Glock 44 vs Walther PPQ .22 - Page 2 - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > >

Notices

Join Team RFC to remove these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:12 AM
1917-1911M
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Feb 2005
Location: 
Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 
8,821
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)


Log in to see fewer ads


Above is a photo of the Walther manufactured S&W M&P .22 full size. The P22 has an open bottom on the breech face which lets a rim move around under recoil with somewhat uncertain placement when hitting the ejector. My take on it. When these pistols were designed a tongue was added to the bottom of the breech face. This holds a rim securely but of course requires a center cut out in the feed ramp...something not normally desirable with regard to smooth and damage free feeding of a round. It looks like from the angle of the Walther version that additional work has been done to the cut/ramp. Damage to the nose of a round is one of the reason for flyers. I was wondering what if any damage a round sliding up that cutout might get. Thanks for the good photo. 1917



Picture of breech rail extension that secures the bottom of a rim. Of course this solution requires a cutout at the feed ramp.



Bottom of the breech face on a P22 with nothing to support the rim. At least in this picture I have a custom extractor that I made that helps hold a rim in place. Ejection is very consistent.

Last edited by 1917-1911M; 02-05-2020 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:19 AM
jkv45
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Nov 2018
Location: 
WI
Posts: 
212
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Thanks. Appreciate your insight into the design.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-05-2020, 02:35 PM
1917-1911M
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Feb 2005
Location: 
Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 
8,821
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)


My P22 leaves only a very small mark from something on soft lead. Nothing on plated ammo. There is no nose damage. Typically the breech face hits the top of the slanting rim which knocks the nose down as the round is shoved forward. The scratch passes the fingernail test...it is shallow. CCI Quiet. 1917
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:46 AM
jkv45
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Nov 2018
Location: 
WI
Posts: 
212
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
More about the G44 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0DiauIStM
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-07-2020, 12:50 PM
JackM
Law Enforcement Officer NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Apr 2009
Location: 
SW Florida
Posts: 
100
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1917-1911M View Post
JackM....if you get a chance would you mind weighing the slide on the 44. I've weighed some of these short barrel slides and I'm wondering what the Glock one weighs. Thanks. 1917
4.7 oz.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:00 PM
1917-1911M
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Feb 2005
Location: 
Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 
8,821
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Thanks, I will add that to the collection. That seems very, very light. I had read/heard that the recoil spring in the G44 was a bit stiffer than that in other .22 pistols. That may be why. I need to check back on what the P22, S&W M&P compact and Ruger SR 22 slides weigh. 1917
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:23 PM
1917-1911M
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Feb 2005
Location: 
Indian Springs, AL
Posts: 
8,821
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Looks like Glock has quite a bit of work to do to sort this pistol out. I'm seeing mag issues. If those rims can't stagger they will not feed properly. This is why the first P22 mags did not work....no stagger slot. This is why old PP pistols in .22 have feeding issues...without room for the top rounds to stagger the rims the rounds will stack nose down. Add stagger slots and all will be good.

.32 PP mags stack likewise with the semi rimmed ammo. My PP does not have problems with the nose down ammo but some people do have feeding issues. Recently I turned down the rims on some live .32 ammo and then tested them in a stock mag....the stacked perfectly. They fired and ejected perfectly. I think I removed about 0.006" of total rim diameter. Still rimmed...just not as much. Moot point though because no one makes any smaller diameter rimmed .32 ammo and the headspace is controlled by the rim. With .22 ammo....gotta have stagger slots so the ammo will align properly at the top of the stack. 1917



.22 mags for old PP pistols are a bit rare and can run $150 ea. Someone asked me if I could make other mags work. Yes indeed. P22 and the new PPK/S .22 mags will not work. Bernadelli .22 will, another make that I can't think of right now will and even S&W M&P .22 compact mags can be made to work. Even P22 followers fit in several of these other mags. There is a thread on all of this at Walther forums but what the picture above shows is how rounds begin to flatten out ( nose dive ) when stacked in a mag. This is due to the rim. If stagger slots are made into the design or some are cut into the magazine as I have done above then you can see how the rims when allowed to stagger and realign will keep the top rounds nose up and against the feed lips. Apparently Glock hasn't learned this yet.

Last edited by 1917-1911M; 02-07-2020 at 10:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:13 PM
JackM
Law Enforcement Officer NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Apr 2009
Location: 
SW Florida
Posts: 
100
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Preview
[QUOTE=1917-1911M;11769259]Looks like Glock has quite a bit of work to do to sort this pistol out. I'm seeing mag issues.

I've put about 800 rounds through mine so far and what I've found is that you have to be careful if you're loading a full ten rounds, especially the last two or three. If I use the loading assist tabs (or whatever they're called) and allow enough room for each round to settle in fully to the rear, then all goes well. I put 300 rounds through it the other day, ten at a time, with no failures of any kind.

My Walther PP magazines likewise hold ten rounds, but they work a lot better with eight, no matter how careful I am loading them.

And you are correct, the recoil spring on the G44 is stiffer than others.

One other observation: it is a six-o'clock-hold gun. +/- 2" high at 15 yds with the rear sight all the way down.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-06-2020, 07:12 PM
jrsbike
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Sep 2018
Posts: 
31
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I don't know if it was mentioned but the Glock is a small gun where as the PPQ is full size. Also the Walther barrels are longer in both versions. The Glock has a very short barrel and I am not sure what its intent is. I got the PPQ M2 with the 5 inch barrel because it feels like a real gun to me. The Glock 44 I tried was too toy like. Also, you can't beat the Walther trigger.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-23-2020, 10:19 AM
torythebird's Avatar
torythebird

Join Date: 
Mar 2005
Location: 
ohio
Posts: 
254
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
My personal ownership of the Glock 44

I have shot nearly 700 rds of CCI Mini-mags thru my Glock 44 and had zero issues. The selection of ammo needs be HV and round nosed for good function. I must have gotten lucky and did not get a lemon from the factory. The factory sights needed very little adjustment out-of-the-box to hit within a 3 inch circle my my aging eyes at 10 yards. My friends played around my pistol and fed it standard velocity ammo and had a few FTE. The Glock G44 loves hot ammo and round nosed as well. This is my personal experience and your mileage may vary. I use Youtube reviews as a guide not a holy grail as I know many people had issues with their G44s, but I have yet to have any trouble.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 AM.

Privacy Policy

DMCA Notice

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2000-2018 RimfireCentral.com
x