[Tropical Z]

Youll see my other thread and as usual Sigmas are considered by the vast majority to be handguns to avoid at all costs.Usually (except with Hi-Point:p ) there is some truth to the overall view,but what im wondering is how could a company like S&W screw up so bad on the Sigma series? Where was the market research to see what we the shooter wants in a gun? FN did the same thing with their FN-FortyNine recently,but at least it was reliable on most accounts.:confused:

[mete]

Poor management. That's done in many companies. I'm one of those who no longer thinks of S&W. It's sad to see a 150 year old company go down the tube.

[Jim K]

The Sigma was pretty bad, though the later ones are supposed to be a lot better. I think the championship of flops was the very costly and much hyped Colt All-American 2000. The Rogak was a bigger POS but it was not the product of a major gun company.

IMO, considering the price and all, Hi-Points are not that bad. At least I can hit something with one, which is more than I can say for the Colt 2000.

Jim

[yayarx7]

It was a complete ripp off of the Glock. And that is why it failed. S&W auto buyers would never buy it because it is just a Glock wanna be. Glock buyers would never get one, becuase its a Smith. They also priced it way to low. (Notice How they go for like $150 more than they used to?) It was seen as cheap gun, not an inexpensive one. Add to that the Ugly grey color, the ridiculously horrible trigger, and the lack of hi caps for the .40 and you got a dud. not to mention the front sight flying off into oblivion.

...My $.02 as a former sigma owner.

[SouthpawShootr]

S&W didn't blow it with the Sigma by not researching the market. If they had been able to make early models ultra-reliable then they probably would have given Glock a run for the money. As it was, they released the gun before all the bugs were worked out. Lots of vocal people got them and had problems. Never underestimate what an annoyed consumer can do. Newer models are supposed to have fixed earlier problems.

I have one of the .357 Sig Sigmas (they weren't cataloged and I'm told only 1000 were made) - anyway I'm going to keep it simply b/c it is a somewhat rare variant. I may pick up one of the newer ones eventually, but it isn't first on the list.

[Preacherman]

S&W really burned themselves with the Sigma. They plain ripped off the Glock design, because they were desperate to regain market share in the law enforcement community, which was switching to Glock wholesale. Glock, of course, sued them, and made the point that you could actually swap Sigma parts into a Glock, and the Glock would function. The judge's famous comment was "If you're going to build a Glock, you're going to pay Glock!" :D

Secondly, they had lousy build quality. The triggers on the early Sigmas were truly horrible. There were several cases where magazines would not seat properly (in one instance, a cop - in a real-life shooting situation - inserted a replacement magazine, and it wouldn't lock into place, so he fired three more rounds holding the magazine in with his left hand!). Also, S&W's prices were low, but not low enough to match Glock's LE discount program.

[10-Ring]

When you copy something that works, don't change it & call it fixed! When they copied Glock, it just seemed incomplete somehow & to make it worse (the ones I shot) they didn't even feel as well built or shoot as well.

[George Hill]

They also some how made the slide extra bulky and heavy... Kinda like a Glock that's retaining water. Made the gun balance horrible.
And while they were copying Glock - they some how managed to miss the "Reliable" part. I've fired many Sigmas when they first came out... All of them had jamming issues of one sort or another.
Accuracy wasn't nearly as good as a Glock either.

[Redlg155]

Smith really shot themselves in the foot with the Sigma series.

First the Glock troubles...

Then the Baby Sigma .380 troubles with the "Life Expectancy" issues.

They did good to let it go and concentrate on other models.

Good Shooting
Red

[Wildalaska]

Ya mean Smegmas right?

WildgagAlaska

[wardog]

I agree with yayarx7. Glock fans or Smith fans wouldn't buy it, plus it was ugly, looked and felt cheap, and was way too slippery to hold on to when wet.

[Master Blaster]

Not to defend S&W, but I had a Sigma 40v, I put about 2000 rounds through it, without a single misfeed, misfire, or any other problem.

I did not find it to be any heavier than the glock, the grip shape fit my hand better than a fullsize glock (not as good as my G-26 though).

I could not shoot it very well, because the trigger was Horrible though.

Thats the main reason I got rid of it, terrible trigger and no way to fix it.

Probation and parole officers in my department carry the LE model of the SIGMA, with the black stainless slide and night sights, I think that they are the third generation sigmas because they just got new ones six months ago.

One of the officers who is the head of security here also actually likes his new sigma, and shoots it very well. He is a Firearm enthusiast like me with a large collection, a retired city police officer wounded in the line of duty and a vietnam vet also wounded in Vietnam, so he knows firearms very well.

I have not mention to any of the officers that their state issued and mandated carry weapon is a piece of crap. :rolleyes:

They all seem to think that they are reliable and accurate, based upon the week they spent at the police training academy in Dover training on their new guns (officers in DE have to retrain in a week long thunder ranch style class when ever they get a new service weapon ) They fire 1500 rounds durring the training class, and none of the officers had a single problem with their SIGMAS.

That being said, I prefer my G-26 Glock to any SMEGMA currently made.

[Wil Terry]

Mine is number 179 and I ain't had problem one with it from the gitgo. I've shot the stew outta that 40 pistol. It shoots just fine, feels mucho better in my hands than any of my Glocks, and ain't malfed a round to date. The only thing I didn't like was the chintzy plastic sights and that sure is an easy fix. Maybe I should have bought a lottery ticket that day too, huh!?

[yayarx7]

I just want to clarify that my Sigma, an early 40 compact, never did malfunction with any ammo. I just could not get used to the trigger. The front sights flying off were just a bad design that was fixed, I hope, later. It was my first service caliber handgun and I thought it was a good gun, then I got a Norinco 1911, and could hit things further out then seven yards with it. I just could not justify or overcome the trigger no matter how hard I tried.

[AndyM]

Over thanksgiving, I shot a sigma .40 at the S&W range in Springfield.

One of the people I was with rented one of their range guns. I thought he was renting an SW 99, but it turned out to be a sigma.

I asked to shoot it just so I could find out why people hated them so much.

I have to say, I didn't care for the trigger at all. Very long pull on the one I shot. However, other than that, I didn't have any complaints. It fit my hand very nicely and didn't have any hicups at all.

My experience was limited to 2 mags, but it didn't seem as horrible as people make it out to be.


Would I buy one? Nope, I didn't like the trigger and there are a LOT of other plastic choices out there.

andy

[Snowdog]

I'll chime in and add my actual experience to help muffle some of the BS flowing through these Sigma threads.

First, I've put in some time with two late model Sigmas that performed every bit as good as my G19, but with far better ergonomics. The apparent quality (fit and finish) was no worse than many "commonly acceptable" pistols out there, with a trigger no worse than a P11, albeit a bit spongy (which one could possibly get used to).

At 15 yards, I was doing well enough as to keep from noticing any glaring lack of accuracy. Though my actual experience with the Sigma only includes the whole of two boxes and change, it is what it is: REAL. Both fellows that own these pistols (and still do) haven't described a lick of trouble out of them.

Personally, I think the Sigma gets a far worse rap than it honestly deserves. Perhaps the early models were so horrendous that they damned the entire lineage (including the later enhanced models).

However, this is my take on it: some here I'm sure have had poor service from their Sigmas and deserve to speak out, but I feel half the folks slamming Sigmas belong to the knee-slappin' "me too/I want to belong" crowd that ape the consensus regardless of their inexperience. I'm thoroughly convince a disturbing number that bad mouth certain firearms that are popular to slight haven't a clue what they're spouting off about other than what they've heard.

People, unless you've got some first hand experience with what you're jabbering about, please refrain from aping what you hear. :rolleyes:

Ok, I'm done with the soapbox now. Though I usually brush off these things, I just had to vent as my pet peeves sometimes get the best of me. :o

[Correia]

Same as Snowdog. I owned 2 Sigmas at one point because I got them for a super low price.

They are much better guns than they are made out to be. Reliability was fine. Trigger was crappy, but only about as crappy as most modern sucky triggered factory guns. They felt good, they shot where you pointed them.

Actually I think they were decent guns. I sold mine to relatives that were unarmed. :) And these are people who I like, so I wouldn't sell them a piece of crap.

[Black Snowman]

I know someone who tested them out and adopted them as range rentals. Had 2 friends and they would all take turns reloading mags and shooting until they went through all 2500 rounds of WWB through it without stopping. Not a single problem and it had gotten hot enough to burn them when they dropped the slide.

These were the Enhanced models in 9mm right after they came out.

Since we're throwing around anecdotal evidence ;)

[Sean Smith]

To answer the topic question, you have to remember that stupidity can be incredibly ingenious. :D

Ripping off major patented design features right off Glocks didn't help either.

[Hkmp5sd]

I bought a .40 Sigma when they first came out and am completely satisfied with its performance. S&W also sent me 2 additional full capacity magazines and 1 10-round magazine at no charge.

Of course, I can't say the same about my .380 Sigma. But, I bought it because it's weird, not for CCW use.

[AJ Dual]

Ditto to what has been said before.

I also think that even the earlier Sigmas had much superior ergonomics to the Glock in the grip area. The examples I held in gunstores were very comfortable. Too bad about the trigger.

The main problems with the Sigma were political within the shooting community. They were the first to copy the Glock, and copied it too closely. The negative attention from that only served to magnify their other problems.

Combine the exposure as the first and worst copy-cat, and the mechanical troubles, I think S&W took most, if not all, the heat off all the other Johnny-come-lately polymer framed pistol makers.

The next "big thing" in polymer was the USP, and HK had the VP70 and were able to claim they were "first" with polymer, and additions like bringing back traditional controls and safties to the poly pistol market, cocked and locked, second strike DA capability, and the first, IIRC with the accessory rail on the dustcover let them duck the heat.

So I think a big part of it was that the second major polymer entry into the handgun arena was going to take a "hit" no matter what, and of course, leave it to S&W to do everything wrong to compound that negativity.

[mrapathy2000]

the slide to frame fit could be better. though newer models are much improved in that area. you can lighten the trigger pull though I dont like how the trigger, dont mind the pull its the way the trigger is with weird implementation of glock safe action trigger. one thing I like is the 15 round 40S&W magazines and 17 round 9mm magazines. though the mags anymore are pricey and hard to find.

accuracy is good as is the chamber support in 40S&W they couldnt copy that kbing feature in the glocks which is an udder dissapointment.

[Master Blaster]

SIGMAS have conventional rifling, I think you need polygonal rifling to get a good solid KA_BOOM.;)

[Mike Irwin]

I sold a number of the Sigmas when they first came out, in both 9mm and .40, and we had several as range rentals.

Two owners were very happy with the guns. Several others had varying degrees of problems, from minor to annoying to catastrophic failures of the frame or slide (cracks), requiring replacement by S&W.

The ones we had as range rentals were likewise spotty. One developed a split in the frame in the extension in front of the trigger guard, which bound it up and prevented it from firing. It required a new frame.

I really liked the Sigmas from the ergonomic standpoint, but I never shot one that was particularly accurate or particularly reliable.

[Jason Demond]

My 9VE will shoot POA at 25 yards, with 115gr Winchester white box ammo. It will also group under 3" at 25 yards.

40VE POA at 25 yards with most 165gr ammo, with 180gr is shoots 1" high. The 40 will also group 3" at 25 yards.

[MiniZ]

I had a "non-value series" .40, and it was a decent pistol, with no reliability issues.

My issues with the Sigma:

The trigger blows, even for a "plastic fantastic" pistol.
Mine was not accurate-even with a multitude of different shooters, and different loads.
The "re-engineered" grip angles did not fit me, personally.