Talk:Walther PP

message: The Walther P38 article states that Hitler used a P38 to commit suicide, whereas this article claims he used a PPK. We should probably find a source to back up either claim, and stick with it. - Ben of Oz
History channel just claimed the PPK. Hitler apperently had 2 PPKs by his side at all times, one a smaller calliber and the other which he killed himself with. Name of the documentary is as follows.
Tales of the Gun 
German Small Arms of WW II 
~--Alt 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were highly embellished guns.  He had a .25 caliber (6.35 mm) and the other a 32 caliber (7.65) model. Speaking of the suicide gun, this is fairly common knowledge, however the Soviet Union was known for distorting history and any historical fact that comes from them must be taken with a grain of salt.--Asams10 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Soviet Union was known for distorting history and any historical fact that comes from them must be taken with a grain of salt"... while you can trust the United States and United Kingdom as the Holy Bible, especially when it comes to weapons virtually owned by Irak. Voice of God is government. Alfred Dreyfuss 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No government can be trusted blindly, and your point is taken. However, Asams10's point is still entirely valid. The Soviet government was extremely veracity-challenged. I don't think he was trying to say "in comparison to the U.S. and U.K. governments, which have never ever lied and are God-like." The straw man you're knocking down was inserted by you. Lumbercutter 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well put, but I think it was a troll, so I didn't respond when he first posted.  The US government has always had quite the propoganda mill, but it paled incomparrison to that of either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.  I'll add, however, that the Germans kept meticulous and, dare I say, quite accurate records on nearly everything.  I've not done any primary research myself, but I believe that all sources I've read have coraborated the PPK story.  Of course, we all know that Hitler is still alive in Argentina!--Asams10 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's suicide: P38 or PPK?

message: I read that the small Walthers were made in Alabama by Emco, Inc.  That at least is what the ATF reports have listed for late 1990s production.  Was there a name change? Boris B 02:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranger Manufacturing vs. EMCO 

message: Shouldn't the article be moved to Walther PP or Walther PP series instead of Walther PPK? As stated in the opening sentence, it covers the whole model line, not just the PPK model.--Eloil 11:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be counterproductive.  The PPK is the most well known, numerous, and popular model in all respects and most people looking up this article would likely type "Walther PPK" and get redirected. --Asams10 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why that would necessarily be counterproductive, as either way you end up at this article instantly. Obviously renaming is not the only possibility, but the title should be a description of the article's subject, and the opening sentence "The Walther PP series pistols include.." frames "the Walther PP series" as the subject. What if it opened with something like "The Walther PPK series pistols include the Walther PPK and PPK/S"?--Eloil 01:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You both make good points. I think the ideal in terms of pure logic would be to have an admin rename this article "Walther PP series", then make "Walther PPK" a redirect to it. However, in practicality, I would not bother lobbying to make this change, because people doing searches wind up here either way, and I'm too lazy to lobby for this particular noncritical change. (That's just my 2¢.) — Lumbercutter 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: What is the magazine capacity of these versions of the PP & PPK? That info is absent from the infobox. — Red XIV (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .22 and .25 caliber versions

message: "The PPK pistol is the trademark gun of fictional secret agent James Bond". As far as I know Walther own the trademark of the PPK and the PPK is their intellectual property. I know that the term "trademark" is often incorrectly used to informally "refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified", but I do not think that an encyclopedia article on a a firearm is the right place to be informal. Further to that, I think that some readers could be confused and believe that Ian Flemming or James Bond really does have a trademark on the PPK, which is categorically incorrect. I propose that the text reads that the PPK is known as the pistol of choice for fictional secret agent James Bond or similar wording is used. A trademark falls under intellectual property laws, so unless anyone can show me that the fictional character James Bond has filed and received a trademark on Walthers gun then it will be changed. JayKeaton 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A trademark is a symbol on paper or a representation. A weapon cannot be a legal trademark.  You're arguing from the false assumption that there are legal issues at bear her.  It's not incorrect or informal to use the term trademark here as it is used commonly in this manner.  --Asams10 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not arguing that there are legal issues, I am saying that the use of the word "trademark" is unnecessary and potentially confusing when it can be worded in a way that does not use a legal term such as "trademark". It would also be more factual to simply say that James Bond uses a PPK, or that it is his gun of choice. There is no NEED to use the word trademark in this context. JayKeaton 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The change to the word "trademark" was made by an unregistered user, you can see the edit here []. There is no need for a pop culture reference to needlessly use the word "trademark". This is not a blog nor is it a James Bond fansite, this is an encyclopedia JayKeaton 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're replying to your own replies.  Actually, there is a need for a pop culture reference here and it's been discussed before.  Further, you don't get to decide if it stays or if it goes... there's a disagreement and yours is only one opinion.  Your argument against it seems based wholly on your dislike for the word and not on legal, technical, or dictionary meanings.  It's the most appropriate word to use.--Asams10 11:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I added a note about when the change to "trademark" was made, and I didn't want to remove the signature from the post I just made. I am not saying that the pop culture reference should be removed, I am saying that the inappropriate use of the word "trademark" is entirely inappropriately and also inappropriate in the context of inappropriation. I guess what I am tryin gto say here is that you do not get to decide if it stays... there's a disagreement and yours is only one opinion. There are a dozen more appropriate words to use. JayKeaton 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then, it's neither of us that gets to make the call because, though there are other words that can be used, "Trademark" is the most appropriate. I'm not going to bother trying to convince you of that. You're trying to make the change, not me. Since there is no concensus, the status quo stays and word stays at it is.--Asams10 14:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Wikipedia is not "Threat Based" it is concensus based.  Being that two people, you and I, disagree on this, that is not only a lack of concensus it is an OBVIOUS lack of concensus.  Please stop browbeating your edits and seek concensus.  The word stays as it is the status quo.--Asams10 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word trademark was originally added by an unregistered user, that is hardly a status quo. I have read the rules and it states that you have to find consensus if you disagree with an edit, I do not as the inclusion of the word "trademark" was not made by you and its removal was not contested by the original editor. JayKeaton 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, YOU are making the edit, it doesn't matter who changed it, how long has it been like that?  Okay, I did the work for you.  It's been the status quo from 24 August 2006.  So, 14 months (an eternity on Wikipedia) and no changes and suddenly you change it?  C'mon.--Asams10 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of inappropriate edits that have slipped under the radar for a long time. See the criticism section of the Wikipedia article. JayKeaton 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well that's why there are checks and balances.  This particular section and wording, I can assure you has NOT slipped under the radar and has, indeed, received quite alot of scrutiny along with the few other 'pop culture' sections that pass the muster with those of us who care.  It's been edited, re-edited, and tweaked to no end and this is the hard-fought concensus edit that we'd agreed on. Where were you?  Like you've been doing, I looked through your edits and find that you've got much the same interest.  I'll assure you that you're wrong on this one and I don't tend to let these things go easily.  Please get some outside opinion and try to build a concensus, otherwise, as I've stated before, the status quo will be maintained.--Asams10 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's all well and good, but I do not need outside consensus because you cannot put "trademark" back anymore because of the three revert rule. Yes, I believe that the word trademark is a mistake enough for me to invoke the Holy Three Revert Rule. JayKeaton 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good that you know about the 3RR and know that you were warned. I'm not going to play this game.--Asams10 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have never been warned for a 3RR =/ JayKeaton 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem well aware of it, you don't have to be warned.--Asams10 10:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps instead of trademark we could use signature? It conveys the same meaning in this context after all, and would avoid disputes like this.--LWF 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. And it doesn't sound like it could be used in the trademark context like "The PPK pistol is the trademark gun of Walther Co" would. Which is exactly how it could be read by some people. JayKeaton 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheez, stop complaining about the word "Trademark".  You're wrong about the definition and prejudiced against it's use, but I haven't seen anybody agree that it is improper to use the word.  I've honestly never seen such furvor over somebody misunderstanding the definition of a word as this.  Read a darned dictionary, read the word in context, read a manual of style or two, or a dozen if you will.  Find somewhere that somebody says it's inappropriate to use this way and then come back to the table armed with something of substance other than "I don't understand how to use the word." That seems to be the jist of your current argument and it's as wrong now as it was before.--Asams10 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Websters Third New International Dictionary, unabridged defines 'Trademark' as, "a distinctive feature, charateristic, or eccentricity that becomes so associated with a person or thing as to be a sign or designation of that person or thing: an identifying mark or feature <the derringers ... became almost a trademark of gamblers -- Elmer Keith>"  Now then, I don't know about you but when the MotherF@#$ing dictionary quotes Elmer Keith in defining a word, then by golly that's the word I'm using and I'll be damned if there's another more appropriate word. There ain't no dispute. --Asams10 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost all dictionary definitions say that trademark is a legal term of legal owndership. []. And besides, the PPK is only used in 9 out of the 23 James Bond books and novellas that Ian Flemming wrote. It appeared on none of John Gardner books and only 4 out of of the 12 Raymond Benson books. So "trademark" isn't even an appropriate term in this context when used in a non legal way. There are far more appropriate way to mention that connection to the PPK rather than a "trademark". JayKeaton 11:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not even arguing any more, you're quibbling. Get a concensus or shut up. It's the MOVIES that have caused the popularity, not the books.--Asams10 13:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I am not quibbling. Trademark is not the best word to use, that's all there is to it. Even "Fictional spy James Bond is famous for using the PPK in some of the films" would be more accurate. "Trademark" doesn't even describe anything, he doesn't even use the PPK anymore. I put it to you that trademark is not the most accurate and appropriate word to use and you have nothing to say back other than "no consensus no consensus", so if anything it is you that has said nothing useful so far. And most dictionary definitions for the word trademark talk about it in a legal sense, so THAT is not a good counter JayKeaton 13:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Signature is a comparable word, yes, however there is nothing wrong with Trademark.--Asams10 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything is wrong with trademark either, I just want a compromise reached.--LWF 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just trying to think of the people who do not use English as their first language and the people who are easily confused. Plus I genuinely believe that it's use is inappropriate, even if only slightly. JayKeaton 19:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but would you accept the use of signature?--LWF 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. Actually, I think signature is what I originally changed it to, or one of the things I changed it to. JayKeaton 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On checking the page history it appears that the wording has never been signature, up until now. I have made the change, and hope the compromise remains acceptable to all involved.--LWF 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 007s trademark on the PPK

message: Does the Walther PPK have a jamming habit as detailed in the James Bond novel Licecne Renewed?  The book says that during the failed kiddnapping attempt on Princess Anne, the guard's Walther jammed, causing it to be removed from official use.  Emperor001 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident occurred, but I have not found any substantiating evidence on whether or not the PPK actually jammed frequently.--LWF (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone has helped to rescue Princess Anne out of peril, but the firearm jammed....not a good sign. It should be a slogan of the Walther PPK : We were not there to rescue Princess Anne.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.204.78 (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did five people go to hospital due to the quality of a handgun? I was thinking that buying what else than British would reveal a good sence of quality. I must admit I was wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: So how did Hitler manage to comit suicide by that handgun?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Most 'jams' are actually misfeeds or misfires and only require the action to be cycled. A true jam usually requires the gun to be stripped to remove the jam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamming Habit

message: Excuse me but if I am not mistaken the caption on the very first picture says walther PP, but the picture in question is actualy a PPK, not a PP a feature distingishable by the shorter barrel and shorter frame.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.33.142 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: Should "Walther PP" or "Walther PPK" be the title of this article? David Pro (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title is correct. Koalorka (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The article states that the Walther PP features a double-action trigger mechanism. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the PPK/S is single-action. I don't know about any of the other models but I would assume that they are all be the same. JSFotographer (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After a little more research I discovered that I was incorrect. I apologize if I caused any confusion. JSFotographer (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for future reference, the PP/PPK was the first single-action/double-action pistol, meaning it can be fired (provided the safety is off) without having to cock the hammer first, for a long, heavy first trigger pull and subsequent lighter ones. Or you can cock it first and have the lighter single-action pull from the beginning. --Kar98 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-action or double-action? 

message: I've never seen any other source state that any PP/PPK was chambered in 9mm Parabellum. The article itself doesn't even list 9mm Parabellum as an available caliber. Where is this information coming from?  Funkychinaman (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies Funkychinaman; I have self-reverted. The infobox lists the 9mm x 19 caliber but I don't know about that. When I reverted, I was thinking of the PPQ which is not actually in this series of weapon. Thank you for pointing this out.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I've never seen any reference, ever, that indicates the PP series was chambered in 9x19mm.  I double checked some standard sources (e.g. Jane's, etc.) and still don't see anything that indicates this chambering ever existed, even in an experimental model.  As such, its been removed from the infobox until a source is provided. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs)  17:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Walther Prototype at forgottenweapons.com. Rgds ✦ hugarheimur 22:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "9mm Parabellum" 

message: We currently don't list the specifications of the new PPK/S .22, which came out this year (2014): http://www.waltherarms.com/products/handguns/ppks-22  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.14.188 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New PPK/S .22 LR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Walther PP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090126233845/http://www.carl-walther.info:80/dev2/files/pdf/Defense-Katalog-2008-DE-EN.pdf to http://www.carl-walther.info/dev2/files/pdf/Defense-Katalog-2008-DE-EN.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Walther PP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822145526/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Exist italian page but not appear indication "italiano" in list of languages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.135.212 (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian page indication

message: ::::::Perhaps some mention might be made that it was James Bond's frequent weapon of choice. Hanoi Road (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional users? 

message: The Bond series was written poking fun at life he saw at MI6. The gun chosen required close contact to kill a person (eg behind the ear), which verifies identity and kill. So low power but quieter shot. Mossad had similar story. But looking at PPK power the velocity equals a BB gun, like 800 ft/sec for 22LR version. Would need to aim for soft tissue. TaylorLeem (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Fleming said