Comparison Charts: Kimber Solo vs. ...

[los]

... Your comparison here regarding the width of the PPS is bogus, however. For the Solo, PM9, P290, LC9, etc ... you list the slide width number for all of those guns. For the Walther PPS, you did not. Its slide width is only .91

Hello, Lance. THANKS for your post containing the PPS slide width dimension. I searched for the slide width but couldn't locate it, so I scaled and attached a graphic of the width according to the manufacturer overall dimension of 1.04" [w/o slidestop lever], which, btw, is the only width dimension posted on the Walther site.

Walther [waltherpistols.com] has a posted width dimension [w/o slidestop lever] of 1.04", so I went with that. Here's the link to the 9mm PPS page that I used to obtain the dimensions. http://www.waltherpistols.com/catego..._Handguns.aspx.

If you could direct me to an official website containing the .91" slide width dimension, I will gladly and promptly amend the Solo/PPS comparison chart with a graphic to reflect the [PPS] 0.91" slide width.

... In addition, the standard size magazine that ships with the PPS is a 7 round mag, and not 6. So the gun does not ship with a 6 round magazine. So on magazine capacity, that comparison on your chart is also incorrect.

My Charts do not represent the factory configuration of the firearms as they are boxed and shipped out and/or distributed into the stream of commerce by the manufacturer. The Charts were rendered to illustrate the subject firearms in their most compact, most concealable state. The PPS has an option for a flat base magazine with a 6-round capacity, so I went with that.

Therefore, the data and graphics contained in the subject Chart is correct.

Additionally, had I rendered the subject PPS image with the longer [pinky finger base] extended 7-round magazine, it would have obviously added additional height, thus making the PPS look even larger when compared to the Kimber Solo.






One more thing....

The photo posted below shows the view from the top of the PPS slide. You can clearly see the Slidestop. Walther is advertising a PPS width of 1.04" without the slidestop.

Where are you getting the .91" slide width..?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Gibber]

I am busting a gut to see how the Kimber measures against the new Khar CM9.
Please, someone.....

[los]

I am busting a gut to see how the Kimber measures against the new Khar CM9.
Please, someone.....

Me too...!

As soon as I find a decent profile photo and dimensions of the CM9, I'll make a chart.

This photo (pulled from a SHOT Show video) is the only good image I've found so far.

[10thmtn]

The CM9 should be the exact same size as the PM9, so I think you've already got it covered. It should basically just be a cheaper version of the PM9 - conventional rifling instead of polygonal rifling, some MIM parts, etc.

So far, nothing beats the PM9 for size/weight except the Rohrbaugh. The Solo and Sig P290 come close, but seem to weigh more, especially the Sig.

I'd like more info on the DB9...and I'm still anxiously awaiting the Boberg XR9s - if it works, it could be a real game changer (G26 barrel length in a pistol the size of an LCP).

Nce work!

[fudo]

Thank you Los. Your charts are very useful. I appreciate you doing the legwork for us.

[ejes]

The CM9 should be the exact same size as the PM9, so I think you've already got it covered. It should basically just be a cheaper version of the PM9 - conventional rifling instead of polygonal rifling, some MIM parts, etc.

So far, nothing beats the PM9 for size/weight except the Rohrbaugh. The Solo and Sig P290 come close, but seem to weigh more, especially the Sig.

I'd like more info on the DB9...and I'm still anxiously awaiting the Boberg XR9s - if it works, it could be a real game changer (G26 barrel length in a pistol the size of an LCP).

Nce work!

Been watching the Boberg with great interest as well, but it seems so much of a pipe-dream right now; I hope I'm wrong. I've had my hopes dashed before by Microtech and their Archangel when they teased in 2009 and then said they weren't going to produce it in 2010. Now I see the have a tease for a micro sub compact back on their website again for 2011. Maybe they're trying it again. The prototype looked incredibly promising.

[los]

...The CM9 should be the exact same size as the PM9, so I think you've already got it covered. It should basically just be a cheaper version of the PM9 - conventional rifling instead of polygonal rifling, some MIM parts, etc.

So basically like the difference between an old Z28 and a base model Camaro.

...So far, nothing beats the PM9 for size/weight except the Rohrbaugh. The Solo and Sig P290 come close, but seem to weigh more, especially the Sig.

I concur.

...I'd like more info on the DB9...and I'm still anxiously awaiting the Boberg XR9s - if it works, it could be a real game changer (G26 barrel length in a pistol the size of an LCP).

I wonder if the Boberg will ever go into production. I find the design and size very appealing.

[los]

Thank you Los. Your charts are very useful. I appreciate you doing the legwork for us.

Thanks, fudo.

I'm hoping to cover most of the popular compact/sub-compact 9mm handguns in current production. I'm enjoying making the charts very much.

[mynameisFred]

Nice work!

Thanks!

[los]

Thanks, Fred.

[LanceORYGUN]

Hello, Lance. THANKS for your post containing the PPS slide width dimension. I searched for the slide width but couldn't locate it, so I scaled and attached a graphic of the width according to the manufacturer overall dimension of 1.04" [w/o slidestop lever], which, btw, is the only width dimension posted on the Walther site.

Walther [waltherpistols.com] has a posted width dimension [w/o slidestop lever] of 1.04", so I went with that. Here's the link to the 9mm PPS page that I used to obtain the dimensions. http://www.waltherpistols.com/catego..._Handguns.aspx.

waltherpistols.com is just a little gunshop in Green Bay Wisconsin. It has nothing at all to do with the manufacturer of the PPS: Carl Walther GmbH. Why on earth would you use data provided by a small gun store?

If you merely looked at the bottom of their web pages, you would have seen that they have also set up dedicated websites for selling HK, Sig, and XD pistols, as well as another website dedicated to selling AR-15 rifles. It is very obvious that it is merely an online store that sells guns, nothing more.

I'm really surprised that you say that you are unable to find either of the official Walther websites. They have a corporate Carl Walther website in Germany that is available in English, as well as a Walther America website that is operated by their US distributor: Smith & Wesson.

If this is an indication of your attention to detail, then you are not being careful at all here in researching your information.

Again, your comparison regarding the width of the Walther PPS is totally invalid, since you are comparing Apples with Oranges

My Charts do not represent the factory configuration of the firearms as they are boxed and shipped out and/or distributed into the stream of commerce by the manufacturer. The Charts were rendered to illustrate the subject firearms in their most compact, most concealable state. The PPS has an option for a flat base magazine with a 6-round capacity, so I went with that.

Well, but you never indicate that in any of your charts. To me, this is most disingenuous, to make a comparison with anything other than the standard configuration that the gun is shipped in. Again, on all of the other handguns that you are comparing, you are showing the gun with the standard factory magazine that comes with the handgun. Yet, just like you did with the width dimension, you treated the Walther PPS differently than you did all of the other handguns.

If you want to insist on comparing the PPS with its smallest magazine option, at the very least you should include a footnote in the chart, explaining that it is not the standard magazine, and that the person is going to have to spend an additional $55 to add it to their gun.

Therefore, the data and graphics contained in the subject Chart is correct.

I would say that the rest of your charts look fine, but no, you clearly have multiple errors here in your PPS comparison chart that need to be corrected. The slide width value obviously needs to be fixed, and the magazine issue needs to addressed with a footnote that explains that the gun ships with a 7 round magazine, and that the 6 round mag is a $55 accessory that must be purchased separately.

The photo posted below shows the view from the top of the PPS slide. You can clearly see the Slidestop. Walther is advertising a PPS width of 1.04" without the slidestop.

But on all of the other handguns that you are comparing, you have quoted their slide width measurement only, not an overall width including the slidestop. My goodness, all of these other guns have slidestops too. If you are going to use this higher figure for the PPS, then that means that you have to modify all of the other values for all of the other pistols, and include their slidestops too. It could not be more obvious that you are treating the Walther PPS differently than all of the other handguns.

Where are you getting the .91" slide width..?

Is is available on both the Carl Walther GmbH corporate website, as well as the Walther America website, which is operated by Walther's US Distributor: Smith & Wesson.

I am very knowledgeable when it comes to the Walther PPS. It is my favorite carry gun. I like it so much, that I actually bought two of them. I got a 9mm PPS 7 months after the gun was introduced, and then bought another one in .40 S&W later that year when that caliber was introduced in the pistol


.

[GlockJS]

I'll take one of each! Thank you!

Nice work!

[los]

...Well, but you never indicate that in any of your charts.

Greeting, Lance.

I didn't think it was necessary, as it was never in question. It's quite evident that YOU [and only you] have made that assumption. The Charts are made to compare sizes.. Firearm Model configuration as shipped from the factory and MSRP was never considered. It's moot for the specific intent and purpose of the Charts.

...To me, this is most disingenuous, to make a comparison with anything other than the standard configuration that the gun is shipped in.

I believe it would have been disingenuous to make side-by-side comparison charts of compact/sub-compact firearms without using readily available factory magazines that would enhance concealability. After all, these Charts were made to demonstrate the size, or lack thereof, of firearms in their most compact configuration vs. the Kimber Solo.

...If you want to insist on comparing the PPS with its smallest magazine option, at the very least you should include a footnote in the chart, explaining that it is not the standard magazine, and that the person is going to have to spend an additional $55 to add it to their gun.

Moot. There are no Footnotes declaring the use of standard magazines on any of the charts. Using your analogy, I would also have to include a footnote explaining the use of more expensive nitesites and frame/slide finishes on some of the models shown.

Again, not necessary for the intent and purpose of the Charts.

BTW, Congrats on your Walthers. They make outstanding carry weapons.

FYI, I located a site that actually referenced the PPS 9mm "slide width" to be 0.91". Therefore, the comparison chart in question will be revised to reflect that dimension.

[los]

Thanks, GlockJS.

[los]

Here's a comparison between the 9mm Solo and the micro sized .380 LCP...