[Dannyboy]

I just read about the new model SW99 in American Rifleman and I was wondering if anyone knew whether or not Walther was planning on doing the same. Is anyone out there planning on buying the S&W?

[JimC]

In an e-mail to me dated 12/03/02, Carl Walther GmbH said;

"We are always considering to improve our products. Therefore it is possible that a P99 Compact and/or a P99 chambered in .45 ACP will be built in the near future, we discussed this point already, but we do not know exactly, when this will be, maybe next year but not yet sure".

I had asked about the possibility of a P99 Compact along with a FS .45 ACP P99.

I think it's too bad that Walther is allowing S&W to run with the .45 ACP project first. :fire:

Is anyone out there planning on buying the S&W?

ABSOLUTELY NOT :cuss:

[MarineTech]

I, for one, would certainly buy a P99 in .45ACP.

[JimC]

ABSOLUTELY, but only if it were a 100% German P99. :D

[Dannyboy]

I don't know why I asked that question. I kind of expected the answer that you guys gave. I'd like to see the P99 in .45, myself.

[JimC]

I don't know why I asked that question.

Hell, it never hurts to ask, even when you know the answer your going to get. :D :D :D

[denfoote]

Absolutely!!
I plan to run out and buy at least a dozen of them!!!


NOT!!!!!!! :D :D :D

[kalibear45]

http://home.attbi.com/~kbug1/images/SW120206_lrg.jpg

It surely is one cool looking pistol and in .45acp to boot. I've always been a fan of Walther (now S&W) and I like the P99. Hopefully it makes it in the Kali approved list...

[10-Ring]

Yeah, I'd wait to buy the one w/ the German proofmarks :cool: I just dig German polymer :cool:

[David S]

i would actually be interested in hearing a SW99 owner defend the gun...........i have held a few of the SW99s and they have been described to me as "basically the same gun" but totally are not at all........... this is the real thing, nothing more....

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=57140

[fastbolt]

Of course I plan on buying a SW99 in .45 ACP ...

As a SW99/P99 L/E armorer I have a passing familiarity with the pistol design, some of the differences, and the reasoning behind some of the differences. A layman's understanding, anyway.

Aside from the ergonomic/functional/cosmetic differences in the frames, requested by S&W, internally the frames are the same. The same frame parts used in the Walther pistols are shipped along with the Walther frames for use in the SW99 pistols.

The slides & barrels are different in materials and shape for valid reasons.

Cosmetically ... well, that's why they make so many different car designs, isn't it? Also, S&W decided to use some broach cutting equipment developed for the Sigma slides. And before you throw your arms up in the air about the Sigma name, the resulting SW99 slides DO offer some advantage in respect to design and slide mass issues. Chose as you wish ...

I like being able to easily strip the magazine from the grip frame if it becomes stuck, and it's easier to accomplish with the S&W, but only because they specifically requested the front of the grip frame be relieved so the "toe" of the magazine base pad could be accessed more easily. No big deal in ordinary circumstances. I like the thumb recess better in the Walther, but that's simply another personal preference issue.

I like the accessory rail design on the S&W version, again, done that way for a specific reason ... and Walther will offer theirs accordingly soon ...

I dislike square trigger guards, but that's a personal choice that can be defended simply on the basis of whatever the prospective owner desires for themselves ... others like them ...

The little "walking" trigger pin issue, such as it was alleged, was resolved in the Walthers. I know of a fed agency that was briefly T&E'ing some of the early Walthers, and the major complaints by their folks were the small pins working "loose" in the trigger assemblies, and the trigger guard "bump" which irritated their fingers under extended shooting.

I prefer a stainless steel slide & barrel, especially a double heat treated barrel, compared to the carbon steel slide & barrel of the Walther, with its traditionally tempered barrel via heat induction method. Think of it as zone tempering in specific locations of the barrel, instead of the entire barrel. At least, that's how it was explained to us. Nothing wrong with the older method. The German pistols have done well for many years with their methods. No big deal either way. I simply like the double heat treatment of the SW99 barrel.

The enhanced surface hardening is quite similar, allowing for the required difference of the carbon versus stainless steel material issue. The QPQ of the tenifer carbonitriding process used on the Walther is unsuitable for stainless steel, but offers some enhanced corrosion resistance to carbon steel. The gascarburizing process used on the SW99, which is a QP Melonite process, is suitable for stainless steel, which already has enhanced corrosion properties, so the QPQ stage of the Melonite process isn't really necessary, anyway.

S&W engineers have helped contribute to enhancing the 99 series, to the benfefit of both manufacturer's models. Little things, like springs, dressing an angle on the locking blocks, radiusing the extractors, changing a bevel on the bottom of the barrel to enhance the unlocking of the barrel so it better clears the recoil spring during the cycle of operation ... and, of course, discovering how the design of the early 12-round .40 S&W magazines were involved in the reported premature slide-lock occurrences that caused many early Walther P99 .40 S&W owners to become frustrated with their pistols. MecGar used the results of S&W's research to redesign the 12-round .40 S&W magazine bodies and followers, which resolved the problem. Unfortunately, in the US the magazine ban limits non-L/E to 10-round magazines, which fortunately didn't exhibit the same problems as the 12-round magazines during extended testing. I bought several 10-round .40 S&W magazines against the time I hope to retire in another couple of years, in case I'm not given the 12-round magazines by my agency at the time of my retirement.

Both offerings are fine weapons, and are selling as fast as their respective companies can produce them.

Walther has the advantage of offering the P-990 (DAO) and QA variants. They also offer some finish variations.

S&W has been working on developing a .45 ACP version, with the slides & barrels produced here, and using a newly designed Walther frame produced in Germany.

Both are going to offer "compact" versions of the 9mm and .40 S&W calibers. Walther may decide to offer a .45 ACP version of their own, since they're already making the frames for the S&W version under contract for S&W. I'm sure it'll be a fine pistol if they do ...

After the initial minor glitches were resolved in both the Walther and the S&W .40 pistols, they're fine pistols. The 9mm pistols are very nicely made in both models.

I've fired many thousands of rounds through the SW99 pistols, mostly in .40 S&W, but at least a couple or more thousand in the 9mm versions.

I carry one in .40 S&W.

I plan to buy a .45 ACP version.

I'm NOT a S&W or Walther salesman, though, and actually couldn't care less what anyone else does, or doesn't, buy ... or their reasoning ...

Tired subject ... but you DID ask ... ;)

[Wildalaska]

Im gonna wait till Walther comes out with it, I just dont like the look of the S&W

WildaestheticsareimportantAlaska

[Kahr carrier]

Yep I would.:)

[Jeff OTMG]

This is precisely the reason why I do the SHOT Show reports. I reported on this info nearly a year ago and American Rifleman is just now getting this out. Check out the Walther paragraph here http://www.shotshowreports.com/2002pg2.html

[kalibear45]

... that it will make the Kalifornia drop-tested list :D and retail price will be in the high $500 range.

[DeltaElite]

I'm interested, very interested. :D

[David S]

the gun just lacks the original style that the p99 has..........as of course, still means everything. i am totally walther biased, but i am glad that the two companies are working together and both are improving

[WhoKnowsWho]

I just can't make myself like the SW99 look, maybe I could if it only cost me $200 or something. But I know there is no swaying of the decision for my wife who is the one who really wants it.

It's like having a choice between a Mustang. And a Mustang in a Geo Metro body. Might be the same/similar underneath, but I have to look at the exterior all the time, and have other people look at it.

[Kahr carrier]

Cant wait to see it in the Prk.:D

[BadJohn]

I owned a SW99 in 9mm and hated it.Sights were loose and accuracy was poor.I love P99's and have 1 in .40 that I'll never part with.I believe I gave the SW99 an honest chance,I bought it instead of the P99 in the first place to support an American company.I should have went ahead and bought the P99 first,they are great pistols.

[Tweek]

Bought an SW99 .45acp last week. It was a rep sample but unfired. I've gone to the range with it twice now. I love it. The fit and finish of the gun is great. (I also own several Walthers and HK's). The gun shoots good and feels great in your hand. Nice ergonomics.

[Selfdfenz]

So my 100th post on THR will be a question.
What's going on with the top of the slide in front of the rear sight?
S-

[Tweek]

You mean the decocker?

[Selfdfenz]

Tweek,
Thanks, I was wondering what that was.
Never crossed my mind it was a decocker.
I'm used to decockers in the approximate location that the safety usually resides in.

I assume you just press down on the "panel" to decock the pistol?
S-

[triggertime]

Jeff Quinn has already reviewed the new .45 SW99 over at GunBlast (http://www.gunblast.com/SW99.htm), for those who are interested.

[agony]

The strange decocker location has been the only thing keeping me from purchasing a P99. As a lefty it's useless, and doesn't seem too handy for righties either.

[Tweek]

Yeah, I thought the decocker was in a strange location also. I'm used to the safety/decocker on the HK USP. But it works very well and is easy to get to with the thumb. Just press down.

[petej88]

S&W said the SW99 .45 will be out in May. I've heard nothing but good reviews about it. The Corbon folks said it is definitely a hot pistol. It also seems to feed anything, including SWC's, which is really cool.

Interesting that the SW99 .45 is coming out at the same time as the Glock 37 with their new slimline .45 models, which means the .45 cartridges fit in standard size pistols, but can only go up to 200 grain size bullets.

But if the SW45 has a grip that small and medium sized hands like, it could be a tie breaker and pull ahead of the new .45 Glock caliber. So many people have said the .45 Glocks are great pistols, but the grip is just a little too big. Let's see what happens.

A 9 round SW99 .45ACP versus a 10 round Glock 37 .45G. Before you start scoffing at the shortened .45G caliber, remember that Glock already has interest and probable customers lined up. Who's a betting man?

[fastbolt]

Personally, I'm willing to bet there's going to be a market for both the G37 in .45 Glock, and the SW99 in .45 ACP ... as they're not exactly the same thing, and will probably appeal to different folks for different reasons.

The SW99 in .45 ACP will fire the standard .45 pistol cartridge, which includes bullet weights from the new ultra-lightweight 165gr, up to the venerable and popular 230gr loads, and everything inbetween, including the +P pressure versions.

The .43 caliber .45 Glock, however, will only offer the 185gr & 200gr bullets ... and the published velocities will offer some "improvement" over the .40 S&W loads which are very close in size, weight and velocities. The 185gr load is listed hovering around 1050fps, which is what the popular 165gr .40 rounds offer, and the 200gr .45 Glock is listed at about 1050fps, which is just a tad more than the .40's 180gr loads at 950-1000fps.

The corresponding bullet weights in 185gr & 200gr +P .45 ACP loads are sometimes rated at slightly faster velocties than those listed for the .45 Glock, but then they're also loaded down slower, too ... depending on the company. Once the ballistics "hype" is settled, and actual velocities are obtained when fired from production pistols, we'll have a better idea of what it all means ...

The .45 Glock may not be an actual .45 caliber cartridge, but it may offer some slight improvement over the 2 popular .40 loads on the market, and in the same size pistol platforms.

Once the sectional densities of the new .43 caliber bullets are studied in ballistics testing, and we have a better idea of how this fledgling cartridge "performs" ... we'll know whether Glock has built a better mousetrap with his .43 caliber cartridge, and bridged the "gap" between the existing .40 and .45 caliber loads ...

It'll be interesting to see how Speer approaches the new ground created between the current .40 and .45 caliber loads, and how the sectional densities of the new caliber bullets affect "performance" at the listed velocities, what the pressures are, etc. ... and how the pressures & overall perceived recoil characteristics affect "shootability", comfort, recovery, etc ... those totally subjective qualities of handguns debated endlessly ...

For those folks that desire a pistol that chambers the traditional .45 ACP, in all its myriad loadings and pressures from light-to-heavy bullets, standard to +P ... there will be the SW99, with a grip that can be configured to fit just about any shooter's hand ... and maybe a P99 in .45 ACP, if Walther sees a potential market ...

And for those folks that desire something "new" in their favorite Glock platform, and a caliber that's closer to the actual .45 ACP than anything else on the market ... there's the new .45 Glock ... and which might be offered in compact and subcompact models as are other calibers in the Glock platform ...

It'll also be interesting to see if any other firearms & ammunition manufacturers become interested in this new caliber anytime soon. Considering all of the 9mm & .40 S&W platforms saturating the marketplace, the slightly smaller .45 Glock cartridge could be released in any number of the smaller 9mm & .40 S&W pistols ... depending on the pressure levels, of course ... although most quality pistols which chamber the .40 S&W have already been beefed up to handle that cartridge.

The current handgun market is anything but boring ...

[petej88]

FYI:

I've talked to the CCI folks who are putting the finishing touches on the .45 glock caliber. The bullet is indeed a true .45 size bullet. The initial shot show brochure of .43 is a misprint.

If the SW99 grip can be configured for small and medium size hands, it could become a real winner. Then again, maybe Walther will go with the .45 Glock caliber. :what:

[Spackler]

I understand that the new Glock caliber is actually called "45 Glock". There is no decimal point. Curious.

[fastbolt]

Something in the literature displayed from the Shot Show isn't accurate regarding this new caliber ... but which is the incorrect data?

Is the bullet diameter 11mm or .43 inches? Or neither?

.451 inches equals 11.4554mm

.43 Inches equals 10.922mm

11mm equals 0.433071 Inches


Is .43 caliber incorrect? Or, is the 11mm measurement inaccurate?.

Are both measurements displayed by Glock incorrect, and the 45Glock is actually a .451-.452 bullet with a metric measurement of 11.45-11.48mm?

You'd certainly think Speer would know, being the primary ammunition developer for this new cartridge, but if you only spoke to a customer service person they could easily be simply repeating the new caliber's name, and assume that it's a true .45 caliber bullet becasue it's called 45Glock. Not everyone that answers the phones at the various firearms & ammunition companies are technical folks, or even give the same answer twice in a row, depending on who they turn to for answers ... or if someone else answers the phones ... But that's normal in large companies.

It would be a less than perfect beginning for both of the caliber measurements displayed by Glock at the Show to be inaccurate ... and not really in keeping with their "Perfection" trademark ... :rolleyes:

I'm curious to see the first one come through our range ... This may be a "better mousetrap" ... Or, it may an answer for a question which nobody else has thought to ask yet ...

If this caliber is popular and in general non-L/E & L/E use in 10 years ... then it's another good idea, and many of our firearms collections will be the richer for it. Like the .40 S&W, for instance ...

If not, then it's another .41AE ...

Just out of curiosity, when you spoke to Speer did they give you a metric measurement for the bullet they're using? Are they using their existing Gold Dot .45 185gr & 200gr bullets (which are neither .43 nor 11mm)? That might settle this question ...

[petej88]

I talked to a CCI guy in the technical ballistics group. He gave me the measurement as .45 inches, just like the .45ACP. In the shot shot brochure, it states 11.5mm which is correct. Underneath the mm measurement, it mistakenly states .43 inches.

He also said that they are doing some last minute tweaking of the caliber and it isn't firm yet. They plan on duplicating the .45ACP in pressure more or less, with the same ballistics more or less. I was really hoping they were a little farther advanced, since the G37 is coming out May 1. I'll keep checking back on a regular basis.

The brochure also states .45 Glock, using the decimal point. Here's a url pointer to some views of the brochure, if you are interested:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/petej/shot.show.2003.htm

If you have visited glocktalk, you know there are a lot of unhappy campers who wanted a real .45ACP single stack pistol.

Apparently Glock does indeed have very interested customers. For years folks have been telling Glock that they love the Glock .45 pistols, but the grip is too big. Well, this is Glock's answer. If anybody has the marketing and connections to pull off this new caliber, it's Glock. Some folks who are tired of the .40 kaboom issue will also be interested in this big fat bullet that fits in standard size pistols and has a low pressure to boot.

I'm not trying to plug it. But as a hobbyist, I'm interested in testing it out.

I hope Corbon comes on line with some of their cool stuff, that is when they finally can find out what the .45G specs are frozen at.

[Spackler]

a-ha! My information about the decimal point came from Dean Speir's site. It appears to be incorrect. My apologies.

[petej88]

That's OK. Dean is usually right on. I can understand how there is confusion with this new caliber since there are errors in the brochure and there's a lot of guessing going on as well.

cheers,
pete

[fastbolt]

Excellent info. Thanks Pete ...

That's more than the hysteria and whining over on GT has been able to produce lately. I finally quit reading about it over there because of the reactions ...

Interesting slant on making a .45 pistol that fits small hands better ... change the cartridge. This may be the answer, but you're right ... I think a lot of folks wanted it the other way around, with the platform specially redesigned. Unfortunately, this solution does eliminate those potential shooters that favor the standard 230gr bullet weight, in favor of those that will accept the ballistics of the lighter rounds ...

Personally, I have little interest in the 185gr & 200gr .45 bullet weights, so this "caliber" won't be something I'll be interested in owning. My .45 ACP & .40 S&W pistols more than covers my needs ... but then, that's because I can cpmfortably handle the pistols that chamber the regular .45 ACP cartridge. Perhaps the smaller statured shooters will flock to this new caliber & platform combination ...

In a way, it's too bad Glock didn't come up with some innovative redesign efforts to slim down his G21 & G30 frames, and perhaps reduce the girth of his magazines by going to metal magazine bodies, instead of the thicker metal lined polymer magazines. Using metal magazine bodies would certainly help eliminate some of the deformation, cracking & peeling issues that occur from time to time ... as well as allow for the empty magazines to more easily and uniformly fall free from the grip frame. It's not like Glock has any huge military contracts requiring the use of non-drop free magazines anymore ... but they could remain an option even if that were the case.

Makes for a new twist in the horse race, though ...

[petej88]

Well, I suppose that's where the new SW99 .45 comes in. It's fairly slim compared to Glock and HK .45's, and still packs 9 + 1. This could be a winner.

Glock apparently is happy with their formula and doesn't appear to want to make any drastic changes at all. Interesting.

I'll have to see how BrokenArrow likes his new SW99 .45.