Decision Made: Sig Carry Fastback - Super-Unprofessional Range Report Included!

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by ceetee, Sep 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    First off - I want to thank everybody for their help and advice. I had narrowed my seearch down to three models: The Sig Carry Fastback, the Smith and Wesson E Series Round Butt Scandium, and the Kimber Super Carry Pro. It's possible that I erred by being too cautious but based on most people's recommendations, I ruled out the Kimber right off the bat. Between the Smith and Sig, I chose the sig for the following reasons:

    1. Money. The Sig was $250 cheaper, and when your wife has you on a leash... errrr... budget, like I am, you tend to make every penny count. I realize that I'm not the 1911 expert that many here are, but my inexperienced eye couldn't see any major differences in the way each was built to justify the extra cost. I figure that most of that extra money goes into the materials - I don't know how much scandium costs, but it's got to be more expensive than stainless steel and I just can't see myself spending the extra cash on something I'm not going to appreciate.

    2. That scandium frame again. A few years ago, I broke my right arm. The nature of the break cause the surgeon to have to cut through my right shoulder to implant rods and pins to fix it. I've had three surgeries through my right shoulder, and it's mostly scar tissue inside. Because of this, I'm not entirely recoil-averse, but recoil is definitely a factor that shaped my decision. The all-steel frame of the Sig just plain felt more comforting than the much lighter Smith. I have no doubt that the Smith will hold up to the kind of casual use I'm going to put it through, but it wasn't for me.

    3. Exactness of build. I'm not sure how to quantify this, but the Smith that I was looking at just felt a lot looser than the Sig. I could take the slide on the Smith and rock it side to side with just my hand - there was noticible play when it was in battery. And when manually racking the slide, I noticed a couple spots where it seemed to have a hitch as it traveled forward and back. The Sig, on the other hand, locked up with no play, and the slide moved like it was on ball bearings. The Sig's trigger seemed to be a lot lighter, and even though it seemed to have just the tiniest amount of creep, it was easy to imagine getting that surprise break that I've been trained to have when squeezing a trigger. All in all, the Sig just felt better to me.

    CarryFastback.jpg

    I purchased the pistol on Friday, but had to wait until Saturday to get it to the range. I brought a couple boxes of Federal hardball with me. My goal was not necessarily to go for extreme accuracy, but just to get the "breaking in" process started. The magazine springs felt extremely stiff - much stiffer than either the factory springs or the springs in the Wilson Combat magazines I use in my Officers' Model. I suppose they'll break in, and get a little lighter, but in the meantime it's not too big of a struggle to load them up with eight rounds. BTW, the stainless steel mags have witness holes perfectly lined up to show how many rounds are in each one, and they're stamped with the numbers 1 though 8 for dummies like me who tend to lose count. I felt that was a nice touch. Both factory-supplied mags locked up tightly, ejected easily, and fed reliably. For the first hundred rounds, I didn't have a single fail-to-feed.

    I started off just banging away at a silhouette at distances from 7 yards to 11 yards. It was easy to see that I need a lot more practice. My doubles and triples weren't nearly as fast as they should be. Felt recoil was a little bit less than in the all-steel Officers' Model, but accuracy (for me, anyway) was much better. The full-size grip makes the pistol much easier to control, and the bobtail didn't negatively affect shooting at all. If anything, it makes the grip fit my hand better. I've no doubt that if I were able to practice as much as I'd like, my abilities would improve dramatically. As it is, the pistol is ten times more accurate than I am as a shooter. I had no failures-to-eject, no light strikes, no problems whatsoever. The sights presented a good sight picture, and even though the range was too well lit to see the tritium inserts, the night sights can be seen easily in a somewhat dim room. All-in-all, I enjoyed shooting this pistol immensely.

    After the first box ran out, I changed targets and tried to settle down for some off-hand slow fire. The range I was at has the distances marked at 15 feet, 21 feet, 33 feet, and then 50, 60, and 70 feet, but the full distance is 75 feet. I fired five rounds each at 15 and 21 feet, ten rounds each at 33 and 50 feet, and then five rounds again at 60 and 75 feet. I then brought the target back in to 21 feet and fired the remaining ten rounds at the target's head area. The photo will show you how I did. Again, the gun is easily ten times more accurate than this target will attest. Maybe one day I'll take the opportunity to shoor it from a solid rest, but in the meantime I'll just keep on having fun. 'Cause yes –– like Old Painless says... "Shootin' stuff is fun!"

    CarryFastbackTarget.jpg

    When I got home, I was comparing the size of the Sig to the Officers' Model. Man, it's hard to get a decent photo of these two side-by-side to get a real comparison. I don't know how the professionals do it. This is about the best I could to. For now, the Officers' Model is still my carry pistol, but if thie Sig proves to be as reliable as it seem snow, that'll probably change.

    OfficerstoCommanderComparison.jpg

    Hope you enjoyed my quick unscientific review, and if anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.:D
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2012
  2. Tophernj

    Tophernj Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Texas... finally
    Other than the fact that you automatically ruled out the Kimber (I have and love mine to death) I think you made a great choice. Good for you. Great write up, thanks for it.

    C
     
  3. bannockburn

    bannockburn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    25,422
    Sounds like both you and the SIG did just fine. I like my Colt Officers Model too but seem to shoot better with my Commander size guns.
     
  4. mach1.3

    mach1.3 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    Nice looking guns. The Sig is a Pro size, that is 4-4.25" bbl? Does it have a full length guide rod? Is the frame aluminum alloy or steel? I have a Nighthawk Custom Talon with a bobbed handle in a Commander size frame and bbl that I love. Your gun looks similar. The bobbed handle is supposed to add comfort when carrying but I also think it helps fits my hand better when shooting. Looks like you made a good decision with the Sig.
    Enjoy your new handgun.
     
  5. Fred_G

    Fred_G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    Messages:
    497
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Nice looking gun. Love my 1911.
     
  6. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    The Sig has a stainless steel frame and slide both. I really like the weight compared to the lightweight Smigh and Kimber. I got Mrs. Ceetee's food scale out the other night (don't tell her!) and weighed the Sig and the Officers' Model. I was really surprised to find out that fully loaded, the Sig is less than four ounces heavier. If I remember right, it was around 3.8 ounces. Something like that. Keep in mind also - "fully loaded" means nine rounds for the Sig and eight for the Colt (with a Wilson 7-round magazine).

    Sig's website lists the barrel length at 4.2" but I like to believe it's the full 4.25". And it comes with a GI guide rod, which suits me just fine. At first, I was a little concerned with how sharp the checkering is on the frontstrap and mainspring housing. I imagined it abrading bare skin like sandpaper, but my fears were totally unfounded. I've become a big fan. I know it's not in the league with guns like Nighthawk or Les Baer, but personally, I think I got more than my money's worth.
     
  7. mach1.3

    mach1.3 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    I've been perusing the web trying to find more info on your fastback carry model. Thanks Ceetee, I'll add another 1911 and another grand + but oh well I really like my 229, 226 and 220 so why not add a 1911 to the Sig collection.

    BTW: The Talon is a sweet gun but it should be for a the price tag. Forged slide and frame etc etc. it will still mess up on a rare occas.
     
  8. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    Now that I'm home, I'll add the actual weight data: The Sig, with one magazine and nine rounds of 230 gr hardball weighs 43.2 ounces. The Colt, with one Wilson Combat magazine and eight rounds weighs 39.6 ounces. I can't tell if the barrel is 4.2 inches or 4.25 inches.

    And the only part of the purchase that still bothers me is that I still don't have a partner for my no-dash S&W 686... Maybe next year. (LOL)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice