sigarms228
New member
I remember Hikcok45 calling the Walther PPS ugly but at the end of his review he said he highly recommended it. A butterface pistol I guess. In any case I LOVE my PPS, especially at $383 brand new.
The PPQ M2's goofy looks
- Thread starter nodule
- Start date
9x18_Walther
New member
This is pretty much the Hikock45 gold standard. I love his videos, but I don't think he has ever said he doesn't like a gun.
runningbear
New member
I think it pays better for him to like a firearm.
9x18_Walther
New member
Send me guns for free, I'll give an objective review.
These are all wonderful firearms.
runningbear
New member
I never fired a firearm that i did not like.
Signed Honest Abe Hickok45.
Signed Honest Abe Hickok45.
wild cat mccane
New member
The PPQ is about the same in all regards as the current P99AS.
James Bond carried the P99 for several movies. This longest running franchise is all about looks and such.
But I think it is perfectly fine for you to be wrong.
James Bond carried the P99 for several movies. This longest running franchise is all about looks and such.
But I think it is perfectly fine for you to be wrong.
No I mean the P99 ergonomics that the PPQ evolved from. It is most definitely a Walther's design. The P30 certainly did not evolve from anything from the USP line or any other original HK exclusive design. If you look around the industry and what designs were popular, especially in the European markets it's quite obvious that the design came from Walther.
Last edited:
Ah you mean replaceable backstraps and ergonomics in general? Then yea the P99 is very important in that regard and HK took it and further expanded upon it with the idea of replaceable side panels. But did HK "copy" the PPQ as you stated? No.
No it evolved from the P2000 which is the evolutionary step between the USP Compact and the P30.
No it evolved from the P2000 which is the evolutionary step between the USP Compact and the P30.
Last edited:
What is childish is that your dancing around the fact of where the design came from and that was the topic of conversation. You chose to challenge that and that's why gave you the facts and time line of the design. It's not a competition, it's a simple acknowledgment of where the design came from. It is what it is.
Woah watch the language. I'm not dancing around anything. If you want to go back to 1996 and say that the P99 was very influential in handgun design for many manufacturers, not just HK, from that point forward I would say absolutely. Walther also was "influenced" by design elements from HK over the years (HK was the first to use polymer remember). All these companies borrow from each other. Does that make the HK P30 or VP9 "copies" of the P99? No.
I'm glad you enjoy HK, I think they're great guns too and I own many but I'm not going to blindly acknowledge them as the be-all end-all or take it personal that they were heavily influenced by the Walters original design. There's room at the top for more than one brand and I don't think anyone would interpret the past few threads as being unreasonable or disrespecting any of the brands in topic.
Was HK's current P30/p2000 design heavily influenced from Walters original P99 design???........Yes, I think we can say this with confidence by the timeline of design precedents. That's all I was originally saying.
You can say "copy", "influence" "inspired" or whatever semantics you want to use. My original statement of which you seem to take offense to stands as accurate.
Was HK's current P30/p2000 design heavily influenced from Walters original P99 design???........Yes, I think we can say this with confidence by the timeline of design precedents. That's all I was originally saying.
You can say "copy", "influence" "inspired" or whatever semantics you want to use. My original statement of which you seem to take offense to stands as accurate.
Last edited:
I actually sold all but one and that I kept just because it has sentimental value to me.
At no point have I said anything remotely approaching this...
Well, yea.
Where is this coming from? My argument is with your use of the word "copy", which I think goes too far. You're making mountains out of mole hills.
That I would agree with.
They're words with different definitions, it's not semantics.
This revisionist history with which you keep changing what you said in the past is getting tiring. No, what you said is not grammatically or historically accurate.
Please do me the courtesy of posting new comments rather than going back and editing previous remarks to essentially carry on a conversation without giving me the chance to participate. It also makes it difficult to actually have a conversation because I have to check if you've made edits rather than see a new comment.
Last edited: