imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-08-2013, 09:47 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,551
Default 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.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war.

Last edited by MT2008; 09-08-2013 at 09:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-08-2013, 10:42 PM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-08-2013, 11:01 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 540
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-09-2013, 03:13 AM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,839
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

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.
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-09-2013, 12:27 PM
The Wierd It's Avatar
The Wierd It The Wierd It is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in England.
Posts: 324
Default

Why is everyone so desperate to see the US Military drop the M9, a platform that has worked perfectly well for nearly thirty years?
__________________
You seem nervous... Is it the accent? Do you want to know how I got it?

There's only one explanation for everything that's happened to me so far: This universe is trolling me.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-09-2013, 01:05 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wierd It View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-09-2013, 04:24 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,839
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

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.
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-09-2013, 04:47 PM
funkychinaman's Avatar
funkychinaman funkychinaman is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 2,592
Default

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.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-09-2013, 05:20 PM
commando552 commando552 is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: England
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-09-2013, 06:50 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Excalibur Excalibur is offline
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,839
Send a message via AIM to Excalibur Send a message via MSN to Excalibur Send a message via Yahoo to Excalibur
Default

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.
__________________

"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life."

Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle
Psalm 144:1

“It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.”
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.