Walther PPS: General Durability/Life Span?

[VelveteenMole]

I realize it may not be seen by some as a primary pistol, nor many as a "range" pistol as well, but aside from issues with the slide lock spring pre-2010 and initial break-in bobbles, can anyone speak to long term durability/reliability at high round counts with regard to major parts breakages such as in the striker assembly, trigger springs, on up to chassis, frame or slide cracks? Assuming one left the Quicksafe backstrap permanently secured with a Hogue Handall or in some other durable fashion, is there any reason to think the pistol couldn't keep up with a Glock as far as durability with comparable preventative maintenance?

Anyone have some impressive round counts to report with the PPS?

Thanks.

[Abraxas]

You might as this guy: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...&highlight=PPS

[rsxr22]

My GF carries one almost daily. Between the 2 of us, we have put 2300 through it and it has held up extremely well. Really no issues minus the initial break in period. However, she is dumping it to change to the Shield from smith. I am pretty confident that the shield will phase the PPS out. It is more ergonomic, cheaper, holds more rounds in smaller package, has a better trigger, more accessories, american mag release, and imo recoils quite a bit softer.

[pkowatch]

My GF carries one almost daily. Between the 2 of us, we have put 2300 through it and it has held up extremely well. Really no issues minus the initial break in period. However, she is dumping it to change to the Shield from smith. I am pretty confident that the shield will phase the PPS out. It is more ergonomic, cheaper, holds more rounds in smaller package, has a better trigger, more accessories, american mag release, and imo recoils quite a bit softer.

I agree with the part where you say the Shield is cheaper. There is no chance that it will be replacing my PPS.

[rsxr22]

I agree with the part where you say the Shield is cheaper. There is no chance that it will be replacing my PPS.

To each their own, but the only subjective statements i made were ergonomics, trigger, and felt recoil. The rest are facts.

[pkowatch]

To each their own, but the only subjective statements i made were ergonomics, trigger, and felt recoil. The rest are facts.

The Shield does not have a higher capacity. They both hold up to 8 rounds in the mag. I know that triggers are subjective, but I just don't see how you can prefer the Shield to the PPS.

[Abraxas]

Isn't the PPS a little thinner, at least the slide?

[pkowatch]

Isn't the PPS a little thinner, at least the slide?

Yes, it is slimmer, albeit slightly. According to the mfgs, the PPS is .91 in and the Shield is .95.

Candidly, they are both pretty much the same size in all dimensions, so it is really splitting hairs to say one is smaller than the other.

[tb-av]

american mag release,

That is a huge plus for the PPS in my book.

[VelveteenMole]

To each their own, but the only subjective statements i made were ergonomics, trigger, and felt recoil. The rest are facts.

I'll certainly try a Shield as soon as it arrives as a rental at the range, but the sample I played with had a horrendous trigger and printed worse than the PPS. I also consider the very tactile striker indicator on the PPS as a safety feedback device for holstering, while the Shield's safety isn't quite prominent enough for me to have confidence in disengagement under extreme stress.

Honestly, shooting the PPS was a revelation in ergonomic compatibility with my hand, eye, and trigger finger. And the recoil, while quick, was comfortable, and the gun felt like it was on rails as far as indexing and returning to target. The first round I fired with it was from a fast press-out at 7 yards and punctured the physical X, and that occurred several more times in the box of ammo. Definitely the best shooting introduction to a pistol I've ever had.