Questions about the smith PPK's

[Kavinsky]

Now I was just watching this about the PPK and at the 37:00 mark he mentions something kind of odd

"Walther PP & PPK: Code for Cool" by Nutnfancy - YouTube

(please excuse his tasteless use of photographs from the IMFDB where they point the gun right in your face. always makes me feel like I oughta say stick that somewhere else otherwise I'm gonna make you eat it whenever I see that kind of photography or video of a gun pointed in your face like that. anyways that aside....)


that the recoil spring weight of the Walther Made PP is 15 pounds and the gun is giving him a failure to go into battery despite its longer slide and switching out the spring for a 17 pounder. while the interarms PPK with its 20 pound spring has given him no issues in the 15 some years he's owned it

now he also mentions that smith from the sound of it smith might have changed something with the recoil spring weight of their guns to make them more reliable mid run. So does anyone know offhand if thats true and what kind of recoil spring weight do the smith PPK and PPK/'s normally have nowadays if they did change it?

and well this also begs the question what do the sig sauer 230 series have for recoil spring weights along with the russian markarov? which from what I understand have a much better reputation for reliabilty than the PP/PPK series regardless of who made them even though they follow the same basic framework as them.

 

[lhump1961]

My Smith PPK/S runs fine on the original factory spring...whatever the weight. When it was new I tried a heavier spring to increase feeding reliability when all I really needed to do was give it a little more break-in. I found the heavier spring made it tougher to rack the slide as it is a smaller pistol to begin with so went back to the factory spring and haven't looked back. Sorry I don't remember the spring weights.

The most important thing in the smaller blow-back guns, IMHO, is to provide a firm backstop for them to cycle against. Mine feeds perfect with HP or ball ammo just the way Smith set it up.

 

[Kavinsky]

Firm backstop? you mean as in making damn sure you've got a good grip on it while firing it?

the reason why I'm curious about the recoil spring is because the PPK/PP series in general seems to be a little all over the place quality control wise and it seems like no two examples are the same. Like there's no real definitive reason why as he states in the video.

smith and wesson version not included as I havent tried that myself although I do know they changed the design of the feed ramp and outside of the grumbling about that problem with the firing pin block in 06" I havent heard anything really negative about them.

mind you I wish the bevertail wasnt so pronounced give its designed usage as a pocket pistol.

anyways which from my own research into the matter with the non smith PPK's have come to the same conclusion about it as him and the weird bit there is I thought the longer barrel of the PP series would negate that possibility.

yet there it stands, I mean you would think if its german made and that expensive that the thing would be a trouble free solid gun that would be on par with a smith and wesson N frame or a tried and true smith and wesson 39 series based gun.

yet it very much isn't and I've pretty much looked into every possibility outside of maybe the recoil spring being too weak and well I like the gun and would like to go with one but well it seems like if I want to get a PP based gun I can trust I'd be far better off going with a Sig Sauer 230 in stainless or the markarov.

as being a pocket pistol your going be trusting your life to you need the damn thing to be pretty much bulletproof, if its anything less its not worth it, although the only .380 I really like are the blued steel walthers, not the sigs or any of the others.

and now you see why I'm kind of perplexed about it

 

[Kavinsky]

I found out what he did wrong there with his gun.

I asked my gunsmith and he said that the heavier the slide the lighter the spring needs to be for it to function properly and if the spring is too heavy it will have failures to go into battery, just like he was having with the PP there. basically he screwed up his own gun by going with that 17 pound spring instead of the 15. What's surprised me is that even though its only off by 2 pounds the gun still somewhat works and is giving the impression its in its break in period.

not that the spring is too heavy that it wont function at all and the rule is 20 for the PPK and 15 for the PP.

so basically the rules of that design are leave the spring weight alone, use only ball like ammo in it that it was designed for in the 1930's like the golden sabers and apparently there wasn't a design change to the smith ones.

they still have the separate feedramp design the old ones have that the bullets like the hydroshocks can get caught on.

and if that doesnt work then look at the magazines then the feedramp for a polish.