Tark said:
You seem pretty upset, Walt. I can sense that you have little respect for anyone who doesn't agree with you and that you become rather angry when they don't listen to your reasoning. Your Emphasis on the word "you" is an indicator. I have tried not to get into a fight with you and I have even tried to inject a little humor into the conversation. Read post #62. And the words "fairly close" aren't exactly a strong endorsement, more like damning with faint praise.
You seem to imply/suggest that maybe I'm reading too much into your use of "fairly close" -- saying it's a way to (jokingly?) damn with faint praise. Perhaps I did read too much into your use of that term -- but if I did, it may be because you used that exact same term earlier, in a very similar context -- but in that case you clearly were NOT damning with faint praise or denigrating the Star Super A in any way Maybe I am misreading -- but some might think you've simply chosen to use the same term differently.
As for the
YOU... Should I have used the third person, or a more formal form of address? Should I have said, "Someone said"? Or was capitalization the issue?
YOU seemed the best word choice at the time, because it identified the only person in this discussion who seemed to consider the
Star Super A -- apparently a good gun that might be reliable/durable, and reasonably well-fit and finished -- but not a close match in accuracy to the P210 -- to be
fairly close to a sig p-210. It seemed equally important to you that it could be had
for a lot less money.
Tark said:
"I think we can safely say that the Star most definitely is NOT in the same league as the other two, but then, I didn't claim it was. LOL Just that it comes fairly close for far less money."
If superior accuracy is not one of the Star Super A's traits why did you even mention it? You can buy a lot beautiful guns for less money than a P-210, and their accuracy might be pretty good, too. I guess they're
fairly close, too? Your early complaint about the P210 wasn't that it was not accurate, but simply that
better accuracy was available for comparble (or maybe less) money. What does "
fairly close" mean if the Super A and the other guns in question aren't in the same league -- when this whole discussion has been focused on P210-level (or better) accuracy?
Words and definitions can be difficult. It took a while to get you define what you meant by "accuracy better than the P-210", and that ended up, I think, being 1-hole groups at 50 yards. Maybe we should go through that same drill with "
fairly close"?
You said read #62. I did. I also read #59:
Tark said:
For the price of that beautiful Sig 210 Les, or any number of custom shops will build you a gun that will shoot rings around it....or perhaps I should say "inside of it".
Implicit in that claim (stated more directly elsewhere, I think) was that any number of shops could offer "shoot rings around it" (i.e, much better) accuracy for the same money. "Shooting rings around it" is an impressive claim.
My P-210 came with a proof target showing a 5-shot 1.75" group at 50 meters, or roughly 55 yards. That ought to be almost a one-hole group at 25 yards. And my proof target group was larger than some of the proof targets I've seen for other P210s.
I think the largest 5-shot 1-hole group possible with a .45s is about 1.25"; while the largest 5-shot 1-hole group possible with a 9mm is .87". I think that .45 group is roughly 40% larger than the 9mm group. Either group, of course, could be smaller, and that would be truly impressive!
Les Baer advertises a number of special-purpose competition pistols and the one offering the smallest group, the
Bullseye Wadcutter Pistol with Optical Mount, can do a 2.5" group at 50 yards. That gun is very reasonably priced, starting at around $2500! Wilson Combat says that one of its
Pinnacle models (which have a lot of work invested in finish and engraving) can do a 1" group at 25 yards (I think that 1" group roughly converts to a 2" group at that greater distance -- and might be a 1-hole group at 25 yards, but not at 50...) That's still a bigger group than my P-210-6 using a smaller bullet. That Wilson Combat model sells for around $8,000, but I suspect Wilson can offer you similar precision for a couple of thousand dollars less -- with a "Plain Jane" Pinnacle.
If the new SIG P210s sell in the $2500-$4500 range, and continue to be as accurate as prior P210s, they'll probably be pretty popular and I'd expect SIG to sell a lot of them -- they've upgraded the guns to remove many of the things that many of us found aggravating: I would expect the the P-210s to be pretty accurate.
If the new 210s aren't as good as the older ones, we can switch to a P226 X-5, which many feel is just as accurate.. Some P-226 X-5 models models can be had for less than $3000, and the price (higher or lower) seems to be closely tied to the trigger options.. I paid $1,400 for a used (but barely fired, and pictured earlier) P-226 X-5 SA Competition about three or four years ago, but it didn't have the adjustable trigger.
As compared to the 210s under discussion, the 210's slide frame fit, Swiss or German, is just very smooth over it's full travel, with no play or slop. I gotta admit I don't know how they accomplish this on production pistol, especially one originally conceived as a military/service sidearm.
