SIG versus P220 versus Ruger P97
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
neil pilling
New member
I have to go w/ the Ruger on this one.
The Sig did have the only malfunctions during it's test of 10,000 rds. According to Tamara these malfunctions occured in the first 5,000 rds.
During the rugers 5,000 rds there were no malfunctions.
Yes the ruger did pack it up and go home but it did so w/ all of it's origional parts in place.
While I was never too crazy w/ the feel of the P-85 through P-91
they did impress me as to being very reliable.
The P-93 and P-94 went along way to improving the all important "Feel". the P-95 and P-97 put Ruger autos into the first rate class on par w/ any one out there.
I do rate the Sig 220 very highly and a redo of the two tests w/ two different p-97 and 220 may show different results.
But it's hard to argue w/ malfunction count.
The Sig did have the only malfunctions during it's test of 10,000 rds. According to Tamara these malfunctions occured in the first 5,000 rds.
During the rugers 5,000 rds there were no malfunctions.
Yes the ruger did pack it up and go home but it did so w/ all of it's origional parts in place.
While I was never too crazy w/ the feel of the P-85 through P-91
they did impress me as to being very reliable.
The P-93 and P-94 went along way to improving the all important "Feel". the P-95 and P-97 put Ruger autos into the first rate class on par w/ any one out there.
I do rate the Sig 220 very highly and a redo of the two tests w/ two different p-97 and 220 may show different results.
But it's hard to argue w/ malfunction count.
hksigwalther
New member
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT Pro Gun A or Anti Gun B. I am PRO GOOD, RELEVANT, OBJECTIVE DATA. Must have something to do with my engineering background. 
First lets say that the ammo used must all be the same type. Ie we used Black Hills 230 grain FMJ ONLY throughought the testing for all guns.
Use the same size shot groups. One used 8 shot groups, one used ten...keep them uniform.
Use the same methodology for shooting. One shot from a sandbag and one shot from a different rest...keep it uniform.
All variables must be the same. THEN you have to have a meaningful population size. Now most statistical tests don't use a population size group b/c it is too big. So they use "sample" groups that are smaller but still reflect the larger group.
I don't know the perfect number here but I would certainly expect to see a test of at LEAST ten guns of each type, preferably more. Yes that IS an expensive test, but a cheap unscientific test isn't worth doing to begin with.
If anyone has seen a good objective, scientific test, please post it. I'll look around and see if I can find one too. Has anyone seen any quality control figures from the manufacturers? Im sure they do random QC tests all the time. It would be nice to see that stuff.
Use the same size shot groups. One used 8 shot groups, one used ten...keep them uniform.
Use the same methodology for shooting. One shot from a sandbag and one shot from a different rest...keep it uniform.
All variables must be the same. THEN you have to have a meaningful population size. Now most statistical tests don't use a population size group b/c it is too big. So they use "sample" groups that are smaller but still reflect the larger group.
I don't know the perfect number here but I would certainly expect to see a test of at LEAST ten guns of each type, preferably more. Yes that IS an expensive test, but a cheap unscientific test isn't worth doing to begin with.
If anyone has seen a good objective, scientific test, please post it. I'll look around and see if I can find one too. Has anyone seen any quality control figures from the manufacturers? Im sure they do random QC tests all the time. It would be nice to see that stuff.
Nothing wrong at all with the P90 or 97. But...they are d*** ugly. The grips on the 95 and 97 look like something from a water pistol. Bright and plastic looking. The slide should be blackened stainless and the grips should be less shiny., and lose the large"ruger"logo also. Lose the "read the manual" letters too. In my opinion, "ugly" is the only thing holding them back. I should know, I've been held back by ugly for years...Any P90 or P97 I've seen and shot will shoot with a Sig or Glock 45 all day. I've also seen a few REALLY broken Sigs along the way...frame cracks in a few 220s, never in a 226. The Ruger is built like a brick feces residence..
Hi everyone,
As I remember it from engineering school, a minimum sample size of around 30 from each "population" is required to "normalize" a reliability test. Less than that will give you skewed results. A sample universe of two from each population will give you highly skewed results. A sample universe of one (like the tests above) is statistically irrelavent.
A test involving a total of sixty firearms would not exactly be cheap. I am, however, quite willing to carry out said test, as soon as I get a nice fat research grant to fund the study
My 1/50th of a dollar.
Regards,
Trouble
As I remember it from engineering school, a minimum sample size of around 30 from each "population" is required to "normalize" a reliability test. Less than that will give you skewed results. A sample universe of two from each population will give you highly skewed results. A sample universe of one (like the tests above) is statistically irrelavent.
A test involving a total of sixty firearms would not exactly be cheap. I am, however, quite willing to carry out said test, as soon as I get a nice fat research grant to fund the study
My 1/50th of a dollar.
Regards,
Trouble
Statistics in the conventional sense is irrelevant.
Quality control and product assurance, use of quality parts, good engineering and manufacturing processes are supposed to combine to insure that EACH AND EVERY PRODUCT that comes off the production line with a particular brand stamped on it will perform in a manner that is virtually identical to other similar products made by the same manufacturer.
If a manufacturer/designer combination has done its job properly, failures and performance variations can be virtually eliminated.
THAT is what we mean when we talk about a quality product. No one cares that a company can occasionally produce an excellent gun if they know that most of them are garbage. In the same vein, no one is going to purchase guns from a particular manufacturer if they know that while most of the guns made by the company are good, there is a significant chance that the gun that they purchase is going to be a lemon.
Manufacturers live and die by the CONSISTENT quality of their product.
MANUFACTURERS not customers should concern themselves with sample sizes and populations and probability density functions etc. By the time the customer puts his hand on a QUALITY product, there should be a MINISCULE probability that a malfunction or failure will occur.
Therefore, the fact that a single product from a given manufacturer breaks/fails to operate IS significant. It is a reflection on the CONSISTENCY of the quality of the product as a whole.
Quality control and product assurance, use of quality parts, good engineering and manufacturing processes are supposed to combine to insure that EACH AND EVERY PRODUCT that comes off the production line with a particular brand stamped on it will perform in a manner that is virtually identical to other similar products made by the same manufacturer.
If a manufacturer/designer combination has done its job properly, failures and performance variations can be virtually eliminated.
THAT is what we mean when we talk about a quality product. No one cares that a company can occasionally produce an excellent gun if they know that most of them are garbage. In the same vein, no one is going to purchase guns from a particular manufacturer if they know that while most of the guns made by the company are good, there is a significant chance that the gun that they purchase is going to be a lemon.
Manufacturers live and die by the CONSISTENT quality of their product.
MANUFACTURERS not customers should concern themselves with sample sizes and populations and probability density functions etc. By the time the customer puts his hand on a QUALITY product, there should be a MINISCULE probability that a malfunction or failure will occur.
Therefore, the fact that a single product from a given manufacturer breaks/fails to operate IS significant. It is a reflection on the CONSISTENCY of the quality of the product as a whole.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
To John K. I enjoyed reading your thread and I do agree with you 100 per cent. But lets face facts John. It does not work that way in the real world. The standard operating procedure for the worlds gun makers these days is to maximize profit. How is this done in relation to the marketing and manufacture of a new weapon. First it is rushed into production to get it on the market as soon as possible. This will maximize profits quickly. It is abosolutely not tested. This would cause additonal expense and time. The manufactures let the gulible public test it for them. Then they issue endless recalls usally lasting up to 4 or five years. After the weapon is finally redesigned so that it works 50 per cent of the time it is then considered perfect and without flaws or short comings. This is how weapons for the public are manufactured and marketed in our time. W.R.
Wild Romanian
Moderator
Just a thought on .45 acp pistols. I do own and enjoy a Sig P220. It is highly accurate. Has a very good trigger and I shoot it as well if not better than some of my 1911's. But lets face it. It is just an expensive toy. Not a serious weapon. Let me explain. I was once dumped into the Black Sea off of Romainia with nothing but a Colt .45 1911 in my waist band. After I cleared some of the sand and sea weed out of it I was able to fire it off to attract some help. On board ship I was able to dissassemble it without the use of tools all the way down to the frame. I relubed it with vegtable oil that I liberated from the ships cook. He was not to happy about this but I was the one holding the .45 not him.
Now lets look at my Sig P220. I have also dissasembled it but not without 35 million gunsmithing tools and spare parts such as extra sheet metal roll pins and extra plungers and springs that are located in the magazine release button. When you take it apart it is not a captive unit. The two springs and plungers are free to rocket off into parts unknown and they do so immediately. This gun makes you really apreciate the genius of John Browning and his colt 1911. No the 1911 is not perfect , no weapon is. But no one but a fool would go out into parts unknown with anything less. W.R.
Now lets look at my Sig P220. I have also dissasembled it but not without 35 million gunsmithing tools and spare parts such as extra sheet metal roll pins and extra plungers and springs that are located in the magazine release button. When you take it apart it is not a captive unit. The two springs and plungers are free to rocket off into parts unknown and they do so immediately. This gun makes you really apreciate the genius of John Browning and his colt 1911. No the 1911 is not perfect , no weapon is. But no one but a fool would go out into parts unknown with anything less. W.R.
Robert Foote
New member
Amen--and I say again, Amen--to the difficulty of disassembly of the SIG. I took the SIG armorer's class some years back. I have also had quite a few 220s apart, and it IS a challenge. The Ruger P-series are not much easier. For very serious work, give me a gun you can detail strip with NO tools. To me that means the 1911 and Glock ...
I don't like either the Ruger or the P220. But if I had to choose between them, I'd have to go with the Ruger for the reasons you mentioned. It's much simpler (read better design), more durable, and easier to work on.
I wouldn't make a big deal of the functioning differences in the test since I don't know much about Black Hills ammo. The part breaking on the Sig worries me a little. I don't expect a $600 handgun to break a part in the first 10,000 rounds. On the other hand, I once owned a P97 and it was defective from the factory--the firing pin block lever was too short and it would misfire over half the time until the problem was fixed.
I like the reliability of the 92 series Berettas, but don't like the fact that the slide won't easily come apart for cleaning the firing pin channel or the decocker/safety lever assembly.
The 1911 guns are OK, but I think that they field strip into too many parts. I also think that they are needlessly heavy and are limited in capacity.
If I had to pick a single handgun to stake my life on it would probably be a Glock (pick a caliber). Again, for the reasons you mentioned. It has fewer parts than any other autopistol on the market and can be FULLY disassembled with no special tools.
I wouldn't make a big deal of the functioning differences in the test since I don't know much about Black Hills ammo. The part breaking on the Sig worries me a little. I don't expect a $600 handgun to break a part in the first 10,000 rounds. On the other hand, I once owned a P97 and it was defective from the factory--the firing pin block lever was too short and it would misfire over half the time until the problem was fixed.
I like the reliability of the 92 series Berettas, but don't like the fact that the slide won't easily come apart for cleaning the firing pin channel or the decocker/safety lever assembly.
The 1911 guns are OK, but I think that they field strip into too many parts. I also think that they are needlessly heavy and are limited in capacity.
If I had to pick a single handgun to stake my life on it would probably be a Glock (pick a caliber). Again, for the reasons you mentioned. It has fewer parts than any other autopistol on the market and can be FULLY disassembled with no special tools.
I just purchased a P97 from a fellow board member. This gun feels better than any auto I have ever held! The trigger pull and reach are better than the Sig 220. The grip girth is also smaller, I believe. As someone mentioned, the Ruger is a more advanced design and has fewer parts. The parts it has are generally large and robust. The P97 is probably the best buy in a duty type firearm.