Seriously, to the subject, I have just never had a Sig seem to sit that naturally in my hand. With practice, perhaps I could grow to like one. I'm just very deeply in love with the S&W Performance Center pistols, and I've stretched myself about as thin as I am likely to just to stack up a little group of them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sig X-Five vs. S&W 952
- Thread starter bac1023
- Start date
Last shoot was a little slow, I think we only had $80K worth of pistols between the twelve of us.
True, Jeff
There's really no other handgun shoot like it anywhere in the country.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Sevens said:Seriously, to the subject, I have just never had a Sig seem to sit that naturally in my hand. With practice, perhaps I could grow to like one. I'm just very deeply in love with the S&W Performance Center pistols, and I've stretched myself about as thin as I am likely to just to stack up a little group of them.
Gun-to-hand fit is clearly a very personal thing. (I have a Sphinx and several CZ-pattern guns that seem to excel in THAT area.)
I've never been that big a fan of SIGs, but the P-210-6 I owned, the P226 X-Five, a P220 Super Match, and a SIG GSR (1911) all fit me very well, but are now gone for various reasons -- none of them ergonomics.
I still have a P228 that was worked over by Gray Guns before I got it, and its as good as any handgun I've got. -- It's the only SIG I've managed to keep over a span of years. All of the other SIGs I've owned, and there have been a bunch, have gone away. (P-239, P-226s, P-229, and a bunch of P-220s.) The "idea" was always better than the "reality" for me.
I've had your SIG-like experience with S&W handguns, but have an M&P Pro in 9mm that is a keeper. It's not a Performance Center gun, to be sure, but with all of the after-market (Apex) parts that came installed (I bought it used), it might as well have been...
Last edited:
Walt Sherrill
New member
Sevens said:Ummm, well S&W own the "PC" name and logo and they do still use it, especially on Tupperware. But no plastic gun with any manner of parts from any source, fitted by any man, really works amongst the pistols here in this thread. Just completely different.
True, but that wasn't really my point.
Over the past decade I've also shot quite a few Performance Center guns, all metal, fitted by men, that truly didn't live up to the older (traditional) PC name and logo.
The "plastic" M&P Pro I mentioned might not be up to the OLD PC standards, but it's proved to be a fine shooting, and very accurate weapon -- and every bit the performance match to the PC 5906 I had some years ago.
Unless you are speaking of revolvers or the 1911 pistols they ship right now with a PC logo on them, I am not sure I understand correctly.Over the past decade I've also shot quite a few Performance Center guns, all metal, fitted by men, that truly didn't live up to the older (traditional) PC name and logo.
It's my understanding that when S&W shipped the last of the 952-2's and the last of the true PC 1911 pistols and the 945 pistols, the Performance Center was closed up and is likely to never again show us the kinds of guns we're talking about in this thread. The PPC-9, the DPA-5906's, the 845's and the 952's are as historical now as the pre-1964 Winchester. They exist now only as formerly produced works of art. Smith & Wesson makes absolutely nothing now that could carry their jock in a wheelbarrow, and hasn't for a number of years.
Some like to say "we'll agree to disagree" but that doesn't really describe my point of view. Instead, I'll say that if you were shooting an M&P loaded with aftermarket parts and you thought it was better than a Performance Center 5906 (DPA series...?) then I'll never understand that point of view and I have zero desire to even try.
Much like I would never stroll in to a shotgun thread and tell the audience that my S&W Model 686 is a fantastic revolver that is far more gun (to me) than any shotgun could ever hope to be... I just don't really see what an M&P brings to this discussion.
All of this is perfectly centered around the subject. The Apex-filled M&P seems about as relevant as my Bill Davis "Cougar", Python barrel mated to a Ruger Service Six. Great gun, great shooter, and so far outside the discussion that I can't understand why it's here.I've never been that big a fan of SIGs, but the P-210-6 I owned, the P226 X-Five, a P220 Super Match, and a SIG GSR (1911) all fit me very well, but are now gone for various reasons -- none of them ergonomics.
I still have a P228 that was worked over by Gray Guns before I got it, and its as good as any handgun I've got. -- It's the only SIG I've managed to keep over a span of years. All of the other SIGs I've owned, and there have been a bunch, have gone away. (P-239, P-226s, P-229, and a bunch of P-220s.) The "idea" was always better than the "reality" for me.
After reading & re-reading what I wrote, I can see that it comes off as caustic and for that I apologize as it's simply not my intent. But I find one of the pure evils in the world when something is absolutely phenomenal and it goes away for whatever reason... but the pimps who happen to own the name and logo spit out some not-at-all related product and slap that name and logo on it.
The Smith & Wesson Performance Center was lightning in a bottle. The name and logo should have been retired LONG BEFORE they slapped it on a plastic M&P15-22. Or anything else, really.
Walt Sherrill
New member
Sevens said:Some like to say "we'll agree to disagree" but that doesn't really describe my point of view. Instead, I'll say that if you were shooting an M&P loaded with aftermarket parts and you thought it was better than a Performance Center 5906 (DPA series...?) then I'll never understand that point of view and I have zero desire to even try.
First, show me where I wrote anything about my M&P Pro being BETTER THAN my Performance Center 5906. I didn't claim that. I did claim it was the "performance match" -- as easy (perhaps easier) to use well, with similar performance. I'll stand by that claim. In fact, in competition (IDPA or USPSA), I'd rather use the M&P Pro. The M&P Pro is not as pretty, to be sure, nor as obviously "worked" -- but it is (in the form I've got) a fine shooting weapon. (I shot quite a few matches over the years, and PC S&Ws were not widely seen or used.)
Walt Sherrill said:I've never been that big a fan of SIGs, but the P-210-6 I owned, the P226 X-Five, a P220 Super Match, and a SIG GSR (1911) all fit me very well, but are now gone for various reasons -- none of them ergonomics.
I still have a P228 that was worked over by Gray Guns before I got it, and its as good as any handgun I've got. -- It's the only SIG I've managed to keep over a span of years. All of the other SIGs I've owned, and there have been a bunch, have gone away. (P-239, P-226s, P-229, and a bunch of P-220s.) The "idea" was always better than the "reality" for me.Sevens said:All of this is perfectly centered around the subject. The Apex-filled M&P seems about as relevant as my Bill Davis "Cougar", Python barrel mated to a Ruger Service Six. Great gun, great shooter, and so far outside the discussion that I can't understand why it's here.
My reference to M&P Pros seemed as relevant as your original claim that you never found a SIG that really felt right in your hand. Particularly since S&W still has a Performance Center and offers tricked-out M&P Pros, revolvers, and 1911s. http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757900_-1_757896_757896_image
The new PC guns aren't the same as the older ones. The older Performance Center guns were very nice weapons, but obviously NOT popular enough for S&W to continue that level of investment in skills and resources. And while the fit and finish of the older S&W semi-autos were top notch, the results of all that fine hand-tuning never seemed to translate well in the world of Bullseye or "Combat" shooting.
Thanks for the post bac.
I am surprised that no one pointed out the sensitivity to ammunition. I own two high grade 5" target 9 mm pistols: a 952-2 and a Les Baer custom. The 952-2 will cycle just about any sort of ammunition with good to excellent results while the Les Baer requires more uniform 124g NATO charge to cycle properly. The timing of each pistol is quite different. The fully supported chamber of the Les Baer is apparently much tighter, and the spring is much stiffer. The Les Baer when fed properly runs circles around the 952–2. Conversely, cheap snappy 115g ammo that won't run the Les Baer yields pretty good results with the 952-2.
Generally commonly available 9 mm ammo is low price & low quality. I had to take up reloading to feed my Les Baer. The brass sizing tolerance is critical to the reliability of the Les Baer but not the 952-2.
I am surprised that no one pointed out the sensitivity to ammunition. I own two high grade 5" target 9 mm pistols: a 952-2 and a Les Baer custom. The 952-2 will cycle just about any sort of ammunition with good to excellent results while the Les Baer requires more uniform 124g NATO charge to cycle properly. The timing of each pistol is quite different. The fully supported chamber of the Les Baer is apparently much tighter, and the spring is much stiffer. The Les Baer when fed properly runs circles around the 952–2. Conversely, cheap snappy 115g ammo that won't run the Les Baer yields pretty good results with the 952-2.
Generally commonly available 9 mm ammo is low price & low quality. I had to take up reloading to feed my Les Baer. The brass sizing tolerance is critical to the reliability of the Les Baer but not the 952-2.