Walther PPK/S .22lr “stainless”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan Forrester

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2003
Messages
907
Location
FL
So are the current “stainless” Walther PPK/S .22 pistols really made out of stainless or are they Zamak (zinc)?

Everyone I have seen for sale so far and even the ones on the Walther web sight being sold as “stainless” are obviously Zamak.

But then today if found this:

https://usarmamentcorp.com/walther-model-ppk-serial-131748lr/

The gun in the picture sure looks like real stainless steel. The price is also about $350 higher than the normal Zamak ones being sold as “stainless”.

So what is this apparently real stainless PPK/S in .22lr? Is this some one off PPK/S from the Walther custom shop or a long discontinued model or what?

Thanks,

Daniel
 
I have always loved the design and look of the Walther PPK but have never owned one because I have known people that have one and have read that they are plagued with problems. The people I knew and owned .380 cal PPK's all complained about the same issue which were jams. I wonder if the 22lr is plagued the same is the big brother.
 
This PPK/s does not say made in arkansas on the right side of the frame. It is probably an interarms made by that company in alabama. it may not be stainless but a brushed nickel over blue steel
 
Didn't Walther recently move past the partnership they had with Smith and Wesson and re-introduce a "real" PPK/S in .380ACP? If so, did they also bring along a .22LR version?

That price is consistent with a "real" stainless .22LR PPK/S in these times. A Zamak-based one shouldn't be even half that.
 
That pistol is marked "Made in W. Germany" therefore most likely imported from there as a normal blued PPK. Probably refinished at some point by the owner in a bright chrome or nickel finish. I don't believe Walther made a stainless model PPK/S then.

That serial number is from the late '60s. It would use original Walther or Interarms produced mags. Modern mags probably will not function well.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t see the “Made in W. Germany” on it. That explains a lot. It must be hard chromed. Still a nice gun but I’m waiting on a new production stainless gun.

I might be waiting quite a while too! Seems like Walther only likes making real stainless steel guns in .380. I’m only interested in their guns in .32 and .22lr but no cast Zinc.

Thanks for the information everyone!

Daniel
 
I have the newer nickel PPK .22lr and I believe from the research done before purchasing, it was a steel frame and zimak slide. This would have to be confirmed as it's been a while. For the record, mine has been perfectly reliable so far.
 
I’m sure it’s a nice gun. Everything I have read about the new US made Walther guns has been very good. But the Zamak slide would just bother me. At least it’s just the slide though. That’s not as bad.

Dan
 
I can’t pretend to be prepared to cut through Internet rumor or speculation on the Walther’s materials but Zamak is used in a number of firearms including Henry Rifles (those shiny “brass” receivers).

I don’t own a Walther, I’d certainly consider the W. German specified in the OP if I were in the market, but it’s not a comfortable range pistol and I do own an FEG copy in .380ACP meant for carry. Unless you collect them, I see no practical benefit to the PPK/S in .22


CD02813F-2EA3-49DC-B615-E444D3CCAD97.jpeg
 
Skylerbone writes:

..and I do own an FEG copy in .380ACP..

I have an Interarms-imported FEG like that, in .22LR. All steel (later imports had aluminum frames) and beautiful bluing. So stiffly-sprung that the magazines are stamped "high velocity ammunition only" or something to that effect, and the double-action trigger is all but unusable. But I love the gun.

That being said, you see a lot of discussions here on guns that have "no practical benefit." In most of those threads, "practical benefit" isn't the subject of the query. ;)
 
Copy that, just quelling potential expectations of an all day comfy shooter :D

I just (between posting and reading the next thread) picked up an Eotech or I might have given more thought to swiping the subject of this thread at the asking price.
 
I have a pre-WWII PPK 7.65mm (with import paperwork), a Manhurin .22LR and an Interarms .380. All are blue, of course, as ss was not then used in their manufacture. I'm talking some 40 years ago. They are all 100% reliable and to me, ss just doesn't look right.
 
Dan Forrester

I would have to agree with usp9 and others who think that this particular Walther PPK started life with a blued finish and somewhere along the line it was hard chrome plated. I had that done many years ago to my Beretta Model 70S and even after countless trips to the range and carrying it while hiking in the backwoods, it still looks as good as the day I got it back from Ron Mahovsky at Metalife. It has often been mistaken for stainless steel.
Iy1KUPJ.jpg
 
Last edited:
Unless you collect them, I see no practical benefit to the PPK/S in .22

Some folks buy them specifically to suppress... which is what I planned on doing. Suppressing my AK-V and/or 7.5" .300blk has jumped the "projects" line, but these little pistols already come with a threaded barrel. Oh and James Bond.

Not mine, unfortunately.
sparrow-gallery-desktop-3.jpg
 
My Walther PP from 1969 in 22lr is blued and all steel---functions very well with high velocity 22 ammo... I also have two of the American made stainless TPH pistols---all steel---function perfectly with high velocity 22 ammo...
 
So in advertising "stainless" and "stainless steel" are not necessarily synonyms.

I hope "Inox" is still used as a synonym for "stainless steel".

Or I may become totally disillusioned with the integrity of advertisers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top