Insert "pics or it didn't happen" smiley lol
confession
- Thread starter v-king
- Start date
Insert "pics or it didn't happen" smiley lol
Great discussion, thanks everyone. What started this whole thing is that I recently picked up a Sig p226. I bought it because reading these forums I saw that "Everyone" loves the Sig. The navy seal and other special forces carry them. Not wanting to miss out on the grates thing since sliced bread, I gave in to the hype and got one. Heading to the range I was expecting something out of this world, something totally awesome, I was gonna shoot a SIG after all. I loaded the mag....pulled the trigger......and the gun went.....BANG!!! the same way it does with my 92fs or XD9(which I absolutely love) Nothing more, nothing less just a good solid BANG!!! At that moment I thought to myself "what makes this gun so great?"
Not to sound cocky (and I am no sniper with a handgun), but I become proficient with any gun I fire long enough. I tend to shoot wheel guns more accurate, but take longer. I am a lot faster with a semi, but not as tight of groups. Speed isnt my main focus though as I prefer to reward myself with tight groups. Efficient fast double taps is where I really notice MY ability between diffrent firearms. What works for me may be someones worst firearm, and that comes down to many factors (how it fits them, recoil, cartridge size, reload capabilty/speed, sight radius/picture, to name a few).
Almost all firearms serve a purpose, it just depends on how it matches up with the shooter. I shoot my .44's great, my wife not so much....
Almost all firearms serve a purpose, it just depends on how it matches up with the shooter. I shoot my .44's great, my wife not so much....
Totally off topic: Pancake81 - Love you signature line!
On topic: What makes Sig or any of the "greats" great, is a blend of consistently good quality control which = reliability, accuracy etc. Being Canadian, certain things matter less since odds are, you will never stake your life on your handgun.
I favour Sigs because it's what I use (or used and soon will again) at work. I don't feel like I get enough range time at work, and either way more trigger time on the same make can't hurt. That said, I don't only have Sigs, because variety is the spice of life
If I couldn't afford a Sig I'd just shoot my other guns because I have yet to meet a gun I didn't like, at least a little. The only one's I've hated have been the one's that refused to be reliable, and to a lesser extend accurate, regarless of ammo. To be honest, I shoot as much for the childlike satisfaction of hearing and feeling it go "bang" as for any other reason. I think most people who shoot, do it at least partially for that same reason.
On topic: What makes Sig or any of the "greats" great, is a blend of consistently good quality control which = reliability, accuracy etc. Being Canadian, certain things matter less since odds are, you will never stake your life on your handgun.
I favour Sigs because it's what I use (or used and soon will again) at work. I don't feel like I get enough range time at work, and either way more trigger time on the same make can't hurt. That said, I don't only have Sigs, because variety is the spice of life
If I couldn't afford a Sig I'd just shoot my other guns because I have yet to meet a gun I didn't like, at least a little. The only one's I've hated have been the one's that refused to be reliable, and to a lesser extend accurate, regarless of ammo. To be honest, I shoot as much for the childlike satisfaction of hearing and feeling it go "bang" as for any other reason. I think most people who shoot, do it at least partially for that same reason.
I agree. I have a friend who insists that Glock's are superior to every pistol ever made, in the past/present and in the future... yet he hasn't held/shot/owned one. Media hype does a lot. I'm not knocking Glocks at all, they are good guns, but I am just suggesting that they are not superior. There is much parity in pistols in the same price point. Personal preference pays a big role in what people recommend and feel is superior.
Haven't you watched "Justified"? The main character carries a Glock and that dude's a bad ass, out-draws/shoots everybody
Seriously, I just ordered a Glock, mostly cause I don't know anybody with one and I have heard good things. But you're right, the media is a very powerful entity, and they're very good at product placement.
Totally off topic: Pancake81 - Love you signature line!
On topic: What makes Sig or any of the "greats" great, is a blend of consistently good quality control which = reliability, accuracy etc. Being Canadian, certain things matter less since odds are, you will never stake your life on your handgun.
I favour Sigs because it's what I use (or used and soon will again) at work. I don't feel like I get enough range time at work, and either way more trigger time on the same make can't hurt. That said, I don't only have Sigs, because variety is the spice of life
Pretty much, that and the smell. . . something about just makes me smile.
I have been shooting for almost three years now and have a lot of different kinds of guns, a Flint pistol in .50 cal, two Boot Pistols approx .40 cal. Belgian Pinfire 7mm, Remington 1858 Revolving Rifle .44 cal. five 1851 Colt Navy's .36 cal. M1860 Colt .44 cal. two 1849 Pocket Colts .31 cal, 1848 Baby Dragoon .31 cal,two 1873 Colt SAA one in .44 cal the other in .45 Colt, 1847 Whitneyville Walker .44 cal. two 1911's .45ACP and three rifles .44 cal. .45 cal. and 30-30.
Each has it's own trigger and only two are outstanding, the Flint pistol requires a very strong pull on the trigger...way more than the others and one of the 1851 Navy's had developed a "hair trigger' which was so light that just brushing the trigger would set it off. I worked on the trigger because it was not safe and now it is about the same as the others.
The old black powder guns can be fairly reliable if you really work on it, there are extra problems of having to load at the range compounded by the fragmented percussion caps jamming up the works on revolvers.
My modern guns are far more reliable than the old timers even with my reloads, the cartridge solved a lot of problems.
Each has it's own trigger and only two are outstanding, the Flint pistol requires a very strong pull on the trigger...way more than the others and one of the 1851 Navy's had developed a "hair trigger' which was so light that just brushing the trigger would set it off. I worked on the trigger because it was not safe and now it is about the same as the others.
The old black powder guns can be fairly reliable if you really work on it, there are extra problems of having to load at the range compounded by the fragmented percussion caps jamming up the works on revolvers.
My modern guns are far more reliable than the old timers even with my reloads, the cartridge solved a lot of problems.
I'm thinking you've not had that much experience with a well tuned pistol? Way back in the 50's most high end target shooters opted away from Revolvers and went to semi auto's. In order for the revolvers to shoot as well, the hard revolver guys went to marking 1 chamber and using only that chamber for slow fire shooting, it was a process just to shoot.
Scott
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The trigger is the most important element a gun has for the realization of good marksmanship, regardless of the genre the shooter participates in. I am a little fanatical about triggers, and won't tolerate a poor one, although there can be a broad range of acceptable. In the case of a auto pistol, when the gun is fired in the single action mode, there should be no detectable movement in the trigger before the hammer drops. Of course there is movement as you must create the situation where the sear, which holds the hammer securely, moves enough to release it, but the movement should not be detectable by the shooter. After the hammer is free to fall, there should be no movement, beyond the point of release. If movement in the trigger is detectable before or after the sear breaks, it will be more difficult to stay on target until the bullet exits the muzzle. the nature of the semi auto trigger is that it must reset prior to engaging the sear for a second release. This movement is detectable by the shooter, and it is imperative to his performance that he does not loose contact with the trigger while it resets. Trigger weight should be manageable for the strength of the shooters hand, and 4 pounds seems to be the industry standard. That defines a good trigger on an auto pistol.
Boomer; thank you. This was in part my point. Generally speaking, unless there is some work done to the gun or the auto is a custom one, revolvers in single action are more accurate. The triggers are...better, IMHO which equates to better placement. Then there is the barrel length to consider and distance. At 25 meters will a snub nose (2") SA be more accurate than a 5" Gov. model 1911 with a tight trigger?...I have my doubts.
I will preface this with the fact that my handgun shooting has been limited. I am in the process of getting my Restricted license so I can buy my own.
I have shot a few 1911's, Sig Sauer P226, Glock 22, Glock 19, HK USP .40 and .45 The Glock 22 is a friends, so I have more time on that gun than any of the others. I have also held and obviously shot a wider array of airsoft handguns, which is really only useful information from an ergonomics perspective. Having said that, FOR ME PERSONALLY, the HK USP felt the most comfortable and the easiest to shoot accurately. The Sig is a nice gun. The Glocks are nice guns. The HK fits my hand perfectly. Better than anything else I have shot. And shooting the HK USP .45 back to back to back with a Glock was a revelation. The HK FOR ME was just a much more pleasant shooting experience. Everyone's experience is different though. Just like buying a high end camera (I shoot Nikon, Canon's don't fit my hands), or mountain bike (I ride Kona because the Rocky Mountains I tried were trying to kill me), each manufacturer fits people differently. Go to a range, shoot some guns and find the one (or many!) that work and feels right for you.
I'm not delusional, I know that getting an HK in Canada is going to cost big $$$ in comparison to cheaper guns. The bottom line though, I will be very very happy with my purchase and will not regret spending the extra money to get something that fits, works and let's face it, looks ridiculously good!
I have shot a few 1911's, Sig Sauer P226, Glock 22, Glock 19, HK USP .40 and .45 The Glock 22 is a friends, so I have more time on that gun than any of the others. I have also held and obviously shot a wider array of airsoft handguns, which is really only useful information from an ergonomics perspective. Having said that, FOR ME PERSONALLY, the HK USP felt the most comfortable and the easiest to shoot accurately. The Sig is a nice gun. The Glocks are nice guns. The HK fits my hand perfectly. Better than anything else I have shot. And shooting the HK USP .45 back to back to back with a Glock was a revelation. The HK FOR ME was just a much more pleasant shooting experience. Everyone's experience is different though. Just like buying a high end camera (I shoot Nikon, Canon's don't fit my hands), or mountain bike (I ride Kona because the Rocky Mountains I tried were trying to kill me), each manufacturer fits people differently. Go to a range, shoot some guns and find the one (or many!) that work and feels right for you.
I'm not delusional, I know that getting an HK in Canada is going to cost big $$$ in comparison to cheaper guns. The bottom line though, I will be very very happy with my purchase and will not regret spending the extra money to get something that fits, works and let's face it, looks ridiculously good!
Like most things, the answer here will be, "it depends." The intended use of the gun will help you define the unique set of parameters that will constitute which gun and which characteristics in relative terms spell "good" or "bad" to you. Also, experience is a great teacher. With only 2500 rounds down range so far I would say you haven't had enough time behind any platform to really get a sense of the differences and how those differences may affect your shooting.
As a broad example: there is a vast difference between a 3/4 ton pick-up truck and an Aston Martin. They will both get you from point A to point B so in that way they share similar characteristics, but how they do it is where the differences and personal preferences come in. If you drive a Toyota Camry and a Honda Accord side by side for comparison you may find the differences minimal and hard to quantify. They are similar platforms intended to do exactly the same job so either car would be an acceptable choice. But if you are the kind of guy who is always humping loads of drywall and top soil from Home Depot, the Aston Martin is going to suck. Take the pick-up racing down a twisty mountain switch-back and you're not going to like that either.
As a broad example: there is a vast difference between a 3/4 ton pick-up truck and an Aston Martin. They will both get you from point A to point B so in that way they share similar characteristics, but how they do it is where the differences and personal preferences come in. If you drive a Toyota Camry and a Honda Accord side by side for comparison you may find the differences minimal and hard to quantify. They are similar platforms intended to do exactly the same job so either car would be an acceptable choice. But if you are the kind of guy who is always humping loads of drywall and top soil from Home Depot, the Aston Martin is going to suck. Take the pick-up racing down a twisty mountain switch-back and you're not going to like that either.
One more thing to consider - experience & familiarity with a particular gun will change how you view it. When I first shot a Glock 22, I liked shooting it, but that was about it. The more I shot it, and got used to it, the more I liked it. After several thousands of rounds down range with it, I loved it (good thing, as it was my daily carry gun!) and was totally confident with it.
It had good sights (not the best in the world, but well suited to its use), a good trigger (a little heavy, but about right for a duty pistol), lots of capacity (full gun + 2 loaded mags = 46 rounds), and it felt comfortable & familiar.
The point is, don't necessarily dismiss a gun based on a short term test. Sometimes a gun will grow to be much better in your hands once you get to know it. Of course, if it's got a harsh, gritty, heavy trigger, lousy sights, and weighs as much as a cinder block, there's no point in going any further...but those of us on this forum wouldn't likely ever consider buying a gun like that unless it had some other, overwhelmingly attractive attributes. Hmmm...sounds like a girlfriend search, doesn't it?
It had good sights (not the best in the world, but well suited to its use), a good trigger (a little heavy, but about right for a duty pistol), lots of capacity (full gun + 2 loaded mags = 46 rounds), and it felt comfortable & familiar.
The point is, don't necessarily dismiss a gun based on a short term test. Sometimes a gun will grow to be much better in your hands once you get to know it. Of course, if it's got a harsh, gritty, heavy trigger, lousy sights, and weighs as much as a cinder block, there's no point in going any further...but those of us on this forum wouldn't likely ever consider buying a gun like that unless it had some other, overwhelmingly attractive attributes. Hmmm...sounds like a girlfriend search, doesn't it?
The point is, don't necessarily dismiss a gun based on a short term test. Sometimes a gun will grow to be much better in your hands once you get to know it.
Great point.
