walther ppk/s - used prices?

[jbeintherockies]

Hello,

I just looked at a used Walther ppk s .380 (smith&wesson) with pac-myer (sp) grips. It comes with three clips and a holster. The store wants $500. The gun appears to be in very good condition, not worn anywhere at all. They have a brand new one for $560. So, buying a used one with grips and a holster for $60 less doesn't sound like that great of a deal. But, I'm new at this; maybe it is. This will be my first gun. I forgot to ask how old the gun is.

How much value do handguns lose, in particular the american ppk s? It appears they do not depreciate much after purchase. I'll do seem google-searches in addition to what I learn from this thread. Thanks in advance for any advice. Also, if you can point me to any gun value websites, that would be great. Or, if you like any particular gun trader publications.

Jon

[F-Trooper05]

An oversized gun with a shitty trigger that only shoots .380ACP isn't worth much to me. YMMV.

[Joe in PNG]

Hey, the PPK is a great gun if you happen to be into slide cut and bite S&M.

I had one, got rid of it, don't miss it.

[JDM]

You're not likely to find a lot of support for the purchase you're trying to make. No doubt we have some members that could tell you exactly what that pistol is worth, but that particular firearm is the source of much ire amongst people that take shooting seriously, which this board is nearly entirely composed of.

Let me ask you this, what's the idea behind your purchase? Are you looking for a pistol to defend you and your loved ones with? A pistol to compete with? A gun to gather a functioning knowledge of the fundamentals of good shooting? If you answered yes to any of these, there is a myriad of vastly better choices.

Now if you've got a collection of, say, James Bond memorabilia, then sure go for it. Otherwise, probably best to pick something very different.

It'll be much easier to help you once we know the purpose for your purchase.

[SteveK]

Although not the choice of many in the know, I've always appreciated the sleek lines of the PPK series. They are a classic design and one of the first double action semi-autos. Time has passed it by but I've always wanted on just because...Yeah triggers are grungy but James Bond never complained.

[WDW]

$500 is a tad high for what you describe, but not unreasonable. I will warn that the Smith and Wesson made PPKs are some of the most malignant, crude, non-working examples of that gun design. If you really must have a PPK, and I really hope it is for nostalgic, collectible purposes, seek out an older Interarms made PPK or try and find an actual German mad Walther. They are hard to come across, but thery are out there. Also, again, if you MUST have one, I would get it in .32 ACPas that is the caliber for which the gun was designed for and that chambering tends to be far more relaible than the .380. But again, pleased do not carry such a dated, now worthless and obsolete gun. I have a PPK/S, but it is purely for collectible purposes. Also, James Bond never complained because he is not real. He is a fictional character in books and movies. Had he been real, he would have complained alot and if in real life he had to rely on his PPK like he does in the movies, he would probably be dead.

[jbeintherockies]

Well, I'm just getting into the idea of getting a gun. My Dad has many (mostly old stuff) and this will be the first that I purchase.

Why the Walther ppk/s:
I was considering the Walther not because of its Bond heritage, but because of its WW2 (and WW1?) history. I also simply like the look and feel of it. In addition, I have shot 9's (most recently a small S&W at the range and my Dad's Browning Hi Power) and I don't like the recoil. I wanted to try a .380 in hopes it wouldn't recoil as much. However, I haven't actually shot a .380 yet (planning on doing that BEFORE I buy anything). As for range, I *think* all I care about is good accuracy to about 25 yards or so. I don't think I need a 9mm to accomplish that.

Purpose of the gun:
Well, that is a good question and I'm not sure I know exactly what I will do with it. Since this will be my first gun, a gun to gather a functioning knowledge of the fundamentals of good shooting is definitely one of the purposes. I definitely will go to the local shooting range and might even consider getting a concealed weapons permit/license. It will also be available for self-defense purposes in my home.

I *think* for my first gun I want something compact, small caliber (but bigger than a .22) with the ability to conceal if desired, with good accuracy to 25 yards. I think I will start with something like that. I have considered a Ruger MkII .22, which my Dad has, and I have shot a number of times. But, it doesn't do much for me. I still like the way they look though (like an old Luger). It also isn't something that can be easily concealed; I think it is more of a target gun and I think I want something more versatile than that.


What additional questions do you guys have? Maybe I should start a new thread? The ppk/s headline doesn't reflect the direction that this thread has taken.

[JDM]

There have been a few "first gun" threads lately. A search should dig them up.

From what I've read here, a Glock 19, used, would be a fine choice. Some good basic handgun coursework would also be ideal. Not necessarily in that order.

Do you have a shooting range near you where you can rent guns? Actually shooting the gun before you buy it often makes it much easier to see if it'll work well for you.

RE recoil: Good technique is often the difference between being comfortable with the recoil from gun a, and uncomfortable with gun b. Hence the suggestion for good basic handgun training.

[Tamara]

I would recommend against it.

While the S&W-manufactured PPKs fix some of the more glaring problems with the gun's design, by adding a beavertail so the slide won't leave your hand bleeding and improving the design of the ejector, for some reason the long, skinny trigger bar of the Walther design just does not work well with S&W's MIM process. After about the fifth or sixth one sent back with a snapped trigger bar, I just stopped stocking them and would only special order them after telling the customer up front about what I'd seen.

More or less thoroughly obsolete as a defensive firearm, if you want one just for a shooter, I'd recommend sticking to older German guns. Be aware that postwar Manurhins were shipped across the river and marked as Walthers as well as being sold under the Manure trademark, and can be of wildly varying quality. I've seen some that were gemlike and others that were rough as a cob and wouldn't run worth a damn. Avoid the U.S.-built Interarms guns like the plague that they are.

(As far as getting one for a first gun to learn shooting? Their triggers are awful, the sights are abysmal & their radius is short, the recoil is amazingly unpleasant for a steel .380 due to the straight blowback operation and grip shape and geometry, and .380 ammo is expensive. I'd have a hard time thinking of a worse gun to learn to shoot with that isn't an alloy-framed .38 snubby. I'd counsel looking into a Ruger or Browning .22 pistol, but if you just have to have something you can CCW, too, then get a 9mm compact service pistol like the Glock 19.)


EDIT: Heh. I read the first post. Typed my reply, and then went back and read the rest of the thread. Good to know I'm in tune with the hive mind. :o

So, yeah, when a bunch of people are more or less spontaneously relating the same experiences, you can take that as a sign. ;)

[jbeintherockies]

How many different types of Glock 19s are there? After doing a quick google search, it looks like there is a "regular" Glock 19 and a compact Glock 19. Seems confusing.

Next, there is the Gen 3, Gen 4 and then the rtf2. What does the rtf2 mean? Based on what I am reading, the rtf2 sounds like a gun for competitions.

Thanks!

[Angered_Kabar]

You might have been looking at a G19C and thought the 'C' stood for compact. It means compensated. Probably not the best thing for a gun that you might use to protect yourself with. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

Besides that, the Glock 19 is built around Glock's "compact" sized frame. There are some differences between the generations, but the ones you are most likely to find on the 'New Guns' shelf are generation 3 and 4.

RTF2 is a generation 3 pistol with a special grip texture. It stands for Rough Texture Frame 2. Gen 4 glocks have a texture that is very similar but a little more subdued.

[Mr_White]

I'd have a hard time thinking of a worse gun to learn to shoot with that isn't an alloy-framed .38 snubby.

That's word right there.

I weep, secretly and silently on the inside, for every student I ever see bring a PPK to a class.

[Al T.]

I've had better luck with the Bersa .380s than PPKs.

IMHO, most if not all .380s are harder to shoot well than the compact 9s. Only exception would be the Beretta 85. Which I promptly sold when I got a S&W 3913.

[David Armstrong]

Although not the choice of many in the know, I've always appreciated the sleek lines of the PPK series. They are a classic design and one of the first double action semi-autos. Time has passed it by but I've always wanted on just because...Yeah triggers are grungy but James Bond never complained.
Well said, Steve. Although somewhat passé now the PP line was considered by many of the top gunmen of the time to be at or near the top of the CCW auto world for quite a long time, and came highly recommended. I agree that the new S&W versions are rather sad, but a well-made PP variation will still serve well for CCW purposes. There are better choices, however, so while I wouldn't feel undergunned with a PPK/S it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.

[Tamara]

Although somewhat passé now the PP line was considered by many of the top gunmen of the time to be at or near the top of the CCW auto world for quite a long time, and came highly recommended.

...and the Model A was the fastest car on the road with that flathead V-8.

That the PPK and its clones were thought so highly of speaks more to the paucity of other choices than any inherent qualities of the gun itself. (And yes, I've owned a few.)

If somebody's just dying to have a single-stack straight-blowback .380 with those sleek PPK-esque lines, they should avail themselves of a SIG P-230/232, which will have the advantage of not needing a chainfall to pull the trigger in DA mode, decent sights, and it will feed any JHP ammo you care to stick in it, which can be hit-or-miss with a PP.

[jbeintherockies]

So, after the recommendations provided on this thread (thank you) and various threads that I have found on this website, I am now going to consider (look at, and try to shoot) the following for my first handgun:
- Glock 19 (sounds like there are lots of aftermarket stuff [sights, holsters, etc] for this gun)
- Walther PPQ (sounds like there is fewer aftermarket stuff [sights, holsters, etc] for this gun)
- Ruger SR9 (haven't read too much about this one on here)
- S&W M&P (this was someone's first gun on here)
- S&W SD9 (smaller version of the M&P I think)
- Kahr K9

I know I originally said that a 9 "kicks too much", but that is probably because I don't know what I am doing. So, I'm going to reconsider. A friend of mine found the S&W Bodygaurd online, which looks pretty cool (even has a laser sight). But, I don't think that would be a good choice for a first handgun. The purpose of this handgun for me can be found on a previous post on this thread.

Some of the local Denver area gun shops have some of those to rent, which will be very helpful. So, right now, I'm just info gathering and I plan on taking a CWP/handgun class in the next two weeks or so at my local gun range. I think that would be a good thing to do before I buy one.

Keep the "... knowing what I know now, I would ..." advice coming. That is why I came on this website! :)

[peterb]

One advantage of a 9mm is that the ammunition costs less than any of the other calibers commonly used for personal defense. That means you can afford more practice. Just buy inexpensive practice ammunition -- don't use the +P(more pressure/velocity/energy/recoil) stuff until you have more experience.

[jbeintherockies]

One advantage of a 9mm is that the ammunition costs less than any of the other calibers commonly used for personal defense. That means you can afford more practice. Just buy inexpensive practice ammunition -- don't use the +P(more pressure/velocity/energy/recoil) stuff until you have more experience.

Yeah, that is one of the reasons I am steering away from a .380.

[jbeintherockies]

Well, I just got back from my (very crowded) local gun shop. I had the opportunity to hold (not shoot yet) the following guns:

Glock 19
Ruger SR40
Kahr K9
A very expensive sig that looked similar to a 1911 design (but wasn't)
Springfield XD and an XD M
S&W M&P
Several 1911's varying in price from about $800 to $3500+

The Springfield XD M felt THE BEST in the my hand. The S&W M&P felt good too, as did the majority of 1911's (but man are they expensive!). The Glock and Ruger felt the worst. The guy at the store said how it feels in your hand is very important.


I'm actually more confused now. Figuring out what I'm going to do with this thing is really the driving factor in what I buy. I was first thinking I wanted something that could do it all (concealment, defense, target shooting, ??). But, the more I look at them and talk to people, it sounds like you should buy a gun to do a specific task. For example, if you want a concealment weapon, then buy one that is designed for that. A small .380 for close range defense would be a good choice. But, I'm thinking more and more that I will want something to target shoot with, and it sounds like a 9 is a much better choice for that task. I don't see myself carrying this thing around much; but I do see myself going to the driving range a lot (a couple times a week in the beginning for sure).

The guy at the store felt the 1911's were the most accurate gun design for target shooting. But, they are also a lot more money. I can afford a 1911 type pistol; but I'm not sure if that is the correct direction to go in for my first pistol. I think for me (beginner level), the difference in accuracy between a 1911 design and, say the XD, would be negligible.

I'm actually starting to wonder if a .22 (maybe in a 1911 design) would be the best place to start. Tamara seemed to be suggesting that.

Anyway, tomorrow I'll go find a shop that has a Walther PPQ and a Springfield XD so I can see how those two compare.


Jon

[JDM]

"feels" this word gets thrown around A LOT. While ergonomics are important, what "feels" the best doesn't necessarily translate into what works the best.

Example: in my hand, the small M&P backstrap feels the best, but I shoot the best with the large one.

Generally, you want the most meat on the gun you can manage to have while still being able to reach important controls.

I strenuously recommend some basic pistol instruction so that you can be an informed buyer. A good intro class that teaches the basics of grip and manipulations will make it much much easier to purchase effectively.

Oh and be absolutely suspect of any and all gun store advice- remember, they are selling you something.

[F-Trooper05]

Focus on what a majority of the people on this board are carrying and you'll notice a pattern. Very few XD's and 1911's.

[JAD]

I'd agree that there are very few XD pistols on this board. There are plenty of people who carry a 1911, and I sincerely wish i'd started there rather than with a glock 19(c!). They are pretty dear, though the ruger (which I have yet to hear anything bad about) is within shouting distance of a glock.

That said, .45 is twice as expensive as 9. Glocks have good resell value. This board will bias you towards the 19 and frankly you could do worse.

I would have liked to have started with a K frame smith all those years ago, but I'm about the only person I know who started reloading at the same time I started shooting. if you're into that, though, it's real hard to beat a nice s&w or ruger gp100 as a first defensive-caliber handgun.

[Joe in PNG]

Because we tend to be a hive mind, as Tam mentioned...

If I may suggest, take your time, there is no huge rush to buy something.

-FIRST, and more important, get some proper training. It may be the problems you are having with recoil could be from not knowing how to hold a gun properly. Many shooters really don't. If you're doing things wrong, every shot you send downrange is just re-enforcing bad habits.

-Do your research! Sturgeon's law (90% of everyting is crap) applies here, both to guns, and advice about guns. There is a lot of pure nonsense floating around out there. For instance, is the 1911 the world's most accurate pistol? Maybe, but that $400 slag gun (RIA, ect) probably won't be.

-Skip the 1911 platform altogether. You'll need about $1,000 to get anything worth getting, and expect to become your own gunsmith... unless the phrases "extractor tension" and "proper plunger tube strake" turn you on...

-Beware of cheap guns! I've spent THOUSANDS of dollars on cheap guns only to sell them later at a loss.

-Try before you buy, but after you take a class. Fingerprinting a gun over a glass case is waaaay different than firing it- a bit like the difference between sitting behind the wheel of a parked car going "VROOM VROOM", and actually driving that car.

Anyway, take your time and do your research. You'll appreciate it in the long run.

[guymontag]

Because we tend to be a hive mind, as Tam mentioned...

If I may suggest, take your time, there is no huge rush to buy something.

-FIRST, and more important, get some proper training. It may be the problems you are having with recoil could be from not knowing how to hold a gun properly. Many shooters really don't. If you're doing things wrong, every shot you send downrange is just re-enforcing bad habits.

-Do your research! Sturgeon's law (90% of everyting is crap) applies here, both to guns, and advice about guns. There is a lot of pure nonsense floating around out there. For instance, is the 1911 the world's most accurate pistol? Maybe, but that $400 slag gun (RIA, ect) probably won't be.

-Skip the 1911 platform altogether. You'll need about $1,000 to get anything worth getting, and expect to become your own gunsmith... unless the phrases "extractor tension" and "proper plunger tube strake" turn you on...

-Beware of cheap guns! I've spent THOUSANDS of dollars on cheap guns only to sell them later at a loss.

-Try before you buy, but after you take a class. Fingerprinting a gun over a glass case is waaaay different than firing it- a bit like the difference between sitting behind the wheel of a parked car going "VROOM VROOM", and actually driving that car.

Anyway, take your time and do your research. You'll appreciate it in the long run.

I second all of the above advice; that in red is what I accomplished when I first delved into firearms.

Here's an excellent article, pertinent to concealed carry and training: http://pistol-training.com/articles/where-to-start

[Nik the Greek]

I'd like to add that you are absolutely in the best possible place to get advice on this topic. The firearms world is full of mythology and misinformation, but this forum is an invaluable resource because of the rational and results oriented approach most of this community takes toward material and training. Anyway, while I'm happy with my USP .40, I wish I'd learned proper grip, gotten some actual training (more than an NRA safe gun class) and came here for purchasing advice first.

Personally, I'd advise any new shooter to strongly consider either an M&P 9 or a Gen 3 Glock 17/19 for a first handgun. Unlike a lot of other pursuits, in shooting, your first gun can also be your forever gun, and you can't really go wrong with either choice. They're both on the reasonable end of the cost scale, and the Glocks seem to sell well second hand too. 9mm is also the least expensive "effective" self defense round. Shot placement matters, good shot placement comes with skill, skill comes with effective practice, and you'll practice more if you can afford to. I'm actually planning on buying a 9mm when it's financially viable for that reason.

[jbeintherockies]

I second all of the above advice; that in red is what I accomplished when I first delved into firearms.

Here's an excellent article, pertinent to concealed carry and training: http://pistol-training.com/articles/where-to-start


That article was very helpful, thank you. Once again, it is very important to think through the purpose of what you are buying. In this case the purpose of taking the training. For me, the purpose is:
- learn proper grip and manipulations
- learn proper fundamentals of pistol shooting
- learn how the pistols operate, their functions

The course I am taking on the 23rd covers safe handling/mindset, firearm selection, ammo selection, carry methods, handgun fundamentals (stance, grip, mechanics and accuracy) and carrying concealed. So, it covers the main reason (handgun fundamentals) that I am taking the training. The instructor is "NRA certified" and has been teaching firearm and self defense classes for over twenty years. I'll find out more about it today.

[David Armstrong]

...and the Model A was the fastest car on the road with that flathead V-8.
The difference is that the Model A would no longer be capable of adequately doing the job we would expect in the modern environment (highways speeds, safety standards, etc.) while the PPK has demonstrated it can be and is still quite capable of adequate performance in a self-defense/CCW role in the modern environment. Is it the best gun around to learn on? No. But is it a bad CCW gun? Again, no.

[Pennzoil]

Not sure if you have seen this excellent article (http://www.f2sconsulting.com/What_pistol_should_I_buy.html) on F2S website. This is pretty much the route I went by blind luck starting out and if I did it over again I'd go the same route even though I'm not shooting Glocks now due to carrying AIWB. 9mm Glocks are almost a second form of currency so unless you do something crazy to it you'll get your money back when you sell it.

[Rappahannock]

An oversized gun with a shitty trigger that only shoots .380ACP isn't worth much to me. YMMV.

I am sorry you got this kind of response to your honest question. That said, I love my Interarms PPK and do occasionally carry it, but I have been fiddling with pistols for 30 years now and am quite aware of what it will and will not do. I also have other, more appropriate pistols for carry.

If I were in your position, I'd seriously consider the Glock or M&P route suggested here, even though I am not a big fan of either. They are good, accurate and dependable firearms, thought, and to master either would put you in a good position as a pistol owner and shooter.

Good luck. Once you make that decision, get in as much practice as you can.

[Tamara]

That said, I love my Interarms PPK and do occasionally carry it...

No doubt the Administrator of Yugos.com still drives his and will tell anyone who will listen what an awesome and unfairly maligned car it is, too. :rolleyes:

[F-Trooper05]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I stand by my statement.

[jbeintherockies]

Not sure if you have seen this excellent article (http://www.f2sconsulting.com/What_pistol_should_I_buy.html) on F2S website. This is pretty much the route I went by blind luck starting out and if I did it over again I'd go the same route even though I'm not shooting Glocks now due to carrying AIWB. 9mm Glocks are almost a second form of currency so unless you do something crazy to it you'll get your money back when you sell it.

I did thank you. It was a good article and going with a G19 seems to be the consensus.

[jbeintherockies]

Everyone's posts have been very helpful. Sorry for singling out only a few to thank.

I signed up for the class for next Friday; but the 20 year veteran is no longer teaching it. I still think I will still learn something, however. This week I am planning on shooting some of the guns that I have been considering. I'll report on how it goes when I do.

Jon

[David Armstrong]

No doubt the Administrator of Yugos.com still drives his and will tell anyone who will listen what an awesome and unfairly maligned car it is, too. :rolleyes:
Yes, but has the Yugo stood the test of time and served as the basis for multiple clones from various manufacturers while serving as one of the most commonly selected and used examples of its kind in open competition? No. That is what many seem to forget. Yes, something better may come down the road, but "better" does not automatically mean everything else is suddenly "not good". Not singling you out in particular, Tamara, but this seems a regular problem in the gun world, something new and exciting comes along and it seems many folks suddenly want to completely ignore history and argue that something is a bad choice instead of it is not as good a choice as an alternative but it will still work OK. And even that seems rather selective. We rarely hear, for example, that the 1911 is a bad choice for a shooter, only that other choices are better.

[TGS]

We rarely hear, for example, that the 1911 is a bad choice for a shooter, only that other choices are better.

I hear the 1911 is a bad choice for a shooter all the time. Even LAV says it's a bad choice for most people.

[Tamara]

Yes, but has the Yugo stood the test of time and served as the basis for multiple clones from various manufacturers while serving as one of the most commonly selected and used examples of its kind in open competition?

So has the Colt Peacemaker.

Firstly, my Yugo comment was directed specifically to Interarms-manufactured PPKs, which tend to differ from paperweights in the fact that paperweights were designed and intended to be inert lumps that hold down paper, while the folks at Interarms appear to have held vague hopes that their razor-edged pocket bricks might actually see use as pistols.

But you are also resolutely missing my overarching point: That the PPK was as successful as it was, not because it was the best pocket-sized double-action auto, but because it was pretty much the only pocket-sized double-action auto, outside of esoterica like the HSc, for many years. People were willing to overlook its obvious shortcomings because it did something that no other pistol could do, and as soon as something better came along, sensible folks moved on, leaving only misty-eyed nostalgics to pine over the glories of a pistol that, face it, would probably have ceased production when Interarms folded if it weren't for the lingering influence of Ian Fleming and Eon Productions.

Even twenty years ago, everybody knew that if you wanted a sleek-looking DA pocket auto that actually ran and had a good trigger and was light enough to go in a pocket, you could get a P-230. If you didn't mind a heavy brick with a wretched trigger, but wanted a gun that was actually reliable (a feature not notably found among postwar PPKs, either Manurhin- or Interarms-built) you could get a surplus Mak. And if you didn't mind carrying a jammomatic like the Walther in your pocket, you could get your malfunctions with less weight and half the price by buying a Bersa or Astra Constable.

Th 1911 retains its popularity largely out of misty-eyed nostalgia, too, although there are some people that like it for the same reason that the P-210 has a cult following: If you're willing to shell out an obscene amount of shekels, you can have target-pistol accuracy in a service pistol caliber in a slim gun that's easy to carry tucked in your drawers. A sober-sided assessment would question just how important it was to have target-pistol accuracy in a CCW gun tucked in your drawers, especially when you had to give up light weight, capacity, and a fat stack of hundreds to get it.

[JAD]

I hear the 1911 is a bad choice for a shooter all the time. Even LAV says it's a bad choice for most people.

Haters gonna hate. All due respect to Mr. Vickers, but I can find an equal number of SMEs who consider it the easiest gun to learn to shoot well.

I think the trigger (maybe /in addition/ to misty eyed nostalgia (srsly? Herr G rolled out his ND machines when I was an incredibly impressionable 17 years old -- it took me twenty years to figure out how cool that rampant pony is)) is what ultimately draws people to the 1911. It's really, really easy to learn to shoot well. I don't think it's necessarily that the gun is accurate (I think very few people not on this forum shoot to the limits of their firearm) as that the shooter is more accurate (and often faster, all else equal) with the gun.

[SteveK]

I wouldn't consider LAV's stance on the 1911 "hate". Guys like he and Hackathorn evolve with the times and accept new and better things for what they are and the advantages they offer. That's why they are the great ones. These guys have extensive experience and realize the effort and maintenance required to keep them uber-reliable. The logistics of the 1911 just doesn't make it the wisest choice for units/departments nowadays. Does it make it an obsolete platform? In my opinion no, but even from a single enduser perspective there are probably better choices. Just as the PPK series is obsolete, it can still be a viable carry option. After all, guys like Skeeter Skelton and Bill Jordon didn't have issues with relying on it as a back up or U/C gun and I dare say they traveled a rougher trail than most.

[David Armstrong]

I hear the 1911 is a bad choice for a shooter all the time. Even LAV says it's a bad choice for most people.
Knocking the 1911 as a defensive handgun is a rarely new event and done in a fairly small circle, and I would suggest that given the history of success if one knocks it as being unsuitable for defense one is clearly contradicted by the facts.

[Nephrology]

I just don't get why you would pick the lesser of 2 possible options when you are deciding on something designed to save your life. It seems pretty illogical to me.

the 5 shot J frame is probably more useful than the PPK in 2011.

[JDM]

Knocking the 1911 as a defensive handgun is a rarely new event and done in a fairly small circle, and I would suggest that given the history of success if one knocks it as being unsuitable for defense one is clearly contradicted by the facts.

It's been my experience that the people knocking the 1911 as a carry piece are people that shoot substantial amounts of ammo through their guns, as opposed to people that just "carry" them. This is an admittedly small circle.

No doubt the 1911 is fine if all you do is carry it-probably just about any gun will fill that role.

However when it comes to ease of (read as maintenance requirements, ergonomics, reliability) shooting in large quantity, the divide between modern polymer pistol, and 1911 becomes quite apparent.

Also, little specialized know how is required to maintain a polymer pistol at full capacity. Gimme a punch and 15 minutes... Not so for the 1911.

As good as it is, the 1911 is more complex, more sensitive to changes made to it, and exceptionally more maintenance intensive. All poor qualities in a frequently practiced with defensive firearm.

I you want a pretty gun, and you shoot thrice a year then sure, whatever floats your boat.

[David Armstrong]

So has the Colt Peacemaker.
Which sort of proves my point. While the Peacemaker is still a popular design and highly recommended it is popular and recommended in a fairly narrow spectrum. And within that spectrum trying to say the Peacemaker is a bad gun is rather ludicrous given a long history of success. The PP is much the same within its spectrum, that of a small defensive firearm.

Firstly, my Yugo comment was directed specifically to Interarms-manufactured PPKs, which tend to differ from paperweights in the fact that paperweights were designed and intended to be inert lumps that hold down paper, while the folks at Interarms appear to have held vague hopes that their razor-edged pocket bricks might actually see use as pistols.
And the folks at Interarms were right, their pistols did and still do actually see use as pistols, and apparently manage to work in that capacity. Have there been some problems? Sure, just like there have been some problems with Kimbers, Colts, S&Ws, Rugers, and so on. BTW, those razor edges are easy to fix with about 2 minutes of basic breaking of a few edges, something that has been known to many Walther users for decades.

But you are also resolutely missing my overarching point: That the PPK was as successful as it was, not because it was the best pocket-sized double-action auto, but because it was pretty much the only pocket-sized double-action auto, outside of esoterica like the HSc, for many years. People were willing to overlook its obvious shortcomings because it did something that no other pistol could do, and as soon as something better came along, sensible folks moved on, leaving only misty-eyed nostalgics to pine over the glories of a pistol that, face it, would probably have ceased production when Interarms folded if it weren't for the lingering influence of Ian Fleming and Eon Productions.

I don't miss your point at all, I simply point out that your point is an opinion that is clearly contradicted by facts. There have been all sorts of small CCW pistols available, both single and double action, along with an excellent selection of concealable revolvers, contemporary with the PP-design. And it has held its own. Again, something new and exciting comes along and it seems many folks suddenly want to completely ignore history and argue that something is a bad choice instead of it is not as good a choice as an alternative but it will still work OK.

[David Armstrong]

I just don't get why you would pick the lesser of 2 possible options when you are deciding on something designed to save your life. It seems pretty illogical to me.

the 5 shot J frame is probably more useful than the PPK in 2011.
Because there is not an agreement on what is the lesser of the options. "Different" does not mean "better", although many in the gun world seem to think so and try to argue that their personal choices and biases should be considered THE TRUTH no matter what the reality of a situation is.

[peterb]

I hear the 1911 is a bad choice for a shooter all the time. Even LAV says it's a bad choice for most people.

Context is everything...

"That is a tough question as I feel most people are best served NOT using a 1911 as a primary sidearm. Two criteria come to mind a) A passion for the 1911 platform and b) you are willing to be your own armorer and can fix relatively minor problems or fit certain parts yourself. If you are the kind of guy that doesn’t mind tinkering with your Harley Davidson motorcycle to keep it running then you are a candidate. If however you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock." -- LAV

Heck the guy built custom 1911s and teaches 1911 classes. He's not exactly a "hater". It's like a vintage Triumph mechanic telling a typical first-time motorcycle buyer that he'd be better off with a Honda as a daily driver.

[David Armstrong]

It's been my experience that the people knocking the 1911 as a carry piece are people that shoot substantial amounts of ammo through their guns, as opposed to people that just "carry" them. This is an admittedly small circle.
And yet we regularly see just the opposite, those who shoot substantial amounts of ammo saying the 1911 is the best option for a carry gun. Strange how that works.


However when it comes to ease of (read as maintenance requirements, ergonomics, reliability) shooting in large quantity, the divide between modern polymer pistol, and 1911 becomes quite apparent.
Yes, there is a divide. However there is quite a bit of disagreement about which side of the divide the different platforms come down on.


Also, little specialized know how is required to maintain a polymer pistol at full capacity. Gimme a punch and 15 minutes... Not so for the 1911.
Not sure wha that has to do with use as a fighting gun unless one is planning on doing maintenance in the middle of a fight.


As good as it is, the 1911 is more complex, more sensitive to changes made to it, and exceptionally more maintenance intensive. All poor qualities in a frequently practiced with defensive firearm.
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. A K-frame S&W is more complex and sensitive to changes made to it but it is still an excellent defensive firearm.


I you want a pretty gun, and you shoot thrice a year then sure, whatever floats your boat.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean given the history of the issue.

[SteveK]

"However when it comes to ease of (read as maintenance requirements, ergonomics, reliability) shooting in large quantity, the divide between modern polymer pistol, and 1911 becomes quite apparent."

I would submit there is no apparent difference. In fact, given the same caliber the 1911 is an easier gun to shoot more accurately and for extended periods. You just have to lube it and clean it occasionally. I wouldn't stake my life on any weapon I don't maintain, clean and inspect just for the sake of seeing how dirty it will run.

[TGS]

Context is everything...

"That is a tough question as I feel most people are best served NOT using a 1911 as a primary sidearm. Two criteria come to mind a) A passion for the 1911 platform and b) you are willing to be your own armorer and can fix relatively minor problems or fit certain parts yourself. If you are the kind of guy that doesn’t mind tinkering with your Harley Davidson motorcycle to keep it running then you are a candidate. If however you treat your pistols like we all treat our lawnmowers then don’t get a 1911 – use a Glock." -- LAV

Heck the guy built custom 1911s and teaches 1911 classes. He's not exactly a "hater". It's like a vintage Triumph mechanic telling a typical first-time motorcycle buyer that he'd be better off with a Honda as a daily driver.

Ergo, the 1911 is still a bad choice for most people.

I never said he's a hater. I think his history with the 1911 lends even more credibility to an argument against 1911's.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

I really don't give a damn that Joe Schmoe is carrying a PPK or a 1911 and it still "works" for him. Quantifiable unreliable .32's, .25's and .380's "work" for a lot of people because they've never had to use it in a fight. I stop reading when people say, "Yup, I don't care what people say about .32 or .380, my XXX has worked for me," even though they've never been in a gunfight with XXX.

Sure, the PPK is an option and it can be a useful tool. There's still better options, which can be determined objectively.

[David Armstrong]

Ergo, the 1911 is still a bad choice for most people.
Of course there are plenty of well-qualified instructors out there that will argue the Glock is a bad choice for most people.:eek:

Quantifiable unreliable .32's, .25's and .380's "work" for a lot of people because they've never had to use it in a fight.
That is a fair assessment. However, when you have a gun like the PP that has been around for over half a century and has been successfully used regularly in fights and has not seemed to have any significant problems that is a very different thing. In fact, go back about 20 years and you can find large LE organizations choosing the PP design specifically because it was so reliable and had such a stellar reputation.

Sure, the PPK is an option and it can be a useful tool. There's still better options, which can be determined objectively.
Which can be said for any handgun. All personal weapons are an option, and there will always be better options no matter what you pick.

[F-Trooper05]

This is a silly argument. Would anybody recommend a PPK for a two or three day training class? My guess is probably not. So why would anybody recommend a PPK for someone looking for their first and only firearm?

[David Armstrong]

This is a silly argument. Would anybody recommend a PPK for a two or three day training class? My guess is probably not. So why would anybody recommend a PPK for someone looking for their first and only firearm?
I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has recommended that. Most of the disagreement seems to be over broad statements regarding the usability of the PPk as a defensive/CCW firearm.

[jbeintherockies]

I just got back from my local indoor shooting range. I had planned on shooting a bunch of stuff (.22, .380, 9mm). However, I never got past the .22 Browning Buck Mark. I must say, I really enjoyed shooting that gun. I think that is what Tamara had in mind when she recommended a Browning .22. The last time I went to the shooting range I shot the Ruger Mk ... either the Mk 2 or 3. I'm not sure which it was. I think I liked the Browning better and from what I am reading the Browning is easier to clean and maintain (take apart, etc).

Anyway, all of my shots at 15 yards were slightly high and to the right. Even when I rested the gun on the "table"; high and to the right. Even when I compensated and aimed a little low and to the left; I was high and to the right (of the bullseye). One of the "issues" that I struggle with when shooting a pistol is which hand to hold the gun in. I am a lefty, right eye dominant. So I kept going back and fourth until I settled on shooting the gun with my left hand and closing my left eye. I was the most accurate that way (at least from 7 yards). I guess I'll stick with that.

After shooting 160 rounds, I really think I should get a .22 to start out with. I really plan on target shooting a lot in the beginning and the .22 just makes good fiscal sense. I don't think learning good handgun shooting fundamentals using expensive 9mm ammo is the way to go.

This Friday I take my first basic pistol course; I'm looking forward to it.

Jon

[David Armstrong]

A good .22 is hard to beat for a first gun. Inexpensive ammo and some really nice guns that don't cost a lot can translate into a lot of trigger time.

[Tamara]

After shooting 160 rounds, I really think I should get a .22 to start out with. I really plan on target shooting a lot in the beginning and the .22 just makes good fiscal sense. I don't think learning good handgun shooting fundamentals using expensive 9mm ammo is the way to go.

This Friday I take my first basic pistol course; I'm looking forward to it.

The Force is strong in this one. :cool:

[JAD]

That's a great conclusion, Jon. Plus you have the good sense to spell your name right.

Jon
KC

[Nephrology]

If only I had been as smart as you when I bought my first handgun.

Enjoy your class!

[SteveK]

I still think the PPK is sexy...:)

[Tamara]

I still think the PPK is sexy...:)

...so's an E-type Jag. :D

[SteveK]

...so's an E-type Jag. :D

...and I would look beyond cool getting out of an E Jag in Monte Carlo in a black tuxedo strapped with an engraved PPK/S:cool:

[jbeintherockies]

I still think the PPK is sexy...:)

The Browning Buckmark ain't too shabby either :D

[SteveK]

The Browning Buckmark ain't too shabby either :D

Very true, I've shot the heck out of mine.:)

[peterb]

The Buckmark is a fine choice for a .22, but don't believe all the horror stories about disassembling Rugers. I was worried about that before I bought a used Mk II, but I took the bold step of actually following the instructions in the manual and have had no problems taking it apart or reassembling it.

Article on training with a .22: http://pistol-training.com/articles/22-training-pistols-pros-cons

[jbeintherockies]

Well, I took the NRA Basic Handgun/CCW/CCP course yesterday. I am very glad I did. I definitely learned some things about aiming, grip, stance, cleaning and care, pistol selection, ammo, holsters, etc, etc. I took a lot of notes, which I will not duplicate here. A lot was covered and it was money well spent. I also got to shoot a Ruger 22/45 during the shooting range portion of the course. The instructor and several gun shop salesmen there recommended the Ruger (instructor owns one) for what I was looking to do. They all felt the Ruger had more aftermarket stuff available. So, I've shot a Ruger Mk III, a Ruger 22/45 and a Browning Buck Mark. I think they are all very close and similar; but I liked the Browning Buck Mark the best. I'm going with my gut and sticking with the Browning; call me stubborn.

After taking the course, I'm not sure I am that interested in getting my CCP. One of the things that concerned me were all of the places that you CAN NOT carry a concealed handgun: school property (K-12), any government buildings, past any physical screenings, public transit, etc. It just seems like a hassle to carry concealed. What if I forget? What if I go to a stadium and they are using metal detectors? All it takes is one time, however, when you might need it. I don't know. I'll think about it.

Oh, I also became an NRA member for $25 (1 year membership). I figured it would be a good resource.

I definitely plan on taking more handgun courses (maybe the NRA Handgun Two class) in the future. Now I just need to go buy my Buck Mark. Wish me luck!

Jon

[Pennzoil]

After taking the course, I'm not sure I am that interested in getting my CCP. One of the things that concerned me were all of the places that you CAN NOT carry a concealed handgun: school property (K-12), any government buildings, past any physical screenings, public transit, etc. It just seems like a hassle to carry concealed. What if I forget? What if I go to a stadium and they are using metal detectors? All it takes is one time, however, when you might need it. I don't know. I'll think about it.

Oh, I also became an NRA member for $25 (1 year membership). I figured it would be a good resource.

Jon

Congratulations on completing the course and thank you for joining the NRA.

I'd look at the glass half full and all the places you CAN carry with a CCP/CCW. A lot of people wish they had the opportunity to defend themselves like we have. How often do you actually go to these restricted places anyway. You never know when you might want to carry and it's nice to have the right when you need it even if your not carrying 100% of the time.

One example I have is years ago my wife was a manager at a resort and had to cover overnights when the immediate area had a recent string of violent armed robberies at hotels/resorts. Unlike some husbands I actually like my wife so I went to work with my wife and sat in the lobby with my normal CCW just incase. Nothing happened that night but they did come the night after. Weird things come up and options are nice even if you don't plan to carry all the time.

My street in what was a nice neighborhood has recently turned bad due to falling housing prices and coyotes/drug runners buying/renting houses in better neighborhoods to blend in more. We have had two shootings and one person beat to a pulp less then 10ft from my front door. One was while I was at the Utah AFHF class recently a lady was shot in the chest with a shotgun in the street one house over from mine. My brother had a guy shot and killed on the sidewalk in front of his place a couple years ago. You may need to defend yourself while trimming trees or changing the oil on you vehicle in your driveway you just never know no matter how nice the area is.

It may seem overwhelming at first considering to carry a firearm but they're many pluses to having your permit and the option of carrying if needed. I know I'm leaving some off but here is a few.

1. After you attend the course you'll understand your state laws better around defending yourself with a firearm and meet nice like minded individuals.
2.One more permit to support the pro gun demographic in your state. Politicians sometimes see this as a metric for policy changes.
3. If the laws change you may have a chance to be grandfathered in. Seems far fetched but never know.
4. More rights around firearms depending on state laws like ability to purchase a firearms with out have to wait for the Federal background check, more options around transporting loaded firearms, etc.....

Don't let me persuade you as its your option just wanted to share a few things you may not of thought of yet. Also I'm not sure what state your in but may want to look for a local group that supports your 2nd Amendment rights. In Arizona with have the AzCDL which has done a ton for expanding our CCW rights.

[Limey-]

The PPK was issued to 22nd SAS and used extensively as a UC gun in some very nasty parts of the world for many years right into the 90's. It was carried by both SIS and The Security Service (MI5 and MI6). "Bond" carried one 'because' Fleming was retired from the Brit Secret Service. The German/French version is a different animal to the USA abortion. All that said I have no idea why it would be a 'first choice', 'only' gun or 'primary'. Its a great BUG or UC gun. The Sig is bigger than the PPK and gains you nothing. The Makarov is no way as reliable. I have shot a number of Maks extensively from each corner of the former communist world. It is no more reliable than the PPK. The German PPK shoots well, is very accurate and fairly resilient. For a primary and even an UC gun their are many better choices these days but the PPK is no slouch in the right hands.

[jbeintherockies]

Well, I got my Browning Buckmark yesterday and shot it this morning at the local indoor gun range. My Browning has the ultra RX rubber grips and a TruGlo green fiber optic front sight with adjustable rear sight. I think the green fiber optic front sight is much easier to aim with compared to the basic front sights that were on the other guns that I tested/rented. I shot 130 rounds through it this morning and took notes on where they were hitting at four different distances. The funny thing is, I am shooting a little high and to the right with this gun. That is exactly how I was shooting with the other guns that I tested/rented prior to buying this one. So, it is definitely me. FYI, I shoot left handed, but I am right-eye dominant.

Anyway, I plan on shooting some more tomorrow morning with it. It was recommended that I get a rest and "competition" ammo to sight it in. I'm glad I didn't have a tool to adjust the sight with at the range today. Otherwise, I probably would have messed with the sight. However, I think I should verify the gun is shooting straight first. Then, I think I will adjust the way I shoot it versus adjusting the sight to compensate for whatever it is that I am doing to get the grouping a little high and right.

Any advice? Thank you in advance.

Jon

[Tamara]

The PPK was issued to 22nd SAS and used extensively as a UC gun in some very nasty parts of the world for many years right into the 90's. It was carried by both SIS and The Security Service (MI5 and MI6). "Bond" carried one 'because' Fleming was retired from the Brit Secret Service. The German/French version is a different animal to the USA abortion. All that said I have no idea why it would be a 'first choice', 'only' gun or 'primary'. Its a great BUG or UC gun. The Sig is bigger than the PPK and gains you nothing. The Makarov is no way as reliable. I have shot a number of Maks extensively from each corner of the former communist world. It is no more reliable than the PPK. The German PPK shoots well, is very accurate and fairly resilient. For a primary and even an UC gun their are many better choices these days but the PPK is no slouch in the right hands.

Your post is full of factual inaccuracies.

Bond carried one 'because' a gun buff convinced Fleming that a Beretta deuce-five was a "ladies' gun" and that a .32 hit "like a brick through a plate glass window."

There is practically no such thing as a postwar "German" PPK. Almost all postwar "Made in W. Germany" PPKs are really Manurhins, which are, by and large, wretched pulsating balls of suck and fail when compared to prewar and wartime Ulm Walthers.

The SIG 230/232 gains you a better trigger and a heater that will reliably cycle JHPs. The Makarov at least gets you a gat that will run.

Sell that "SAS" nonsense to somebody who's worried about the color of the boathouse at Hereford, and not somebody who has decades of experience with PPKs.

[JDM]

... the color of the boathouse at Hereford...

How the f*** should I know? :p

[Tamara]

Heh. Sometimes I tire of the {SAS/SFOD-D/DEVGRU/HRT/Royal Manticoran Space Marines} purchase argument. You know, sometimes ninjas buy dumb guns, too. ;)

[will_1400]

I've always been interested in the PPK because of James Bond, but I'm under no illusions as to its effectiveness. Besides, I think 007 carries a P99 these days. Regarding Ian Fleming, AFIK he was Naval Intelligence and was never part of MI6. He also at one point had Bond carrying the VP-70 so I think it's safe to say Mr. Fleming didn't know squat about firearms.

[JAD]

What's so wrong with the VP70? I thought you guys liked a 'rolling' trigger and a polymer frame?

[Al T.]

Then, I think I will adjust the way I shoot it versus adjusting the sight to compensate for whatever it is that I am doing to get the grouping a little high and right.

J, what size groups are you getting and at what distance? If the groups are nice and tight, better to adjust the sights to zero the Browning. Be aware different brands/types/styles of ammo may effect POA/POI.

[Smaug]

I've always been interested in the PPK because of James Bond, but I'm under no illusions as to its effectiveness. Besides, I think 007 carries a P99 these days. Regarding Ian Fleming, AFIK he was Naval Intelligence and was never part of MI6. He also at one point had Bond carrying the VP-70 so I think it's safe to say Mr. Fleming didn't know squat about firearms.

Actually it was John Gardner who gave Bond a VP70 in one of the books he wrote after Fleming's death.

As Tam said; Fleming originally gave Bond a Beretta 418 .25. He gave him a PPK in Dr. No after Geoffrey Boothroyd wrote to him and told him the .25 was a "lady's gun". Fleming's interest in and knowledge of firearms was limited and that becomes pretty obvious if you read his books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_firearms

[will_1400]

I stand corrected.

[Joe in PNG]

The PPK WAS "used" by Inspector Beaton during the kidnapping attempt on Princess Anne back in 1974. Of course the dammned thing jammed and he was shot in the chest by his attacker.

[jbeintherockies]

J, what size groups are you getting and at what distance? If the groups are nice and tight, better to adjust the sights to zero the Browning. Be aware different brands/types/styles of ammo may effect POA/POI.

Well, at the range I went to the other day, there aren't markings telling me what the distances are. But, I think the range was around 7 yards and the grouping was about 2" by 2" with 30 shots. The furthest out the other day (maybe 20 yards) was about 3" by 3" with 30 shots. That is standing with no arm/gun rest.

Today, I used a rest and at 7 yards (this shooting range had the floor marked) with 4 shots I shot a grouping the size of a dime (the best of the day). The thing is, I'm putting the front site at the bottom of the dark portion of the target (NRA Official 25 YD slow-fire pistol target) and those 4 shots were in the "9" ring below the bulls-eye. I shot a total of 20 rounds at that distance and all of the groupings were ... quarter to silver dollar sized groupings and high of where I was aiming. The further out the distances the bigger the groupings (obviously). But, I don't know what the distances are; I go by "rafters" or drop-ceiling sections in my notes.

I didn't shoot well today; it didn't feel good. It seemed like with the rest I was shooting worse, especially at 20+ yards. I had a cannon going off to my left, which was very distracting. I think a lot of people have off this week because every shooting range I go to is packed. I think I might become a member at my local range. The member shooting lanes have electronic target "senders" so you know what distances you are shooting at. It costs about $140 to be a member for a year with 50% off range fees and discounts on cleaning products, and holsters, and stuff like that. It might be worth it. I can afford it and I plan on shooting quite a bit.

I'll try again tomorrow or the next day. I'm still going to all of the different ranges in the area before I decide which one I want to join.

[OlympicFox]

The short answer is that I just sold a very nice Interarms built Walther PPK/S for $450 on GunBroker.com. A friend inherited some guns from her had and asked me to sell them while helping her find something better for her.

Both my wife & toyed with the PPK/S and neither of us liked much about it. Generally sleek? Yes, but the lines are also broken up with the ungainly thumb safety/decocker & huge knurled trigger. All of the machined edges are raw or nearly so, meaning the edges are sharp & uncomfortable.

Her Sig P232 Stainless is a work of art by comparison, even though it is the same basic design. The Sig offers no more fire power, but it is much sleeker and the totally unencumbered lines make it a very good purse gun. The OEM Hogue grips ensure a solid grip during the draw and subsequent handling - a detail that's not always so easy on smaller guns.

http://serenitysys.com/shooting/guns/Walther_PPK_S/Walther_PPK_S_DSC_5321.jpg


http://serenitysys.com/shooting/guns/Sig_P232/Sig%20P232%20Stainless%205403.jpg


The 380ACP cartridge is the Rodney Dangerfield of defensive ammo in most firearm forums, especially those where the 1911 and/or 45ACP reign supreme. However, it is well respected in most parts of the world and quite capable of stopping most self-defense scenarios the armed citizen is likely to encounter. Will it stop a drug-crazed dude intent on killing you? That all depends on shot placement. But, the same is true for pistols in general - they tend to come up short in extreme situations like dealing with the highly motivated or highly drugged bad guy.

The record suggests that the 380ACP has virtually the same stopping history as the 38 Special, not the favorite gun of most, but certainly not maligned like the 380.

BTW, my wife has the Sig P232 Stainless because it's just too good looking to not have. Plus, it shoots very nicely. She can and occasionally does carry it, although her S&W 3913LS is her preferred CCW or a pocket 380 auto such as the Ruger LCP or my Sig P238.

[TGS]

What's so wrong with the VP70? I thought you guys liked a 'rolling' trigger and a polymer frame?

Because it's got a nasty trigger. Full of grit and incredibly heavy. When I say heavy, any DA gun I've shot is a race gun compared to the VP70. Imagine a SIGMA but heavier.

Also, it's got funky sights that function off the use of shadows. The mags are whoa expensive, and the thing is a huge brick. You can clean up the trigger but supposedly the trigger job is easily botched by an unqualified 'smith. You can also replace the stock 12lbs striker spring with a 5.5lbs spring from Wolff. I've never handled one that was cleaned up...both examples I've played with were quite horrible.

It was designed to be the sidearm of poorly trained military conscripts using crap ammunition. It is not a "shooter".

[Tamara]

Her Sig P232 Stainless is a work of art by comparison, even though it is the same basic design.

The P230/232 is the Cadillac of .380 autos, no doubt about it. The only reason to select a PPK over the P23x is nostalgia.


Because it's got a nasty trigger. Full of grit and incredibly heavy. When I say heavy, any DA gun I've shot is a race gun compared to the VP70. Imagine a SIGMA but heavier.

Remember those toy pistols that shot the little plastic discs? They looked kinda like a gold plastic PPK? The VP70's trigger feels almost exactly like that. I'd wanted one ever since I was a teenager and saw them in some game or another. Imagine my disappointment when I actually got one in my hands. "Er, thanks, boss, but I think I'll pass on this one." :o