TargetTalk

Short time ago I hade the oppurtunity to examine and discuss, with a Walther factory representative, the relatively new Walther LP 400.
Based on my experience from firing quite a few strings with this gun, I have the following subjective opinions about the pros and cons of this gun.

The gun is lightweight, and is available in two different versions: one with a steel-lined carbon barrel, at a total of 880 grams, and a alu-shrouded steel barrel, at a total of 950 grams.

The rear sight has no fingerknobs, a tool must be used to adjust the sight. This is, in my opinion, much less favorable than the adjustmentknobs of the former LP 300 (those knobs Were on the large side, though).

The front blade is triangular, rotatable, and the widest "flat" is a mere 4,7 mm. ( I would go for 5 mm or even 5 mm+).

At firing I could feel the action of the absorber, refered to as a EQUALIZER, or "Magnetic Absorber" by Walther). The feel was more like that of the absorber of the FWB 44. (I prefer the feel of the Steyr absorber).

The "compensator" at the front of the barrel of the LP 400 operates in an unusual way: According to Walther, at discharge air is near the muzzle deverted into the barrel shroud, then allowed to escape through more minute holes at the front end.
If I have understod the principle right, then this is actually a true compensator, not an airstripper only. And, this would turn the compensator into a combined compensator/sound muffler, great for mye basement shooting, in respect to the other residents..

It is not clear, whether this is valid for the carbon-clad barrel version. To me, it appears the carbon-version does not have any shroud to engulf any air?

The trigger-feel was typical Walther, to put it that way. Out of the box the trigger of the LP 400 was less crisp than the trigger of my LP10 (the version w/bearing).
The gun carry a high price tag, and arrives with one aircylinder only (you will get a new one after 10 years, if you then return the "expired" one to the factory.)
The triggerposition was widely adjustable, horisontally and vertically. Walther will later release a clamp-screw fixable triggerblade, that makes vertical adjustment of the blade easier that the present version.

The LP 400 arrives less counterweights. These small 15 gram "slabs" are axcessory items, and costly.
Walther has a new type of "sliding barrel weights" (for the carbon-version) similar to the Morini-type in the works too. But with clampscrew, not based on O-ring friction alone.

Adjustment of the grip was ingenious indeed. And with "memory" of the settings, when the grip is removed and reattached. That is a major improvement over the former LP 300 !
An attractive gun, no doubt.
But I'm not going to trade in my Steyr LP 10 for this one.
At least not yet.

Annother novalty of the LP 400 is the filter incorporated into the pressure regulator. According to Walther this invention cleans the air entering the regulator. I do not know wether these filter is easy to dismantle and clean.

Erratic pressure regulators ais not uncommon with older CO2-guns. and even some cpc guns of more recent manufacture.
If the erratic operation of the regulators are due to fouling or wear, I do not know. If the cause is the latter, then Walthers filter could be the remedy.

If this is pretty much an accurate description of what the LP-400 is, then quite frankly, I am disappointed as I was looking forward to one that would be significantly better than the Steyr LP-10. I wouldn't trade it then for my LP-10 too. A bit more handsome, in my opinion though.

Also, the filter integrated in the refill adaptor has been "invented" by FWB. I had it when I had my C-20.

Regards,

Ron

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is pretty much an accurate description of what the LP-400 is, then quite frankly, I am disappointed as I was looking forward to one that would be significantly better than the Steyr LP-10. I wouldn't trade it then for my LP-10 too

I am sure it is accurate from fjodors perspective, but probably a little early for the rest of us to reach the same conclusion having not had a "hands on" examination and test fire.

I also had the opportunity to test the LP400.

The two first things I noticed were:

- indeed the low weight of the carbon version. The difference with the old LP300XT is amazing. The alu shrouded weight also less than the LP300XT but is more or less at the same weight as an LP44 or LP10.

- the unusually narrow, flat grip that, being used to a Rink grip, I didn't liked at all. Note here that the new, improved, memory 3D system come at the expense of a new internal grip design meaning that the LP300 grips cannot be mounted on the LP400 (I didn't tried since I do not own an LP300 but this information was given to me by a Walther technician and I suppose it is true).

One thing surprised me: Walther announced an SSP E with electronic trigger but there is no LP400E = electronic trigger version to compete against the LP10E ?

Besides the technical aspects, the LP400 is very expensive, the list price is high and it comes "naked": only one cylinder (it could be acceptable for the 300bar LP300 that provided quite a big amount of shots/cylinder but here it is a 200bar so I guess a similar number of shots as other 200bar pistols) and without any accessory like additional weights.

Globally, the LP400 does not lack anything (at least if you pay for the second cylinder and additional weights and accept to use a tool to adjust the rear sight) but also has nothing that others don't have. At the end of the day, its main selling proposition could be its design as it is a beautiful pistol, especially the carbon version.

as it is a beautiful pistol, especially the carbon version.

You know...I could be shallow enough to fall for those good looks.

Test that trigger, and make sure you like it.

Face it guys---these reviews are well done as they are based upon experience---not conjecture or by a "catalog shooter." Any gun that comes out will have to overcome the Steyr LP 10 and first cousins as well as the Morini 'e' and it's cousins as well. It's tough to make a gun that will compete with either of the two---they both have the followers who each think is better than that "other" gun. Only time will tell----right....? "Doc"

[quote="ronpistolero"]
Also, the filter integrated in the refill adaptor has been "invented" by FWB. I had it when I had my C-20.
[/quote]

I am very aware of that.
But then, I've never claimed Walther invented any filter.
You are referring to the small filter integrated in the CO2-filling ADAPTER.
The Walther LP 400 has its larger "quick-clean" filter samwiched between the air cylinder and the pressure regulator.
I don't want to wast time arguing over that topic, tbw....

And you may notice: the live-firing report posted by "jipe" comforms well with my experiences.
There is difference between those who know, and those who, from their lack of actual experience (got their knowledge from the factory broushures only) just THINK they now.... :-)

The intention for my "subjective report" from live firing the LP 400 was to bring neutral information for anyone interested. To put it simple, if you don't want that, then simply skip it.

Subject: Save me the shit, plese

May I ask you most kindly not to contaminate my Walther Lp 400- thread. Please.

This fjodor is touchy. This is what just arrived in my inbox, from him.

In case anyone is unclear, this is a Forum to exchange ideas and methods of arriving at personal decisions regarding such things as eqipment purchase. I respect the opinion of others, but in the end it must come down to individual taste, and experience of our own hands on evaluation.
The fact that we don't agree on everything in the same way is what makes us unique.....but not accepting that others have a different approach or trying to impose your own opinion, is nothing short of bad manners .

Fjodor,

I do not wish to start any unpleasant exchanges of words/thoughts. If I offended you with my comment, I am sorry for that. Let me just thank you you for sharing your opinions on this new gun which I thought may surpass Steyr's LP10 which I also have and which I believe is not much better than its predecessor.

Do have a good day.

Ron

Ron, I did not get directly upset bu your CO2-filter comment, I just think it was a bit OT for this thread. That's all.

The Walther 400 significantly better or not much better than the Walther LP 300? Let's consider the facts:

¤ Improvement: Grip "memory". This is a great leap forward for the user.

¤ Drawback: lack of rear sight adjustment knobs. Those of the LP 300 were very large. The factory representative referred to complaints from users about the overly large knows of the former LP 300 "disturbing the sight picture". Here Walther had better look at the small fingerknobs of the FWB P44, than removing the finger-adjustable knobs totally.

¤ Probable advantage: The new resorber construction (air bleeder w/ multiple venturis at the muzzle).

¤ Probable advantage: magnetic absorber ("equilizer"). Time will tell hos preferable this construction might become, with regard to the non-wear- postulate from the factory.

The trigger: typical Walther feel. No better, no worse that the trigger of the Lp 300.
The factory representative informed that he did not know of any plans for an E (electronic) version of the trigger for the LP 400.

Walthers former E-trigger- project was a not very successfull free pistol project. Maybe Walther was then scared off from E-trigger projects?

The looks? The carbon-clad barrel reminds me of a slim fiberglass-reinforced garden hose. :-)
The alu-shrouded version has typical Walther AP looks.

And to mr. "deadeyedick": I'll just ignore all of your post from now on. And I want you to ignore mine.

Fjodor wrote:¤ Drawback: lack of rear sight adjustment knobs. Those of the LP 300 were very large. The factory representative referred to complaints from users about the overly large knows of the former LP 300 "disturbing the sight picture". Here Walther had better look at the small fingerknobs of the FWB P44, than removing the finger-adjustable knobs totally.

Is this completeley accurate, that there are no rear sight adjustment knobs? From the pictures I have seen there are definitely adjustment knobs visible ( they look small). Did you just miss them?

Can someone confirm whether they are on there or not?

@ "throb": In my very first post of this thread I wrote:

[quote="Fjodor"]
The rear sight has no fingerknobs, a tool must be used to adjust the sight.
[/quote].

The rear sight of the new Walther LP 400 cannot be adjusted with fingers only; a hex-wrench must be used.
So, it's similar to the Walther SSP (.22) in this regard.

I favor finger knobs og moderate size, like that of, say the FWB P44, the Pardini pistols, the Benelli match pistols, among others.

Hope this was an adequate answer to your question.

Fjodor thanks for this insight to LP400 - Im infact waiting for my order of noe to arrive. Id just like to to point out that the 2 x 30g barrel weights are standard with the product. If you check out the Carl Walther site it clarifies that.

Saying that - one thing that I feel is a little unfair is that you only get one cylinder the spare is about £220.

Kind regards and thanks again for your insight.
JT

Having held this pistol in hands, may I ask you what you think the function of the carbon liner is (on the lighter version)? I was wondering why thy did not fasten the front sight directly to the barrel as on the Steyr LP2. Is this only for looks (carbon sounds fancy too) or does it serve a purpose?

[quote="JT"] Id just like to to point out that the 2 x 30g barrel weights are standard with the product.
JT[/quote]
That's contrary to information given by the Walther representative, but nevertheless it's good news!

Thank's for clearing up this matter.

[quote="Funny Farmer"]
may I ask you what you think the function of the carbon liner is (on the lighter version)?

I was wondering why thy did not fasten the front sight directly to the barrel as on the Steyr LP2. Is this only for looks (carbon sounds fancy too) or does it serve a purpose?[/quote]

The carbon outer barrel lining adds to the looks of the gun, some claime.....
The Walther representative informed that the carbon outer lining made the barrel less temperature dependent. And the carbon outer lining has a positive effect on taming vibrations.

Carbon is known to be very strong in some preferred directions, but is less able to withstand strong pressure consentated at a single point. An overtightened frontsight fixing screw might harm the carbon lining, or so I think, at least.

Carbon lining saves weight? Yes, but could the major weight saving be found by the lack of the barrel shroud?

Hi Guys,

Any more feedback on the LP400?

They are on sale here at the moment and i was thinking of getting one, i quite liked the LP300 XT but are keen to hear the thoughts on the LP400

Regards,

Brenton

BrentonJ wrote:Hi Guys,

Any more feedback on the LP400?

They are on sale here at the moment and i was thinking of getting one, i quite liked the LP300 XT but are keen to hear the thoughts on the LP400

Regards,

Brenton

Hi Brenton

I think you are one of the lucky ones - as far as I know there are none in the UK at the moment, and it appears that Walther have done their usual trick of not keeping up with demand...which in turn has lost them more than a few sales. I asked the question a few months ago and only one person on here had actually taken delivery of one, but no feedback on the quality etc.

Hopefully one of the lucky few can shed some light on the new Walther offering:-)

Lee