# Walther PPS 9MM Pistol



## Tracker

OK I have been trying to decide witch pistol to get for my cc pistol. I have 4 that I am looking at, all are sub compact. I like the glock 26 the MP 9 XD9 and today I held the Walther PPS 9MM Pistol I went in to narrow my choices and ended up adding another one to the list. So can anyone tell me about the walther??:watching:


----------



## BeefyBeefo

Did you try to do a search on this site? I seem to remember people saying that there's a few issues with the PPS, but I don't know for sure. It's definitely a nice looking pistol, but that would have nothing to do with my decision in a CC pistol. Good luck with the search! 

-Jeff-


----------



## Tracker

BeefyBeefo said:


> Did you try to do a search on this site? I seem to remember people saying that there's a few issues with the PPS, but I don't know for sure. It's definitely a nice looking pistol, but that would have nothing to do with my decision in a CC pistol. Good luck with the search!
> 
> -Jeff-


Thanks Beefy you were right they are haveing trouble so that narrows my choices alittle


----------



## submoa

glock 26 - unsupported chamber cause of case rupture explosions = gun destroyed & possible injury to shooter
MP 9 - mag safety combined with unexpected mag drops = gun unusable
PPS - Quiksafe safety relies on backstrap held by plastic claw vulnerable to breakage from aggressive reloading = gun unusable
XD9 - fully supported chamber, 16rd mag reload included

This is really an inappropriate comparision since PPS is single stack and the others are double. Properly, PPS should be compared against Kahr PM9 and Kel-Tec PF9,


----------



## madison7

You should check out the Walther P99 compact in 9 mm. It has a 10 round capacity, 100% reliability, and is just a little bigger than the PPS. You can also fit a 15 round clip onto it as well. It makes the competition look like crap. It is not the most common pistol to find, especially in 9 mm, but it is the best of its class and a great carry gun.


----------



## BeefyBeefo

madison7 said:


> You should check out the Walther P99 compact in 9 mm. It has a 10 round capacity, 100% reliability, and is just a little bigger than the PPS. You can also fit a 15 round clip onto it as well. It makes the competition look like crap. It is not the most common pistol to find, especially in 9 mm, but it is the best of its class and a great carry gun.


Just out of curiosity...What class would that be???

-Jeff-


----------



## PX

madison7 said:


> You should check out the Walther P99 compact in 9 mm. It has a 10 round capacity, 100% reliability, and is just a little bigger than the PPS. You can also fit a 15 round clip onto it as well. It makes the competition look like crap. It is not the most common pistol to find, especially in 9 mm, but it is the best of its class and a great carry gun.


FWIW:

Walther P99c/AS has the better trigger/striker (for me). Larger capacity, but thicker grip because of the double stack.

Walther PPS has bigger/better sights, Glocklike trigger, THIN, lighter, easier to cc.

My P99c/AS was slightly more accurate than my PPS, but the thiness and light weight of the PPS make it the better choice, for me, for cc..

I have owned a Glock 26 in the past, (two actually), and IMO the Walther P99c/AS is the Glock 26 with all deficiencies corrected.. (better trigger/striker, MUCH better grip ergonomics, more accurate, overall a much better choice in my experience..)

I'm not "anti-glock", I just prefer the Walther having owned examples of both pistols.

Just personal opinion/YMMV..

Best Wishes,

Jesse


----------



## Old Padawan

submoa said:


> glock 26 - unsupported chamber cause of case rupture explosions = gun destroyed & possible injury to shooter


here we go again. Absolutely undocumentable. *Your opinion and not a fact.*
And this time you are refering to a 9mm.


----------



## Old Padawan

The Glock and XD have cheaper mags (about ½ as much) than Walther.
The Glock and XD have more accessories (read holsters) than the Walther or M&P.

All 4 are high quality guns and will go BANG when you pull the trigger. Try to shoot them and choose the one that feels the best in your hand.


----------



## Playboy Penguin

*Here is a link to a range report I did on mine.*

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300134

I really like mine. I resides in my fanny pack that I carry to the gym.


----------



## USAFgsm

Old Padawan said:


> here we go again. Absolutely undocumentable. *Your opinion and not a fact.*
> And this time you are refering to a 9mm.


What? I thought that everybody knew that all glocks blow up and no one has ever had a single problem with an XD.

:smt108


----------



## submoa

Anyone having either a Model 26 or Model 27 with a serial number utilizing the following alpha-prefix: DGD, DGV, DHS, DHT, DKV, DKW or DKX, your guide rod is defective. According to Glock, the rods were not tempered correctly.

Effective 20 February 2003 all Glock Model 26 pistols in the E serial range of the current "non-recall" have been banned from carry by NYPD.

Glock unsupported chamber:












Old Padawan said:


> And this time you are refering to a 9mm


At the S&W IDPA Winter Championship 28 February, 2004, a Glock Model 34 (9mm!) split its barrel at the bottom all the way through the breech. The kB! occurred in front of many witnesses. *The shooter was using factory PMC practice ammo.*

Picture of broken "indestructible" Glock frame (G17) from Lyon County Sheriff's Office, Nevada.












Zaakir*Abdullah said:


> My only problem with Glocks are the fanboys. The jerks who think Glocks are the infallible holy grail of handguns.


All handguns are compromises. Glocks are certainly no better than any modern handgun on the market today. And contrary to the claims of Glock fanboys, there are indeed reasons why.


----------



## niadhf

Tracker, check out the deal on the Handguntrader section here on this forum that is available on an XD9 -sc


----------



## Old Padawan

submoa said:


> Anyone having either a Model 26 or Model 27 with a serial number utilizing the following alpha-prefix: DGD, DGV, DHS, DHT, DKV, DKW or DKX, your guide rod is defective. According to Glock, the rods were not tempered correctly.
> 
> Effective 20 February 2003 all Glock Model 26 pistols in the E serial range of the current "non-recall" have been banned from carry by NYPD.
> 
> Glock unsupported chamber:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the S&W IDPA Winter Championship 28 February, 2004, a Glock Model 34 (9mm!) split its barrel at the bottom all the way through the breech. The kB! occurred in front of many witnesses. *The shooter was using factory PMC practice ammo.*
> 
> Picture of broken "indestructible" Glock frame (G17) from Lyon County Sheriff's Office, Nevada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All handguns are compromises. Glocks are certainly no better than any modern handgun on the market today. And contrary to the claims of Glock fanboys, there are indeed reasons why.


It should be noted that I am not a Glockophile. My firearm of preference is a 1911. I grudgingly carry a Glock because it works. Having said that.

Nice photo. I wonder how long it would take to find a picture of a Sig that has been blown? How about an HK? Do you suppose we could find a Walther that has had a dramatic failure? Shall I go on?

I had a friend blow up a Smith model 4006. It was store bought ammo. He had fired the gun on multiple occasions' prior. The gun had handled hundreds of rounds prior to this dramatic failure. Using your logic and assumptions, does that mean that people should not buy Smith 40 cal autos?

No one has seriously claimed they are indestructible. Any gun can break.

You previously commented that the unsupported chamber of a 1911 wasn't unsafe due to the lower pressures generated, had you considered the unsupported chamber of the 1903 Springfield firing a 30-06 cartridge. Thousands of them carried in WW1 and WW2.

The Glock .40 cal is a safe, dependable high quality firearm. Your photo proves nothing. Big deal it blew up. You have obviously done a lot of research on the subject yet you still fail to show ANY documentation. The reason that you are unable to do so is because it doesn't exist. It is an opinion only. Your opinion in this is no better than a Chevy truck fan bashing a Ford. It is baseless emotional claptrap

You are wrong.


----------



## hideit

that is a tough choice.
i have a glock26 and love it
but if i didn't own it i would look seriously at the 3" 9mm XD, the Kahr PM9, and the keltec PF9.

First- seems like you have a double stack / single stack question to answer
then
look into the options


----------



## niadhf

Old Padawan said:


> It is baseless emotional *claptrap*


:smt019

Word usage thief


----------



## cyberwaste

I don't mean to go off the subject of the thread.. But what is up with the guys who love to show blown up glock and comment on how unsafe they are I agree with Old Padawan I own a glock 17 and I love it. But it just grates my nerves with these guys that feel the need to keep refering to how glocks blow up and etc. Any gun can fail even $3000 1911s so just get over it and move on.

Agian sorry for my rant....


----------



## submoa

Old Padawan said:


> You have obviously done a lot of research on the subject yet you still fail to show ANY documentation. The reason that you are unable to do so is because it doesn't exist. It is an opinion only. Your opinion in this is no better than a Chevy truck fan bashing a Ford. It is baseless emotional claptrap
> 
> You are wrong.


Hmm... pictures, quotes from law enforcement users and Glock themselves, publicly witnessed failures, references to lawsuits vs what amounts to Nyahh, Nyahh, Nyahh from outraged fanboys.

Kudos to your unswerving argumentative style. Clearly, nothing will overcome your impenetrable wall of denial.

However, for members trying to decide on a purchase worth several hundred dollars the information I present is different from the endorsement of legions of fanboys.

Glocks are not the worst handguns and they are not the perfect indestructible handguns claimed by the fanboys. If at the end of the day, the information I present causes a potential purchaser to try and shoot different handguns before settling in on a purchase, that should be ok for any reasonable person.


----------



## Old Padawan

submoa said:


> Hmm... pictures, quotes from law enforcement users and Glock themselves, publicly witnessed failures, references to lawsuits vs what amounts to Nyahh, Nyahh, Nyahh from outraged fanboys.


It amuses me greatly how you will just ignore parts of a post and reply to others. 
You completely skipped my question regarding pictures of other gun manufacturer catastrophic failures. You provide a photo of a blown Glock and ignore the question regarding other photos. You ignore my story of the Smith 4006 and yet reference other "publicly witnessed failure". And you have no comment regarding the unsuported chamber of a 30-06 not exploding.
By your "documentation" no gun is safe.
Did I miss something? You state "references to lawsuits" to support your argument, yet you did not reference a lawsuit.



> Kudos to your unswerving argumentative style. Clearly, nothing will overcome your impenetrable wall of denial.


My unswerving argumentative style is pretty basic. I just ask that you "show me". Facts will completely overcome my "impenetrable wall of denial" yet you have none. You consistently offer your opinion as fact and then engage in the time honored art of dodging commonly employed by those unwilling to admit they are wrong.



> However, for members trying to decide on a purchase worth several hundred dollars the information I present is different from the endorsement of legions of fanboys.


You don't present information you present opinion. Information can be documented opinions don't need to be.
I am a fanboy, a fanboy of logic and debate. I have gotten much debate from this thread, but no logic to speak of&#8230;



> Glocks are not the worst handguns and they are not the perfect indestructible handguns claimed by the fanboys. If at the end of the day, the information I present causes a potential purchaser to try and shoot different handguns before settling in on a purchase, that should be ok for any reasonable person.


So, you did all of this research for Glock failure. You are of the opinion that it is a common enough occurrence to make the gun unsafe. You are unable to find any documentation other than 2 photos and a few stories. This satisfies you for documentation? What percentage of guns are you saying are going KA-Boom? What percentage of a product must malfunction to qualify it as "unsafe"?

PER NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) 2008 edition of small arms production, the country Austria exported the following HANDGUNS.
1998	170,240
1999	210,966
2000	245,869
2001	234,330
2002	257,255
2003	245,949
2004	245,431
2005	288,132
2006	327,845
2007	347,188
Total	2,573,205

Granted these are the numbers for Austria and not Glock. Subtract whatever percentage you feel to be reasonable for other handgun manufactures such as Steyer. Surely you can admit that a major percentage (upwards of half) of these would be Glock. Don't bother trying to figure out how many were actually produced in Smyrna GA in the same time frame (26,500 in 2006 per BATFE) as they didn't start producing the frames until 2005.

Are we talking about KA-Boom or guide rods? How does NY police not allowing certain G26 and G27 models produced within a set amount of time not be used due to guide rod failure support or document your argument? It is also odd that they have tempered guide rods, as the factory Glock guide rod is made of plastic.

Do you actually understand the terms "reference", and "documentation" as I have applied them in this post?


----------



## submoa

The original poster inquired about G26:

Anyone having either a Model 26 or Model 27 with a serial number utilizing the following alpha-prefix: DGD, DGV, DHS, DHT, DKV, DKW or DKX, your guide rod is defective. According to Glock, the rods were not tempered correctly. If you have one of these guns, call 1 (888) 569-6830 to get a replacement rod. This number was been set up specifically for the replacement of the rods.​
2 lawsuits are currently pending in Federal District Court against Glock arising from the Portland Police Bureau kB! incidents:

3:2006cv00287 City of Portland v. Glock, Inc. et al 
3:2006cv00145 Pirv v. Glock, Inc. et al​
These suits were filed after HP White had published their report exonerating Glock in the incidents and blaming the kB!s on overpressure cartridges. Both Pirv (the injured officer) and PPB have evidence contrary to HP White to reassert Glock to be at fault.

Glocks are not bad handguns. But they are not the perfect handguns that the legions of fanboys make them out to be. Be a knowledgeable consumer, don't take fanboy endorsements at face value, compare products and choose the one that makes the most sense for you.

If in the end you choose a Glock. Great.

In the end this whole bickering amounts to using an Internet Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, etc.) vs. the denial of someone who has called himself the Pole Smoking Ass Pirate of Arizona (PSAPAZ in sig line).


----------



## Old Padawan

submoa said:


> The original poster inquired about G26:
> 
> Anyone having either a Model 26 or Model 27 with a serial number utilizing the following alpha-prefix: DGD, DGV, DHS, DHT, DKV, DKW or DKX, your guide rod is defective. According to Glock, the rods were not tempered correctly. If you have one of these guns, call 1 (888) 569-6830 to get a replacement rod. This number was been set up specifically for the replacement of the rods.​
> 2 lawsuits are currently pending in Federal District Court against Glock arising from the Portland Police Bureau kB! incidents:
> 
> 3:2006cv00287 City of Portland v. Glock, Inc. et al
> 3:2006cv00145 Pirv v. Glock, Inc. et al​
> These suits were filed after HP White had published their report exonerating Glock in the incidents and blaming the kB!s on overpressure cartridges. Both Pirv (the injured officer) and PPB have evidence contrary to HP White to reassert Glock to be at fault.
> 
> Glocks are not bad handguns. But they are not the perfect handguns that the legions of fanboys make them out to be. Be a knowledgeable consumer, don't take fanboy endorsements at face value, compare products and choose the one that makes the most sense for you.
> 
> If in the end you choose a Glock. Great.
> 
> In the end this whole bickering amounts to using an Internet Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, etc.) vs. the denial of someone who has called himself the Pole Smoking Ass Pirate of Arizona.


Guide rods defective or not have nothing to do with a Ka-Boom. They do nothing to support your argument.

A civil suit does not aid your argument, it supports mine. All it does is demonstrate the litigious nature of our society. It further reminds us that if there were a defect, then suits would have been filed and lost by Glock. If Glock loses a lawsuit and continues to produce the "defective" product, then they expose themselves to further litigation. 
They are still producing their guns in large numbers.

Wow. You just listed your first documentation. It seems you are able to do effective research. I appreciate your listing a study indicating the gun was not at fault (thanks for helping me prove my point) BUT THE AMMO WAS.

You have failed. You are unable to prove your point.
You have not shown that an unsupported chambers cause dramatic failure in a firearm. If pressure were the issue, why did the hundreds of thousands of 1903 Springfields used by our armed forces see service in both WWI and WWII? The pressures of the 30-06 cartridge surpass that of a .40 or 9mm. Yet the gun worked well.

I note that as this debate continued your opinion changed.
Your original statement was: "Glock 26 - unsupported chamber cause of case rupture explosions = gun destroyed & possible injury to shooter"
And now: "Glocks are not bad handguns. But they are not the perfect handguns that the legions of fanboys make them out to be. Be a knowledgeable consumer, don't take fanboy endorsements at face value, compare products and choose the one that makes the most sense for you."
(I would like to point out that if you had made this comment earlier I would not have said anything as it is clearly stated as an opinion and not a fact.)

I fail to see what relevance my nickname of "pole smoking ass pirate" has to this debate. The term was coined by a small minded man who was too stupid to listen to a reasonable explanation, all that mattered was his uneducated opinion. Oh wait, now I see why you used it&#8230;

Since you seem to have given up on logic, and resorted to sarcasm, (a common tactic employed by those who are unable to support their argument with facts) I will no longer reply to your comments in this thread. 
Have a pleasant day. :mrgreen:


----------



## submoa

Again all pictures, articles, quotes provided by me can be easily found in a rudimentary internet search. I would encourage anyone considering any handgun to do a simple search on the internet in addition to soliciting OPINIONS of members here.

And so, the incontrovertible fact is that controversy surrounds Glock kB!s. Contrary to disinformation from Glock fanboys, this has not been resolved.

Addressing *Old Padawan* post,

You have made self serving comments about your reasoning and logic.

Your Pole Smoking Ass Pirate nickname is relevant since you used it in your SIG line for months. No one cares who tagged you with it. Whether or not it is true, your use defines you. And it shows your reasoning skills in posting an ad in this forum with that signature looking for a roommate.


----------



## B3nT

*Love my PPS!*

I bought my PPS in January. It's very slender, and when I realized how short the sight radius is (compared to my other guns) I figured it would probably be tough to shoot it accurately. Also, it is sooo petite I was sure it would be harsh in use.

Wow: was I wrong on both counts. It's a great little shooter (see the Gunblast review for an objective overview). I'm not the world's best shooter, but I can get most of my rounds into 5" -- at 25 yards! For me, that's amazing with a 3" barrel. I can do better with my full size P88 or 1911, or with my red-dot equipped BHP, but the little Walter PPS with its open sights continues to amaze me every time I take it out! If I have to critique a favorite, the single stack magazines included are 6 and 7 rounds (8 is optional), which is comparatively tedious at the range, but is at the same time what makes it so incredibly small and slim for carry.

(As a P99 owner, too, though, I would suggest you take a peek at the P99c AS, if you can find one. My P99 is a full-size QA, and wouldn't fit your compact requirement, but it is an excellent firearm with truly awesome ergonomics.)

Colt Huntsman 22
Walther P38	9mm WWII heirloom
Sig-Hammerli Trailside 22, Millet 3MOAx30
Walther P99	9mm
Browning High Power 9mm, JPoint 4MOA
Browning Buckmark, Millet 3MOAx30
Walther PPS	9mm
Colt Model 80 Government IV .45
Walther PP .380
Walther P88	9mm

Browning BPS 12 ga
Ruger 10/22, Nikon Monarch 4x-12x 40

Hawken .50 ca 1810 War of 1812 heirloom
Sharps .50 ca 1860 Civil War heirloom


----------



## PX

B3nT said:


> (As a P99 owner, too, though, I would suggest you take a peek at the P99c AS, if you can find one. My P99 is a full-size QA, and wouldn't fit your compact requirement, but it is an excellent firearm with truly awesome ergonomics.)
> 
> JMOfartO:
> 
> I think the PPS is an excellent cc firearm. You DO give up capacity, (and in the case of the P99c/AS) a wonderful trigger/striker for one that IMO is less safe for the average "civilian" concealed carry person, but the trade off is the PPS is VERY THIN, and lighter than the P99c/AS. My PPS is quite accurate at self defense range, but the P99c/AS was MORE accurate by a bit, but in a self defense senario not enough to make a difference.. For making holes in targets my P99c/AS was the better choice, but for daily comfort, ease of concealment the PPS is the better choice, for me.
> 
> I still have the full size P99/AS for my "home defense" pistol..
> 
> Either is fine.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> Jesse


----------



## BeefyBeefo

B3nT said:


> You DO give up capacity, (and in the case of the P99c/AS) a wonderful trigger/striker for one that IMO is less safe for the average "civilian" concealed carry person


The gun is only as safe as its' handler. The striker action has nothing to do with the safety of the firearm. Finger off the trigger=no boom.

-Jeff-


----------



## PX

BeefyBeefo said:


> The gun is only as safe as its' handler. The striker action has nothing to do with the safety of the firearm. Finger off the trigger=no boom.
> 
> -Jeff-


Jeff,
Respectfully you are right, and you are wrong.

IF a person has been trained properly to keep his finger out of the triggerguard and off the trigger until he/she is ready to shoot something then you are right.

IF, however, a person has not been so trained then the difference between THAT person having a firearm with a Glocklike (or Glock) trigger vs the traditional DA/SA does have something to do with the safety of the firearm, in THAT person's hands.

For example, I'm an old fart (65) and I have owned firearms since I was twelve years old. Been carrying concealed, legally, since the summer of 1966. In the formative years of my firearms "training" (if indeed it can be called that) I was taught all of the standard safety rules of the time, but at the time (early 1950's) I respectfully suggest "keeping your finger off the trigger" was not one of them.

I WAS taught to never apply pressure to the trigger, but having your index finger lightly ON the trigger was simply the way it was done. The current "keep your booger picker off the trigger, and horizontally aligned along the side of the slide" (or thereabouts) is the relatively new, and excellent, way folks are trained, and with the advent of the everlite trigger pull, such as in the Glock and like types of firearms, it's prudent and wise, and if you watch every cop show on tv you can see it is standard NOW.

However, if you have the time, find yourself a retired senior citizen leo who was on the job in the 1950's and probably later too, and I'm willing to be that person will tell you just what I'm telling you.

When the issue weapon (and that carried by the majority of citizens who indeed carried during that time) was a traditional DA/SA revolver, generally a S&W or perhaps a Colt with a heavy DA trigger pull ,VERY FEW, a very, very few, persons MIGHT have be smart enough to keep their fingers off the trigger, but the fact is most of us were not that smart.

Watch an old movie or tv program of those times and you will find the folks with guns, police, good guys and bad guys, always had their trigger fingers right on the trigger when they expected trouble.

So, half a century into my personal life as a gun owner I find myself deliberately making a conscious effort to keep my trigger finger where it belongs, but even when I do fall back on my early (bad?) training I never apply pressure... Just something I don't do. Not saying I'm right, or smart, or the present training is not a great leap forward in safety while handling a loaded gun (yes, they are all loaded), but some folks are of the idea this has been common training for all times, and that's simply not true.

I'm willing to bet if you run into an old cop from "those days" and ask him/her (very few "hers" then too) he/she will tell you that if they were in a situation requiring the firearm to be drawn out of the holster then that same situation was dangerous enough, or offered the potential for being dangerous enough, to have the triggerfinger in the only place it would do them any good if firing their weapon was necessary, and that was ON the trigger.

Of course during that time,unless you were so stupid as to "cock" your weapon seeking the lighter SA trigger pull, a margin of safety was offered in the heavy DA trigger pull, which is not offered in pistols such as the Glock or PPS of today.

For me personally, I just consider my PPS as always "cocked" and my natural instinct is to treat it as such by keeping my finger out of the triggerguard like a good boy should anyway.

Betcha' most cops and such would have their fingers on the trigger, and the only allowance for safety might be the barrel of that firearm would be pointed up, or in a safe direction until the situation got critical, then the barrel would be pointed in the direction of the perceived threat, but perhaps pointed slightly down.

I think the new method of training as regards safety with a firearm as relating to the relationship between the trigger finger, and the trigger itself is great. I taught that method to my Son, and Granddaughter.

But no one ever taught me that when I was a kid, because that method was not the way it was done.

No offense intended, but even tho we are dying off at a pretty good rate now, there are still a bunch of folks who have done quite well, as regards safety, for many decades, by keeping pressure off the trigger until the right time, but keeping our fingers ON the trigger when we think might have to shoot something.

Just personal opinion, contrary opinions welcomed.

Best Wishes,

Jesse


----------



## MLB

Excellent post of a perspective I hadn't considered PX. Thanks.


----------



## BeefyBeefo

PX said:


> IF, however, a person has not been so trained then the difference between THAT person having a firearm with a Glocklike (or Glock) trigger vs the traditional DA/SA does have something to do with the safety of the firearm, in THAT person's hands.


Then, if that person has their finger on the trigger knowing that it could be a potential hazard, wouldn't that make the person the dangerous aspect of the equation, and not the gun?



PX said:


> For example, I'm an old fart (65) and I have owned firearms since I was twelve years old. Been carrying concealed, legally, since the summer of 1966. In the formative years of my firearms "training" (if indeed it can be called that) I was taught all of the standard safety rules of the time, but at the time (early 1950's) I respectfully suggest "keeping your finger off the trigger" was not one of them.


Would you agree that it is a much safer practice to keep your finger off the trigger until the threat is potent? If so, then wouldn't the old "training" be considered obsolete, and everone should adhere to the newer and safer "training"?



PX said:


> I WAS taught to never apply pressure to the trigger, but having your index finger lightly ON the trigger was simply the way it was done. The current "keep your booger picker off the trigger, and horizontally aligned along the side of the slide" (or thereabouts) is the relatively new, and excellent, way folks are trained, and with the advent of the everlite trigger pull, such as in the Glock and like types of firearms, it's prudent and wise, and if you watch every cop show on tv you can see it is standard NOW.


You admit that having your finger off the trigger is "excellent", but as above, would you consider to be better? Also, the trigger pull on a Glock isn't necessarily very light, or atleast I wouldn't consider it very light. I think keeping your finger off the trigger should be done no matter how long or heavy the trigger pull is. I'm not sure where television comes into this, as TV has, or should have nothing to do with any sort of safety practices.



PX said:


> However, if you have the time, find yourself a retired senior citizen leo who was on the job in the 1950's and probably later too, and I'm willing to be that person will tell you just what I'm telling you.


I'm not doubting you, but if in fact the newer practices are safer (by any means), than don't you agree that the older practices should be obsolete?



PX said:


> When the issue weapon (and that carried by the majority of citizens who indeed carried during that time) was a traditional DA/SA revolver, generally a S&W or perhaps a Colt with a heavy DA trigger pull ,VERY FEW, a very, very few, persons MIGHT have be smart enough to keep their fingers off the trigger, but the fact is most of us were not that smart.


Here again, you are implying that it would have been smarter to keep your finger off of the trigger. So, in that case, regardless of how individuals were once trained, wouldn't you agree that they should adapt to new training and newer practices?



PX said:


> Watch an old movie or tv program of those times and you will find the folks with guns, police, good guys and bad guys, always had their trigger fingers right on the trigger when they expected trouble.


Once again, I'm not sure where TV comes into this. I see many _actors_ in current movies and shows with their fingers on the trigger with absolutely no threat present, but this is besides the point, as this is to be considered _acting_ and nothing else.



PX said:


> So, half a century into my personal life as a gun owner I find myself deliberately making a conscious effort to keep my trigger finger where it belongs, but even when I do fall back on my early (bad?) training I never apply pressure... Just something I don't do. Not saying I'm right, or smart, or the present training is not a great leap forward in safety while handling a loaded gun (yes, they are all loaded), but some folks are of the idea this has been common training for all times, and that's simply not true.


I was not by any means implying that there has been common training for all times. My point is that, if there are newer and better training practices in place, than all individuals should learn to adapt at all costs. Breaking bad habits can be hard, but sometimes it's necessary.



PX said:


> I'm willing to bet if you run into an old cop from "those days" and ask him/her (very few "hers" then too) he/she will tell you that if they were in a situation requiring the firearm to be drawn out of the holster then that same situation was dangerous enough, or offered the potential for being dangerous enough, to have the triggerfinger in the only place it would do them any good if firing their weapon was necessary, and that was ON the trigger.


I could potentially agree with this, but how serious of a threat are we talking about here? I will have my finger off the trigger until I'm ready to use the weapon. There is no time taken (atleast miniscule), in shifting my finger from the side of the weapon to the trigger, and this would only be done so if the threat was serious enough. So, if a BG was in my face and I perceived the threat to be serious enough, than my finger would touch the triger....to fire the weapon.



PX said:


> Of course during that time,unless you were so stupid as to "cock" your weapon seeking the lighter SA trigger pull, a margin of safety was offered in the heavy DA trigger pull, which is not offered in pistols such as the Glock or PPS of today.


I would consider the pull of the Glock or PPS a sort of middle ground. If the finger is off the trigger until one is ready to fire, than the "weight" of the trigger pull is irrelevant. Perhaps to "cock" your weapon would not have been so "stupid" if one's finger is off the trigger until he/she is ready to use the weapon.



PX said:


> For me personally, I just consider my PPS as always "cocked" and my natural instinct is to treat it as such by keeping my finger out of the triggerguard like a good boy should anyway.


Here again, you're saying that this is the way it _should_ be done, therefore all individuals should adapt to the correct training practices regardless of what they were once taught.



PX said:


> Betcha' most cops and such would have their fingers on the trigger, and the only allowance for safety might be the barrel of that firearm would be pointed up, or in a safe direction until the situation got critical, then the barrel would be pointed in the direction of the perceived threat, but perhaps pointed slightly down.


This is itself is an unsafe practice, and I would hope that none of these "cops" are working in my neighborhood. IMO, carying out that practice would imply that the individual is concerned about a ND. If that is the case, than this individual should not be in the field of law enforcement. A cop could keep his sights on the potential threat with his/her finger off of the trigger, and move his finger to the trigger when the situation got critical and he/she was ready to fire his/her weapon. This would not only keep the gun pointed in the direction where it should be pointed (a bullet shot up in the air, has to end somewhere. A bullet shot at the ground also has to stop somewhere with a possible ricochet.), but this would also allow for the target to already be aligned with the sights.



PX said:


> I think the new method of training as regards safety with a firearm as relating to the relationship between the trigger finger, and the trigger itself is great. I taught that method to my Son, and Granddaughter.


Once again, do you think it is a better practice? Once again, if so, shouldn't all individuals adapt should new training practices?



PX said:


> But no one ever taught me that when I was a kid, because that method was not the way it was done.


Once again, if the new practices are better, shouldn't one adapt?



PX said:


> No offense intended, but even tho we are dying off at a pretty good rate now, there are still a bunch of folks who have done quite well, as regards safety, for many decades, by keeping pressure off the trigger until the right time, but keeping our fingers ON the trigger when we think might have to shoot something.


No offense intended here either. :smt1099



PX said:


> Just personal opinion, contrary opinions welcomed.


Same here as well.

-Jeff-


----------



## Old Padawan

By your logic, people without training should only use double action only firearms.
Guns are as safe as their user. A “safer” gun does not fix an unsafe user. They are fixed by training. Training is applicable regardless of age. 
If you can’t keep your finger off of the activator of a potentially deadly device, you should make the decision not to possess said device.
If you cant handle a gun safely, buy a knife. At least that way you only hurt yourself.


----------



## masterofnotmuch

well speaking as a gunsmith and not a glockster as we are know as. glocks don't break as much as other pistols i maybe work on on 4 glocks a month and most of the time they are just putting on after market parts (mostly sights) the store that i work at really sells the glocks two to one (one being all other pistols in our shop). also think the "indestructible" rep that glocks get just adds more hype if one blows up. there have been alot of 1911 that blowup plus they been making them for almost 100 years now. had three come in the place i work where they where bought and yes i own a Springfield 1911 had a kimber but they pissed me off because of the severe lack of costumer service


----------



## masterofnotmuch

opps don't know how to delete


----------



## group17

If you want a safety on your Glock or PPS drop the mag and pull the trigger after checking the chamber is empty. Put the mag back in and you can't fire it till you rack the slide. You can keep your finger on the trigger as much as you want until you rack the slide. 

Now if you plan on carrying it you will have the time penalty of having to rack the slide first before firing the round. IMO not a good idea.


----------



## Hollander

I have the PPS in both 9mm and .40. Both great guns with no problems. Carry them all the time. Very good accuracy at self-defense range. Never have been sorry that I bought either one of them.


----------



## Rocker

I like the Springfield XDM 3.8 in 9.. I had the original 4.5 one, but thought the grip made it a little large to carry conceled.. 
but now they make a "compact" version with smaller grip size for better conceled carry.. 

I had a PPS and thought it was also a great carry gun.. slim and lightweight. thought the grip was a little square and uncomfortable for shooting but it carried great.. 

Then I got caught up in the 9 vs 45 thing ("Cant carry anything other than a 45 they say")... and sold it and got a 3" Kimber 1911.. but still think about the PPS.. as i think it was a better carry gun.. and really a 9mm (or 40) should be enough if needed.

Oh yeah i just bought a 1972 Walther PP that i carry more now.. and its a 7.65 (.32)... and i thought a 9 and 380 was too small to carry.. scheech!!.. what am i thinking..  
Hey if you cant make fun of yourself who can.. 

Bottom line is if you like the PPS then get it, its a great gun and i doubt you will have any issues with it.. 

I know its not an easy decision.. thats why we have more than one handgun...  good luck


----------

