jar
Contributing Member
Other than the P99/SW99; what other DA/SA striker pistols are out there?
Last edited:
How many striker fired DA/SA pistols are available?
- Thread starter jar
- Start date
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
P99 is the best and only one I know of. I lump poorly made clones like the Desert Eagle MR9 and the Canik TP9SF as trash pistols trying to be original.
I suspect that there are way more than we know in circulation, but not imported. Some have different opinions of the Canik TP9 series, and I suspect that there is a reason Walther is discontinuing the P99. I thought it was a neat idea initially, but upon reflection it seemed to be an answer for an unasked question. It would not be the first time a German device was more complicated than necessary, although I generally like Walthers. The P99 was brilliant for its time.
OP
OP
jar
Contributing Member
I did find one other; the Tara TM-9. It's interesting because the transition from DA/SA is controlled by how far you allow the trigger to reset.
gc70
Member
I suppose you never bothered with "trash pistols" like the Smith & Wesson SW99 and Magnum Research MR9 ... so you had no opportunity to discover their frames and internals were made by Walther.
While the original Caniks were poor clones with atrocious trigger mechanisms, the current TP9DA is surprisingly good, with triggers that rival those of my P99, SW99, and MR9.
Last edited:
Taurus made some DA/SA striker fired pistols. One was called the Taurus 24/7, if I remember well. Some others models of that family and period were released by Taurus.
Now Taurus makes the G2 and the G3 that are SA/DA striker fired pistols in the sense that the first pull is SA and if the primer goes click, the trigger can be pulled again in the DA mode.
Edit: it was called the PT 24/7
Now Taurus makes the G2 and the G3 that are SA/DA striker fired pistols in the sense that the first pull is SA and if the primer goes click, the trigger can be pulled again in the DA mode.
Edit: it was called the PT 24/7
Last edited:
I am almost certain that Canik also obtained from Walther, upon payment of course, the rights to use the P99 patents. The P99 was also produced under license in Poland and the Polish factory independently developed a model without the DA/SA from which the PPQ was subsequently derived. A much better model than the previous P99 QA.
gc70
Member
I am not familiar with Canik's relationship with Walther regarding the P99. However, Smith & Wesson and Magnum Research were not licensing deals but joint ventures in which the US companies made barrels and slides (heavy parts) and imported frames and internal parts (light parts) made by Walther.
epags
Member
deleted
Last edited:
100% right
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,895
That's a hammer fired pistol, as are most DA/SA pistols.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,895
Naturally, someone has to mention that many striker fired pistols are actually recoil assisted DA, not really true SA actions, nor true DA actions.
epags
Member
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Both of which had numerous issues with parts made by different companies in different countries. SW99 and MR9s are not considered nearly as reliable as the P99 they copied or were partially made under license by Walther. And I have fired both. They are still trash in my opinion. And while the Caniks receive high praise, also trash. My money will never knowingly support Turkey. I have pulled enough Liras off al-Haqqani to never pick Canik. You do you though.
OP
OP
jar
Contributing Member
Wasn't it hammer fired?
epags
Member
fastbolt
Member
Well, having been through the armorer class for the SW99/P99 a few times when S&W was doing it, and having spoken with repair techs for both the SW99/990L's and the Walther America business at S&W, and having the later produced comprehensive armorer manual from Walther in Germany for the P99 AS, C & variants (P990, P99DAO, P99QA), I had the opportunity to learn a little about the 99 series of that time period.
S&W engineers shared some thoughts with Walther about the 99 series, which included helping them identify and resolve the early premature slide lock issue in the .40's (both the P99 and the SW99), which was addressed with a magazine body & follower revision. It was S&W's use of high-speed imaging which helped identify the way the top rounds were being displaced too far leftward under the .40's heavier recoil, jostling the rounds inside the magazine body, below and behind the slide stop tab window. That info was forwarded to Walther (according to what we were told by someone from the factory at one point). New MecGar magazine bodies and followers were forthcoming from Walther. Walther used different shades of blue on their .40 followers, and S&W used different shades of orange on their .40 followers.
Removal of the hooked portion of the frame above the web of the shooter's hand came about after S&W requested it in the frames made for them by Walther. The first .45 P99/990L models came about when S&W repeatedly requested the larger frame to accommodate the .45ACP for the American market. There was even a version made with a magazine safety, in case any LE contracts required it. We were told that variation would only be made by Walther for locked in contracts. Walther's own decision to introduce a .45 model in their 99 variant series came about some years later.
S&W decided to adopt the 'optional' extractor spring for their SW99's (and the 990L's), which became standard in the .40's, and the short-lived .45, and then the 9's. It was heavier than the standard spring.
I had to correct a failure-to-extract issue in a P99AS belonging to one of our folks, and then a SW999 (full-size) belonging to another of our folks. In both cases it was resolved by removing the original '9mm' extractor spring and replacing it with the heavier spring (considered optional by Walther, at that point, we were told). FWIW, the heavier spring was the same spring used in the magazine catch assembly. I called the factory to discuss using the optional spring in the P99, to make sure it was something they approved in both the SW99 and P99 guns at that time, and was told it was good. Once done, both the P99 and SW99 again extracted normally with the duty ammunition we used. That was about the time I noticed that the S&W99/990L parts list now showed the heavier extractor spring to be the standard production spring across all their models and calibers.
There were other revisions made over time by both S&W and Walther. Some were obvious, and some were subtle and required knowing what to look for, and a couple required being able to disassemble the frames as an armorer.
Personally, I thought that both model lines were fine examples of the newer generation of plastic-framed pistols, and admired how Walther broke the ground on introducing the use of replaceable backstrap inserts. The only reason I ordered a couple of SW99's for my own use was because I was told by S&W that they could offer more of a discount on the SW99's, because the P99's imported from Walther for the Walther America business had more cost (to them) involved, since Walther made the slides and barrels. Since S&W forged, through-hardened and produced their own slides & barrels, and had the Melonite nitrocarburainzing done in the US, they could offer a better discount on the assembled, finished models. I was budget-minded, so I went with the SW99's.
I have zero experience with any of the other licensed 99 variant models offered by a couple other companies, since I never had an interest in buying them, and never attended any armorer classes for them (or know if such classes have ever been crfeated, since those models weren't exactly being promoted to LE/Gov users).
I was sad to hear of the discontinuance of the 99AS (and the PPQ), but I can understand Walther's desire to try and stay current with the market trends.
On the flip side, I'm hopeful that Walther's shift to offering all-metal striker-fired pistols ... and S&W with their all-metal M&P ... may bring some well-deserved attention back to the use of metal frames for both working guns and competition guns.
Just my thoughts.
S&W engineers shared some thoughts with Walther about the 99 series, which included helping them identify and resolve the early premature slide lock issue in the .40's (both the P99 and the SW99), which was addressed with a magazine body & follower revision. It was S&W's use of high-speed imaging which helped identify the way the top rounds were being displaced too far leftward under the .40's heavier recoil, jostling the rounds inside the magazine body, below and behind the slide stop tab window. That info was forwarded to Walther (according to what we were told by someone from the factory at one point). New MecGar magazine bodies and followers were forthcoming from Walther. Walther used different shades of blue on their .40 followers, and S&W used different shades of orange on their .40 followers.
Removal of the hooked portion of the frame above the web of the shooter's hand came about after S&W requested it in the frames made for them by Walther. The first .45 P99/990L models came about when S&W repeatedly requested the larger frame to accommodate the .45ACP for the American market. There was even a version made with a magazine safety, in case any LE contracts required it. We were told that variation would only be made by Walther for locked in contracts. Walther's own decision to introduce a .45 model in their 99 variant series came about some years later.
S&W decided to adopt the 'optional' extractor spring for their SW99's (and the 990L's), which became standard in the .40's, and the short-lived .45, and then the 9's. It was heavier than the standard spring.
I had to correct a failure-to-extract issue in a P99AS belonging to one of our folks, and then a SW999 (full-size) belonging to another of our folks. In both cases it was resolved by removing the original '9mm' extractor spring and replacing it with the heavier spring (considered optional by Walther, at that point, we were told). FWIW, the heavier spring was the same spring used in the magazine catch assembly. I called the factory to discuss using the optional spring in the P99, to make sure it was something they approved in both the SW99 and P99 guns at that time, and was told it was good. Once done, both the P99 and SW99 again extracted normally with the duty ammunition we used. That was about the time I noticed that the S&W99/990L parts list now showed the heavier extractor spring to be the standard production spring across all their models and calibers.
There were other revisions made over time by both S&W and Walther. Some were obvious, and some were subtle and required knowing what to look for, and a couple required being able to disassemble the frames as an armorer.
Personally, I thought that both model lines were fine examples of the newer generation of plastic-framed pistols, and admired how Walther broke the ground on introducing the use of replaceable backstrap inserts. The only reason I ordered a couple of SW99's for my own use was because I was told by S&W that they could offer more of a discount on the SW99's, because the P99's imported from Walther for the Walther America business had more cost (to them) involved, since Walther made the slides and barrels. Since S&W forged, through-hardened and produced their own slides & barrels, and had the Melonite nitrocarburainzing done in the US, they could offer a better discount on the assembled, finished models. I was budget-minded, so I went with the SW99's.
I have zero experience with any of the other licensed 99 variant models offered by a couple other companies, since I never had an interest in buying them, and never attended any armorer classes for them (or know if such classes have ever been crfeated, since those models weren't exactly being promoted to LE/Gov users).
I was sad to hear of the discontinuance of the 99AS (and the PPQ), but I can understand Walther's desire to try and stay current with the market trends.
On the flip side, I'm hopeful that Walther's shift to offering all-metal striker-fired pistols ... and S&W with their all-metal M&P ... may bring some well-deserved attention back to the use of metal frames for both working guns and competition guns.
Just my thoughts.
Last edited:
