[L-Frame]

I know there is quite a price difference between the classic Sigs (220, 226, etc.) and the newer Sig pro's. How do they compare quality wise?

[Grunt]

Quality-wise, I doubt that there's going to be a big difference. They both do the same job and both are put out by a company with a reputation for uber-quality firearms. They just go about doing things in a different way. Myself, the only reason I haven't got a Sig 2340 yet is they don't fit my hands quite as well as the P-series do. I would like to get one though one of these days to see how well the 2340 stacks up against my USP-40 Compact and Glock 23.

[Big Mike]

Maybe its me, but I was always suprised how much larger the Pro "felt" in my hand compared to the classic, and not that much lighter either...Mike

[caz223]

It's not as instinctive as a classic SIG, and doesn't ooze quality through it's pores, but it's as accurate (Or more accurate), and I really can't say I regret buying my 2340.
I have a SIG .40 barrel for my 357SIG 2340, and a 9mm bar-sto barrel for it, making it a 3 caliber gun.
With the 2340 in 9mm mode or 357SIG mode, it shoots like a laser, and the .40 isn't half bad, either.
I just like guns that were designed for the caliber they shoot, not just retrofitted from 9mm frames.
Oh, and it happens to outshoot my 228 and my 229.
I think it's prolly one of the most underrated guns out there right now.

Big fan of the 2340.

[seed]

Well, you might want to check out the latest Sig called the P250

sig p250 DCc (http://www.sauer-waffen.de/index.php?id=319&lang=en)

Makes me wonder if they are getting ready to replace the Sigpro.

seed.

[cratz2]

I've owned a 229 (in 40) and a 2340 (SIG Pro in 40)... both were absolutely flawless from the first shot though the 229 was bought used. If I had to have a gun that I knew I was going to put 25,000 rounds through, I'd rather it be the 229. The trigger was better on the 229 but again, it was used.

Honestly, I don't care for SIGs as much as 1911s, BHPs, CZs or even Glocks. But they work. And they are as accurate as most folks need in a carry gun. Just go for whichever feels better in your hands and/or whichever you can get the better deal on.

[CZ52GUY]

I have a SigPro SP2009 and the P220ST.

No contest, the P220ST is the more durable design, but functionally, I can't see a difference in performance. Longevity seems to favor the P220ST, time will tell.

Save shooting,

CZ52'

[outofbattery]

Funny , I posted this earlier in the Glock vs Sig thread : If you can't tell , I love my Pro and shoot it better than my 220 and 226 . I picked mine up with only shelf wear for $389 or 399 ( for whatever reason , the shop decided to only keep carrying the .40 and the 2009 = bargain ) , a couple bills less than the other Sigs but it's a very high quality gun , and not just for a polymer framed one .

I think the Pro is one of the most under rated handguns going . I was a bit skeptical when I read some of the first reports on it and took Ayoob's claim it out shot his 226 with a grain of salt but ya know , it's turned out to be the best shooting gun I have . For whatever reason , Sig "Classic" snobs don't seem to care for them but IMO it's the best in their range when cost:ease to operate , care for and shoot:accuracy:fun is balanced out . I do wish they had made a compact version of it .If they had , I could probably even be talked down to owning only 2 pistols if I had to , between it and my HK4 but that's almost like cheating .

[GunNut]

Classic.....


The Pro was just way too big for only holding 10 rounds.

Now that new P250DCC looks pretty nice.

Steve

[twoblink]

The Sig Pro isn't the most underrated gun, because the Steyr M series is!

I was deciding on a primary pistol, and after looking at the Glocks, USP's, and the Sig Pro, I ended up with the (flame bate) SUPERIOR Steyr.

It doesn't have the feel of the P series...

[KLR]

I talked with a sig LE rep a few weeks ago. He said that Sig may not actually do the P-250 in other calibers. It is still up in the air.