Walther SSP Design Question

Cartwheel · Post by **Cartwheel** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:10 pm

I have been told it the SSP loads from the top. Would anyone like to comment on why Walther went to a top loading handgun? I can see disadvantages but what are the advantages? Are there other handguns that load that way?

deleted1 · Post by **deleted1** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:15 pm

There has been that confusion---but I don't think so---because that would almost eliminate those in the American market who would add a dot sight---they ain't that stupid. Nothing I have seen gives me that impression.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:30 pm

Bob Riegl wrote:There has been that confusion---but I don't think so---because that would almost eliminate those in the American market who would add a dot sight---they ain't that stupid. Nothing I have seen gives me that impression.

The SSP is definitely a top loader. The magazine goes in through the ejection port once the slide has been locked back.

This is not a new concept, others including the FAS range have used it for years.

Scott H. · Post by **Scott H.** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:13 pm

When the magazine inserts up into the magazine well in the grip, it also limits the grip angle, and width. By using "top loading," the magazine well is much shorter. Gives the designer a lot more flexibility in designing the shape and adjustment of the grip.

IMHO, the grip on the top-loading Unique DES 96U was a big improvement over the DES 69U, for instance. And, yes, it does make optic mounting a problem. The 96U's were beautiful guns, though.

Fortitudo Dei · Post by **Fortitudo Dei** » Wed May 31, 2006 5:15 pm

Cartwheel wrote:I have been told it the SSP loads from the top. Would anyone like to comment on why Walther went to a top loading handgun? I can see disadvantages but what are the advantages? Are there other handguns that load that way?

The major advantage of a top loader is that it allows you to have a grip raked at quite an angle (i.e. sloping) allowing the target shooter to drop their wrist (unlike the more up-right grip a military-style pistol). However once you have a grip raked past a certain angle, it makes it difficult to design the pistol so that its magazine is inserted through the bottom of the grip. The magazine would need to be very long to go the distance and the angle that the top of the magazine meets the breach would be way out.
One design method of dealing with a raked target grip is to place the magazine forward of the trigger (e.g. Hammerli SP20, Morini CM22 etc), but this results in a front-heavy bias and necessitates having a shorter barrel. The other way of dealing with it is to have it top loading - e.g. Fas 603, 607 - and now the Walther SSP.

If you look at this image of a top-loading FAS 603 .32 centrefire pistol and its grip angle, you can see how difficult it would have been to design it so that the magazine was inserted through the bottom of the grip.

http://www.potfire.com.au/compend/spfas603.htm

JH · Post by JH » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:34 am

There is no big issue having a raked magazine. Some of the old high standards are fairly extreme.

The main advantage is the grip can be cut into the column the magazine would be, which arguably gives a more ergonomic grip and more natural position for the hand.

Geuest1 · Post by **Geuest1** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:50 am

One has to wonder how long you people would last on the veldt.

A magazine contained in the grip will take up the same space whether top or bottom loaded. It still has the same housing, spring, follower and ammunition capacity.
The angle of the magazine and subsequent affect on grip angle is an enginerring matter, not related to top or bottom loading.

The first sucessful semi-automatic pistol was top loading. This is not suchj a new idea.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:49 am

Geuest1 wrote:A magazine contained in the grip will take up the same space whether top or bottom loaded. It still has the same housing, spring, follower and ammunition capacity.
The angle of the magazine and subsequent affect on grip angle is an enginerring matter, not related to top or bottom loading.

Sorry but you are wrong. A top loaded magazine can be much shorter than one that needs to go in from the bottom. The magazine well can be much shorter as it only has to contain the magazine, it doesn't have to go all the way down to the bottom of the grip.

A shorter magazine well that doesn't have to go right through the grip will normally allow greater flexibility in grip angle, shape and size.

James Hurr · Post by **James Hurr** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:29 am

For these purposes we are only interested in five round magazines.
A heel loading pistol will require a column from top to bottom of the grip.
A top loading pistol only requires space about halfway down the grip, allowing the grip to be cut in under the magazine.

deleted1 · Post by **deleted1** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:25 pm

David, I must apologize for my American arrogance in my above post. I just this moment got finished reading through and copying the SSP manual . I discovered it is a top loader---my bad. I don't know how but I am sure someone here in the colonies will come up with a method of attaching a red dot. After my eye surgery---for cataracts, and my new bioic lenses---the world of iron sights has been re-born as it were---I have the eyes of a child once again without even the anastigmatism, and I am enjoying the use of iron sights. So one never knows what I might do when and if an SSP becomes available. I had a Domino (FAS) RF pistol with the cutest little (miserable) magazines for the cranky .22 short RF years---it too was a top loader.

BadMOJO · Post by **BadMOJO** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:57 pm

I received my SSP last week and I must say that I am very pleased thus far. The top load allows the grip to adjustable for rake and cant. (At least that is my understanding. I haven't actually begun to adjust it yet.) You may notice that this design change is different than the OSP and GSP designs. It is my understanding that the area in front of the trigger guard on the SSP was left empty to accomodate the electronic trigger which will be released at a later date.

Dick · Post by **Dick** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:17 am

BadMOJO - from the pictures of the SSP I've seen on the web, it looks like the top part of the frame between the ejection port and the rear sight is shaped like a Weaver rail and (if so) could be used to mount a red dot using a single ring. Is that the case?

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:33 am

Hi,

BadMOJO, I wonder, what is the serial number on your SSP?

Yes, the rear sight can be taken off as you can see below.

Kent

Dick · Post by **Dick** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:54 am

Thanks for the detailed photos, Kent. It's very clear from them that the area I was thinking of is not contoured to accept a Weaver mount. The angle of the photo on the Walther web site made it look that way (to me, anyway).

Mako · Post by **Mako** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:42 pm

I sent my Walter GSP back, a number of years ago, because I didn't like the upright grip. On the other hand, the grip of my Walter LP300 air pistol was the best I've ever had. Apparently the new SSP has the same adjustable grip like the LP300. :-)

One thing strange about my GSP, I couldn't get on target at 25 meters?! I had to have a custom made raiser put in under the front sight?!

The workmanship of the Walter GSP was exemplary! On the other hand, the original trigger group of the LP300 would not keep it's settings. I had to completely re-set it at the start of the US National Championships a few years ago. It would auto fire when closing the loading lever! However once it was fixed, I shot a personal best 12 points over my previous ... 2nd match. Walter sent me a new upgraded trigger group ...

Cartwheel · Post by **Cartwheel** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:47 pm

I am a novice at Bullseye Pistol and have not seen a SSP (pictures only) but would a side mount be practical and/or desirable so that a red dot scope could be mounted on the pistol? Was there a side mount for the top-loading Unique DES 96U or other previously developed top-loading pistol?

Mako · Post by **Mako** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:51 pm

Rein, thanks for the photos. True, most rear sights can be removed. Can you show us a photo what the top of the pistol looks like. With and without rear sight. Thanks!

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:39 pm

Hi,
Perhaps this photo shows how easy it is to change the rear sight.

Kent

Fred Mannis · Post by **Fred Mannis** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:39 pm

Cartwheel wrote:I am a novice at Bullseye Pistol and have not seen a SSP (pictures only) but would a side mount be practical and/or desirable so that a red dot scope could be mounted on the pistol? Was there a side mount for the top-loading Unique DES 96U or other previously developed top-loading pistol?

It is possible, and a lot of fun actually, to shoot NRA Bullseye with iron sights. After many years of back and forth, I have come to the conclusion that most red dot sights mess up the weight and balance of a pistol.

YMMV

Fred

Cartwheel · Post by **Cartwheel** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:52 pm

Fred,

I agree completely. Iron sights is the way to go and I shot service rifle with them for many years but my eyes will not cooperate anymore. I have tried everthing but just can't seem to get a good sight picture with iron sights and I can do much better with red dot sights. Old age is hell. Thank to the powers that be in Bullseye Pistol you can use a scope for some of their matches.

Cartwheel

TargetTalk

Walther SSP Design Question

Walther SSP Design Question

Re: Walther SSP Design Question

Toploader

?

Re: ?

Sticks and stones

SSP Design

SSP rear sight