Why is the PPK unpopular?
- Thread starter bg226
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure its not popular but if I were to venture an opinion,
Its a dated design, its bigger and heavier than many of the new polymer 380's, the gun was designed for the 32 caliber and I have read complaints that the gun is not as much fun or comfortable to fire in 380, and modern ones are made by Smith and Wesson in the USA and a Walther ppk should be a German made gun - the last is total opinion
Its a dated design, its bigger and heavier than many of the new polymer 380's, the gun was designed for the 32 caliber and I have read complaints that the gun is not as much fun or comfortable to fire in 380, and modern ones are made by Smith and Wesson in the USA and a Walther ppk should be a German made gun - the last is total opinion
LightningMan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,029
In about 1995 I owned German made PPK in .380 and it was quite snappy in the recoil department compared with some of todays newer non-blowback designed pocket .380 pistols, with the exception of the micro-eagle.
PS. That PPK was one of those few guns that I had sellers remorse. Wish I hadn't sold during hard times then. Even though it wouldn't be my choice for a pocket pistol today, it's still a classic handgun in my book.
PS. That PPK was one of those few guns that I had sellers remorse. Wish I hadn't sold during hard times then. Even though it wouldn't be my choice for a pocket pistol today, it's still a classic handgun in my book.
Mad Magyar
Member
Who sez? If I was to say why a Sig or CZ is unpopular; some would say I'm trolling? Instead of a broad declarative statement, why not say you are not fond of a PPK and say WHY! You probably don't even own one....
ambidextrous1
Member
The PPK was a very fine 20th Century pistol; but this is the 21st Century, and that design has been eclipsed by new, lighter and smaller designs, as others have noted.
Might be that the PPK is usually around $600 new, and used, if can be found, arent much better. A Bersa Thunder 380 is just about a twin sister for half the money. And if its not the price, a Sig 230 or 232 is, in my opinion, a higher quality pistol of very similar apearence. To me it would be like paying Cadilac prices for a Hyundai. Either save a few bucks and get the Hyundai, or get what you pay for and drive a Caddilac.
GBExpat
Member
I still like the PPK that I have had for ~23 years, but my Kel-Tec PF9 is much lighter and the DAO trigger is a great improvement over the DA trigger pull on my PPK ... which is why my PF9 accompanies me, in its Nemesis holster in the back pocket of my 501s, almost everywhere.
Re: PPK
I had an old PPK, given to me by a relative. Sold it in 1998. In 2006, I purchased a Bersa Thunder 380. For all intents and purposes, only an ounce of difference between the two. Actually found the Bersa to be more dependable, and slightly better balanced.
My 2 cents worth.
QE2
I had an old PPK, given to me by a relative. Sold it in 1998. In 2006, I purchased a Bersa Thunder 380. For all intents and purposes, only an ounce of difference between the two. Actually found the Bersa to be more dependable, and slightly better balanced.
My 2 cents worth.
QE2
The .380 is a relatively weak-energy compromise used when a "small and light" CCW platform is required by wardrobe constraints. The PPK no longer falls into the category of "small and light", so it is no longer a contender in the equation of size/weight vs. performance.
Les
Les
HisSoldier
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,330
There is a huge difference. The Bersa has an aluminum frame, some of us like all steel. Steel wears twice as long as aluminum alloys easily, maybe many times longer.
MICHAEL T
Member
I have a PPK/s and its a good IWB carry I used to carry in Pocket . But works better IWB and KelTec in pocket . PPK/S gives the 380 about a 100or so FPS more punch over KelTec. I use Corbon DPX in all my 380's
Just how many rounds of 380 do you shoot a year . I have read of a Thunder used as a range rental at 15K Many on the bersa board have 4 K to 6 K thru theirs . For the price If I need another because I wore it out . I won't mind paying again.
I like steel but don't see that as a no buy factor . I have Colt 1911 in steel and the alloy frames . Both shoot and work . I don't think I will wear either one out. my kids might.
Just how many rounds of 380 do you shoot a year . I have read of a Thunder used as a range rental at 15K Many on the bersa board have 4 K to 6 K thru theirs . For the price If I need another because I wore it out . I won't mind paying again.
I like steel but don't see that as a no buy factor . I have Colt 1911 in steel and the alloy frames . Both shoot and work . I don't think I will wear either one out. my kids might.
Last edited:
Gatofeo
Member
I bought my Walther PPK, made by Interarms in the U.S., in early 1999.
It is, indeed, the PPK and not the PPK/S.
I've probably put 2,000 rounds through it. It's my primary concealed weapon in the summer, because it will slip into a front jeans pocket and not show.
It's absolutely reliable with all ammo I've fed it, including lead bullets.
It may be a little heavy compared to today's .380s, but that heaviness helps to tame the recoil of +P loads.
An old design? I chose the PPK precisely for that reason: it's been a reliable design since 1929.
So many of today's semi-autos are boxy, wide and lack streamlining. Look at the Glock and derivatives, with their ridiculously wide, flat-topped slides. Give me the round, thin curves of a Browning Hi-Power any day.
Yes, the Glock is reliable. And a darned good gun by all accounts. But to me it's far wider and clumsier than necessary.
The PPK is thin, has its barrel fixed to the frame so the barrel doesn't move with each shot and affect accuracy, and is time-tested.
However, I know what you mean about the PPK being disparaged anymore. Often, the same people who disparage it have never even held one, let alone fired it. And some of those disparagers remain fans of the 1911 -- now who's tied to an antiquated gun?
I love my Kimber 1911 .45 too, by the way.
As for some of today's guns being "21st Century." Not true in most instances. So many of them are derivative of late 20th century designs.
It's rather like chastizing the revolver, for being an early 19th Century design (1835, if you go by Sam Colt's patents). Yet, for absolute reliability a revolver is tough to beat.
Just become something is an old design, doesn't make it obsolete.
I recall seeing an ancient Roman hammer in a magazine once. Though it was at least 2,000 years old, it looked just like the typical hammer you'd buy at the store today.
The PPK remains a reliable, accurate, practical pistol gun -- if properly made and of good quality.
My cousin put 8,000 rounds through his PPK in a few years. It still goes bang. Rather difficult to beat that kind of reliability.
It is, indeed, the PPK and not the PPK/S.
I've probably put 2,000 rounds through it. It's my primary concealed weapon in the summer, because it will slip into a front jeans pocket and not show.
It's absolutely reliable with all ammo I've fed it, including lead bullets.
It may be a little heavy compared to today's .380s, but that heaviness helps to tame the recoil of +P loads.
An old design? I chose the PPK precisely for that reason: it's been a reliable design since 1929.
So many of today's semi-autos are boxy, wide and lack streamlining. Look at the Glock and derivatives, with their ridiculously wide, flat-topped slides. Give me the round, thin curves of a Browning Hi-Power any day.
Yes, the Glock is reliable. And a darned good gun by all accounts. But to me it's far wider and clumsier than necessary.
The PPK is thin, has its barrel fixed to the frame so the barrel doesn't move with each shot and affect accuracy, and is time-tested.
However, I know what you mean about the PPK being disparaged anymore. Often, the same people who disparage it have never even held one, let alone fired it. And some of those disparagers remain fans of the 1911 -- now who's tied to an antiquated gun?
I love my Kimber 1911 .45 too, by the way.
As for some of today's guns being "21st Century." Not true in most instances. So many of them are derivative of late 20th century designs.
It's rather like chastizing the revolver, for being an early 19th Century design (1835, if you go by Sam Colt's patents). Yet, for absolute reliability a revolver is tough to beat.
Just become something is an old design, doesn't make it obsolete.
I recall seeing an ancient Roman hammer in a magazine once. Though it was at least 2,000 years old, it looked just like the typical hammer you'd buy at the store today.
The PPK remains a reliable, accurate, practical pistol gun -- if properly made and of good quality.
My cousin put 8,000 rounds through his PPK in a few years. It still goes bang. Rather difficult to beat that kind of reliability.
usp9
Member
Asking why a gun, that's been produced in Carl Sagan level numbers, is unpopular, discounts the obvious fact that it is very popular, and has been for a long time.
millertyme
Member
Of the .380's I've handled the PPK seemed significantly heavier than others like the Bersa, and, obvioulsy, the P3AT/LCP. However, the quality of the Walther appeared significantly higher. The cool factor was exponentially greater, and the price was more than double of some of the other .380's. Never handled a Rohrbaugh or Seecamp, but I did like it much more than a P238.
I had three 380 caliber pistols: a Bersa Thunder 380; a S&W Sigma 380; and a Ruger LCP 380. I've only got the Ruger LCP now because I couldn't pry it away from my wife. I traded the other two off; because, I just don't think the caliber is a good SD round. However, if I had a real PPK (not the Bersa look alike), I'd for sure carry it with +P ammo as a backup.
I went to buy a PPK for my father a while ago because I knew it was a gun he had always been fond of. When they pulled the thing out of the case and handed it to me the first thing I thought was wow this is a lot bigger than I thought it was going to be.
The PPK may be a good gun but compared to a number of other .380s it is on the big and heavy side, not unlike a sig P232, another fine weapon. It is not really a pocket gun which is what many .380 purchasers seem to be after. In size and weight it is close to some 9mms
The tale of the tape is as follows for the PPK.
Dimensions, L/H/W: 6.1"/3.8"/.98"
Weight (without Mag): 20.8 oz.
CW9 L/H/W 5.9"/4.5"/.90"
Weight: 15.8 Oz
PM9 L/H/W 5.3"/4.0"/.90"
Weight:14 oz.
The ppk weighs more than a glock 26 as another point of reference. The glock measures as follows:
L/H/W 6.29"/4.17"/1.26"
Weight:19.75 oz.
A gun like the sig 238/Colt Mustang is about the size of the PM9.
The PPK is just a big heavy gun for a 6(+1) .380.
The PPK is also a fair bit more expensive than a gun like the LCP. Honestly even if one is after what a PPK brings to the table, a Bersa does what a PPK will do and for significantly less money. My experience had even been that the Bersas have better triggers.
I think the first response in this thread got it right. It is mostly a size issue. And secondly a price issue. The same things that keep the sig 232 from being more popular.
The PPK may be a good gun but compared to a number of other .380s it is on the big and heavy side, not unlike a sig P232, another fine weapon. It is not really a pocket gun which is what many .380 purchasers seem to be after. In size and weight it is close to some 9mms
The tale of the tape is as follows for the PPK.
Dimensions, L/H/W: 6.1"/3.8"/.98"
Weight (without Mag): 20.8 oz.
CW9 L/H/W 5.9"/4.5"/.90"
Weight: 15.8 Oz
PM9 L/H/W 5.3"/4.0"/.90"
Weight:14 oz.
The ppk weighs more than a glock 26 as another point of reference. The glock measures as follows:
L/H/W 6.29"/4.17"/1.26"
Weight:19.75 oz.
A gun like the sig 238/Colt Mustang is about the size of the PM9.
The PPK is just a big heavy gun for a 6(+1) .380.
The PPK is also a fair bit more expensive than a gun like the LCP. Honestly even if one is after what a PPK brings to the table, a Bersa does what a PPK will do and for significantly less money. My experience had even been that the Bersas have better triggers.
I think the first response in this thread got it right. It is mostly a size issue. And secondly a price issue. The same things that keep the sig 232 from being more popular.
9026543
Member
I had a PPK made by S&W. It only stayed in my possession for 3 days. I couldn't stand the hammer bite when fired or the blood that ran from my wound. Bought a Bersa Thunder 380 and am well satisfied with it.
I wouldn't say it is "particularly unpopular", just that there are so many smaller/lighter/less expensive options today that it is less popular than the new poly pistols in .380. Before the advent of this new generation of poly .380s the PPK was very popular (except with people subject to slide bite). I wish I had mine back and should be looking to replace it.
searcher451
Member
Pay a vist to the Walther Forums. You'll find no sign whatsoever of unpopularity with the Walther PP or the PPK/S designs. Sure, there are plenty of other options out there. But IMO, the PPK is the real deal -- and has been for more than 80 years.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
I don't know about unpopular, but I would not buy one for myself except as a collector. It is a 1930s design that has been eclipsed by modern pistols. Bracketing it are subcompact 9mms of roughly equal size (e.g., Kahr) and smaller and lighter .380s and .32s that are better pocket pistols, leaving me with no practical use for one.
MillCreek
Member
I agree with Hso. I still have mine: a classic blued PPK manufactured by Manhurin with the Walther banner on the slide. I bought it new back in the early 1980's. I just have smaller and/or lighter .380 pistols now: like my AMT DAO BackUp or my TCP. I would feel confident pulling my PPK out of the safe today and carrying it.
- Status
