P99 AS: Any cautionary tales?
- Thread starter MEATSAW
- Start date
I have both a Walther P99 AS and PPQ M1.
The PPQ IMO is much better in that the trigger travel on the P99 is unusual for me compared to most others I know, similar to the Tanfoglio XL-2 I sold in that the trigger travels nearly all the way to the rear before breaking.
I find it takes a little getting used to with my long fingers
The PPQ IMO is much better in that the trigger travel on the P99 is unusual for me compared to most others I know, similar to the Tanfoglio XL-2 I sold in that the trigger travels nearly all the way to the rear before breaking.
I find it takes a little getting used to with my long fingers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzvALwhUbjQ#t=5m29s
Seems pretty close to me. Not denying that the trigger travel is longer on the P99, sort of the nature of a DA/SA pistol.
Seems pretty close to me. Not denying that the trigger travel is longer on the P99, sort of the nature of a DA/SA pistol.
Agreed 100%.
I felt like the 1st half of the AS mode pull had little to no resistance. Then when you hit the hitch, you get the SA weight. It's 2 different pull weights in one stroke. I could have opted to simply not use the AS mode, but I didn't even like the DA pull either. And I actually like DA/SA, like that on a Sig or CZ.
I bought a P99 to run against my PPQ to see which I would like better. I sold the P99 after one range session. It's a nice gun, but it didn't do anything better for me.
You guys are accurately describing how the AS trigger is supposed to feel. You are pretty much supposed to stage the AS trigger from the first position to the SA position, unless you have to shoot so fast that it doesn't matter how you pull the trigger.
But it is a safety position, not a trigger pull that is supposed to be used for accurate fire.
But it is a safety position, not a trigger pull that is supposed to be used for accurate fire.
wild cat mccane
New member
Yeah. This is were it is confusing. If AS isn't a true trigger option, people shouldn't be complaining about the 2 stage feel but for the first round. And this is assuming your don't pick it up and set the trigger to half position.
I don't know about Sig, Beretta, and HK shooters, but isn't it kinda standard to hit the decock first? That way you never encounter the AS trigger anyway...
The P99 does break farther back, but the PPQ and P99 reset the same and the P99 is lighter. I'll take that if it comes with DA as an extra.
I don't know about Sig, Beretta, and HK shooters, but isn't it kinda standard to hit the decock first? That way you never encounter the AS trigger anyway...
The P99 does break farther back, but the PPQ and P99 reset the same and the P99 is lighter. I'll take that if it comes with DA as an extra.
Cyanide971
New member
Just an extra .02 here, but to the best of my knowledge the majority of P99 AS owners, myself included, decock the pistol and carry with a DA 1st shot.
Treat it as a striker-fire DA/SA and don't bother with the AS setting period. Problem solved. Is there a safety position nothing more, nothing less.
Treat it as a striker-fire DA/SA and don't bother with the AS setting period. Problem solved. Is there a safety position nothing more, nothing less.
RX-79G, I have to ask - have you ever actually fired a P99AS?
If you did, you would know that the AS trigger is a non-issue. You really can treat it just like any other DA/SA pistol (SIG, Beretta, etc.) if you so choose.
The trigger does return all the way forward when you drop the slide (to the AS mode), but there is no need to stage the trigger. The trigger will be just as light and smooth as any other single-action pull, and it will break at the same place.
In normal firing, you can barely even perceive the point where the AS trigger transitions to single-action (unless you are looking for it).
Yes, the P99AS is different from most guns - it provides more options for use than most other guns. I recognize that people who are particularly dogmatic about how guns should be used may be bothered that others have additional flexibility in using the P99AS, but it is really up to the individual to decide how to use the gun.
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but you didn't answer my question. You seem to be tossing out a lot of statements based on assumptions from what you have read. Again - I'm not trying to sound like a jerk - we are all here to learn something.
The P99AS can act just like pretty much any other DA/SA pistol with de-cocker if you choose to use it that way. If you are firing with smooth consistent trigger squeezes (as you always should be), there is no hurdle to overcome. As gc70 correctly stated, the P99AS just provides additional options (that you don't have to incorporate into your manual of arms if you don't want to) and an additional layer of safety on the first round (namely the long first pull of the Anti-Stress mode) when the trigger is cocked.
If you don't like a DA/SA system, Walther makes the PPQ for you.
Fishbed,
What's the problem, here? The P99AS pushes the trigger forward when you reload it from slidelock. Is there any disagreement with this fact?
Other DA/SA pistols do not do this. Agree?
And, as I already said, whether that's a problem for each individual shooter is up to them.
I don't think its a problem.
Kinoons does think that two part single action AS pull is a problem: For him.
I'm not sure what you're getting wound up about. It is a unique system, and not everyone is going to love it.
What's the problem, here? The P99AS pushes the trigger forward when you reload it from slidelock. Is there any disagreement with this fact?
Other DA/SA pistols do not do this. Agree?
And, as I already said, whether that's a problem for each individual shooter is up to them.
I don't think its a problem.
Kinoons does think that two part single action AS pull is a problem: For him.
I'm not sure what you're getting wound up about. It is a unique system, and not everyone is going to love it.
Arguing about subtle distinctions in interpreting the practical applicability of features can be ... unproductive. 
The original sear mode & operation of what Walther currently calls their Anti-Stress design was made to offer some advantages to a broad range of anticipated LE/Mil users at the international level. A simple reading of the Carl Walther safety manual (or even different releases of the European brochures) makes this rather apparent.
Walther even changed their trigger safety design over the years for some models, apparently in response to input from some international users. Not surprising.
I ignored the original P99's until S&W and Walther entered into their Strategic Alliance, and S&W decided to produced a licensed version of the 99 series for US sales. I signed up for what became my first of 3 P99/SW99 armorer classes. I was impressed enough to order a SW99.
As time passed, S&W and Walther eventually identified a magazine related problem with their .40's, and both S&W and Walther made some further revisions and improvements to their manufactured parts. I picked up another SW99 and continued to learn about the 99 series. I continued to support, maintain and repair some SW99/P99's in my capacity as an armorer.
While Walther introduced the idea of replaceable backstrap inserts as a common feature, I never found their original inserts to exactly fit my hand. Close enough to be acceptable, but other designs and models have evolved which offer a wider range of user fit and comfort, I think. Obviously, subjective is the word of the day.
The 99's aren't something designed (or intended) to be tinkered with by owners. The guns can be damaged if improperly disassembled beyond basic field-stripping.
Walther doesn't even want its armorers to disassemble the sear housing blocks. Some basic instructions for re-installation of the single action sear lever and it's spring were included in some versions of the armorer manuals, in the event the plastic pin holding them in the block slipped loose when the blocks were removed for servicing, (or shipped as spare parts in baggies
).
Then there was a revision of the Walther frame which required a revision of the housing block body, as well, which further complicated sear housing block replacement in older models. Then, later they changed the trigger bar guide from a steel post (of different heights) to an adjustable lever, and that made it so the blocks of each type aren't interchangeable between the frames at all.
Personally, I think the 99 series, in all the model variations, have always been vastly under-rated and never received the appreciation they deserve. I prefer the AS model, myself, but then I'm a long time user of TDA (also called DA/SA) working/defensive guns.
I hope that at some point Carl Walther introduces a limited lifetime warranty to the original American owners of their excellent P99's, much as they did with their PPQ's for American buyers.
The 99 series pistols are robust, reliable and nicely engineered.
I have no plans to get rid of my SW99's as long as I'm still able to shoot them.
Back to the OP's question ...
If the 99 being considered is a .40, then I'd make sure the magazines have the revision to help prevent lateral displacement of the bullet noses under recoil within the mag body (which might otherwise sometimes bump the slide stop lever tab and lock the slide back with rounds remaining in the mag). A visible change to the left side of the mag body, at the cutout for the slide stop lever tab, is easily seen.
This picture shows the S&W branded Mec-Gar .40 mags, with the revised mag body on the left (and the revised follower, to accommodate the change in the mag body profile). Pics of the same revision for Walther branded P9940 mags can be found online (with their own change in the shade of blue for the revised followers).
FWIW, the PPQ version of the 99 has its own armorer manual, while the P99 AS / P99 AS C / P990 / P99 QA / P99 QA C / P99 DAO / P99 DAO C are covered in a different manual. (Last I saw, anyway, and these things can change without notice.)
I have no idea if the newly formed Walther Arms, Inc - http://www.waltherarms.com/about-walther/ - will offer armorer training, or if they even plan to try to enter the LE/Gov market in the US, so I doubt I'll again be recertifying as an armorer on the 99 series in the future. Oddly enough, however, I was told a little while back that S&W did an armorer recert class for a special security agency still using the original SW99's, even though they no longer specifically list the SW99/P99 class in their field class curriculum.
The original sear mode & operation of what Walther currently calls their Anti-Stress design was made to offer some advantages to a broad range of anticipated LE/Mil users at the international level. A simple reading of the Carl Walther safety manual (or even different releases of the European brochures) makes this rather apparent.
Walther even changed their trigger safety design over the years for some models, apparently in response to input from some international users. Not surprising.
I ignored the original P99's until S&W and Walther entered into their Strategic Alliance, and S&W decided to produced a licensed version of the 99 series for US sales. I signed up for what became my first of 3 P99/SW99 armorer classes. I was impressed enough to order a SW99.
As time passed, S&W and Walther eventually identified a magazine related problem with their .40's, and both S&W and Walther made some further revisions and improvements to their manufactured parts. I picked up another SW99 and continued to learn about the 99 series. I continued to support, maintain and repair some SW99/P99's in my capacity as an armorer.
While Walther introduced the idea of replaceable backstrap inserts as a common feature, I never found their original inserts to exactly fit my hand. Close enough to be acceptable, but other designs and models have evolved which offer a wider range of user fit and comfort, I think. Obviously, subjective is the word of the day.
The 99's aren't something designed (or intended) to be tinkered with by owners. The guns can be damaged if improperly disassembled beyond basic field-stripping.
Walther doesn't even want its armorers to disassemble the sear housing blocks. Some basic instructions for re-installation of the single action sear lever and it's spring were included in some versions of the armorer manuals, in the event the plastic pin holding them in the block slipped loose when the blocks were removed for servicing, (or shipped as spare parts in baggies
). Then there was a revision of the Walther frame which required a revision of the housing block body, as well, which further complicated sear housing block replacement in older models. Then, later they changed the trigger bar guide from a steel post (of different heights) to an adjustable lever, and that made it so the blocks of each type aren't interchangeable between the frames at all.
Personally, I think the 99 series, in all the model variations, have always been vastly under-rated and never received the appreciation they deserve. I prefer the AS model, myself, but then I'm a long time user of TDA (also called DA/SA) working/defensive guns.
I hope that at some point Carl Walther introduces a limited lifetime warranty to the original American owners of their excellent P99's, much as they did with their PPQ's for American buyers.
The 99 series pistols are robust, reliable and nicely engineered.
I have no plans to get rid of my SW99's as long as I'm still able to shoot them.
Back to the OP's question ...
If the 99 being considered is a .40, then I'd make sure the magazines have the revision to help prevent lateral displacement of the bullet noses under recoil within the mag body (which might otherwise sometimes bump the slide stop lever tab and lock the slide back with rounds remaining in the mag). A visible change to the left side of the mag body, at the cutout for the slide stop lever tab, is easily seen.
This picture shows the S&W branded Mec-Gar .40 mags, with the revised mag body on the left (and the revised follower, to accommodate the change in the mag body profile). Pics of the same revision for Walther branded P9940 mags can be found online (with their own change in the shade of blue for the revised followers).
FWIW, the PPQ version of the 99 has its own armorer manual, while the P99 AS / P99 AS C / P990 / P99 QA / P99 QA C / P99 DAO / P99 DAO C are covered in a different manual. (Last I saw, anyway, and these things can change without notice.)
I have no idea if the newly formed Walther Arms, Inc - http://www.waltherarms.com/about-walther/ - will offer armorer training, or if they even plan to try to enter the LE/Gov market in the US, so I doubt I'll again be recertifying as an armorer on the 99 series in the future. Oddly enough, however, I was told a little while back that S&W did an armorer recert class for a special security agency still using the original SW99's, even though they no longer specifically list the SW99/P99 class in their field class curriculum.
Last edited:
Yikes. Chill out. I refer you back up to post #52.
Agreed that not everyone has to like the AS system. But most dislikes can be attributed to a poor understanding of the system or just plain 'ol personal preference.
As always, fastbolt is the expert on the P99 on this forum.
I wouldn't say "expert" (or anything remotely approaching it) by any stretch of the imagination, but I've been owning and using them, and trained on them as an armorer, since 2000 (I think it was).
FWIW, when using the AS models I prefer decocking the striker after chambering a round, so the trigger is set at the full travel, heavy DA mode for the initial shot.
FWIW, when using the AS models I prefer decocking the striker after chambering a round, so the trigger is set at the full travel, heavy DA mode for the initial shot.