I've had the urge to purchase a nice 22LR plinker lately, and with the holiday season upon us I figure it might soon be time to take the plunge. I already own a gorgeous Ruger Mark IV Target model in stainless steel, but it's on the large side and is fairly heavy (43oz) for use in extended range sessions or to train friends that haven't shot before with.

I previously owned an Interarms Walther PPK/s in 380ACP. I loved the size and ergonomics of the gun, as well as how pretty it was and how nicely it fit my hand. It was miserable to shoot more than two or three magazines out of, however. The web and palm of my hand would ache after having it out at the range, and I found myself continuing to shoot it just to finish my box of .380 as opposed to shooting for actual enjoyment. While I didn't experience any slide bite, it just wasn't fun to take to the range. I ended up selling it to a friend, and while I don't regret that one bit, I certainly do miss a few things about it.

I've seen that Walther/Umarex now offers a new production model in 22LR. I know they can be ammo sensitive and that they're made of an alloy as opposed to plain steel. I'm not particularly bothered by that. I am concerned about the finish though. None of my local gun shops have one in stock, and I haven't actually been able to eyeball one in person. I'm most interested in the black model, but I'd love to know if it's lustrous at all in person or if it looks just as flat, rattle-can black as online stock photos make it out to be. If the latter is the case I may just order the nickel-plated model. (I do wish Walther would've made a pricier SKU of the gun that was closer to the 380 models. I don't mind paying a premium for a nicer product, especially in terms of fit and finish.)

If anyone has some large or HD photos of one I'd be appreciative as well. It seems like all Google can pull up are stock photos that don't really lend me any insight.

---

And just for the sake of it, here's a photo of the aforementioned Interarms model. It was certainly a looker!

Here’s mine.
Cut out of a group pic, piece of a Beretta shown.

Attached Images

AEEA2CEF-DC8E-47D0-9C30-E8D52026D3DC.jpeg (145.0 KB, 89 views)

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

I would call the finish a slight matte or a semi-gloss. I hope they are good guns, as I just purchased one at an on-line auction (NIB) and am awaiting getting it. I plan to take it our with several types of ammo to see what it likes. 22's are usually ammo sensitive.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I have one and do like it.
The finish is matte black. I don't know just what it is, but it does look pretty good and has held up very well.
These guns are a bit ammo sensitive. They prefer high velocity ammo. Mine just absolutely loves cheap old Remington Thunderbolts. Very accurate with them too.
The big complaint about them is the DA trigger pull. It is quite heavy and a little rough. I have been told it smooths out with use. But I haven't gotten there with mine just yet. However the SA trigger is quite nice.
If you don't already know, the barrel is threaded. With a $20 adapter, your favorite .22 suppressor will screw right on.

I would call it a semi-gloss coating... shinier than a Sig nitron but not glossy

I have the black one. Nothing pretty, but it shoots. A friend has the nickel one. Feeling picky, get that one just for it's looks. Still not spectacular, but nice. I have the German ones too in real blue, and there is no comparison.

__________________
It's what I do, not what I am.

I appreciate the input and info! The DA trigger on my aforementioned Interarms PPK/s was absolutely horrendous as well. It became kind of a party trick to hand somebody the gun and have them try to pull the trigger, just to watch their baffled reactions.

Thanks. As long as it shows somewhat of a reflection/shine in direct light I think I'll be alright with it.

Those older, blued models truly are works of art. Again, I really do wish that Walther would put out a pricey limited edition 22LR built to the same standard as the 380 models. I'd snap one up in a heartbeat.

The Bobcat has been on my radar for a little while, and I do find it fairly captivating. The tip up barrel and sheer smallness of it are unique novelties. I'll have to see if I can handle one in an LGS and make a comparison sometime.

I don't know exactly what finish they use, but i do know the slides of the PPK .22 are not "alloy as opposed to plain steel". It is a cast zinc slide, not steel at all.

__________________
Pisgah

I was wondering when that would come up.
The gun is made of a zinc based alloy called Zamak. No it is not pot metal. It also has some aluminum, magnesium and copper in it. Its proven to be good stuff and more than adequate for a .22.
When these guns first came out the purist were screaming "Its pot metal junk!" Not true at all. Zamak has proven to be a good, light weight alloy for many uses. I know of no problems at all with the PPK/S .22 related to its material.

I believe the guns are made out of Zamak alloy which has been a round for a long time...96% zinc and 4% aluminum...

For the same size gun you may want to look at the Bersa... I have several friends with them and all have been pleased. Much better DA pull than the Walther and the slide is steel and the frame aluminum alloy...

Bob

I have the nickel .22. The finish looks fine to me but assume it is only so durable finish. Mine has had a few hundred rounds. That double action trigger is... Brutal. Single action is passable.

I also thought the “blued” .22s looked okay too when seen in person, especially at the price point. I went with the nickel one for the flash.

As I have posted several times, Heavy Double Action Trigger is my only Negative Feedback against the Arkansas PPKs.
‘Tell Your, Ma, Tell Your Pa, I’m sending You Back to Arkansas.’
Not me! I’m keeping mine.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

The PPK/S .22 is made in Germany by Umarex which is one of the Worlds largest air gun makers and the parent company of Walther having acquired them in 1993.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe they also make the .22LR 1911 pistols offered by Colt and various .22s sold by several other gun manufacturers.
This is a big outfit that has been in business for a very long time. They know how to make quality guns.

I've owned one in black since October 2015 and while I'm not entirely sure what the finish is, (it's the only thing more mysterious than the proprietary alloy it's made of) it has held up extremely well and has only worn off where the safety lever contacts the slide.

So yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. The finish seems plenty durable, the slide and frame are made of an alloy so you don't have to worry about rust if it wears off, and you could always replace it with Duracoat or something if it does end up wearing off.

EDIT: In fact, here, I've been meaning to do this anyway, so I snapped a quick pic of it beside it's bigger brother in .380 ACP by Smith & Wesson. The finish wear is just barely visible because it's just a little smile-like curve under the safety lever.

Attached Images

20201216_141426.jpg (143.9 KB, 25 views)

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Several years ago I was going to send one of my older German Walther PPK/s 22 LR pistols to be ghost threaded for use with a suppressor.

Well to do it the way I wanted, the fee was roughly $400.

These newer generation of Walthers had recently come on the market

So I bought one in nickel (because I had not anodized my can). Plus I picked up three extra magazines and I still had money left over for ammunition

Mine has had several thousand rounds through it by now, both suppressed and not.

I am very pleased with the quality of the firearm. I have even been considering buying a second one in the blue finish

__________________
"Acta non verba"

colt...saa, That's the same set up James Bond used, maybe his was blued though.................................M*

I noticed that some little dustbunnies in the slide markings and serrations might be mistaken for finish wear, so I cleaned it up a bit and took some more pictures.


I really had to struggle to get the lighting to play nice for this picture. It's snowing outside so the light shining through the window is extremely bright and was causing a lot of glare/shadows. Fortunately, by disabling HDR and taking it at an angle it turned out nice and clear. One thing to note here though is that the lighting made the finish look dull gray as if it were Parkerized, but it's actually black.

One of the reasons why I've never kept any photographs of my PPK/S-22 until now is because the finish just isn't very photogenic and is very difficult to get a decent-looking picture of.

However, it is a good finish. One thing I forgot to mention is that it has actually taken a couple tumbles to the floor in the time that I've owned it because the holster I was using at the time didn't hold it snuggly/securely, so it has fallen from about four feet from a shoulder holster directly onto a tile floor, yet the finish survived at the point of impact without leaving a scratch. So I would say that it is pretty durable.

Ugh, I'm so tired of having to correct this bit of misinformation, but here we go again...

It's not actually a zinc alloy, that was merely an error made by Walther USA which has long since been corrected, but persists to this very day. The P22 has a zinc slide, all of Walther's other .22LR Rimfire Replicas are made of a proprietary alloy which exact composition is a trade secret. However, Walther has on occasion referred to it as an aluminum alloy when speaking of the PPQ22 and 1911-22.

Furthermore, another misconception that I'll take a moment to clear up right here and now is that the Walther PPK/S-22, PPQ22, and 1911-22, as well as other Rimfire Pistols are in fact produced by Walther, not Umarex. Long story short, Walther has been a subsidiary of Umarex since 1993, and currently the Umarex facility in Arnesburg Germany is shared with Walther to produce their line of Rimfire Replicas because the Walther HQ plant in Ulm is dedicated to the production of centerfire pistols for Military/Police/SD. Walther has their own subsector of the Umarex facility in Arnesburg to themselves where pistols such as the PPK/S-22 are produced, hence the Cologne proof marks on rimfire pistols, but people love drama so they make conspiracy theories of it and accuse the company of false advertisement.

Umarex does produce rimfire pistols of their own like the Umarex Baretta M9-22/92FS-22 pistols which are not marked Walther, so despite what the rabid haters on the internet like to say, it's not that the Walther PPK/S-22 is "a cheap piece of junk made by an airsoft company" but rather that its made in an Umarex plant by Walther employees because the parent company shares its facility with Walther who isn't currently set up to produce rimfire pistols nor work with alloys to do so.

Attached Images

	20201216_150121.jpg (124.8 KB, 1712 views)
	20201216_150604.jpg (111.3 KB, 17 views)

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

That nickel certainly looks sharp. I tend to be a bigger fan of more matte stainless/silver finishes in general, but a glossy nickel/high-polish stainless is assuredly gorgeous when done right. Glad to hear the quality of the gun has been stellar!

I've heard mixed things about Bersa build quality, but I suppose they're at least worth giving a look. Thanks for the recommendation.

Thanks very much for going to the trouble of taking those photos. They depict the exact lighting conditions and angles that I was hoping to come across, and offer a good comparison between the 22 and 380 models to boot. The finish looks perfectly acceptable, especially with the addition of some wood grips. Looks like I'll be ordering one soon - I just hope spare magazine availability (and 22LR availability while we're at it) increases down the line.

The info on material and manufacturing is great as well. I've seen so many pieces of contradictory information posted in older threads across a few different forums while searching for info on the PPK/s 22. I appreciate you clearing up the inaccuracies formed from incorrect initial reports/misinformation.

I was contemplating getting one of these a few years back but ended up stumbling upon a nice late 60s vintage German PPKS in 22lr priced at what a new one cost at the time ($280) and couldn't pass it up.

It's my understanding they are kind of pricey and I've never encountered or seen a spare mag that fits and functions, lucky it came with two I guess. I love the blueing and shoot it from time to time with CCI mini mags with no issues. I'd still like to get a stainless version some time if the opportunity arises to purchase.

SVT28

PS: RIP Sean Connery



Sent from my LM-V450 using Tapatalk

Glad I could help. The Walther PP Series is my absolute favorite line of pistols, with the PPK/S being my absolute favorite, so I've done extensive research on the subject. I myself was exposed to a lot of this misinformation, but began to notice discrepancies between product information listed on the North American and Germany websites, so I contacted Walther Germany via e-mail, had a few back-and-forth exchanges with them, and that's how I learned all of this, right from Walther Germany themselves. Also, it's worth noting that shortly after my correspondence with Walther Germany, all of the North American website was redesigned and the misinformation had been cleared up.

Walther USA used to have a downloadable chart on their website listing all of their pistols with various information including what they were made of, and on said chart, the P22, PPK/S-22, PPQ22, and 1911-22 were described as being made of "zinc diecast" yet on the German website only the P22 was listed as "zinc alloy" whereas the PPQ22 and 1911-22 materials were listed as "aluminum alloy" while the PPK/S-22 was simply "alloy" with no further elaboration of its composition. So I e-mailed them back-and-forth about it, and although it was a little bit difficult because English clearly wasn't their first language, but they told me, and I quote; "The PPK/S .22LR is made from a proprietary alloy which is a trade secret, but I can tell you that the alloy is extremely strong, much stronger than ZAMAK."

I surmise that the PPK/S-22 is constructed of the same aluminum alloy as the the PPQ22 and 1911-22, on account of the weight/construction of the PPK/S-22. You see, zinc alloy such as ZAMAK is significantly heavier than aluminum, and while the PPK/S-22 weighs in at about 20oz, this is said to have been done deliberately in order to more closely replicate the weight/feel of the all steel .380 ACP counterpart which weighs in at a good 23-½oz, but unlike the PPK/S in .380 ACP which has an all-steel grip frame, the PPK/S-22's grip is practically one thick slab of metal with a magwell milled into it. If it were made of ZAMAK, then it wouldn't and couldn't have been made that way and been so light.


PPK/S-22 sans grips, notice the grip is a solid piece rather than the skeletonized frame on a steel .380 ACP model.

For the sake of comparison, the Phoenix Arms CP-22 is made of ZAMAK and weighs as much as the PPK/S-22 at 20oz, yet is a significantly smaller pistol, roughly the size of a Ruger LCP, ergo it is physically impossible for the PPK/S-22 to be constructed of a similar zinc-based alloy yet be both significantly larger and thicker than the Phoenix Arms CP-22.


Phoenix Arms CP-22 with a dollar bill for scale.


CP-22 beside a Kel-Tec P32.


Walther PPK/S beside a Ruger LCP.

Sorry to bombard you with all of this info, but you'd be surprised at how many folks have lined up to baselessly disagree with me in the past, so nowadays I feel the need to preemptively lay it all out on the table right out the gate just so that I won't have to do it later should anyone pop up to dispute me.

Besides, I figure that maybe, hopefully, if I post this enough times then the it will become common knowledge and the misinformation will become less prevalent.

If not, then oh well, at least everyone who sees it will know that I'm not just blowing smoke or making things up.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I owned a German Walther PP .22 and sold it several years ago. I may actually be getting it back, I hope. If you are looking for a really nice .22 with a very nice finish, I would look for a Beretta Model 87 Cheetah. They were made until 2018 and are no longer produced but still available. Double/single action,Ambi safety, three dot sights with beautiful fit and finish. I had one and sold it LNIB and regretted it ever since. Today I located one NIB and purchased it. Beautiful pistol!

No need to apologize for the info nor excellent examples and photos - it's always a pleasure to listen to someone that's truly enthusiastic about the subject matter they're speaking about. Especially when said subject matter focuses around a gorgeous line of firearms.

It does irritate me that the Cheetah is no longer imported en-masse into the US as far as I can tell. It fits perfectly into the "smaller than a 92FS, bigger than a Bobcat, and not as strange looking as Beretta's other .22 offerings" category that I'm presently perusing. They're definitely pretty guns, and congrats on your recent acquisition. (Photos are most definitely appreciated too!)

If Beretta offered a conversion kit to .22 for the 92 Compact it would almost make up for losing the .22 Cheetah.

I bought this one a few years ago as a more or less early adopter.



I like the nickel finish better than the black finish. The Umarex/Walther PPK/S .22 LR is made from a Zamak alloy (a high purity, dimensionally stable zinc alloy). Since it's not steel, the "blued" finish are just "blackened".

I did an in depth review and side by side comparison at the time and it's a PP series pistol, with a few minor changes.

The grip frame is covered under the grip panels to add weight, and it works as it feels nice in the hand. The finish quality on the small parts reflects the price point, but mine has been very reliable and has held up very well.

The magazine design is a massive improvement over the magazine on my Walther PP in .22 LR, and surprisingly, the PPK/S .22 LR is actually a better shooter. It's just as accurate and more reliable. The DA trigger pull is heavy, even by Walther PP series pistol standards, but it's manageable, and the SA trigger is just fine.

----

Finish wise, I love the finish on my Ranger made PPK/S pistols (one of them shown here, top). I wasn't a fan of the S&W PPK/S (bottom) for a number of reasons - finish, enlarged grip frame, longer tang, and generally lower reliability. It's the only PP series pistol I've ever sold and I don't miss it.

Another option to consider is the Beretta Model 71. They were available for well under $300 a few years ago. They are harder to find now, but the quality is still excellent.

They are accurate and reliable and very nice once you remove the faux suppressor.

I'd just like to add that I am by no means putting down ZAMAK, as BB57 says, it is a high-purity, dimensional stable alloy which has been used by a wide variety of reputable firearms manufacturers and holds up just fine.
Zinc alloys have gotten a bad rap thanks to the cheap zinc-based potmetal used by the old Ring of Fire companies of decades passed like Bryco/Jennings, Lorcin, Davis, etc.

I'm merely stating that according to Walther Germany, the PPK/S-22 is not made of ZAMAK, but a proprietary alloy which I surmise is an aluminum alloy due to the weight/size ratio of the PPK/S-22 in direct comparison to the Phoenix Arms CP-22 which is made of ZAMAK and is of equal weight despite being much smaller in size/dimensions.
Could the proprietary alloy of the PPK/S-22 include zinc in its composition? Certainly, but Walther claims that it isn't a zinc alloy and at the very least it would seem to be lighter than most zinc alloys given that fact that they needed to use so much of said alloy in the frame/slide (which I neglected to mention also includes steel inserts in contact areas between the barrel and slide to reduce wear, by the way) to make it weigh 20oz when smaller firearms which are admittedly made of zinc alloy weigh 20oz despite their lesser mass.

That is all.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

There are a couple major problems with your theory that the PPK/S .22 LR has an aluminum alloy frame, and a couple good reasons for Umarex Walther to say it isn't Zamak.


1) Your assumption that PPK/S .22 LR must be made from aluminum because it is larger but similar in weight to the Phoenix Arms HP-22 is incorrect.

The according to the Umarex Walther web site, the PPK/S .22 LR is 6.1" x 4.9" by.98" in its largest dimensions, It also has a reported weight of 19 oz on the Walther site. The dimensions are a bit misleading as the width reflects the width at the grip. The slide is only .9" wide while the frame and grip frame are just .7" wide. The height includes the plastic magazine extension and without it, the height reduces to 4.3".

The weight is also misleading as mine weighs 23.6 oz with the magazine and 21.4 oz without. However to be fair mine has wood grips and I suspect the advertised "19 oz" is the weight with the plastic grips and with no magazine - and probably rounded down to get "19 oz".

In comparison, the Phoenix Arms HP-22A is 5.5" x 4.1" (width not specified) and weighs 20 ounces.


On the face of it, it might seem that the frame and slide material of the PPK/S .22 LR must be lighter, even after you take into account the realities of the dimensions and weight. But that's still not the case.

Once you look at how the HP-22A is constructed you quickly realise that the barrel, and sight rib are steel, with the slide and frame cast from Zamak.

More importantly, the barrel in the HP-22A is a pretty hefty piece of steel and is in fact designed with the HP-25A in .25 ACP in mind as well. It is a single piece of steel that comprises the barrel as well as the top of the "slide" and sight rib forward of the breech face.



In contrast, the barrel on the PPK/S .22LR is much less substantial. It consists of a round steel barrel shroud with a small section of breech containing a thin steel barrel liner. There is also a great deal of empty space between the barrel shroud and the slide, which is essential to keep the slide weight low so that it will operate with .22 LR ammo.



In short, there is a lot less steel in the PPK/S .22 LR than there is in the HP-22A.



2) More directly, comparing the 23.6 oz PPK/S (bottom) to the aluminum frame FEG SMC (middle), 18.3 oz with wood grips, and the aluminum frame Beretta Model 70 (top), 16.7 oz with magazine and wood grips, it's obvious the PPK/S is by far the heaviest of these three similar sized pistols.



In short, aluminum is a LOT lighter, on the order of 2.8 grams per cubic centimeter compared to 6.7 to 6.8 grams per cubic centimeter for the standard Zamak alloys, and an aluminum frame would make the PPK/S a LOT lighter than it actually is.



3) Despite popular firearms like the Henry .22 LR lever actions having Zamak receivers (with a steel or brass receiver cover), there is still an incredible amount of hate out there for Zamak alloy firearms, due to the association of any zinc alloy with low purity zinc "pot metal".

With that in mind, why oh why would Umarex Walther claim it's not made from Zamak when Zamak is a known zinc alloy? (Especially given Umarex's association with airsoft guns, etc.)

It's a rhetorical question. Of course Umarex Walther claims it is not Zamak. It would be a marketing disaster if they did. You'll note Henry also doesn't trumpet the use of a Zamak receiver and in fact there's even some disinformation out there stating Henry just uses it for the "receiver cover", which is exactly opposite to how it is used. Henry may or may not have put that out there, but Henry sure isn't correcting it. Similarly, Phoenix Arms refers to the alloy in the HP-22A and HP 25A as "a zinc aluminum alloy", again to avoid some of the Zamak => zinc => pot metal association.



4) Let's talk about what Zamak is and where it gets its name - and why Walther might say, with some shred of honesty that it is not Zamak (while neer saying what it actually is.

Zamak alloys are part of the zinc aluminum alloy family and have historically all shared the common trait of having a constant 4% aluminium composition.

The name "Zamak" is an acronym of the German names for the metals used to create the alloys: Zink (zinc), Aluminium, Magnesium and Kupfer (the German word for copper).

The Zamak alloys are Zamak 3, Zamak 7, Zamak 2, Zamak 5 and Zamak 4. The order will make more sense below as it helps show how they relate to each other.

The base Zamak alloy is Zamak 3 which uses 96% zinc and 4% aluminum (with a tolerance range of 3.5% to 4.3% under the various standards for it (ATSM B240, ATSM B86, etc), with traces of copper (.1% to .25%) and magnesium (.025% to .05%) in it. It offers excellent castability and long term dimensional stability. It's commonly used for die castings.

Zamak 7 is Zamak 3, just with less magnesium (.005% to .02%) which increases the fluidity and ductility for improved performance when casting thin wall components. Some versions of this alloy add a small amount of nickel (.005 to .02%) to reduce inter-granular size, and impurities are more strictly controlled.

Zamak 2 is Zamak 3 with more copper - 2.6 to 2.9%, in order to increase strength by 20%. Zamak 2 is the strongest Zamak alloy and retains both strength and hardness better than the other Zamak alloys, however it becomes more brittle, shrinks, and is less elastic than the other Zamak alloys. It's mostly used in sheet metal forming dies and injection molding dies.

Zamak 5 is Zamak 3 with the addition of less copper - .75% to 1.25%, in order to increase strength by approximately 10%. It also increases hardness and corrosive resistance, but reduces both the ductility of the alloy and the dimensional accuracy in the casting process. Zamak 5 is more common in Europe than it is in the US.

Zamak 4 is used in Asia, where it was developed to reduce the effects of die soldering while still remaining ductile. This was done by reducing the amount of copper in Zamak 5 further to between .3% to .5%.

Here is where it gets interesting however....

There is also Zamak 8, which is often referred to as just "ZA-8". It gets is number not from coming after Zamak 7 but instead from its 8% aluminum content, rather than the more or less 4% common to the other Zamak alloys. Zamak 8 is approximately 90% zinc with 8.2% to 8.8% aluminum, .9% to 1.3% copper and .02% to .03% magnesium.

The increased aluminum content offers the capability of being hot chamber die cast, like Zamak 2, while offering improved strength, hardness and dimensional stability over the other Zamak alloys. Basically, it is similar to Zamak 2, but without the dimensional stability issues. That's important in firearms parts.

Now...I'll give you a partial nod here in terms of weight as Zamak 8, with its 8% aluminum content is lighter, at 6.3 grams per cubic centimeter, but that's still far heavier than aluminum and close enough to the other Zamak alloys that if I handed you a small part made from Zamak 8 and one of the other Zamak alloys you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference by feel.

-----

So let's summarize.

1) The PPK/S .22LR is far heavier than it would be if it has an aluminum alloy frame or slide. And by "aluminum alloy" I mean an alloy that is made principally of aluminum, rather than principally of zinc.

2) The PPK/S weighs a lot more than other similar sized aluminum alloy frame pistols - roughly 23 oz versus 16-18 oz.

3) Zamak doesn't market well in the firearms industry and no brand that uses it claims to use it for fear of association with zinc and with pot metal.

4) Zamak 8 is a Zamak alloy that departs from the others by using 8% aluminum rather than 4% aluminum. It's enough of distinction that you could say it isn't a "Zamak" alloy without being called an out and out liar. But it's a distinction without a difference as all the Zamak alloys (2,3,4,5,7 and 8) are at least 90% zinc.

Personally, my money is on Zamak 8. However regardless of whether Umarex Walther someday admits is it is a Zamak alloy, or calls it "ZA-8", or claims it is some other proprietary zinc aluminum alloy, it makes no real difference (other than there are established standards and tight controls on impurities for the Zamak 2 through 8). The fact remains it is still a primarily zinc alloy with aluminum being the second metal in it in terms of percentage.

But don't get me wrong. The use of what is no doubt a very "Zamak like" alloy in the frame and slide is an excellent use of the material and from an engineering perspective of being a good choice for the stresses involved, durability, and keeping the costs down in the frame and slide production.

I must admit BB57, you make quite the convincing argument. You've certainly done your homework and make a strong argument which I cannot refute based on available data.
Your argument that the PPK/S-22 may in fact be constructed from ZAMAK 8 or some other such variation of a zinc alloy which is relatively high in aluminum seems particularly plausible.

However, I do have one question to ask you regarding the similarities you pointed out between the PPK/S-22 and the comparatively lighter weight FEG SMC and Beretta Model 70. As previously stated as a basis for my belief that the PPK/S-22 is an aluminum alloy, the PPK/S grip is practically a solid slab of metal as opposed to the frames of the all-steel PPK/S in .380 ACP. My question is, are the frames of the FEG SMC and Beretta Model 70 similar to the PPK/S-22 in that regard, or are they more conventional skeletonized frames with far less material present than that of the PPK/S-22? I ask because, couldn't such a difference at least partially account for the heavier weight of the PPK/S-22?
I'm somewhat familiar with the SMC since it's a derivative of the Walther PPK in terms of design, and all of the models that I am familiar with have standard skeletonized aluminum alloy grip frames. So assuming that your SMC is the same in that regard, then the few ounces of difference in weight between the two could easily be attributed to the fact that the PPK/S-22 simply has more metal in the grip.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

If I may interject for a quick side note, someone on Reddit posted a great photo of the PPK/s 22 in company with a Beretta 92 and a CZ75 Compact model. It really does showcase the color of the PPK/s and its fairly flat, but decently lustrous, finish. It certainly doesn't look like a cheap job as I initially feared.


Source

Yeah, it's not a completely matte finish, it has just a hint of a shine to it. That's part of the reason why I had so much difficulty photographing mine, and also why I didn't bother to clean it prior to taking pictures because just a touch of oil on the surface tends to make it look very shiny because the finish seems to hold oil very well.

At one point in time I was considering refinishing my PPK/S-22 with Durablue, but then I started using Balistol and realized just how shiny it became with a thin coating of the stuff on it, so I left it as is.

That's the thing about the black finish on the PPK/S-22, it's not the prettiest finish, it photographs poorly, and when compared side-by-side with the deep bluing on a Vintage PPK/S, especially one of the French-made Manurhin PPK/S models, it looks downright awful, but all in all it's not actually a bad-looking finish.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.