Guys,
Once again I'm trying to gather all the criticisms of a popular gun together under one thread. Here I'm talking about the classic SIG's other than the 230, 232. My experience has been with 220,226,228,229 and 239. FYI, I have two 229's--with 1500 rounds of 357 and 1100+ rounds of 40 they have a total of ZERO malfunctions between them. I also have a 239 than has functioned flawlessly. However, I used to own a 228 that had a stray roll pin.
1. Heavy. The SIG is heavy compared to many other modern autoloaders. Despite an aluminum frame, it feels like a load. However, the extra heft does a good job of absorbing recoil.
2. Large. SIG’s are bigger than comparable autoloaders (except to 239).
3. Pricey. They tend to be a little higher than many competing guns. Around here, a Glock 23 goes for about $500 (on the high end). SIGs tend to be $100-$125 higher. Surely the SIG is a bit more expensive to produce but %20+ more seems a bit much.
4. Frame cracking. Rumor has it that SIGs crack their frames earlier than other guns. I have never seen this. My SIG’s feel so stout that this seems hard to believe. But who knows?
5. Rust. The earlier guns had sheet metal slides (220, 225, 226, 228 (early)). Later guns like the 229 and the new 226 have stainless slides so rust isn't a real problem anymore. However, my old 228 picked up a little rust.
6. Roll pins on early models. These pins in the slide sometimes worked themselves out. My old 228 had this problem. it annoyed me so much it was years before I trusted a SIG again. It should not be a big deal--but it was annoying when I had shelled out so much dough $$.
7. UGLY. Around 87' when I first started paying attention to guns I thought the SIG was really, really ugly. Since then it has been surpassed, IMHO, by the USP and various Glocks. Actually, all of these guns look good to me now. Strange how that happens. BMW Z3 coupe is still ugly.
Any additions or subtractions?
[This message has been edited by Greg Bell (edited October 25, 2000).]
Once again I'm trying to gather all the criticisms of a popular gun together under one thread. Here I'm talking about the classic SIG's other than the 230, 232. My experience has been with 220,226,228,229 and 239. FYI, I have two 229's--with 1500 rounds of 357 and 1100+ rounds of 40 they have a total of ZERO malfunctions between them. I also have a 239 than has functioned flawlessly. However, I used to own a 228 that had a stray roll pin.
1. Heavy. The SIG is heavy compared to many other modern autoloaders. Despite an aluminum frame, it feels like a load. However, the extra heft does a good job of absorbing recoil.
2. Large. SIG’s are bigger than comparable autoloaders (except to 239).
3. Pricey. They tend to be a little higher than many competing guns. Around here, a Glock 23 goes for about $500 (on the high end). SIGs tend to be $100-$125 higher. Surely the SIG is a bit more expensive to produce but %20+ more seems a bit much.
4. Frame cracking. Rumor has it that SIGs crack their frames earlier than other guns. I have never seen this. My SIG’s feel so stout that this seems hard to believe. But who knows?
5. Rust. The earlier guns had sheet metal slides (220, 225, 226, 228 (early)). Later guns like the 229 and the new 226 have stainless slides so rust isn't a real problem anymore. However, my old 228 picked up a little rust.
6. Roll pins on early models. These pins in the slide sometimes worked themselves out. My old 228 had this problem. it annoyed me so much it was years before I trusted a SIG again. It should not be a big deal--but it was annoying when I had shelled out so much dough $$.
7. UGLY. Around 87' when I first started paying attention to guns I thought the SIG was really, really ugly. Since then it has been surpassed, IMHO, by the USP and various Glocks. Actually, all of these guns look good to me now. Strange how that happens. BMW Z3 coupe is still ugly.
Any additions or subtractions?
[This message has been edited by Greg Bell (edited October 25, 2000).]
