Walther Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Torture test summary- first of all, some people would not consider 405 rounds without maintenance to be a torture test. However, this is a 22lr, which is very dirty ammo and is known to be finicky. I'm also on a budget. Out of 405 rounds, I shot 30 CCI 40 grain CPRN MiniMags, and the rest were Winchester Westerns. It cycled flawlessly throughout the 405 rounds except for one Winchester cartridge which felt very underpowed (probably an ammo issue, not a gun issue). Four other rounds (all Winchesters) were squibs, and refused to fire even putting them through the gun a second time. All others, like I said, functioned fine. At about the 120 round mark the firearm started flinging very thick carbon paste at my face, but still functioned fine. I was extremely surprised by its overall performance throughout the test.

Coming home after work I cracked it open to clean. It WAS a pain, but still took no more than 15 minutes to scrub off the gunk and lube it back up. The fouling was pretty heavily caked on, especially around the chamber. The rifling in the barrel was completely filled with fouling, yet a copper brush soaked in gun cleaner fixed it after about 15 strokes.

The wear wasn't bad at all, just where you'd expect it. After today I'm at 885 rounds through the pistol in total. No cracks, even with the heat of rapid shooting, and just wear of the finish where the slide contacts the frame.

Overall I'm purely in love with this pistol, especially after today. I think people have a tendency to give it a bad rap for the "pot metal" material, but I think that is hardly justified. It's a solid, reliable platform that should last years of hard use and abuse, and well worth the $300 to buy brand new.

Sorry for the long read, hopefully it will debunk many of the myths and gripes surrounding this well-made pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Not sure that 400 rounds comes anywhere near to a '..torture test..'. I regularly put 300-500 rounds through mine in a range session without so much as a hiccup....with only the usual few failure-to-eject and failure-to-fire, depending on the ammo. I think I've gone as high as 600 or 700 rounds but had to quit only because I ran out of both ammo and time. I have five mags, so putting 50 rounds down range in relatively 'rapid-fire' ain't difficult and the pistol doesn't seem to mind one little bit. I've been doin' this for the past couple/few years and probably have 10,000-12,000 rounds through this great little pistol without much more than some wear marks on the underside of the slide surfaces. Insofar as ammo is concerned...pretty much all .22 rimfire ammo is '..dirty..' (though CCI Mini Mags and Remington Golden Bullet seem less so).

On really HOT days during summer, I will occasionally have trouble with a fresh round seating properly in the chamber and going into battery. This is probably because some .22 ammo casing will expand just a bit because of the heat and residue buildup of spent powder and 'wax' from the ammo coating. I'm pretty sure that the heat of the day is the problem rather than the ammo. If I remember to put the ammo boxes in the cooler that I usually bring along for water and iced tea on hot days...the problem goes away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Not sure that 400 rounds comes anywhere near to a '..torture test..'.
Like I said, most people wouldn't consider it a torture test by any means. My main goal was to show how the hatred some people have for the pistol is completely unjustifiable. It bothers me, Walther and Umarex spent their time and resources designing this pistol, which turned out to be an excellent product, and it seems like all it's gotten is trash talk on reviews and public forums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
We'd all like it better if the new Walther/Umarex PPK/S .22 was manufactured from steel rather than cast ZAMAK alloy and produced in a Walther Arms firearms plant rather than a UMAREX air gun plant....but if it were, few of us would've bought one...because the selling price would have been way TOO MUCH for the market to bear for a .22 chambered pistol, used primarily for '..plinking..'. As it is the new ZAMAK-alloy Walther/Umarex PPK/S .22 fits the bill quite nicely.

Should the selling price for these great little pistols be lower ??..You bet !!....but the James Bond-factor ("..with a delivery like a brick through a plate glass window.."....even it that was for a 7.65mm/.32) mystique that probably adds to the price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
Nice review.

You don't have to worry about the gun wearing out from a few hundred rounds, much less cracking or any other such damage. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the assertions that the slide will crack with use is all just ad-hominem based off of outdated information in regards to the P22, which is a completely different pistol altogether, but unfortunately Walther USA's incompetence mislabeling the PPK/S .22 as being constructed of "zinc diecast" alloy has placed an undeserved stigma on this pistol.
I have long since contacted Walther Germany on the matter after discovering that Walther Arms USA had mislabeled the slide material of the PPQ .22 as "zinc diecast" when it is in fact an aluminum alloy, and it turns out that they mislabeled the PPK/S .22 as well. According to Walther Germany, the PPK/S .22 is constructed from some sort of "proprietary alloy" which is "much stronger than ZAMAK" and not even necessarily zinc-based at all because they made it sound as if it was an aluminum alloy, but I can't be sure because English obviously isn't their first language and it seems like they were using Google Translate to communicate with me. So yeah, whatever this mystery metal is, it's not ZAMAK like the P22. My guess is that the PPK/S .22 is in fact constructed from an aluminum alloy, just as the PPQ .22 and Walther/Colt 1911 .22s are, which were manufactured around the same time as the PPK/S .22 was when it first debuted.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done thanks to Walther Arms USA, so now it has been identified as "zinc diecast" (i.e. ZAMAK) for so long that everyone has long since written it off as a cheaply constructed replica which doesn't deserve to wear the Walther banner and will assuredly break from regular use.
Meanwhile, the PPK/S .22 has been on the market since 2013 and I've yet to see a single report of slide failure, despite there being folks who claim to have put tens of thousands of rounds thorough theirs, not to mention reports of PPK/S .22s surviving catastrophic case blowouts which have destroyed many a P22. So obviously they're not as flimsy as folks believe.

I've owned my PPK/S .22 since October 2015 and so far the only issues I have ever had with it were 100% ammo-related. (For some reason, mine either doesn't like Remington Golden Bullet or I just plain got a bad batch of the stuff, as it has resulted in numerous FTEs and one stuck case, yet CCI Mini Mag runs flawlessly.)

Bottom line, the Walther/Umarex PPK/S .22 got a bad rep thanks to a combination of Walther USA mislabeling it as ZAMAK and the fact that many folks are used to PPKs which were hand-fitted, high-quality pieces which would easily cost upwards of $1000 today, yet hold these $300-$400 pistols to the same standards.
When judged by their own merits, they make great range guns for the price, which is why most folks who actually own them tend to like them, and generally have no complaints aside from the heavy DA trigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cocojo and Yoxford

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Nice review.

You don't have to worry about the gun wearing out from a few hundred rounds, much less cracking or any other such damage. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the assertions that the slide will crack with use is all just ad-hominem based off of outdated information in regards to the P22, which is a completely different pistol altogether, but unfortunately Walther USA's incompetence mislabeling the PPK/S .22 as being constructed of "zinc diecast" alloy has placed an undeserved stigma on this pistol.
I have long since contacted Walther Germany on the matter after discovering that Walther Arms USA had mislabeled the slide material of the PPQ .22 as "zinc diecast" when it is in fact an aluminum alloy, and it turns out that they mislabeled the PPK/S .22 as well. According to Walther Germany, the PPK/S .22 is constructed from some sort of "proprietary alloy" which is "much stronger than ZAMAK" and not even necessarily zinc-based at all because they made it sound as if it was an aluminum alloy, but I can't be sure because English obviously isn't their first language and it seems like they were using Google Translate to communicate with me. So yeah, whatever this mystery metal is, it's not ZAMAK like the P22. My guess is that the PPK/S .22 is in fact constructed from an aluminum alloy, just as the PPQ .22 and Walther/Colt 1911 .22s are, which were manufactured around the same time as the PPK/S .22 was when it first debuted.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done thanks to Walther Arms USA, so now it has been identified as "zinc diecast" (i.e. ZAMAK) for so long that everyone has long since written it off as a cheaply constructed replica which doesn't deserve to wear the Walther banner and will assuredly break from regular use.
Meanwhile, the PPK/S .22 has been on the market since 2013 and I've yet to see a single report of slide failure, despite there being folks who claim to have put tens of thousands of rounds thorough theirs, not to mention reports of PPK/S .22s surviving catastrophic case blowouts which have destroyed many a P22. So obviously they're not as flimsy as folks believe.

I've owned my PPK/S .22 since October 2015 and so far the only issues I have ever had with it were 100% ammo-related. (For some reason, mine either doesn't like Remington Golden Bullet or I just plain got a bad batch of the stuff, as it has resulted in numerous FTEs and one stuck case, yet CCI Mini Mag runs flawlessly.)

Bottom line, the Walther/Umarex PPK/S .22 got a bad rep thanks to a combination of Walther USA mislabeling it as ZAMAK and the fact that many folks are used to PPKs which were hand-fitted, high-quality pieces which would easily cost upwards of $1000 today, yet hold these $300-$400 pistols to the same standards.
When judged by their own merits, they make great range guns for the price, which is why most folks who actually own them tend to like them, and generally have no complaints aside from the heavy DA trigger.
I wholeheartedly agree here, as the owner of a 'new' PPKS in 22lr as well as multiple Walthers going back to the 1930's it's a fine gun and mine runs fine on good ammo (cci) which seems to be the key. Would I like a lighter trigger pull, yes but that is another story
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
>>...unfortunately Walther USA's incompetence mislabeling the PPK/S .22 as being constructed of "zinc diecast" alloy has placed an undeserved stigma on this pistol...<<<
Alloys have been used for pistols for many years....aluminum being the most frequent. There are some who believe that anything other than steel is doomed to failure (conveniently forgetting or ignoring that even steel fails from time to time). There's no question that there have been cheap, shoddy '..Saturday night specials..' of the worst sort produced over the years...but relative durability depends on the metallurgic composition of the alloy and quality control procedures employed. Umarex is NOT about to tarnish and devalue the reputation of their premier Walther marque at risk by producing crap.

Insofar as the Walther/Umarex PPK/S is concerned....ANY change to the iconic original was bound to be considered by purists as sacrilege at best or '..shoddy toy..' at worst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
611 Posts
To update my post from 2018 above, I continue to like my PPK/S in .22, and continue to shoot it a a hundred or so times when I go to the range. I have restricted my ammo to either CCI MM’s or Remington Golden. I do have an occasional hiccup but far and few between. When they occur, when I get home I just give it a good bath.

It has been back to Walther a couple of times after a casing failure or perhaps out of battery blow out of the extractor, spring, et al.

I typically read more critical comments about the S&W extended beaver tail and sharp edges than I do the .22lr. I have both and they both are fun to shoot.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
Until today all my experiences with my PPK/S .22 are positive. I shoot CCI HV ammunition exclusively without any problems. The strong spring seems to guarantee that every shot goes bang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Not sure what it is about CCI Mini Mags (??)....but they run almost flawlessly (out of 20,000-30,000 rounds I've had a few Failure-to-Fire and Failure-to-Eject....I can probably count 'em on the fingers of one hand...with fingers left over to scratch my head and wonder why ?) through almost any semi-auto .22 pistol. Other High Velocity (1,200+) not nearly as reliable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,412 Posts


Torture test??? Back in 2005, 06, 07...you could go down to Academy and purchase bulk boxes of Rem Goldens and Federals for $6/box. 500 to 550 round boxes. During my testing of early P22's I sat down several times with a clean pistol and began firing with the intention of seeing how far the pistol would run without a stoppage. Dud rounds did not count against the pistol. I'd shoot a 1,000 rounds, 2,000 rounds sometimes and the most I ever shot on at least two occasions were 3,000 rounds. My rules did not allow any cleaning or lubing of the pistol once firing started. What took the most damage was my loading thumb. I think a P22 would go 10,000 rounds without a stoppage and no cleaning if I were to use CCI Mini Mags as the test ammo. It is cleaner burning than either of the above. One note, these pistols were not oiled. They had dry moly powder rubbed on frame, barrel sleeve and slide. Nothing else and they never showed anything but finish wear. I'll have to say that loading and firing 3,000 rounds at a sitting gets a little beyond fun. My old 2006 P22 frame has 60,000 to 80,000 cycles on it and it is still in very good shape. Still no oil. 1917
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top