As promised, I mentioned I was going to let everybody who is interested in the Sigma 40 f to know my 2-bits on it. Recently, my body picked up this glock clone from a client of mine. Buddy wanted a glock dearly but the price on this 'near glock' was too good to pass up with all the trimmings included!
What I liked about the Sigma 40f :
1) it was extremely comfortable to hold with a one or two hand grip
2) very quick and easy to strip for cleaning
3) not used to the polymer frames.....Wow this gun was light! It was half the weight of my CZ-75
4)slide movement was very smooth almost effortless to chamber a bullet but not as nice of a feeling as engaging a beretta 92 slide.
5) seemed reliable. We shot 200 rds through it and it did not jam any of the ammo (which was .40 / 10mm).
6) I found that the trigger pull was no problemo! There was alot of talk on the internet about a 12-15 lbs pull which potentially could adversly affect accuracy....Hog Wash!!. Although it took a little getting used to, It was smooth and easy. I would assume that this trigger was stock with no augmentation.
7) It had decent accuracy. How I determeined whether accuracy was good or not was to compare my grouping on the first 50 rds at 25 feet to other semi autos that I shot for the 1st time at 50 feet. The Sigma was good. I have no concerns with the Simga's accuracy. It was not best though. I think that the best for (out of the box) accuracy was the glock 17, and then the CZ75 a very close 2nd.
What I did not like about it:
1) The plastic frame was too light for me. The frame felt toy-like...it did not give me confidence re. the durability if the gun went for a drop. This is not a good pistol whipping iron
2) When the slide was on the frame, there were too many spaces that were present. For example, I could see the recoil spring if I inspected the pistol. Although I am no gunsmith, it just seemed wierd to me that these holes and gaps were standard to the gun. I saw the same gaps and spaces on other Sigma pictures. Just seems illogical that these spaces would be present to let dirt or moisture in the gun, and perhaps pressure from the bullet combustion could escape.
3) I did not like the ejector port position. Seems similar to the Sig 226 where the casings might eject almost straight up from the frame. I found I was constantly being pelted with hot 10mm casings on my arm, shoulder, head. I did find this when shooting the glock 17, and never with the CZ75.
4) not a pretty gun
5) I don't like shooting 10mm. I found I could crack off more accurate rounds faster with 9mm. Stopping power of 9mm is plenty..It's proven for the last 100yrs. The 10mm is a big loud piece of lead that doesn't seem to give the bang for the buck in my eyes. If you want BANG get a .357 158 grain and harness the power! I suppose I should not relate my lack of preferance of 10mm to the Sigma. It turns out that was the calibre of the 40f.
hope that helps!
Stevr
What I liked about the Sigma 40f :
1) it was extremely comfortable to hold with a one or two hand grip
2) very quick and easy to strip for cleaning
3) not used to the polymer frames.....Wow this gun was light! It was half the weight of my CZ-75
4)slide movement was very smooth almost effortless to chamber a bullet but not as nice of a feeling as engaging a beretta 92 slide.
5) seemed reliable. We shot 200 rds through it and it did not jam any of the ammo (which was .40 / 10mm).
6) I found that the trigger pull was no problemo! There was alot of talk on the internet about a 12-15 lbs pull which potentially could adversly affect accuracy....Hog Wash!!. Although it took a little getting used to, It was smooth and easy. I would assume that this trigger was stock with no augmentation.
7) It had decent accuracy. How I determeined whether accuracy was good or not was to compare my grouping on the first 50 rds at 25 feet to other semi autos that I shot for the 1st time at 50 feet. The Sigma was good. I have no concerns with the Simga's accuracy. It was not best though. I think that the best for (out of the box) accuracy was the glock 17, and then the CZ75 a very close 2nd.
What I did not like about it:
1) The plastic frame was too light for me. The frame felt toy-like...it did not give me confidence re. the durability if the gun went for a drop. This is not a good pistol whipping iron
2) When the slide was on the frame, there were too many spaces that were present. For example, I could see the recoil spring if I inspected the pistol. Although I am no gunsmith, it just seemed wierd to me that these holes and gaps were standard to the gun. I saw the same gaps and spaces on other Sigma pictures. Just seems illogical that these spaces would be present to let dirt or moisture in the gun, and perhaps pressure from the bullet combustion could escape.
3) I did not like the ejector port position. Seems similar to the Sig 226 where the casings might eject almost straight up from the frame. I found I was constantly being pelted with hot 10mm casings on my arm, shoulder, head. I did find this when shooting the glock 17, and never with the CZ75.
4) not a pretty gun
5) I don't like shooting 10mm. I found I could crack off more accurate rounds faster with 9mm. Stopping power of 9mm is plenty..It's proven for the last 100yrs. The 10mm is a big loud piece of lead that doesn't seem to give the bang for the buck in my eyes. If you want BANG get a .357 158 grain and harness the power! I suppose I should not relate my lack of preferance of 10mm to the Sigma. It turns out that was the calibre of the 40f.
hope that helps!
Stevr
