PPK

[Kifaru]

I bought the newer model used (barely) at a big box store for $225. It came with the box, tools, extra sights, etc. I was a little nervous because two different employees reminded me of the used gun policy that stated a gun could be returned for a full refund within 5 days. Did they know something I didn't? Of course, I went out and shot it immediately. I've put only Remington Golden Bullet and CCI Mini Mag rounds through it because the CCI runs in anything and because I have tons of the Remington. I haven't had a failure yet in not quite 1,000 rounds.

I have seen a couple of the original .22 versions, and each of them were offered at more than 5 times the price I paid for my newer one. The finish on the newer one doesn't even come close to the beautiful bluing on the older ones; it looks like Krylon by comparison. Also, that cool, wave-patterned anti glare feature machined on the top of the slide of the original is merely cast into the slide of the new one rather indistinctly. And the grips are not interchangeable with any other version of the PPK/S.

But those are just cosmetic issues. The new magazines extend into the pinky extension and are therefore true 10-round mags. They also seem to be more reliable than the older ones from what I've read. I like the fact that the new one comes with different heights of front sights and the rear is drift adjustable. And it comes suppressor ready! It is easily one of my favorite plinkers as it is crazy accurate for a "pocket pistol." If you want a PPK for your collection, as an investment or an heirloom, get the original. But if you want a fun shooter, the newer one will do just fine in that role.

 

[Farmer17]

I was really excited when they brought out the new PPK/s until I looked at one and handled it, I just wasn't impressed. I would love to have one of the older PPs in 22RF but they are really expensive and I'm quite happy with my Bersa Thunder 22. It has a real steel slide, great controls, nice light DA/SA trigger, ergonomic, and accurate the only down side is some .22 ammo doesn't have enough oomph to push that heavy steel slide but cheap CCI ammo is 100% reliable so that's all I feed it.

 

[BB57]

I have the British issued, German military proofed L66A1 version of the Walther PP in .22 LR as well as the new Walther/Umarex made PPK/S .22 LR.

As noted above the latter receives a lot of hate due to the use of Zamak allow in the frame and slide. However, in terms of the design and function it's very much a PP series pistol.

Also as noted above, the space under the grips is filled in to give it the same weight as a steel framed PPK/S.

The over all design is however the same, just with slightly different execution of the small parts, and a lower level of finish to match the lower price point.

The PPK/S .22LR also uses a hybrid approach with the barrel. The barrel uses the same liner and sleeve arrangement with a barrel nut used to tension the barrel as the Walther P22, but with the barrel sleeve then pressed in the frame, in a similar manner as the PP series pistols.

The PP series .22LR pistols use a steel slide, but the steel slide is thinned to reduce weight to ensure adequate slide velocity to cycle with the .22LR cartridge. The PPK/S .22LR uses a full width slide, but made from Zamak alloy to reduce weight.

Another major difference is the magazine. The new PPK/S .22LR uses a magazine with a better feed angle and allows for better positioning of the rounds in the magazine to reduce the potential for rim lock. A finger extension is required for 10 round capacity, but it's an honest 10 rounds of reliable feeding. Many of the PPs in .22 LR will only feed 8 rounds reliably.

I've found that my PPK/S .22LR shoots every bit as reliably and accurately as my L66A1, with the added advantage that it is not picky about the ammo it shoots. In fact, it's the only semi-auto. 22LR that actually likes Remington golden bullets.

I have upwards of 2000 rounds through mine and it's still accurate and reliable. It may not have the heirloom potential of an older steel frame PP series pistol, but it isn't giving anything up when it comes to actually shooting it.

 

[Andyd]

I have a Walther PP in .22 l.r. made in Zella Mehlis that is one of the first rimfire versions made and have shot this gun extensively, my guesstimate is that I shot around 15,000 rounds through that gun which I had bought used a little over 30 years ago. The quality is amazing and it is very reliable with HV ammo. It uses the same magazine body that my Hammerli international uses.

Contrary to earlier posters, I do not consider Umarex a respected German company! Having grown up in Germany I am well aware of their history, starting out as Uma Meyer, they bought the dismal Reck firearms company, then changed name to Umareck, later Umarex and how they started manufacturing cheap starter and gas pistols, much like Roehm did. In 2010 Umarex bought the tooling from Roehm, too.

I have a firearm, or two, for every need and honestly have to say that Umarex products do not meet my expectations and quality standards.

 

[Swiftflyer]

Love my Manhurin PPK in .22lr but they are getting hard to find.

 

[Kurusu]

I have a Walther PP in .22 l.r. made in Zella Mehlis that is one of the first rimfire versions made and have shot this gun extensively, my guesstimate is that I shot around 15,000 rounds through that gun which I had bought used a little over 30 years ago. The qu

​

ality is amazing and it is very reliable with HV ammo. It uses the same magazine body that my Hammerli international uses.

Contrary to earlier posters, I do not consider Umarex a respected German company! Having grown up in Germany I am well aware of their history, starting out as Uma Meyer, they bought the dismal Reck firearms company, then changed name to Umareck, later Umarex and how they started manufacturing cheap starter and gas pistols, much like Roehm did. In 2010 Umarex bought the tooling from Roehm, too.

I have a firearm, or two, for every need and honestly have to say that Umarex products do not meet my expectations and quality standards.

A pre war PP! That is cool.

 

[Echo40]

Contrary to earlier posters, I do not consider Umarex a respected German company! Having grown up in Germany I am well aware of their history, starting out as Uma Meyer, they bought the dismal Reck firearms company, then changed name to Umareck, later Umarex and how they started manufacturing cheap starter and gas pistols, much like Roehm did. In 2010 Umarex bought the tooling from Roehm, too.

I have a firearm, or two, for every need and honestly have to say that Umarex products do not meet my expectations and quality standards.

Is it a possibility that Umarex may have improved over the years or perhaps even that you just have higher standards than that of their target demographic?

I ask because nowadays the only complaints I ever see in regards to Umarex products are cosmetic/aesthetic in nature, with little complaints in regards to function nor durability, or at least not among actual owners of the firearms.

I'd hate to be presumptuous, but it just seems to me that those who complain of the quality of Umarex products are expecting quality above and beyond their price point, and more often than not were never seeking a simple range plinker, ergo they've kind of missed the point.

Just saying, somehow I doubt that Walther/Umarex aims to equal the quality of a prewar Walther PP, nor that their target demographic was owners of classic Walther PP Series pistols. I think they were intended to be relatively low-cost rimfire replicas of popular/iconic pistols, aimed at a demographic who sought a low-cost rimfire replica of said pistols they could plink with, and assuming that was their purpose, they seem to have succeeded.

TL;DR: If you compare a prewar Walther made with all hand-fitted parts which would easily cost upwards of $1000 to reproduce to that of a modern Walther made with cast/CNC machined parts which costs around $300-$375, then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[BB57]

I have a Walther PP in .22 l.r. made in Zella Mehlis that is one of the first rimfire versions made and have shot this gun extensively.../

/....Contrary to earlier posters, I do not consider Umarex a respected German company!.../

/...I have a firearm, or two, for every need and honestly have to say that Umarex products do not meet my expectations and quality standards.

I don't think any of us is making a statement that anything made by Umarex is going to meet the same standard as a pre-war Walther, or even a Manurhin made PP pistol. In fact, I noted the unlikely probability of a PPK/S .22 LR ever obtaining anything close to heirloom status.

On the other hand, if you priced one of the older (even a comparatively modern "older") Walther PP or PPK in .22LR you'll notice they sell for 2.5 to 5 times the new price of one of the more recent Umarex-Walther PPK/S .22 LR pistols. If you've priced magazines for the older pistols you know they usually sell for north of $100-120 US, and a pre-war magazine will cost something north of $200.

What most of us who own one of the Umarex-Walther PPK/S .22LR pistols are saying is that they shoot far better than you'd expect for the price. Those of us who have both will more than likely tell you that they shoot on par with the older Walther pistols in terms of performance, rather than aesthetics. Real world, the new pistols sell on line in the $250 to $340 price range, with pretty much any site selling them for less than $325 being out of stock. That's the new price, used they'll sell in the $175-$200 range.

Even at the "new" price, it's actually excellent bang for the buck for someone who wants a "shooter" rather than a collector piece.

-----

The Colt-Umarex M4 .22 LR is in a similar situation. It also takes an incredible amount of heat because of its use of zinc alloy and takes additional criticism due to the lack of compatibility with aftermarket AR-15 parts.

However, I bought the M4 Tactical version shortly after it was released based on the recommendation of an old school gunsmith/gun shop owner whose opinion I trusted. He also described it as serious bang for the buck and he was absolutely spot on with his assessment.

Yes, it does use Zamak in the bolt carrier, but from an engineering perspective it's a very appropriate use of the material. The design also allows for fine tuning of the rifle to the ammo, and the barrel nut/flash hider can also be used to tension the barrel to produce excellent accuracy. My Colt-Umarex M4 Tactical is every bit as reliable and more accurate than my CMMG dedicated .22LR AR-15.

I suspect that most of the reliability and accuracy complaints with the Colt-Umarex rifles come from shooters who buy one and then almost immediately disassemble the rifle and bolt carrier without understanding how it works, with the result that they never get the recoil spring correct for the ammo, or the barrel tension where it needs to be for accuracy.

---

There is additional Zamak alloy firearm irony in the form of the Henry .22LR lever action rifles. They use a Zamak alloy receiver that is hidden under a steel or brass cover - almost identical to the Ithaca Model 49 and Model 72 lever actions, which used a painted aluminum cover over the zinc alloy receiver.

The irony is that the same folks who love their "pot metal" Henry .22s, are very often the same people who revile the "pot metal" Colt-Umarex M4 and the Umarex-Walther PPK/S.