so far, you're serving up advice on a small sample size of what you've experienced plus what ol' pappy and buddies think is "sound advice". You aren't here to learn anything, but to spread your "tactical" input to use mere mortals here on Walther Forums and beyond. You can give opinion and suggestions based on data, but don't come in here acting like a fudd and pushing your weight around on some of the members here who simply wanted an objective answer. The fellas here are of sound mind enough to make the call on what they decide to own and carry, and don't need your 129 posts worth of scare tactics to sway their opinion. The more fudd you spew the least likely we are to take you seriously.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
186 Posts
Maybe he thought this was a BHP forum?
🤷‍♂️
I decline to comment………..lol………..JimBo our sweet moderator is always watching and despite my old age I do not wish to be banned…….lol……..so I am talking to my cat and telling her what I really think……damn look at her reaction, it says it all….
Cat Carnivore Felidae Small to medium-sized cats Whiskers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
I decline to comment………..lol………..JimBo our sweet moderator is always watching and despite my old age I do not wish to be banned…….lol……..so I am talking to my cat and telling her what I really think……damn look at her reaction, it says it all….
Cat White Musical instrument Felidae Carnivore
Only the classiest cats carry a P88 :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
186 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Your wrong on all counts. I forgot to mention aluminum framed handguns are also notorious for frame rail wear which causes a loss of accuracy. The gun writer George Nonte from Shooting Times magazine had a Smith 39 break off its frame rails at only 5,000 rounds and the two P88's used in the U.S. Military trials only lasted 7,000 rounds. That is not a lot of shooting. Colt Commanders were notorious for breaking their frame rails. And we are all familiar of the various Beretta 92 failures when the U.S. military used those guns.

AND HERE ARE TWO OTHER P88 FAILURES THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION DURING THE U.S. MILITARY TESTS.

P88 Standard[edit]
The Walther P88 was entered for the third and final JSSAP XM9 pistol trials conducted in 1983 to 1984 with interruptions. During the trials, the Walther P88 ended up being eliminated from consideration for not meeting a handful of the 72 “must” conditions. Firstly, it lacked the specified manual safety function. Also, the P88 failed the dropping tests, with the rear target sights popping off and the pistols frames cracking from 7000 rounds of sustained fire.[5][1] The P88 also failed both the wet and dry mud tests

I might add post war aluminum frame P38's also had frame failures although they did last a lot longer than the junk Smith & Wesson M39.

Aluminum framed handguns were originally designed to save weight NOT add to reliability.

The aluminum framed handgun is best ,as Jeff Cooper once said, "Carry it much but shoot it seldom". Good advice from a well know gun guru back in the day and damn good advice still today. But I am sure you will tell me you know more than Jeff did or the "hands on" experience I have had with catastrophic aluminum frame handgun failures.
So I'm wrong on the idea of:

-NIGHT SIGHTS are inherently dangerous because it makes people think the use of a LIGHT is no longer relevant when used on their pistol, as if it possesses some magical power to make anyone who uses it to shoot people without ID'ing them with a light before shooting? ✅

-All the other military and police forces globally who have invested time and money into their aluminum framed handguns were foolhardy into keeping them in service, especially when it comes to taming 9x19, which is the NATO standard. Because of something you read by Jeff Cooper and some publication by the US Army XM9 Trials, ALL aluminum framed weapons are garbage, including aluminum chassis for rifles I presume? ✅

-That the Israeli trade in P88s are not going to be sub $1K, and it will be worth more as a collectors item because YOU alone know the true valuation of a P88 for all of us to follow? ✅

-That unless YOUR EXPERIENCE with the BHP, P88, Sig P210, and other pistols is validated, our opinions of what we buy is complete trash. Because after all, you read it on the internet and through the opinion of a book or magazine written back then when aluminum technology was progressively getting better by the year, so therefore, what you say is gospel. ✅✅

-Accuracy isn't important so we're free to just spray and pray in a gunfight, even though the P88 is NOWHERE near on the same plane of accuracy as God's personal handgun, the BHP. ✅✅✅

-That the OP should look no further but to heed your advice, which was based on what YOU read, and what limited experience and data you have on the P88 in particular, is in fact, absolute gospel. 💯

I get you're passionate about the advice you have been dishing out here in the forum circa 1980 or whatever, but you, my friend, while you have validity in some of the posts youve made here so far, you're serving up advice on a small sample size of what you've experienced plus what ol' pappy and buddies think is "sound advice". You aren't here to learn anything, but to spread your "tactical" input to use mere mortals here on Walther Forums and beyond. You can give opinion and suggestions based on data, but don't come in here acting like a fudd and pushing your weight around on some of the members here who simply wanted an objective answer. The fellas here are of sound mind enough to make the call on what they decide to own and carry, and don't need your 129 posts worth of scare tactics to sway their opinion. The more fudd you spew the least likely we are to take you seriously.
Sorry buddy boy but I have actual hands on experience and testing that you reject with the wave of the hand because it did not suit your political agenda. You also rejected with the wave of the hand actual testing by the U.S. Military because to you it was irrelevant because you disagreed with it. You rejected the tests done by George Nonte of Shooting Times magazine because again it did not support your view points based on "love" not actual reality testing.

In conclusion I stand by what I posted and I have plenty of verified information to support what I posted while you simply have no valid information supporting your view point. You also tend to support the far right philosophy that always claims "If the military adopted it, it had to be perfect in every way". Again history has proven you wrong many times over because the militaries of the world from time to time adopted some real failures of small arms. Not always of course but enough to prove my point many times over. I could give you a long dissertation on U.S. military small arms that either failed or were inferior to their contemporary foreign arms but again you would reject history with the wave of the hand.

And you accuse me of pandering fudd but in reality its your fudd that has no historical proof through valid testing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Very interested too.

I got a sense you don’t like Walthers………lol….good for you!
Actually I do not hate Walters at all as I own quite a few of them but I do not subscribe to the philosophy that every Walther that was ever made was perfect in every way. I treat Walther's and all firearms according to their track record and history and I do not sugar coat anything or try and be so polite as to deliberately mislead people or avoid revealing the entire history of any particular firearm. Remember the most hated men in history where those that honestly revealed the truth that people did not want to hear. Bhp9 --2022
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Sorry buddy boy but I have actual hands on experience and testing that you reject with the wave of the hand because it did not suit your political agenda. You also rejected with the wave of the hand actual testing by the U.S. Military because to you it was irrelevant because you disagreed with it. You rejected the tests done by George Nonte of Shooting Times magazine because again it did not support your view points based on "love" not actual reality testing.

In conclusion I stand by what I posted and I have plenty of verified information to support what I posted while you simply have no valid information supporting your view point. You also tend to support the far right philosophy that always claims "If the military adopted it, it had to be perfect in every way". Again history has proven you wrong many times over because the militaries of the world from time to time adopted some real failures of small arms. Not always of course but enough to prove my point many times over. I could give you a long dissertation on U.S. military small arms that either failed or were inferior to their contemporary foreign arms but again you would reject history with the wave of the hand.

And you accuse me of pandering fudd but in reality its your fudd that has no historical proof through valid testing.
And I do not enjoy being insulted by your insinuating that I am pandering falsehoods, because you simply refuse to accept what I experienced through my hands on testing. You can feel free to disagree with me but rejecting my information because you do not agree with the findings is not very professional and only diminishes your credibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
So I'm wrong on the idea of:

-NIGHT SIGHTS are inherently dangerous because it makes people think the use of a LIGHT is no longer relevant when used on their pistol, as if it possesses some magical power to make anyone who uses it to shoot people without ID'ing them with a light before shooting? ✅

-All the other military and police forces globally who have invested time and money into their aluminum framed handguns were foolhardy into keeping them in service, especially when it comes to taming 9x19, which is the NATO standard. Because of something you read by Jeff Cooper and some publication by the US Army XM9 Trials, ALL aluminum framed weapons are garbage, including aluminum chassis for rifles I presume? ✅

-That the Israeli trade in P88s are not going to be sub $1K, and it will be worth more as a collectors item because YOU alone know the true valuation of a P88 for all of us to follow? ✅

-That unless YOUR EXPERIENCE with the BHP, P88, Sig P210, and other pistols is validated, our opinions of what we buy is complete trash. Because after all, you read it on the internet and through the opinion of a book or magazine written back then when aluminum technology was progressively getting better by the year, so therefore, what you say is gospel. ✅✅

-Accuracy isn't important so we're free to just spray and pray in a gunfight, even though the P88 is NOWHERE near on the same plane of accuracy as God's personal handgun, the BHP. ✅✅✅

-That the OP should look no further but to heed your advice, which was based on what YOU read, and what limited experience and data you have on the P88 in particular, is in fact, absolute gospel. 💯

I get you're passionate about the advice you have been dishing out here in the forum circa 1980 or whatever, but you, my friend, while you have validity in some of the posts youve made here so far, you're serving up advice on a small sample size of what you've experienced plus what ol' pappy and buddies think is "sound advice". You aren't here to learn anything, but to spread your "tactical" input to use mere mortals here on Walther Forums and beyond. You can give opinion and suggestions based on data, but don't come in here acting like a fudd and pushing your weight around on some of the members here who simply wanted an objective answer. The fellas here are of sound mind enough to make the call on what they decide to own and carry, and don't need your 129 posts worth of scare tactics to sway their opinion. The more fudd you spew the least likely we are to take you seriously.
quote-----------------------Accuracy isn't important so we're free to just spray and pray in a gunfight, even though the P88 is NOWHERE near on the same plane of accuracy as God's personal handgun, the BHP ----------quote

I regret to inform you that your reading comprehension is a little low. I never made such a statement. What I did say was that my Browning High Powers equaled that of my P88, this is not condemning the P88 at all but it does point out that the P88 myth of super accuracy is just that a myth. Please go back and read my original statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Bhp9, some of your points are fair. Certainly no gun is perfect—certainly that applies to Walthers and the P88. And, no doubt, P35s are very accurate guns. My MKIII is a great gun and I do shoot it very accurately. It may indeed be as accurate as my P88c.

That said…

In my hands, my P88c seems more accurate. But that just could be a function of my hands and my eyes. Who knows. In any case, the P88 is definitely not inaccurate and I’d venture to say it’s among the most accurate of production service pistols.

The source of the derision on your posts comes from your unilateral statements about things like aluminum frames being unsuitable for handguns… or your unsolicited, out-of-the-blue pontification on the “myth” of P88 accuracy. It’s simply ridiculous to say aluminum alloy is unsuited for handguns. Sigs and Berettas can do 6-figure round counts with no frame cracks. Now, I’m not sure a P1 or a 39-2 could do that… but those aren’t exactly M9s.

If you find the P88’s accuracy unremarkable, that’s a fair opinion. But if you bring it up in a mocking, condescending way… out of nowhere… it just seems like you’re saying it to seem jaded.

Anyway, I too am a BHP fan and I can understand why you think so highly of those guns. But, if pressed, I think I’d take my P88c over the BHP.
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top