Sig p227
 

I finally got to handle the SIG 227 this weekend (yes, I know it's been out for a while now, but this was the first time I saw one up close). Has anyone had the chance to actually shoot this gun?

I've read posts by people on other firearms message boards who are already claiming that this gun needs to replace the M9 as the U.S. service pistol (as usual), and of course there are the usual rumors that SOF units will be carrying them by next year. Sequester aside, I guess my initial complaint was that the grip felt too thick for a gun that holds only 10 rounds of .45 ACP, and I prefer the feel of the 220. I think this is also the reason that it has taken SIG so damn long to come out with this pistol, even though SIG fanboys have been demanding a high-capacity .45 SIG for the past two decades.

There's probably a camp of people who want to see the Kahr PM45 replace the M9 solely because of .45 stoppin' powah. I haven't handled a P227 personally, but my intrigue for their double stack .45 competitor immediately vacated when I heard "10 round capacity". I don't think it's enough rounds given the size of the gun either, especially considering how long we've had options on the market that easily trump that (Glock 21, Para P14, Springfield XD, and the newer FNP-45 Tactical). Granted, only one of those has a relatively reasonable sized grip (XD) and three of them are polymer framed allowing for less overall mass, but I know the engineering exists to make a slim and trim double stack .45 with any frame material. If it could be done for the Hi-Power in 9mm nearly 80 years ago, we can do it now with all of our technology.

Given that though, I think it's an R&D thing. As far as I can tell, the P227 is literally a P220 with a slightly stretched frame to accommodate (only) 2 more rounds. The 14 round extendeds, to me, are a beefy joke. If SIG had gone from the ground up, the could easily make something far more light and trim, but they want parts commonality and ease of manufacture along with reduced R&D time and cost, so they churn out something "new" that kind of isn't. And to top it off, you lose that slimness of the single stack P220, as well as all the prestige that comes with the model name.

Most companies just want to adapt the parts that they have to popular concepts instead of tooling up to make a proprietary but potentially groundbreaking product, and that's the core issue. You'd think that converting a single to a double wouldn't be such a problem, but it is, especially with a company like SIG whose flagship handgun is legendarily chunky. All in all, another "innovative" design hasn't innovated, it's merely split the difference. The P227 is not truly double stack/high capacity, it's not really more trim than other options that exists (some with better capacities), and it's not very prestigious either, but it's not a P220 either. Aside from SIGs decocker and other proprietary items from their other models, nothing separates this gun from the lame HK45 as far as I'm concerned, at least in a concept applied sense.

I'll handle one eventually, but I'm not looking forward to it. I have a P228, a true double stack, a 9mm, something of prestige, and something that in it's time was innovative. It's definitely worth the 1 more than the P227.

I wouldn't even call the P227 a double stack, it is more like a one and a half stack. I imagine the reason it has such a crappy capacity is the fact that it wasn't designed really as a double stack .45, but rather built around the .45 magazine for the P250 (I think the base plate is changed for no reason just to make them incompatible) which was originally made as a 9mm.

I've handled it and I've never been a fan of DA/SA triggers. I prefer striker fire. I think the M&P 45 and the XDM 45 beats the SIG in ergonomics, mag capacity and price.

Why is everyone so desperate to see the US Military drop the M9, a platform that has worked perfectly well for nearly thirty years?

A lot of people think the 9x19mm isn't powerful enough for a service pistol, but I don't really agree with that. However I have shot the M9 and I really didn't like it as a service pistol for one reason above all others, the slide mounted safety. When I was using the gun, twice I ended up accidentally applying the safety when racking the slide which is something that I really wouldn't want to happen in a fight.

Granted the only pistols I had used before were either frame mounted safety/decocker guns or those without a manual safety/decocker so it may have just been my issue. I know that there are ways to prevent this with training, but I think it is just one more thing that can go wrong and an unnecessary complication on a general issue service pistol. Although I do not particularly like striker fired pistols like the Glock 17, I think it and things like it are a better choices for service pistols due to the simplicity and ease of training.

I also feel like the M9 is probably more susceptible to dust and debris with that open slide and exposed trigger bar. I understand the open slide is to reduce weight, but why the trigger bar is on the outside like that is beyond me.

The same reason why the US military hasn't dropped the M9 is the same for the M16/M4 platform. One is partly because of contracts to the companies that makes them and that a weapon is meant for a specific purpose isn't worth the money to replace en mass. Not everyone on the front line is issued a sidearm and their pistol training is only basic level.

A military as large as the US has bought so many of them that the cost of replacing it is incredibly costly for the defense department.

For civilians, we can get modern defensive 9mm ammo that are hollow point and can cause more damage to stop an unarmored target. In the military world, they aren't allowed that and the 9mm can only do so much if that's what you have left. The military is more worried about how effective is their current rifle platform, which isn't that bad.

It all comes down to cost.

I think it's also a matter of need. Anyone who truly needed a better sidearm like aviators and special warfare units already got better pistols. I guess whoever was left didn't really have a pressing need.

What was the reasoning behind moving the safety on the Beretta 92 up to the slide? I know the army had a long-time hard-on for the Walther P38, but the frame-mounted safety just seems to make more sense ergonomically and intuitively.

The slide mounted safety allows for a really simple and reliable firing pin safety. Turning the safety to the on position rotates a piece that contains the separate rear portion of the firing pin (think they call it a transfer pin), meaning that if the hammer falls with the safety on there is no possible way for it to hit the firing pin. The first Beretta variant that had the slide safety was the S though and I don't think they did the firing pin block until the SB, so I'm not sure what the original reason was. It may have been easier to make a safety/decocker rather than a plain safety work on the slide rather than the frame, but Taurus manage it with their newer guns so it's a mystery to me.

I kinda like the Beretta pistol but only to collect and to customize to how I want it. Being issued one is the same as being issued with an M16. You work with what you got and complaining about it isn't making it go away.

I have read an article about some Green Berets switching over to Glock 19s when they were in Iraq. The story is they confiscated enough Glocks from corrupt police that they could outfit their entire unit. Most were 2nd gen Glocks but they loved the design, light weight and reliability. They ordered some mags, did some garage gunsmiting and they used them throughout their tour.

I've definitely seen photos of Green Berets and Rangers with Glocks doing state-side range work.

Anyway back on topic. I really don't think the P227 is something to get hyped over. It's a concept that SIG should have introduced years ago and every other company has been doing already.

I think this analysis is completely on-point. SIG-Sauer's problem for years now has been that they value ease of manufacture and interchangeability of parts/manufacturing processes for their products. This mentality has led to a steady decline in QC in the last 20 years. Unfortunately, the 227 was clearly designed and released with the same vision in mind: The web site and marketing brochures even brag that it uses the same slide as the 220.

I also agree that it's not going to sit well in a marketplace dominated by guns like the XD45, but I am sure that the P227 is still going to get snatched up simply for being a SIG (just as the HK45, in spite of its disappointing magazine capacity, sold well simply for being an H&K). Alas, this also means that SIG isn't going to learn any lessons and will keep putting out guns that are far below the standard set by its German-made stamped-slide pistols in the 1980s.

Speaking of SOF and the P227:

http://sigtalk.com/sig-sauer-pistols...-review-2.html

Not sure if this is true, though I remember reading elsewhere that the same thing happened when the HK45C Tactical came out.

I remember when I saw the Glock 30S and rolled my eyes on how that is also a dumb concept because it is barely the same size as the G30. The big companies really are not taking any chances with new designs.

The Glock 30S is different from the P227 in that it's still a reasonable product improvement over the Glock 30, and it's nomenclature does not insist that it is a separate design from it's predecessor when it's a minor change like the P227. The .45 ACP Glocks have always been chunky messes and given the market's demand for the ever smaller, lighter subcompact, the mating of a Glock 36 slide to a Glock 30SF frame makes perfect sense. There's no R&D there, but there was for both the 36 and the SF. So, even though it's functionally the exact same gun as the Glock 30, the S conforms to a new market demand as best it can given it's physical size constraints. And given it's capacity is 10 rounds for a subcompact (the SAME as a P227 with flush mags), it's not falling short in any practical categories. The P227 insists it's a new product that fills the niche it's intended to, when it doesn't do that as well as other models, whereas the Glock 30S is meant to be a product improvement or a mating of PIs in the Glock 30 line, which it totally is.

I can't think of any gun that can boast the Glock 30's capabilities and retain it's weight and form factor, no one even wants to try. And yet they still do the little extra they can to make it what it, admittedly, ought to have been in the first place. The only thing I can fault Glock for is not aiming as high with their end goal with their newest product, but they certainly reached their goal nonetheless. I can't say the same for the P227. They aimed to put out a product in the niche and what they have put out is a thrown together adequacy, if that. And in the end, it's a product improvement of the P220 with a different name entirely. Good for them, they're in the high capacity .45 market now, and their name will assuredly sell the product, but it's still not a great example of the niche. The Glock 30S is.