As a current LG-431 owner who also happens to own a PPS, I can honestly say that if CT offered a unit for the PPS I would already own one and so would two more of my local friends who each also have a PPS. I'm someone who practices regularly with iron sights and already has night sights, but lasers certainly have their place ... most notably in self-defense situations where one cannot bring the gun up or cannot extend the gun out to sight with iron sights.
As an owner of the PPS who knows his well enough to have torn it down into nothing but a pile of parts and re-assembled it, I see the challenges with designing for the PPS. The removable PPS backstrap makes adaptation of existing CT grip-based systems problematic. The ambidextrous PPS magazine release location makes adaptation of existing CT trigger-guard-based systems problematic ... and also causes loss of the rail.
Hopefully CT realizes that many (most?) PPS owners use some form of grip sleeve. Also, many (most?) PPS owners also find the removable backstrap to be an annoyance. (Some have gone so far as to super-glue it or loctite it permanently to the pistol.) Thus, if avoiding the loss of backstrap functionality is a design criteria, know that it wouldn't cause many (most?) PPS owners to lose any sleep. Frankly, an adapted grip-based system that causes the backstrap to be unremoveable (securing it into place) might be a solid way to go -- as some (many? most?) would see this as a boon if they were inclined toward use of a laser. However, if this is considered I'd recommend hitting
ppstalk.com and
www.waltherforums.com to poll those userbases and get a feel for reaction...
If a new mold (pricey, pricey) has to be done, anyway, one that replaces the backstrap but preserves its functionality ... with the components inside that particular space ... would work very, very well. There's lots of space to work with and one would simply need an extension off to the right of the slide (when viewed with the gun sighted) to bring the wiring/ribbon up from the back of the gun into a supported laser (a la grip-based systems). This would also allow for unimpeded use of grip sleeves and be very sleek. Having seen the innards of my LG-431, I know you don't need much space, so really I doubt there's an issue.
The only ugly parts of a backstrap replacement approach are:
A) licensing -- do you have to license from Walther to do this? (I'd hope not...)
B) The PPS has two different-sized backstraps and you'd want to do only one new mold to keep costs down and maximize profit. Polling the active PPS user communities as to which size is preferred may yield guidance should you choose to go this route.
For what it's worth, I am a small-framed, small-handed, short/thin-fingered, slight-of-build man and I use the large backstrap; use of it spread load on my hand better (reduced felt recoil) and tightened my groupings. (The small backstrap caused the gun to shift more than I liked.)
Were either of the two approaches above to be taken and if I had a choice, I'd prefer the latter -- specifically because it makes installation/removal of the laser VERY quick and easy, which simplifies battery replacement, swap to non-laser config, and the like. (No screws, no allen wrenches, just pop on/off and go.) This may also be a design consideration, as it means fewer parts and reduced complexity.
Surrealone
