Walther PP 7.65mm

I was stationed in Germany during the "Cold War" back in the '80s when the German police transitioned to the upgraded p-38 (p-1) in 9mm. Before then they had a PP Super Ultra 9x18. The PX had the surplus Ultra and the PP on sale for $99. I bought one of each. A family member got the PP and I still have the Ultra 9x18 basically a .380. These are very finely made German engineering firearms. Enjoy, they are great shooters.

Another Cold Warrior, I picked mine up at the Grafenwöhr Rod & Gun Club. It was a Bavarian Police pistol, the ByP stamp being X'ed out when it was sold out of service. Came in a box with a spare mag, book and the name of the cop it had been issued written in marker inside the cover.

They are indeed fine shooters.
 

Attachments

  • ByP Walther PP.jpg
    ByP Walther PP.jpg
    167.3 KB · Views: 31
  • Walther PP 32 Bavarian Staatspolizei.jpg
    Walther PP 32 Bavarian Staatspolizei.jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 24
Walther PPK/S .22LR

iscs-yoda-albums-pistols-all-brands-picture15836-walther-ppk-s-22-lr.jpg


I don't really like it.

-------------------------------------------------------
1984 Walther PPK/S, Interarms import, recently obtained from a Forum member, NIB, with box and original paperwork and 1984 sales receipt - not yet fired but it will be:

iscs-yoda-albums-pistols-all-brands-picture25506-walther-ppk-s-interarms-1984-nib.jpg
 
Y'all may not have noticed this one in my group picture.
S&W made PPK/S in .32acp.
I've tried for years to get some info on this such as when it was made, how many .32s, current value etc and so on. Understandably Walther says they know nothing. S&W treats these like a red headed step child. According to S&W all the records on these are in storage and unavailable. :rolleyes:

9v690DG.jpg
 
Y'all may not have noticed this one in my group picture.
S&W made PPK/S in .32acp.
I've tried for years to get some info on this such as when it was made, how many .32s, current value etc and so on. Understandably Walther says they know nothing. S&W treats these like a red headed step child. According to S&W all the records on these are in storage and unavailable. :rolleyes:

9v690DG.jpg

S&W took a very good and very mature design and made just enough changes to cause problems. They changed the grip frame just enough to require different grips (which prompted grip makers to make grips that fit the S&W PPK/S, but could be trimmed to fit all the rest).

A bigger concern was the minor internal changes that none the less prompted not one but two recalls. The most serious of the, was the potential for the gun to fire when the hammer was lowered via the decocker. It affected pistols made from 2002-2009. Owners could expect to wait 3 plus weeks to get a shipping label to send it back and it then took months for it to be repaired and returned.

Those internal changes also created reliability issues that were not present on the Walther, Manurhin and Ranger made examples.

Between the recalls and reliability issues, the long tang, the sharp edges and the large banner serial number the S&W PP series pistols were not well received by Walther PP series fans.

I owned one for a few years - a gift from my wife. Gift or not, I eventually traded it off for a second Ranger made example due to the combined effects of the recalls, reliability issues and the discomfort caused by that sharp tang when carried IWB. I just didn’t tell my wife, and the stainless Ranger looks enough like the S&W that she’s never noticed.



On the plus side, S&W did make both the PPK and PPK/S in .32 ACP which was a big plus, although they didn’t make enough of them.

I used to be active on the Walther Forum but the S&W PPK and PPK/S never found much love there. Consequently you’ll find lots of coverage of serial numbers and dates for the Walther, Manurhin, and Ranger made guns, but nothing for the S&W made guns.

My understanding is they didn’t make a lot of the .32 ACP PPK/S pistols and made even fewer of the PPK pistols in that caliber.
 
BB57 said:
The most serious of the, was the potential for the gun to fire when the hammer was lowered via the decocker. It affected pistols made from 2002-2009. Owners could expect to wait 3 plus weeks to get a shipping label to send it back and it then took months for it to be repaired and returned.

I too heard the horror stories about the recall on the S&W pistols. Long waits, scratched up guns and generally poor workmanship. :mad:

Good news if your gun needs the recall. Walther USA in FT. Smith,AR will honor the warranty and do the recall work on S&W made pistols. When I got mine, it did need the recall done. I called Walther, they paid shipping both ways and had my gun back to me in 8 days. :D
 
The Walther design works for me. A WWII PPK bring back may have been the first handgun I shot. Sadly, somewhere in the midst of move it got lost or stolen. Back in the 90s I obtained a SMC-380. Fit and finish were suberb. I never had a malfunction with it - absolutely reliable. Somewhere along the line it got sold to fund another project. I kick myself for that. I wish I still had it. A couple of years ago I acquired a Walther PP (1975 vintage, I think) in .32 acp, which I believe to be the best caliber for that design. It is very good shooter. I like the simplicity of the design.
 
These firearms were designed around the .32 round and I believe work best with it. They are much more comfortable to shoot than the .380.

I find little difference in between the .32 ACP and .380 ACP version of the Walther PP. I find both to be equally reliable and cannot say that the .380 is in any way less pleasant to shoot. Most .22 l.r. PP do not work very well with standard velocity ammo but need real high velocity ammo to work and many do better with only eight instead of ten rounds loaded in the mag, despite the .22 l.r. being 20 grams, almost an ounce lighter and having a much lighter spring.

Just for fun at the range the .22 l.r. is unbeatable among the three calibers and the savings in ammo pay for the gun by itself :).
 
I have a FEG PP clone that I customized by going up on the recoil spring and down on the hammer spring. It's still reliable with Fiocchi ammo and the DA pull no longer requires both hands with firmly braced feet.

Was this spring change hard to do, or expensive? Thanks!
 
Was this spring change hard to do, or expensive? Thanks!

The springs came from Wolff Gunsprings. Both the recoil and hammer springs were available in packs of three with different rates. Fitting the hammer spring takes a little care. From what I recall, with the grips off there are parts you want to stay put that have nothing to do with changing the spring. I didn't have any real problems.
 
…. Most .22 l.r. PP do not work very well with standard velocity ammo but need real high velocity ammo to work and many do better with only eight instead of ten rounds loaded in the mag, despite the .22 l.r. being 20 grams, almost an ounce lighter and having a much lighter spring.

Just for fun at the range the .22 l.r. is unbeatable among the three calibers and the savings in ammo pay for the gun by itself :).

That’s been my experience as well with my L66A1 version of the PP in .22 LR. It’s very reliable with 8 in the magazine and isn’t with 9 or 10.

I often offends the Walther PP fans when I point that out and they rightfully blame my particular magazine. But it’s a common issue with other PP .22 LR owners. Walther PP magazines in .22 LR are hard to find, sell somewhere north of $130 when you find one, and have no guarantee of working any better than the one you already have.

Realistically, the Umarex Walther PPK/S .22 LR is just as good a shooter but with a full 10 round magazine that has a much better designed and feed angle that can be found for around $25. Similarly, you can get a Bersa Thunder in .22 LR new for about $225 and it also shoots just as well as the PP.

The Israeli surplus Beretta pistols in .22 LR were also an exceptional deal for a bit under $300 several years ago.

FullSizeRender(27).jpg
 
Last edited:
Was this spring change hard to do, or expensive? Thanks!

I recently added a PA-63 to my collection of civilian market FEG PP clone pistols (AP9S, APK9S, APK7S, and an SMC).

IMG_3288.JPG


Unlike the civilian market pistols the DA trigger pull is impressively excessive and it really does benefit from a new set of springs.

But…there are some caveats.

1) Since it’s a blow back operated pistol, the recoil is absorbed by both the recoil spring and the hammer spring. The slide doesn’t have much leverage against the hammer in its initial motion to the rear, so the hammer spring plays a big role in retarding the rearward motion of the slide.

Consequently when you lighten the hammer spring, you must increase the weight of the recoil spring.

The standard PA-63 recoil spring is 11 pounds and the standard hammer spring is 16 pounds.

Wolff Gun Springs has PA-63 recoil springs in 11, 13 and 15 pound weights. They have hammer springs in 9, 11 and 13 pound weights.

Essentially they pair off as:

- 9 pound hammer spring, 15 pound recoil spring;
- 11 pound hammer spring, 13 pound recoil spring; and
- 13 pound hammer spring, 9 pound recoil spring.

Most folks seem to find the 11 pound hammer spring to be the sweet spot, with good reliability for primer ignition and a much lower DA trigger pull weight than the stock 16 pound spring.

That 1 pound spring usually pairs well with a 13 pound recoil spring, although some of the hotter 9mm Mak ammunition needs the 15 pound recoil spring.

As you are no doubt aware, there is a metal block on the end of the pivoting trigger guard on the PP pistols and their FEG derivatives that serves as a stop to keep the slide on the pistol. It’s then pivoted down out of the way so the slide can move far enough back to be removed from the slide for field stripping.

However, you will also notice a gap between the rear of that block and the pistol’s frame. That gap is there as the trigger guard itself flexes and acts as a shock absorber when the slide impacts that block.

IMG_3289.JPG


If the recoil spring (or the combination of the recoil and hammer springs) is weak, due to either too light an initial weight, or wear over 800-1000 rounds, the slide will hit that block too hard. It will exceed the ability of the trigger guard to absorb the momentum of the slide and the block will impact the frame.

You’ll feel that as a sharp, metallic feel in the recoil and it’s your sign that you need to replace a worn recoil spring, or in the case of lighter springs, a sign that your recoil and hammer spring combination isn’t sufficient for the ammunition you are shooting.



2) The PA-63 is an evolution of the original FEG Police Pistol 48.M, which as a very, very close clone of the Walther PP in .32 ACP, right down to using the same magazine and having a high degree of parts interchangeability.

The 48.M was replaced by the RK-59, which was designed as an PPK sized, lighter aluminum framed replacement for the 48.M and chambered in the much more powerful 9mm Makarov cartridge.

The RK-59 was only produced for a short period as the aluminum frames cracked after a fairly low round count. It was replaced by the R-61 which used an aluminum-titanium alloy frame to get the required service life.

The PA-63 resulted from a request from the Hungarian Army for a pistol based on the R-61 to replace their TT-33 Tokarev pistols. They wanted a PP sized pistol with a 7 round magazine and a 3.9” barrel. These also had the aluminum-titanium alloy frame in order to get the required service life.

But that service life was based on the concept of carrying them a lot and shooting them comparatively little. It’s not a gun you want to take out and shoot 300 rounds through every time you go to the range. (The recoil is snappy enough that you won’t *want* to do that either.)


3) Keep that frame in mind when you start swapping out the springs, and keep in mind there is never a free lunch when it comes to blow back pistol design.

The stock combination of a heavy 16 pound hammer spring and a light 11 pound recoil spring resulted in a very heavy (and arguably
very safe) trigger pull. The heavy hammer spring also kept the slide velocity in check, while the light recoil spring didn’t batter the frame when the slide came back into battery.

When you install a lighter hammer spring, you increase the amount of recoil energy that has to be stored by the recoil spring, and when the slide comes back into battery, that heavier recoil spring puts more of that stored recoil energy back into the frame. That increases wear on the frame.

So…don’t get too crazy with the lighter hammer spring, and only use as much recoil spring weight as the ammo requires. You want the sweet spot where a) the recoil spring is heavy enough that the block on the end of the trigger guard isn’t bottoming out on the frame, but b) the recoil spring is light enough that the frame isn’t getting beaten any more than necessary when the slide comes back into battery.

——

My preference is to use the 11 pound hammer spring (the middle choice) along with a 13 or 15 pound recoil spring, depending on how the ammunition is loaded. European loaded 9mm Mak is generally loaded to higher levels than US loaded ammo, where it’s neutered a bit to basically .380 ACP level performance. There are however exceptions to that rule in both directions.

—-

Changing the recoil spring is simple. Just remove the slide, pull the old one off the barrel, and slide the new one on. Just remember the small/tight end goes on first so that it’s on the breech end of the barrel.

Replacing the hammer spring isn’t hard, but it’s a little more involved.

- Remove the grips;

- press the base of the grip frame down on a hard surface to depress the hammer spring retainer slightly to take pressure off the pin, and then press the pin out with a small punch (finger pressure is all that is required, do not use a hammer);

IMG_3291.JPG


- continue to press down on the grip frame to hold the spring tension and then remove the punch letting the retainer slide out of the grip slowly, and then remove the hammer spring;

IMG_3292.JPG


- when you install the new hammer spring, there is a hammer strut that has to go inside the new spring, so take care to get the spring centered on the hammer strut;

IMG_3293.JPG


- install the retainer over the hammer spring;

- align the holes as closely as you can and press the bottom of the grip frame and hammer spring retainer on a hard surface to align the holes and insert a punch to keep the retainer in the frame;

- insert the pin from the other side and while pressing the base of the grip frame down on a hard surface;

- wiggle the punch slightly to adjust the hole alignment while pressing on the pin until it slides into place. It’s held in place by spring pressure and is a finger press fit. No hammer required.
 
That’s been my experience as well with my L66A1 version of the PP in .22 LR. It’s very reliable with 8 in the magazine and isn’t with 9 or 10.

I often offends the Walther PP fans when I point that out and they rightfully blame my particular magazine. But it’s a common issue with other PP .22 LR owners. Walther PP magazines in .22 LR are hard to find, sell somewhere north of $130 when you find one, and have no guarantee of working any better than the one you already have.

Realistically, the Umarex Walther PPK/S .22 LR is just as good a shooter but with a full 10 round magazine that has a much better designed and feed angle that can be found for around $25. Similarly, you can get a Bersa Thunder in .22 LR new for about $225 and it also shoots just as well as the PP.

The Israeli surplus Beretta pistols in .22 LR were also an exceptional deal for a bit under $300 several years ago.

FullSizeRender(27).jpg

I have about a little over 20 original Walther banner and France marked rimfire mags and there are guns that will not work with one of the mags but with another. Some work with 8 rounds, some with 9 and some with ten rounds.
What is really strange is that the Hammerli International uses the same magazine body but their 10 round mags work very reliably when loaded with ten rounds and all magazines work in all guns. I checked and I have even more Hammerli mags than Walther PP .22 mags.

The Walther/Manurhin PP is a very, very well made firearm that oozes out quality, something the Fort Smith guns lack and the Beretta 70/71s in .22 l.r. are among the most reliable rimfire pistols I have shot but they fall short when it comes to accuracy and quality. FWIW, their magazines are as expensive as Walther, Manurhin, or Hammerli rimfire mags but when the guns were still produced - and the Bersan and Ft. Smith models that you mention are - the mags were rather inexpensive.
 
Last edited:
Some great collections and pieces here.

You fellows never disappoint.

While I've owned PPs in 32 and a PPK in 380, imo 32 is just about the perfect caliber for this model.

Also thought I'd chime in to show where the design went on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
 

Attachments

  • 20181014_210041.jpg
    20181014_210041.jpg
    136.9 KB · Views: 7
  • 20191125_165039.jpg
    20191125_165039.jpg
    105.8 KB · Views: 7
I was able to pick up my Manhurin PP 32 last night. Very pleased, as it's even nicer than it appeared in the auction pictures. Hopefully it shoots well, but I won't be able to find that out until next week. S/N indicates mid-1950s production from what I can find online...

52801759601_9d092839d9_c.jpg

52802007989_82e4a16031_c.jpg
 
Back
Top