Other pistols that feel like a PPK?

[Angus McGunnigl]

Bersa Thunder Series are nice. The SIG 232 is a very nice pistol also.

 

[OwenM]

The Sig is VERY nice, but IIRC, it is a slightly larger gun.

Yeah, the 230 is more like a chubby(luxury model!) PP than a PPK, but I figured if he thought the PPK was comfortable, wanted a similar feel or look, and didn't specify compactness as criteria, a 230 series SIG would feel like a dream in comparison. I'm behind the times on firearms, and have only seen pictures of the 232, just knew it was the newer model #.

 

[yoz's friend]

The HSc Mauser is alot like the Walther PPK, only better.

interesting, you seldom here about that pistol anymore. my grandfather had one and it was a nice looking gun.

 

[SIFU1A]

i always thought the HSc was cool looking, and with ball ammo they are a good little pistol, of course there are a lot smaller pistols in that calibre now, liter & more reliable too, which would be better edc's, but that goes for PPk's too, i love the old PP/PPk/PPk/s's as much as anyone and have had several, a .22 PP was my very 1st pistol, got it when i was 12 yrs old, paid $119 for it too a lotta bucks in '70 dollars, especially for a .22 lol, i added adjustable sites and it is imho one of the very best pocket .22's around, but i never carry any of them anymore, better stuff around nowadays imho, smaller/liter/more reliable, but in its day (ie 20+ yrs ago) the PPk was hard to beat for a pocket auto.

 

[jdm61]

My brothers have PPK's and have never complained about the "bite" I have no frame of reference because both of mine are "S" models, which were a hybrid designed to get around the old GCA. It makes the gun a tiny bit bulkier, but it does give you more to hang onto and the added bonus of one more round in the magazine. My jury rigged rubber grips may also help in taming the "bite". As for the PPK, any short grip gun can pinch you. That is why I like the hammerless Smith snubby better than the Chief's Special. The design of the gun essentially makes the "grip longer" and you can ride your hand up on it, which has the benefit of not only making it point more naturally, but it also seems to reduce the felt recoil. Amazing how much difference 1/4 or an inch or so can make.

 

[Bob W]

I had the chance to shoot three different handguns this weekend.

First was the Walther PPK, but the .32 variation. Easy to shoot, even in rapid succession. Very comfortable. Didn't have any 'real' targets, but I got the feeling that it wouldn't take long to get proficient with this.

Second was a 9mm Glock - not sure the exact model, but from looking at the website I think it was the G17. Nowhere near as comfortable as the Walther, but not hard to shoot, even one-handed. Meaning the 'kick' wasn't what I was expecting. It did jump quite a bit at each shot, taking quite a bit of time to re-sight in the next. I could probably get used to it and become better with practice and training, but it just wasn't that comfortable, and it certainly is not an aesthetically attractive firearm.

Third was a Springfield XD .40. This was sort of an in-between. It didn't 'jump' at each shot like the 9mm, and the grip wasn't as bulky either. But it still lacked the 'grace' of the Walther.

 

[SIFU1A]

i will take reliability with any ammo, more accuracy and a calibre suited for SD every time over grace in a pistol if said pistols use is SD.

in those areas the glock is wayyy superior to the PPk, XD is too.

 

[zenheretic]

I can't think of any production "tupperware" pistol that has any of the grace and style of the old all-metal designs.

 

[jdm61]

i will take reliability with any ammo, more accuracy and a calibre suited for SD every time over grace in a pistol if said pistols use is SD.

in those areas the glock is wayyy superior to the PPk, XD is too.

"Caliber suited for self defense" is a tricky one. Arguably, no pistol caliber currently offered in a normal auto pistol is "sufficient" save the 10mm and possibly the .45 ACP and .357 Sig. Modern "testing" would seem to indicate that the .380 is every bit as effective as the standard .38 special, whihc, while decried as grossly underpowered, seemed to do okay for the better part of a century and has experienced a revival lately with the newer models of snubbies. I have also heard that, when properly loaded with modern ammo, the wimply old .32 ACP/7.65 is not that far behind the .380 in "stopping power" My opinion is that if you are looking at 9mm and .40 guns, you are really not looking for a classic "pocket gun" The PP series is analagous to the .38 snubbie and stands up very well when compared to the SENSIBLE variants of that type of gun and not the ridiculous scandium framed gimmick guns chambered for .357 and therefore unshootable with full power rounds by most normal humans. IMO, if you are looking for a 9 ounce plastic/unobtanium alloy pistol because a PPK or Smith 642 is too heavy, you are looking for an accessory for your new Fendi purse and not a firearm The Seecamp .32 is an interesting example of a gimmick that actually had a purpose. Tempermental feeding and the fact that it was designed to only use one particular brnad of ammo aside, its purpose was to produce a hideaway gun the size of a pack of smokes that fired a MUCH more effective round than .22 short or .25 ACP. When they went to the .380 because of people whining about the "weak" .32, they original design was compromised, IMO and rendered the gun merely a gimmick. While police may be chastised for shooting some poor, oppressed criminal more than once and anywhere other than the hand holding the gun, the typical self dfense shooting should consist of the threatened person emptying the pistol at close range into the perp's face and torso and these pistols mentioned will do just fine, particularly if the owner can actually shoot them.

 

[InfidelShootist]

I had the chance to shoot three different handguns this weekend.

First was the Walther PPK, but the .32 variation. Easy to shoot, even in rapid succession. Very comfortable. Didn't have any 'real' targets, but I got the feeling that it wouldn't take long to get proficient with this.

Second was a 9mm Glock - not sure the exact model, but from looking at the website I think it was the G17. Nowhere near as comfortable as the Walther, but not hard to shoot, even one-handed. Meaning the 'kick' wasn't what I was expecting. It did jump quite a bit at each shot, taking quite a bit of time to re-sight in the next. I could probably get used to it and become better with practice and training, but it just wasn't that comfortable, and it certainly is not an aesthetically attractive firearm.

Third was a Springfield XD .40. This was sort of an in-between. It didn't 'jump' at each shot like the 9mm, and the grip wasn't as bulky either. But it still lacked the 'grace' of the Walther.

Dude if you think a XD .40 cal has less muzzle jump than a glock 17 9mm get the XD.
The .40 cal is a serious stopper and does kick much harder and causes more muzzle flip then a 9mm in the same weight pistol.

 

[SIFU1A]

"Caliber suited for self defense" is a tricky one. Arguably, no pistol caliber currently offered in a normal auto pistol is "sufficient" save the 10mm and possibly the .45 ACP and .357 Sig. Modern "testing" would seem to indicate that the .380 is every bit as effective as the standard .38 special, whihc, while decried as grossly underpowered, seemed to do okay for the better part of a century and has experienced a revival lately with the newer models of snubbies. I have also heard that, when properly loaded with modern ammo, the wimply old .32 ACP/7.65 is not that far behind the .380 in "stopping power" My opinion is that if you are looking at 9mm and .40 guns, you are really not looking for a classic "pocket gun" The PP series is analagous to the .38 snubbie and stands up very well when compared to the SENSIBLE variants of that type of gun and not the ridiculous scandium framed gimmick guns chambered for .357 and therefore unshootable with full power rounds by most normal humans. IMO, if you are looking for a 9 ounce plastic/unobtanium alloy pistol because a PPK or Smith 642 is too heavy, you are looking for an accessory for your new Fendi purse and not a firearm The Seecamp .32 is an interesting example of a gimmick that actually had a purpose. Tempermental feeding and the fact that it was designed to only use one particular brnad of ammo aside, its purpose was to produce a hideaway gun the size of a pack of smokes that fired a MUCH more effective round than .22 short or .25 ACP. When they went to the .380 because of people whining about the "weak" .32, they original design was compromised, IMO and rendered the gun merely a gimmick. While police may be chastised for shooting some poor, oppressed criminal more than once and anywhere other than the hand holding the gun, the typical self dfense shooting should consist of the threatened person emptying the pistol at close range into the perp's face and torso and these pistols mentioned will do just fine, particularly if the owner can actually shoot them.

depends on your definition of "pocket gun" a kahr PM9 or PM40 simply isnt much bigger than a PPK or PPK/s, if ya can live with a PPk ya can live with a PM9, & with good modern ammo (ie w-w ranger or sper gold dot) a 9MM is gonna do anything a .40 or .45 will, with good modern ammo, i like the seecamp too and my neighbor has one, i like the kel tec P32 better though as its thinner/lighter&cheaper and mine at least has been 100% reliable with ball or speer HP ammo,

as far as .380 vs .38 spec they probably are fairly close with most loads, i dont know that either one is the bomb though as far as SD goes, i know i havent heard anyone touting them as being particularly good, if anything those 2 with the .32ACP probably are what most experts (whatever that is lol) consider to be the bare bones minimum for SD.

and again, with modern hi performance ammo the .40 is no more "serious" a "stopper" than a 9MM, as long as ya use good modern ammo like the ranger, gold dot or golden sabre, i suppose with ball ammo it might be a tad better, 1MM isnt gonna make that much of a difference i dont think, which is 1 reason i carry a 9MM (usually) the calibres perform about the same, ya get a highre mag capacity (which is never a bad thing) and ya have less recoil than with a .40,

now if ya are stuck with ball ammo i would prefer a .45, no doubt,

 

[jdm61]

depends on your definition of "pocket gun" a kahr PM9 or PM40 simply isnt much bigger than a PPK or PPK/s, if ya can live with a PPk ya can live with a PM9, & with good modern ammo (ie w-w ranger or sper gold dot) a 9MM is gonna do anything a .40 or .45 will, with good modern ammo, i like the seecamp too and my neighbor has one, i like the kel tec P32 better though as its thinner/lighter&cheaper and mine at least has been 100% reliable with ball or speer HP ammo,

as far as .380 vs .38 spec they probably are fairly close with most loads, i dont know that either one is the bomb though as far as SD goes, i know i havent heard anyone touting them as being particularly good, if anything those 2 with the .32ACP probably are what most experts (whatever that is lol) consider to be the bare bones minimum for SD.

and again, with modern hi performance ammo the .40 is no more "serious" a "stopper" than a 9MM, as long as ya use good modern ammo like the ranger, gold dot or golden sabre, i suppose with ball ammo it might be a tad better, 1MM isnt gonna make that much of a difference i dont think, which is 1 reason i carry a 9MM (usually) the calibres perform about the same, ya get a highre mag capacity (which is never a bad thing) and ya have less recoil than with a .40,

now if ya are stuck with ball ammo i would prefer a .45, no doubt,

Arguably, the advantage that .40 has over 9x19 is one of bullet weight and sectional density. But .40 is still a compromise. You can either call it a wimpy version of 10mm or a slightly less wimpy version of .45 ACP made to fit into a 9mm sized envelope. None of these modern pistol round have what you would call stellar knockdown power. Remember that the average whitetail deer is probably about the size of an adult human and the rule of thumb is that you don't want to be shooting a deer where you aren't delivering at least 1000 ft lbs of energy. While this may err on the side of a "guaranteed clean kill" the smallest pistol round that I can thnk of that consistently delivers that kind of energy at the muzzle is a .44 Magnum and maybe a fairly hot loaded .41 Magnum. The typical .357 has been neutered somewhat so that typically, you see energies in the mid to high 500 range as opposed to the 700 ft lbs that you allegedly saw from old rounds like the Super Vel line. No wonder so many Model 19's got beaten up by ammo like that. I'm not sure whether current 10mm factory ammo is loaded as hot as the original 750 ft lb screamers that the Bren Ten fired.

 

[SIFU1A]

i have seen photos of ballistics gel (not the same as human flesh but its gen'ly considered one of the more reliable indicators of how bullets perform in flesh) with bullets fired thru denim at 25' from a 9MM, .357SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, all bullets were w-w ranger, 147gr 9MM, 125gr .357SIG, 180gr .40 S&W and 230gr .45 ACP and the depth of penetration and cavities were remakably similar, you certainly couldnt compare one to another and think well "a" is a 9MM and "b" is a .45, the .45 did have a little larger cavity vs the others but not much, certainly not enough to make that big a difference, the 9MM, .40 and .357SIG were virtually the same with the .357SIG having a little larger cavity vs the other 2, point being they all perform fairly equally, as long as ya are using good ammo, ammo has improved a LOT the last few yrs, and the ranger, gold dot and golden sabre are all good rounds.

imho a .357SIG would be as good a deer round as a .357mag, as long as ya had a pistol with a long bbl, i know with a 4" bbl the SIG will shoot a 125gr bullet a little faster, a 147gr SIG round, which hornady makes (but is hard to find for some reason) would work pretty good i would think, maybe i'll give it a try with my glock 32C next yr just to see how it does,

my best bud who lives in palmer alaska loves the 10MM and carries a glock 20 or the smaller one all the time and has taken elk with the 20 on more than one occasion, i asked about moose and he said "moose were pretty big for a glock" lol, he has shot a moose with a .454casull though FWIW, not bad for a paraplegic, he injured his back in a private plane accident ~ 15 yrs ago, got a big settlement and now lives in alaska and hunts and fly fishes at every oppertunity and just loves it up there, ya would think with all the snow/etc a wheel chair would be the pits, but he just loves it, never a complaint.

 

[zenheretic]

I've seen lots of photos of hunters taking wild hogs with a 10mm. That always impressed me, as at least for me, hogs have a reputation for being pretty tough hombres.

 

[jdm61]

.357 is considered an inadequate hunting round. With properly loaded 10mm, you are getting into .41 Magnum territory. Feral hogs are, for the most part, NOT 400+ pound masses of tusk and scar tissue, but 100-150 yummy BBQ candidates. I took one with a Cold Steel spear and it dropped immediately. There are lunatics out there who go after Cape Buffalo and other dangerous game with pistols like a .475 Linebaugh, and I would guess a .500 S&W nowadays. Any high velocity handgun with a 300+ grain solid and high velocity is going to penetrate like mad. That doesnt' mean it is a smart idea any more than Selous going after elephants with a 7mm Mauser was all that smart, but he did it...lol
As for pistol bullets, what I have read is that IF the modern bullet fails to perform as designed for a variety of reasons, the large bullet of a .45 or .44 will still get the job done. That is why we have seen a switch back to .45 by a number of spec ops units. Like a previous poster said, if you have to use ball ammo, make it the fattest bullet you can find. If I am going out into the deep woods and want to carry a pistol for defense against two and four legged critters intent on harming me, my first choice is going to be my brothers old 6 inch Smith 629 with the heavy Federal hunting rounds with the 300 grain hard cast solids.

 

[Phil Elmore]

My father took a couple of deer with a .44 Magnum Ruger. Seven and a half inch barrel.

 

[jdm61]

My father took a couple of deer with a .44 Magnum Ruger. Seven and a half inch barrel.

,44 is considered an adequate deer round because, when properly loaded. it punches a big hole and penetrates a mile. Some would say that it is inadequate for defending yourself against big Alaskan brown bears, but with the right ammo, it is probaby better than nothing.

 

[Phil Elmore]

In New York, the minimum allowed handgun caliber for deer hunting is the 9mm, of all the crazy things.

 

[SIFU1A]

.357 is considered an inadequate hunting round. With properly loaded 10mm, you are getting into .41 Magnum territory. Feral hogs are, for the most part, NOT 400+ pound masses of tusk and scar tissue, but 100-150 yummy BBQ candidates. I took one with a Cold Steel spear and it dropped immediately. There are lunatics out there who go after Cape Buffalo and other dangerous game with pistols like a .475 Linebaugh, and I would guess a .500 S&W nowadays. Any high velocity handgun with a 300+ grain solid and high velocity is going to penetrate like mad. That doesnt' mean it is a smart idea any more than Selous going after elephants with a 7mm Mauser was all that smart, but he did it...lol
As for pistol bullets, what I have read is that IF the modern bullet fails to perform as designed for a variety of reasons, the large bullet of a .45 or .44 will still get the job done. That is why we have seen a switch back to .45 by a number of spec ops units. Like a previous poster said, if you have to use ball ammo, make it the fattest bullet you can find. If I am going out into the deep woods and want to carry a pistol for defense against two and four legged critters intent on harming me, my first choice is going to be my brothers old 6 inch Smith 629 with the heavy Federal hunting rounds with the 300 grain hard cast solids.

though i agree about the .357mag my neighbor wouldnt he uses a 6" bbl python with IIRC 180gr handloads and gets several deer every yr, of course he's a pretty good shot too.........

my bud who lives in alaska thinks a .44 mag is not good at all for bear, really doesnt think any handgun is but he carries a .454 casull for that kinda stuff,

 

[jdm61]

though i agree about the .357mag my neighbor wouldnt he uses a 6" bbl python with IIRC 180gr handloads and gets several deer every yr, of course he's a pretty good shot too.........

my bud who lives in alaska thinks a .44 mag is not good at all for bear, really doesnt think any handgun is but he carries a .454 casull for that kinda stuff,

You friend is not the only one, I suspect. There are folks who think that .375 H&H is a good starting point for big coastal browns. He is probably adeqautly armed for most situations with the Casull. I think Alaska was one of the places that Mr. Linebaugh was thinking about when he started playing around with his original hot loaded 5 shot .45 LC's and the Casull is essentially a safer stretched version of that type of round.