The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 11, 2018, 09:07 AM   #26
Areoflyer09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2017
Posts: 127
I got to touch a P99, P99C and PPQ SC yesterday.

The decocker on the P99 is neat, but I don’t get alll the love for the single action part of the P99 trigger. It felt right abought where both of my PPQs are (both came from the factory below 5lbs). I didn’t like the grip texturing on the P99s compared to the PPQ.

Given the choice between them, the PPQ SC felt better in the hand and is more likely the one I’d buy. If I decide to not buy it, a P30SK would be next on the list.
Areoflyer09 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 10:18 AM   #27
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
he decocker on the P99 is neat, but I don’t get alll the love for the single action part of the P99 trigger. It felt right abought where both of my PPQs are (both came from the factory below 5lbs).
The single-action feel of the AS trigger is not vastly different than the PPQ - just a bit lighter at 4.5 lb. But the AS trigger is recognized by many to be a safer system for carry, it's just a very well-thought-out design.

Quote:
Given the choice between them, the PPQ SC felt better in the hand and is more likely the one I’d buy.
This is what Umarex is counting on the. The PPQsc looks and feels good. But under the hood, it appears to be a greatly compromised design, compared to the original P99/PPQ. None of the changes appear to be improvements (see the previous link posted).

.

Last edited by Fishbed77; February 13, 2018 at 10:25 AM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 10:35 AM   #28
Areoflyer09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2017
Posts: 127
I don’t feel the PPQ trigger is unsafe. PPQs were the first striker gun I purchased and comminuted to be he only ones I own. It’s the only trigger I’ve liked enough to buy.

I’m not as biased against new things as others are. I’m willing to let it prove itself before condemning it.

As for the thread from the Walther forum, the ten to overreact about every change made. Stopped reading there shortly after buying the first PPQ. May actually be the least useful forum I’ve come across. They are several members here that I generally ingnore for the same reasons.
Areoflyer09 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 03:16 PM   #29
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
I don’t feel the PPQ trigger is unsafe. PPQs were the first striker gun I purchased and comminuted to be he only ones I own. It’s the only trigger I’ve liked enough to buy.
No one said the PPQ trigger is unsafe.

The AS trigger, however, does have a greater margin of safety with its ability to be decocked to a longer, heavier DA first trigger pull. It also has the "Anti-Stress" (AS) feature that adds a longer travel to the initial single-action pull, with no detriment to trigger feel.

Quote:
I’m not as biased against new things as others are. I’m willing to let it prove itself before condemning it.
Me neither. Walther has a history of meaningful innovation in firearms (which is much appreciated by its fans), but the changes to the PPQsc appear only as means to increase profit margins for Umarex, and none of them look like they will result in any performance improvements. Some, such as the two-part barrel (if this is in fact the case) and slide roll pin, have proven to be points of failure on other designs. And the large, apparently plastic component holding the slide parts is just alarming. Only time will tell for this PPQsc design, but why be a beta tester for Umarex? The existing P99/PPQ design was proven to work. And the inability to use existing full-size P99/PPQ mags (without modification) is just weird, and a bit offensive to current P99/PPQ owners.

Quote:
As for the thread from the Walther forum, the ten to overreact about every change made. Stopped reading there shortly after buying the first PPQ. May actually be the least useful forum I’ve come across. They are several members here that I generally ingnore for the same reasons.
That forum also has some of the most knowledgeable folks that you will find on any firearm forum, and the noise-to-signal ratio is much smaller than what you'll find on more generalized forums like this. Yes - many of them have high exceptions, but that is largely due to the fact that Walther has such a long history of producing very high-quality firearms.


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; February 13, 2018 at 03:21 PM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 04:32 PM   #30
Areoflyer09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2017
Posts: 127
Why would you want a longer travel than the PPQ already has? I wish my PPQs had less travel then they do. I’d pop an Apex trigger in them if I modified my guns.

It’s all conjecture and assumption as why the changes were made. Time will tell how it will work. Those that are concerned won’t rush to buy one. I could have taken one home with me this weekend, but I picked up a T-Bolt instead. I’m not particularly concerned about the changes they have made. That could change if problems beyond initial teething show up.

They may have a bunch of knowledge, but I’ve found the answers to my questions faster from other sources. Just haven’t had much use for that forum.
Areoflyer09 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 06:00 PM   #31
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
Why would you want a longer travel than the PPQ already has? I wish my PPQs had less travel then they do.
Maybe you don't. A lot of people do.

As mentioned, it's an extra margin of safety for a pistol with a relatively light trigger pull that doesn't have a manual safety. A short, light trigger pull is desirable in a target gun, but not always for a defensive pistol

Witness any number of other popular defensive pistols that rely on a long trigger pull for added safety (double-action revolvers, DA/SA pistols such as various SIGs, Berettas, HKs, etc.).

Quote:
It’s all conjecture and assumption as why the changes were made.
I would disagree with this. If Umarex just wanted to make a compact version of the PPQ, thy would have just chopped the barrel/slide and grip length (and adjusted spring weights as necessary), just as most other manufacturers have done with the compact versions of their double-stack pistols. The template is well-established. Witness the compact double-stack pistols from Glock, S&W, HK, Ruger, etc (and even Walther with the P99c).

The fact that they spent the money on design and tooling to completely re-design PPQsc's internals (and in the process make previous mags incompatible) means they must have some reasoning for making that expenditure. Ease and cost of manufacturing (leading to higher per-unit profit) is the only logical conclusion most folks can think of.

That said, you seem to have already made up your mind on this subject, so there's not much else to discuss.


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; February 14, 2018 at 10:07 AM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 06:49 PM   #32
Areoflyer09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2017
Posts: 127
Long pull with a double action makes sense. Long pull with a single action doesn’t make as much sense. Maybe it’s because I went from 22s to the PPQ without any of the other styles out there, so I cut my teeth with this trigger.

As far as my mind being made up, not as much as you assume. The PPQs are the only polymer guns I own and the only striker guns I own. I own them because then grips for well and the trigger is acceptable. I haven’t held or shot another polymer or striker fired gun that I would buy. The only thing that my mind is made up on is that SC is best logical choice given the options.

We aren’t going to agree as what the purpose behind the change is. My background doesn’t let me buy the “cheaper to build” theory. A redesign would have to be significantly cheaper to justify the retooling and the design work. Possible, but unlikely it’s the only reason.
Areoflyer09 is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 09:29 PM   #33
wild cat mccane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 926
It doesn't matter if you "buy it;" that's the reason. Walther said the plastic area is to reduce weight. Nope. Can't be true. PPQ sc and P99c weigh the same. Person of Walther told someone on the Walther forum it was for modularity for the factory to switch 9mm/.40.

What some of us are wondering is if this reduced durability-a perfectly fine thing to ask given the lack of plastic in that area for any other gun.
wild cat mccane is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 04:03 AM   #34
balance
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Posts: 395
When brand specific forum members only praise products from a brand, they are considered "fanboys".

When brand specific forum members are not blind fanboys, and don't automatically support the brand, they are criticized anyway.

Personally, I'd rather speak to people with less brand loyalty than more. I post more on the Walther forum than any other firearm forum. I happen to like it when I see that criticism of the brand is not only allowed, but welcome, and embraced on a brand specific forum.

Walther obviously made the changes to cut costs. But they aren't passing along the savings to the consumer. Why would anyone support this? At best, this new design will work as well as the P99c. But, at least for now, it seems like it will be made to be less costly to produce, and it seems like it will cost the consumer the same amount of money. If the price is the same, I'd prefer the higher quality product. A lot of Walther forum members seem to share the same sentiment.
balance is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 09:13 AM   #35
Areoflyer09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2017
Posts: 127
Part of our disagreement on this may be that others view this an option to other things. I’ve elminated majority of the striker pistols for one reason or another. I don’t like the P99s, Glocks, P320s, M&Ps, Ruger Americans, APX, P10, or the 509. The VP9 is a close second, and I’d like to try a Steyr still. After that what options are left? As such the PPQ SC is the logical choice should it prove reliable.



We aren’t going to agree on pretty much any point of this subject, so from here on in it’s probably better if I keep my options and views to myself.
Areoflyer09 is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 10:27 AM   #36
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
As such the PPQ SC is the logical choice should it prove reliable.
Are you willing to be the beta tester for this? You are eliminating a number of options that have proven to be reliable (and no doubt a compact version of the existing PPQ design would have been reliable). Or do you plan to wait to see if it's reliable? That I can understand, (if you are not in need of a compact pistol currently) but this blind defense of questionable design choices is hard to justify to most (in the absense of a reasonable, justifiable counterpoint.)

Quote:
My background doesn’t let me buy the “cheaper to build” theory. A redesign would have to be significantly cheaper to justify the retooling and the design work. Possible, but unlikely it’s the only reason.
Please elaborate on your background. We have all offered established rationale for the PPQsc re-design from the original PPQ internals. You have not.

It would appear that Umarex does believe this redesign, which has obviously cheaper, modular, and easier-to-manufacture components, will lead to a lower cost of production. Why else do it? Design is not inexpensive (nor should it be), and the costs will have to be made up.

Quote:
We aren’t going to agree on pretty much any point of this subject, so from here on in it’s probably better if I keep my options and views to myself.
This is your choice. As mentioned, we have all offered established rationale for the motivations for the PPQsc re-design from the original PPQ internals. You have not. You certainly aren't required to agree with anyone, but you don't help your case when you fail to provide any back-up to your argument.

As mentioned, Walther said the plastic construction in the PPQ slide is to reduce weight. But it weighs no less than the P99AS, with its more substantial (and more expensive to manufacture construction - molding plastic with proper tooling is cheaper than milling steel). So reducing weight is not the reason for this design change. Increasing reliability is not the reason for this design - the established PPQ design is already extremely reliable, so a redesign make no business sense. All other options are quickly expired, leaving the obvious one, whether you like it or not - Umarex wants more profit per unit.


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; February 14, 2018 at 10:34 AM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 01:09 PM   #37
Areoflyer09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2017
Posts: 127
Per my background, I’m a corporate accountant. My job revolves around cost. Cost can be a factor, but it is unlikely to be the only one. The price difference would have to be substantial for the only reason to be cost.

I’ve seen articles state the weight. I’ve seen others state the slide was built to cycle faster, hence the need for stronger mag springs, to prevent the slide from outrunning the magazine. I’ve seen the comments about being able to switch between 9mm/40sw. Is anyone of them correct? No idea. More likely is that there is a kernel of truth to all of them. Can’t tell you what the right answer is, I can say that my education and experiences says that cost is unlikely to be the sole reason.

I’d like to see that it will be reliable, and I’m now committed to waiting as I spent the cash on something else over the weekend. I fully expect there will be teething issues. If it turns out to have problems beyond initial teething I wouldn’t buy one until they’ve been solved, but until that point I will maintain my interest.

Ultimately, I don’t know why I responded. I shouldn’t have. It’s unlikely the views will change on either side. Human nature and all...
Areoflyer09 is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 06:09 PM   #38
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,012
Quote:
You're right that the P99 and PPQ are cheaper than they used to be; in my area, what was previously a $650 pistol is now a $550 pistol. My point is, their aim may be to sell the PPQsc for $500 or even $450 without losing money.
I remember a time when P99s sold for $800. I thought I was getting a great deal in 2010 when I got a full-size P99AS for $600! Now Bud's is selling them for $480. That's a great deal and proof that Walther can sell a top-shelf defensive pistol for a very low price. But they no doubt want more profit-per-unit than they are getting.


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; February 15, 2018 at 05:28 PM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07803 seconds with 10 queries