Carry .45 Choice???

[Texasred]

I'm having trouble deciding in .45 for carry and range fun. Something that fits nicely and is single stack, but not a 1911. So I've narrowed it down to the new Ruger 345 or a Sig 220.
What pistol is more long lasting and reliable. I've heard of Sigs lasting up to 100,000 rnds and up. But then again I'm a big fan of Ruger and know their guns are very stout.
The price is not an issue for these two but just an added bonus for the Ruger's side. I'm 6'3" so the size is of no concern.
I just want the better gun out of the box. Better accuracy, reliability, and simplicity.
Which would you pick? How do they fieldstrip,tools or no tools?
Which configuration? Which load for carry?
Which can I one day give my grandson with a smile? I don't want to buy several .45s for different roles. Thanks Fellas.

 

[rmw]

If they are the only 2 you are looking at I say the Sig

 

[birddog]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=118219&highlight=ruger+345+range

Above is a link to the initial range report I posted shortly after buying my KP 345 in 2004. It has since become one of my favorite carry guns. I hesitate to jinx the gun, but it has NEVER had any kind of feed or fire failure shooting every brand of factory ammo and several different handloads. The gun is dead-on accurate, light to carry, very ergonomic and just fun to shoot.

My wife and I each have 1911's, and I enjoy them too. For every-day, roaming around carry, though, I usually pick the 345.

For carry loads, just a plain-jane 230fmj either from Mag-Tec or Winchester White Box. For target, plinking and woods-carry, I handload 230 fmj's with 6 grains of Unique, OR 230 grain LRN's with 5 or 5.4 grains of Unique. Both are excellent loads for that gun and for the 1911's.

I think you'd like the Ruger. I certainly do.

 

[MCgunner]

I have no experience with Sigs, but they do have a rep for accuracy and I like the frame mounted decocker. The 220 is probably a heavier gun than the Ruger. The smaller size and lower price would make me go Ruger, but you stated you didn't care on both accounts. I have a P90 I absolutely love, had never failed, is still shooting those sub 2" groups, unreal accurate. It's a little bulky, but I can carry it comfortably. It's just not the ideal carry piece for all day carry and it prints under just a T shirt. I've looked at that P345 and thought about it. New autos are low on my list, though. I think I want a new SP101 3" .357 more right now. That has a habit of changing depending on which side of the bed I get up on in the morning.

Anyway, I can't say that the P220 isn't a great choice, just my vote goes to the Ruger. If I could afford the Sig, I might think different, but then again, the Ruger is such a handy size weapon.

I can say this, I'd lay odds that Ruger will go just as far as that Sig. My P90 ain't even close to the end of its life and it's been shot a lot. I got it in '93. I'm sure it'll be going strong when I'm dead two or three decades from now.

 

[bakert]

I looked at a 345 and like the looks and feel but didn't care for the safety features so I opted for the Ruger P97 as a carry gun because it's a bit less bulky than the P90 and a little bit lighter. It's accurate, it works every time and is reasonably priced.

 

[ugaarguy]

Glock 36?

Maybe take a look at the slimline single stack 45 ACP Glock 36. 6 + 1 in a slim, compact, light weight pistol would be nice since you want a carry gun; just my thoughts.

 

[bratch]

Kahr p45 maybe

 

[Steve C]

I have a P90 Ruger and a Sig 220. The Sig is a nicer pistol but its $150 to $200 more too. The Ruger and the Sig are both excelent pistols. The control layout is better on the Sig IMO and the trigger is better (cleaner breaking, less creep). Both benefit from Hogue grips though the 345 doesn't have that option being a polymer frame. Personally I'd choose a P90 over the 345 as I like the alloy frame better than a polymer. You realy can't go too wrong wtih either pistol. Picke the one that feels the best to your hand or pick by price. A plus on the Sig side is the Sig will hold its value or appreciate while the Ruger will normally only depreciate in value over the short term, accessories like night sights are easier to install on the Sig. Wether any of that's worth the extra money is up to you.

 

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's All-

Get a .45 caliber SIG P220A, you won't regret it one bit~!

 

[MICHAEL T]

Between those 2 I'd go with the Sig. But I'd really feel much better with a Colt 1911A1 on my side

 

[Pilot]

Commander sized lightweight 1911 or Taurus PT145 come to mind.

 

[1911austin]

Between the two I would choose the Sig. I would pick an good 1911 over either.

 

[MCgunner]

Here's a P345 test. http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-P345.htm

According to the test, the thing is just shy of 30 oz. While it's slimmer and no doubt prints less than my P90, it's only three ounces lighter.

I'm a little put off by the key lock thing and the magazine safety interlock, too. I think I'll keep the P90. The gun is not ANY lighter, don't think, than the P97! If it's any lighter, it ain't by much. The P97 is a bit trimmer than the P90, but not enough I'm willing to trade in my P90 for it.

I do admit the P345 is a more carryable, more concealable size. IIRC my P95 was something like 26 ounces. I guess they had to have more weight in the slide for the .45s recoil? It's puzzling to me why they didn't cut down the weight a little more. A 25 ounce gun would be tempting interlocks or no. I think, considering this, I'd be like bakert if I didn't already have a fantastic shooting P90 and go with the P97. As it is, I don't need to spend money there. Back to wanting the SP101.

 

[Randall]

Ever look at a S&W .45 in the compact models?
Randall

 

[bakert]

Mcgunner, actually if I had wanted a gun for home defence and target shooting rather than concealed carry I would probably have went with the P90.