220 vs. 220ST

[Tim Whittaker]

One of my future purchases will be a Sig 220, I can't decide if I want the regular 220 or the 220 ST. Will the all stainless gun give a much longer service life? Weight isn't really an issue. This is basically a durability issue. Thanks for any help........Whit

 

[blades67]

Unless you're the type that abuses your guns, or only shoots +P or +P+ ammo, either pistol will out last you.

Weight isn't really an issue.

That statement is only true if you never intend to carry either gun. If you doubt me, try a little experiment. Place a two pound weight in your non-dominant hand and a two and a half pound weight in your dominant hand and hold them out in front of you at shoulder level. I'll bet (providing that both shoulders are healthy) that your dominant, and usually stronger, arm will fatigue first because of that half pound non-issue.

 

[Ala Dan]

I find that the Sig P220 in .45ACP serves
me best; and I have lot's of other choice's.
It is the standard blued model, taking birth
and assembled in West Germany. A little TLC
goes a long way, in preserving any
firearm.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, Life Member N.R.A.

 

[Shake]

Whit 520,

Will the all stainless gun give a much longer service life?

I don't think there is any question that the stainless gun (ST) will have a longer service life. The real question is, would you ever shoot the gun enough to realize the difference? For the average to above average shooter the answer is probably no. For someone who shoots thousands and thousands of rounds every year the difference might be realized.

When I have a choice, I always go for steel or polymer (even though I have enough handguns that I wouldn't possibly be able to wear them all out). However, if I like a gun that happens to have an aluminum frame I will buy it (i.e. Beretta 92).

If you are buying solely for durability between the 220 and the 220ST, I think the choice is easy, 220ST.

Shake

 

[M1911]

It's my impression that stainless steel is actually weaker than carbon steel. So I suspect that if you keep up the finish on the carbon steel, that it will last longer than the stainless steel.

That said, you'd have to shoot an awful lot to wear out either of the guns.

M1911

 

[Shake]

M1911,

Maybe I'm confused. I understand that the standard 220's frame is aluminum and that the 220ST is stainless steel. Am I wrong?

Shake

 

[RT13]

I own both the P220 blue and P220ST. I love both guns, but the ST is my favorite and would not trade two P220's for it. Yes, the regular P220 is carbon steel slide and aluminum alloy frame, while the ST is all stainless. I'm no "steelologist" here, but I also think that the carbon steel maybe just a bit stronger than stainless, but the stainless is pretty damn strong in itself, and will not have any corrosion for you to worry about. As said, the way you care for your gun is the main thing, regardless of material construction. I just like and prefer the stainless to relieve me of my worries and paranoia of rust, and wiping the gun with every touch. But the barrel on the P220ST is made of blued carbon steel, so your worries of strength and lifespan is answered there. Only the slide, the magazines, and the frame is stainless.

When I purchased my P220, I wanted the ST that has been talked about but it was nowhere in the near future then. So I bought the blued P220 and loved it, only to regret a bit when the P220ST was out. So as soon as I had a chance with the right price, I bought it. Since you said weight is no issue, and durability is, the P220St is definitely the one to get. Another thing I found nicer about it over the aluminum frame is the gouging and smoothness of the sldie over the frame. Aluminum frames scratch and gouge easily. After 300 rounds, my blue P220 had gouges on the rails and was pretty annoying. The ST is very very smooth like hot knife through butter. It slides on its own just by the weight of it. Either gun is a great gun and purchase. The regular 220 feels better to hold, but the ST shoots much more accurate and better. You can read my P220ST range report thread to read more on it.

 

[Cedric]

Really its up to...

the weight of the pistol. I think either is going to last a long, long time. The 220 has the advantage of lighter weight (significant when the pistol is fully loaded, and for long range sessions/carrying).

The 220ST will hold up better to the elements, but may get fatiguing to shoot for a long time as it's quite a bit heavier. I like lighter pistols myself, so it's really a personal preference thing!

C.

 

[M1911]

Shake:

ah, yes, forgot about that. You are right, the 220 frame is Aluminum. That said, if you do break it, Sig will replace it.

M1911

 

[45Oregon]

I have had the P220 and now have a P220ST. The P220ST impoves shooting, as the extra weight allows for a reduction in recoil, and a truer pointing to the target. The previous P220 I had seemed to have problems with finish wear (blued frame and nickel slide), magazines that were not up to the quality of the gun, and side rail wear on the frame even though it was new. I don't see any reason not to pickup the P220ST as it is superior for the right reasons other than the price along with demand is still high. I would have prefered a stainless barrell, and perhaps SIG will offer one at some time.

I vote for the P220ST.

 

[VVG]

P220 for me

I got the P220 with Nickel slide because the slide gets handled a lot. I don't think the Stainless model makes sense unless you just like stainless. If the higher mass was so important for accuracy or recoil, you could buy an M1911.