Jump to content

Talk:Walther PP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.236.14.188 (talk) at 20:15, 9 April 2014 (→New PPK/S .22 LR: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Who copied whom?

Did this wikipedia entry plagiarize, nearly verbatim, the material that can be found here: http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg13-e.htm

or did that page plagiarize Wikipedia?


Hitler's suicide: P38 or PPK?

The Walther P38 article states that Hitler used a P38 to commit suicide, whereas this article claims he used a PPK. We should probably find a source to back up either claim, and stick with it. - Ben of Oz

History channel just claimed the PPK. Hitler apperently had 2 PPKs by his side at all times, one a smaller calliber and the other which he killed himself with. Name of the documentary is as follows. Tales of the Gun German Small Arms of WW II ~--Alt 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were highly embellished guns. He had a .25 caliber (6.35 mm) and the other a 32 caliber (7.65) model. Speaking of the suicide gun, this is fairly common knowledge, however the Soviet Union was known for distorting history and any historical fact that comes from them must be taken with a grain of salt.--Asams10 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"the Soviet Union was known for distorting history and any historical fact that comes from them must be taken with a grain of salt"... while you can trust the United States and United Kingdom as the Holy Bible, especially when it comes to weapons virtually owned by Irak. Voice of God is government. Alfred Dreyfuss 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No government can be trusted blindly, and your point is taken. However, Asams10's point is still entirely valid. The Soviet government was extremely veracity-challenged. I don't think he was trying to say "in comparison to the U.S. and U.K. governments, which have never ever lied and are God-like." The straw man you're knocking down was inserted by you. Lumbercutter 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, but I think it was a troll, so I didn't respond when he first posted. The US government has always had quite the propoganda mill, but it paled incomparrison to that of either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I'll add, however, that the Germans kept meticulous and, dare I say, quite accurate records on nearly everything. I've not done any primary research myself, but I believe that all sources I've read have coraborated the PPK story. Of course, we all know that Hitler is still alive in Argentina!--Asams10 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Kriminal" vs "kurz" vs "kompakt"

I've heard PPK to mean Polizeipistole Kurz (World Guns says Kurz), which would make more sense to me. Reference on Kriminalmodell? [unsigned]

Yes a reference would be good, otherwise put Kurz back into the post as another potential abbreviation for PPK. [unsigned]

Doesn't "Polizeipistole Kriminalmodell" really mean "police pistole, criminal model"? It would be rather strange to imply that the police, or the pistols they wield, are criminals. Shouldn't that be more like "Kriminalpolizeimodell"? JIP | Talk 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you got that, but it stands for kurz or short in English (roughly). Some modern sources report it as Kriminal which translates as Detective though, again, roughly. --Asams10 14:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Oxford-Duden German-English Dictionary, 2nd ed [a desktop Oxford-Duden, not a pocket model], Kriminale as a nominalized adjective translates as "detective", as does the noun der Kriminaler (-s,-). Looking further into it, I find explained in Josserand, M.H. (1972). Pistols, Revolvers, and Ammunition. New York: Bonanza Books (A division of Crown Publishers, Inc.). pp. pp. 238-239. ISBN 0517165163. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) that "The PPK was intended as a concealment gun for detectives, hence its name, Polizei-Pistole Kriminal, for in Germany the Detective Division, or Kriminalamt, takes its name from the hunted rather than the hunter." So that corroborates the "Kriminal" spell-out. However, the "kurz" spell-out is believable because the gun is shorter in overall height and length and better for concealment. I would bet that the "kurz" spell-out began as folk etymology because of its logically reasonable ring. Lumbercutter 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be damned. Looks like my near-to-fluent English was influencing my merely very good German. I thought "kriminal" in German meant the same thing as "criminal" in English. But on second thought, I don't think the "krim-" based words are so native to German. If I were to translate "a crime" to German, it would be "ein Verbrechen", not "ein Krime". I'll have to ask a native German speaker one day. JIP | Talk 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say that both are used. I have seen Kriminal in one book of firearms, and Kurz in another. Since both are used it would make sense to reference both in the article. LWF 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It is now phrased in a neutral way that acknowledges both theories: "Its German acronymous name stands for either Polizeipistole Kurz ('Police Pistol Short') or Polizeipistole Kriminalmodell ('Police Pistol Detective Model'), depending on which reference source is consulted." Lumbercutter 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's most likely a folk etymology, probably by analogy with other German firearms terms that use kurz, like the Mauser 98k, the 9mm Kurz, and the MP5K. The word's well known to the gun and militaria cultures, so it makes a reasonable guess when trying to figure out why the big one's called "PP" and the little one's called "PPK". The way it's handled in the article right now seems just right, acknowledging the kurz hypothesis without giving it undue weight. Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asams10, perhaps the dispute between Kriminal and Kriminalmodell can be resolved the same way as Kurz and Kriminal. I've seen all three before, and Walther's website doesn't provide any illumination on which is correct. So we might as well have all three mentioned. If no one disagrees I'll go ahead and put that in the article.--LWF 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walther's press release for the PPK states the following:

...the WALTHER PPS is a worthy successor to the legendary PPK - the Police Pistol Short.

You can download the Walther press release on the Walther PPS page if you need to verify this. Does this qualify enough to change the reference to "Kurz", or at least remove the section that states that it is incorrect?

Actually, that isn't necessarily referring to the PPK when it says Police Pistol Short, I think it is actually referring to the PPS right there, as in the successor is the Police Pistol Short.--LWF 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add more confusion to the mix, in the current (2011) Walther naming constellation, "K" (as in the PK380) refers to "Kompakt". Polizei Pistol Kompakt would make a lot of sense, particularly when their German web site shows the PP and the PPK together and refers to the PPK as the compact version of the PP. Also, their German website offers a choice of languages, and the German-language version refers to the "Kriminal-ausführung PPK" while the English-language version of the same page uses the phrase "compact-design PPK". 96.35.160.223 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because the word kompakt would probably have been written with c's at that time (just like in English).
Visier Special 29: Deutsche Polizeipistolen (German handgun magazine) also says "Polizei-Pistole Kriminal" as in Kriminalpolizei (somewhat like "criminal justice").
Btw. criminal would be kriminell in German (crime = Verbrechen). Regards, ᛏᛟᚱᚨᚾᚨ (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had always thought it was "Polizei Pistole, Klein" no source for that though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul J Williams (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's rephrase the James Bond blurb so that it doesn't invite constant tinkering

I propose the following minor rephrasing. It doesn't beg every passer-by to add in the latest 2 cents: "The PPK is the trademark weapon of fictional secret agent James Bond in books and films. The weapon is prominently featured in opening sequences as well as movie art. The pistol itself enjoys popularity as a result. Bond has also used the Walther P99." Comments? Lumbercutter 04:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take out the last sentence and you'll be fine. No matter what, some kid is gonna pop in and say something approaching the following: "In the movie Dumb and Dumber they used a Walter peepeekay to shoot harry, or floyd... not sure, but anyway then he had, like, a bullet proof vest on that the FBI lady who was hitting on them gave him before he went in the room and the gun jammed because the slide was open in one scene but in the next it was closed and he shot but it was really cool and looked gold." Invariably, right before somebody can revert, some other kid will pop in and say that the PPK did not make a return in Dumb and Dumberer because the original actors did not make a return. In fact, it was a reboot of the whold Dumb and Dumber franchise therefore they must have given the bad guy in the first movie back his gun.
But I digress, I'd take the last sentence out of your rewrite and leave it be.--Asams10 14:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! LOL! You are spot-on with that! I see exactly what you mean. Let's try leaving off the last sentence, as you suggest. But you may be right about the inevitability of it being continually "improved". Lumbercutter 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's so sick, it's almost funny. It took all of 17 minutes for somebody to add to it. Yeah, you know I saw the new James Bond film too.--Asams10 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that consensus seems to be trending against including "popular culture" sections for firearm articles, I suggest that the James Bond stuff be included in the article's intro. Bond's use of the gun is, after all, what the PPK is most famous for. 71.203.209.0 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? The concensus is to include culturally significant uses of weapons. James Bond and the PPK are a strong example, but the Walther PPK was chosen by Fleming because it's an oustanding weapon. The James Bond series piggybacked on the fame of the PPK. We worked long and hard to get this version like it is, I'd say it doesn't need to be tampered with.--Asams10 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there is a consensus to remove the tons of pointless trivia that people tend to constantly add to handgun articles, but also to keep the few most important culturally significant things. I agree with Asams10 here, we should keep it as-is, because the problem is that no matter what other plan you try to implement, even if it's good, random people constantly pump the pointless trivia in anyway. At least it's at a point now where people are somewhat discouraged from doing that. — Lumbercutter 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How am I contradicting myself? There's a difference between including culturally significant uses of a weapon in its article, and creating a separate "in pop culture" section for such information. And it remains true that the PPK is famous primarily for being Bond's pistol. Yes, Flemming chose it because it's an excellent gun, but it wasn't a household name prior to Bond. Now, though, if you ask the average person (at least in America or Britain) about the PPK, the first response will be that it's James Bond's gun. 71.203.209.0 07:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Manufacturing vs. EMCO

I read that the small Walthers were made in Alabama by Emco, Inc. That at least is what the ATF reports have listed for late 1990s production. Was there a name change? Boris B 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of plagiarism, it's funny that there are 11 Google hits for Gadsden "Ranger Manufacturing" and 112 for Gadsen "Ranger Manufacturing". Beware copy-and-paste research. Boris B 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

Shouldn't the article be moved to Walther PP or Walther PP series instead of Walther PPK? As stated in the opening sentence, it covers the whole model line, not just the PPK model.--Eloil 11:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be counterproductive. The PPK is the most well known, numerous, and popular model in all respects and most people looking up this article would likely type "Walther PPK" and get redirected. --Asams10 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that would necessarily be counterproductive, as either way you end up at this article instantly. Obviously renaming is not the only possibility, but the title should be a description of the article's subject, and the opening sentence "The Walther PP series pistols include.." frames "the Walther PP series" as the subject. What if it opened with something like "The Walther PPK series pistols include the Walther PPK and PPK/S"?--Eloil 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both make good points. I think the ideal in terms of pure logic would be to have an admin rename this article "Walther PP series", then make "Walther PPK" a redirect to it. However, in practicality, I would not bother lobbying to make this change, because people doing searches wind up here either way, and I'm too lazy to lobby for this particular noncritical change. (That's just my 2¢.) — Lumbercutter 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if the PPK was more popular than the PP or remaining variants. This is an encyclopedia first, we won't sacrifice accuracy for popular culture appeal. The solution is simple, just have "Walther PPK" queries redirect to the main page or the variants section were the PPK is listed. Koalorka (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.22 and .25 caliber versions

What is the magazine capacity of these versions of the PP & PPK? That info is absent from the infobox. — Red XIV (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walther Self-loading Pistols

Model: Magazine Capacity

PP Model .380 ACP (9mm kurz): 7

PP Model .32 ACP (7.65mm): 8

PP Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm): 8

PP/L Model .32 ACP (7.65mm) Light weight frame: 8

PP/L Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm) Light weight frame: 8

PP Sport Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm) [6" or 7 5/8" Barrel]: 10

PP Super Model, 9x17mm: 7

PP Super Model, 9x18mm: 7

PPK Model .380 ACP (9mm kurz)(pre '68): 6

PPK Model .32 ACP (7.65mm): 7

PPK Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm): 7

PPK/L Model .32 ACP (7.65mm) Light weight frame: 7

PPK/L Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm) Light weight frame: 7

PPK/S Model .380 ACP (9mm kurz): 7

PPK/S Model .32 ACP (7.65mm): 8

PPK/S Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm): 10


TP Model .25 ACP (6.35mm) [Shrouded hammer]: 6

TP Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm) [Shrouded hammer]: 6

TPH Model .25 ACP (6.35mm): 6

TPH Model .22 L.R. (5.6mm): 6

see also Walther TPH: Walther_TPH

WoodenBooks 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give details about the magazine capacity of the PPK/E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.222 (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

007s trademark on the PPK

"The PPK pistol is the trademark gun of fictional secret agent James Bond". As far as I know Walther own the trademark of the PPK and the PPK is their intellectual property. I know that the term "trademark" is often incorrectly used to informally "refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified", but I do not think that an encyclopedia article on a a firearm is the right place to be informal. Further to that, I think that some readers could be confused and believe that Ian Flemming or James Bond really does have a trademark on the PPK, which is categorically incorrect. I propose that the text reads that the PPK is known as the pistol of choice for fictional secret agent James Bond or similar wording is used. A trademark falls under intellectual property laws, so unless anyone can show me that the fictional character James Bond has filed and received a trademark on Walthers gun then it will be changed. JayKeaton 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A trademark is a symbol on paper or a representation. A weapon cannot be a legal trademark. You're arguing from the false assumption that there are legal issues at bear her. It's not incorrect or informal to use the term trademark here as it is used commonly in this manner. --Asams10 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that there are legal issues, I am saying that the use of the word "trademark" is unnecessary and potentially confusing when it can be worded in a way that does not use a legal term such as "trademark". It would also be more factual to simply say that James Bond uses a PPK, or that it is his gun of choice. There is no NEED to use the word trademark in this context. JayKeaton 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change to the word "trademark" was made by an unregistered user, you can see the edit here [[1]]. There is no need for a pop culture reference to needlessly use the word "trademark". This is not a blog nor is it a James Bond fansite, this is an encyclopedia JayKeaton 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying to your own replies. Actually, there is a need for a pop culture reference here and it's been discussed before. Further, you don't get to decide if it stays or if it goes... there's a disagreement and yours is only one opinion. Your argument against it seems based wholly on your dislike for the word and not on legal, technical, or dictionary meanings. It's the most appropriate word to use.--Asams10 11:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I added a note about when the change to "trademark" was made, and I didn't want to remove the signature from the post I just made. I am not saying that the pop culture reference should be removed, I am saying that the inappropriate use of the word "trademark" is entirely inappropriately and also inappropriate in the context of inappropriation. I guess what I am tryin gto say here is that you do not get to decide if it stays... there's a disagreement and yours is only one opinion. There are a dozen more appropriate words to use. JayKeaton 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, it's neither of us that gets to make the call because, though there are other words that can be used, "Trademark" is the most appropriate. I'm not going to bother trying to convince you of that. You're trying to make the change, not me. Since there is no concensus, the status quo stays and word stays at it is.--Asams10 14:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I do get rid of the word "trademark" again, then it will be you that has no choice of what to do, because you can't revert it again due to the 3 revert rule ;). In any case this hasn't been here long enough for there to be no consensus, I'll have to bring this to the attention of some other users. JayKeaton 17:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia is not "Threat Based" it is concensus based. Being that two people, you and I, disagree on this, that is not only a lack of concensus it is an OBVIOUS lack of concensus. Please stop browbeating your edits and seek concensus. The word stays as it is the status quo.--Asams10 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word trademark was originally added by an unregistered user, that is hardly a status quo. I have read the rules and it states that you have to find consensus if you disagree with an edit, I do not as the inclusion of the word "trademark" was not made by you and its removal was not contested by the original editor. JayKeaton 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, YOU are making the edit, it doesn't matter who changed it, how long has it been like that? Okay, I did the work for you. It's been the status quo from 24 August 2006.[2] So, 14 months (an eternity on Wikipedia) and no changes and suddenly you change it? C'mon.--Asams10 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of inappropriate edits that have slipped under the radar for a long time. See the criticism section of the Wikipedia article. JayKeaton 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why there are checks and balances. This particular section and wording, I can assure you has NOT slipped under the radar and has, indeed, received quite alot of scrutiny along with the few other 'pop culture' sections that pass the muster with those of us who care. It's been edited, re-edited, and tweaked to no end and this is the hard-fought concensus edit that we'd agreed on. Where were you? Like you've been doing, I looked through your edits and find that you've got much the same interest. I'll assure you that you're wrong on this one and I don't tend to let these things go easily. Please get some outside opinion and try to build a concensus, otherwise, as I've stated before, the status quo will be maintained.--Asams10 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but I do not need outside consensus because you cannot put "trademark" back anymore because of the three revert rule. Yes, I believe that the word trademark is a mistake enough for me to invoke the Holy Three Revert Rule. JayKeaton 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you know about the 3RR and know that you were warned. I'm not going to play this game.--Asams10 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been warned for a 3RR =/ JayKeaton 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem well aware of it, you don't have to be warned.--Asams10 10:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead of trademark we could use signature? It conveys the same meaning in this context after all, and would avoid disputes like this.--LWF 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And it doesn't sound like it could be used in the trademark context like "The PPK pistol is the trademark gun of Walther Co" would. Which is exactly how it could be read by some people. JayKeaton 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sheez, stop complaining about the word "Trademark". You're wrong about the definition and prejudiced against it's use, but I haven't seen anybody agree that it is improper to use the word. I've honestly never seen such furvor over somebody misunderstanding the definition of a word as this. Read a darned dictionary, read the word in context, read a manual of style or two, or a dozen if you will. Find somewhere that somebody says it's inappropriate to use this way and then come back to the table armed with something of substance other than "I don't understand how to use the word." That seems to be the jist of your current argument and it's as wrong now as it was before.--Asams10 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Websters Third New International Dictionary, unabridged defines 'Trademark' as, "a distinctive feature, charateristic, or eccentricity that becomes so associated with a person or thing as to be a sign or designation of that person or thing: an identifying mark or feature <the derringers ... became almost a trademark of gamblers -- Elmer Keith>" Now then, I don't know about you but when the MotherF@#$ing dictionary quotes Elmer Keith in defining a word, then by golly that's the word I'm using and I'll be damned if there's another more appropriate word. There ain't no dispute. --Asams10 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all dictionary definitions say that trademark is a legal term of legal owndership. [[3]]. And besides, the PPK is only used in 9 out of the 23 James Bond books and novellas that Ian Flemming wrote. It appeared on none of John Gardner books and only 4 out of of the 12 Raymond Benson books. So "trademark" isn't even an appropriate term in this context when used in a non legal way. There are far more appropriate way to mention that connection to the PPK rather than a "trademark". JayKeaton 11:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not even arguing any more, you're quibbling. Get a concensus or shut up. It's the MOVIES that have caused the popularity, not the books.--Asams10 13:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not quibbling. Trademark is not the best word to use, that's all there is to it. Even "Fictional spy James Bond is famous for using the PPK in some of the films" would be more accurate. "Trademark" doesn't even describe anything, he doesn't even use the PPK anymore. I put it to you that trademark is not the most accurate and appropriate word to use and you have nothing to say back other than "no consensus no consensus", so if anything it is you that has said nothing useful so far. And most dictionary definitions for the word trademark talk about it in a legal sense, so THAT is not a good counter JayKeaton 13:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll make a comment. Asams, would you be ok with the wording "James Bond's signature gun"? It conveys the same meaning in this context after all. I personally have no problem with using trademark, but I would like to see a compromise found in this debate, rather than it just continuing. Same goes for you Jay, would you be ok with that wording?--LWF 17:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature is a comparable word, yes, however there is nothing wrong with Trademark.--Asams10 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything is wrong with trademark either, I just want a compromise reached.--LWF 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just trying to think of the people who do not use English as their first language and the people who are easily confused. Plus I genuinely believe that it's use is inappropriate, even if only slightly. JayKeaton 19:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but would you accept the use of signature?--LWF 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Actually, I think signature is what I originally changed it to, or one of the things I changed it to. JayKeaton 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On checking the page history it appears that the wording has never been signature, up until now. I have made the change, and hope the compromise remains acceptable to all involved.--LWF 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamming Habit

Does the Walther PPK have a jamming habit as detailed in the James Bond novel Licecne Renewed? The book says that during the failed kiddnapping attempt on Princess Anne, the guard's Walther jammed, causing it to be removed from official use. Emperor001 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incident occurred, but I have not found any substantiating evidence on whether or not the PPK actually jammed frequently.--LWF (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone has helped to rescue Princess Anne out of peril, but the firearm jammed....not a good sign. It should be a slogan of the Walther PPK : We were not there to rescue Princess Anne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.204.78 (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did five people go to hospital due to the quality of a handgun? I was thinking that buying what else than British would reveal a good sence of quality. I must admit I was wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how did Hitler manage to comit suicide by that handgun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walther designed its pistols for cartridges which had crimped shells. For example my PPK, made in 1941, came with GECO-made dummy cartridge for loading practice, which shell is crimped. After the WWII cartridge manufacturers ceased crimping to save manufacturing costs. So modern cartridges have slight "shoulder" where shell connects to the bullet [[4]] and that in some cases causes weapons malfunction.--91.153.26.148 (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

picture

Excuse me but if I am not mistaken the caption on the very first picture says walther PP, but the picture in question is actualy a PPK, not a PP a feature distingishable by the shorter barrel and shorter frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.33.142 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Should "Walther PP" or "Walther PPK" be the title of this article? David Pro (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is correct. Koalorka (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a link to the French article entitled Walther PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.222 (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-action or double-action?

The article states that the Walther PP features a double-action trigger mechanism. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the PPK/S is single-action. I don't know about any of the other models but I would assume that they are all be the same. JSFotographer (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a little more research I discovered that I was incorrect. I apologize if I caused any confusion. JSFotographer (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"9mm Parabellum"

I've never seen any other source state that any PP/PPK was chambered in 9mm Parabellum. The article itself doesn't even list 9mm Parabellum as an available caliber. Where is this information coming from? Funkychinaman (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Funkychinaman; I have self-reverted. The infobox lists the 9mm x 19 caliber but I don't know about that. When I reverted, I was thinking of the PPQ which is not actually in this series of weapon. Thank you for pointing this out.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen any reference, ever, that indicates the PP series was chambered in 9x19mm. I double checked some standard sources (e.g. Jane's, etc.) and still don't see anything that indicates this chambering ever existed, even in an experimental model. As such, its been removed from the infobox until a source is provided. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New PPK/S .22 LR

We currently don't list the specifications of the new PPK/S .22, which came out this year (2014): http://www.waltherarms.com/products/handguns/ppks-22

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walther_PP&oldid=603497783"