Better Handgun: Browning or Walther?

[Camp David]

Have a question on two very similiar semi-autos:

Browning Model 1910 (Belgium-Made) 9x17mm Browning (.380 ACP) (1970 vintage) Interior hammer, blowback operated semi-auto, tri-safety. Excellent condition.

Walther Model PPK (German Made) 9x17mm (.380 ACP) (Unsure of date), Exterior hammer, blowback operated semi-auto, dual safety. Good condition.

WHich is better? Which is more reliable? Which is worth more?

 

[Chipperman]

They are both good pistols as far as design and reliability. The value on the PPK will be variable depending on when it was made. Presuming it's about the same vintage as the Browning, I think the value of the two is close. Some people might pay more for the Walther.

Personally I'd pick the Browning, but then I'm not a big fan of PPKs anyway.

 

[scbair]

I'd pick the Walther, for actually carrying for SD purposes. The Browning M1910 isn't actually an internal hammer design; it uses a striker, and is a single-action.

It is unsafe (in my opinion) to carry with a round in the chamber (the thumb safety and grip safety notwithstanding). The only safe way to carry it is "Condition 3"; charged magazine, empty chamber, and rack the action on the draw to ready it for firing.

I like to be able to draw and fire one-handed, in the event my off hand is otherwise occupied (deflecting a club or knife, hanging onto a rail on slippery stairs, etc.).

Now, about the S&W M642 . . .

 

[Camp David]

It is unsafe (in my opinion) to carry with a round in the chamber (the thumb safety and grip safety notwithstanding). The only safe way to carry it is "Condition 3"; charged magazine, empty chamber, and rack the action on the draw to ready it for firing.

scbair: Thanks for the suggestion... I'll do some thinking...

I am unsure of your "unsafe" pronouncement however; if safety is on and grip not squeezed, Browning will not fire with round in chamber....

 

[GoBrush]

I have never owned a Browning 380
Have owned a Walther PPKs

The PPK was a great little gun I just didnt like the sharp edges on the bottom edge of the slide and the area the hammer sets into.

I own a Buckmark and while it is totally a different gun the fit and finish is very nice.

Personally I would go with the Browning.

 

[GoBrush]

One more thought.

If you are buying to add to your collection go for it. If you are buying for a small carry gun you might want to check out the Kahr PM9. I would much rather carry a full powered 9 vs the 380. I did the phone book test with my 380 with hollowpoints and the bullet colapsed.

Not trying to complicate the issue just giving you something else to chew on.

 

[scbair]

I probably should have explained why I consider the single-action, striker-fired pistol unsafe to carry with a chambered round. Sorry!

Here's my thought process: If a round is chambered, the mainspring is compressed, the striker held rearward by the sear.

Now, the striker is within the slide; the sear is frame-mounted. There is naturally some slight "play" between the slide and the frame (otherwise, the pressure from a fired round wouldn't reciprocate the slide). Also, the sear/striker contact points are pretty small pieces of metal.

Within manufacturing specs, no problem! I still have my father's old FN Model 1910 (7.65 mm / .32ACP) that he "picked up" in Europe while enjoying a federally-funded vacation during WWII . . . It's never malfunctioned, and I can tell you a pretty funny story that absolutely demonstrates its feeding reliability (but that's another story).

However, metal wears, and sometimes it fatigues. The thought of a worn or aged pistol, with perhaps an increased amount of "play" between frame & slide, and/or aged/fatigued contact points between sear & striker gives me pause. I am really not comfortable with the cocked striker over a live primer! The fear of an unintentional discharge, without the trigger even being touched, is just too much.

I have no hesitation carrying my BHP or my 1911 in Condition 1, but both of these are full-sized, robust service pistols, with frame-mounted hammers.

That said, as a fun gun for the range, the ol' M1910 is great! Even with the minimal sights (designed more for "snag-free" than for "see-me"), it's significantly more accurate than my P32. If you want the pistol for either a range plinker or for a collection (I don't see nearly as many 1910s on dealers' shelves as I do Walthers), there's nothing wrong with the 1910.

As a CCW, though, neither it nor the Walther PPK would be my choice (I'd select the Walther over the Browning, though). There are far too many better options available, today (Kahr, Rohrbaugh, NAA Guardian, etc., depending on my specific criteria and size limits).

 

[Alerion]

Looking at these two particular guns, assuming both are graded correctly, I'd go with the "Excellent" Browning over the "Good" Walther.

WHich is better? Which is more reliable? Which is worth more?

Better is pretty subjective, reliability may be affected by the higher condition, and worth (price) is very affected by condition.

A "Good" gun will show a lot more wear than an "Excellent" gun. Especially considering that neither gun is anywhere near new.

Keep in mind however that the condition is often in the mind of the seller. I've seen great looking and functioning guns rated (correctly) as "Good" because of mis-matched serial numbers and I've seen junk rated as "Excellent" just because the guy selling it (usually online) knows excellent guns sell for more than poor guns. Or "Granpa's old gun is excellent cause it was Granpa's old gun. Just remember he always said to make sure you hold the cylinder in when you pull the trigger!"

If both of these guns are coming from (and rated by) the same person then I'd easily go with the Browning.

Tom