 Join our Discord!
|
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Walther PK380"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Commando552 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
How do you release the slide on this little piece, if there's no external slide release? You just pull back on the slide? Not very user friendly, this gun... --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] ([[User talk:Warejaws|talk]]) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | How do you release the slide on this little piece, if there's no external slide release? You just pull back on the slide? Not very user friendly, this gun... --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] ([[User talk:Warejaws|talk]]) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
:Yeah, you have to pull the slide back to release it. This wouldn't really bother me as I tend to release the slide on pistols by pulling the slide back anyway. It does mean though that the only way to lock the slide back is to insert an empty magazine (or use a tool to depress a lever inside the magwell) and pull the slide back. I don't really know why they did this, have heard it said that it is due to the fact that it is intended as a defensive gun so it eliminates some of the snag risk, but looking at the rest of the gun with those high sights, a rail, manual safety and external burred hammer I doubt this is the case. Probably a cost/simplicity measure, and also has the advantage that it is totally ambidextrous. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 17:10, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | :Yeah, you have to pull the slide back to release it. This wouldn't really bother me as I tend to release the slide on pistols by pulling the slide back anyway. It does mean though that the only way to lock the slide back is to insert an empty magazine (or use a tool to depress a lever inside the magwell) and pull the slide back. I don't really know why they did this, have heard it said that it is due to the fact that it is intended as a defensive gun so it eliminates some of the snag risk, but looking at the rest of the gun with those high sights, a rail, manual safety and external burred hammer I doubt this is the case. Probably a cost/simplicity measure, and also has the advantage that it is totally ambidextrous. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 17:10, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Yeah, that's the way I do it too. The reasoning behind this solution must have been pretty impressing during the design phase. It's probably a sturdy little piece, but the lack of an external slide release is really off-putting to me, even for a self-defense gun. --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] ([[User talk:Warejaws|talk]]) 17:17, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::I never understood the market for this gun, since Walther still produces the PPK. Don't they both fill the same niche? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 17:39, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::The PK380 uses a Browning style recoil action rather than blowback which has a couple of advantages. Firstly, the slide is easier to manipulate as it doesn't use such a stout recoil spring. Secondly, the recoil from the PK380 will not be as sharp as it is on a .380 PPK (even more do due to its better ergonomics and heavier weight). The PK380 is also ambidextrous, has an accessory rail, and a larger magazine. The PK380 also has a non-decocking safety but whether this is an improvement depends on the person. The PK380 is pretty large for a .380 though so it isn't as concealable as the PPK. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 19:30, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::::Yes, but how many shooters would want all that with the added expense and reduced performance of the .380 ACP rather than just moving up to a 9x19mm? And seeing how Walther now offers the PPS for carry, it just seems like a very small niche. I can understand if it was intended for South American markets like the .380 Glock 25, but it just seems out of place here in the US. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 21:51, 9 October 2013 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:51, 10 October 2013
Discussion
How do you release the slide on this little piece, if there's no external slide release? You just pull back on the slide? Not very user friendly, this gun... --Warejaws (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- Yeah, you have to pull the slide back to release it. This wouldn't really bother me as I tend to release the slide on pistols by pulling the slide back anyway. It does mean though that the only way to lock the slide back is to insert an empty magazine (or use a tool to depress a lever inside the magwell) and pull the slide back. I don't really know why they did this, have heard it said that it is due to the fact that it is intended as a defensive gun so it eliminates some of the snag risk, but looking at the rest of the gun with those high sights, a rail, manual safety and external burred hammer I doubt this is the case. Probably a cost/simplicity measure, and also has the advantage that it is totally ambidextrous. --commando552 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- Yeah, that's the way I do it too. The reasoning behind this solution must have been pretty impressing during the design phase. It's probably a sturdy little piece, but the lack of an external slide release is really off-putting to me, even for a self-defense gun. --Warejaws (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- I never understood the market for this gun, since Walther still produces the PPK. Don't they both fill the same niche? --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- The PK380 uses a Browning style recoil action rather than blowback which has a couple of advantages. Firstly, the slide is easier to manipulate as it doesn't use such a stout recoil spring. Secondly, the recoil from the PK380 will not be as sharp as it is on a .380 PPK (even more do due to its better ergonomics and heavier weight). The PK380 is also ambidextrous, has an accessory rail, and a larger magazine. The PK380 also has a non-decocking safety but whether this is an improvement depends on the person. The PK380 is pretty large for a .380 though so it isn't as concealable as the PPK. --commando552 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- Yes, but how many shooters would want all that with the added expense and reduced performance of the .380 ACP rather than just moving up to a 9x19mm? And seeing how Walther now offers the PPS for carry, it just seems like a very small niche. I can understand if it was intended for South American markets like the .380 Glock 25, but it just seems out of place here in the US. --Funkychinaman (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- The PK380 uses a Browning style recoil action rather than blowback which has a couple of advantages. Firstly, the slide is easier to manipulate as it doesn't use such a stout recoil spring. Secondly, the recoil from the PK380 will not be as sharp as it is on a .380 PPK (even more do due to its better ergonomics and heavier weight). The PK380 is also ambidextrous, has an accessory rail, and a larger magazine. The PK380 also has a non-decocking safety but whether this is an improvement depends on the person. The PK380 is pretty large for a .380 though so it isn't as concealable as the PPK. --commando552 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- I never understood the market for this gun, since Walther still produces the PPK. Don't they both fill the same niche? --Funkychinaman (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
- Yeah, that's the way I do it too. The reasoning behind this solution must have been pretty impressing during the design phase. It's probably a sturdy little piece, but the lack of an external slide release is really off-putting to me, even for a self-defense gun. --Warejaws (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2013 (EDT)