Sig P210 question

[WVsig]

The OP stated his brother was admiring a Sig 210 at "TriggerCon" last summer.

Correct me if I'm wrong but does this NOT imply that his brother was admiring a new-model 210? Therefore isn't the debate of whether a new 210 is good enough simply moot?

If he liked the new one he was glomming, I'm sure he won't care about differences - esoteric or otherwise - between generations or manufacturing points of the pistol.

Todd.

Look at the posts in this thread. Many people are conflating the two platforms.

I didn't misread your comments, WVsig. I'm just not sure that the Browning barrel/slide design is as important as you suggest. The newer version of the gun is somewhat different internally, but I am not convinced that the difference in barrel/slide lockup matters as much as you think it does. That's why I said the following:



I don't know. But, I don't believe the Browning barrel/slide lockup is the key. I am more inclined to believe that the extra attention paid to consistent lockup and fit with the Swiss and German guns accounted for their outstanding performance.

I've not seen anything that compares the performance of the older and newer versions of the guns, done by people who don't have a dog in the fight. I agree, however, that gun mag tests (American Rifleman included) are not sufficient. Most gun mag tests and evaluations seem to be more focused on creating advertising revenue than giving readers truly meaningful performance evaluations.

One friend had two P-210s, one of them came with a matching .22 top end. He eventually sold them because of severe hammer bite. Both of his P-210s came with tighter/smaller 5-shot proof targets than did mine. That told me that while the older SIGs were very impressive, they weren't all created equal.​

I will note, too, that Sphinx, prior to moving their production to the U.S.(where Kriss-USA -- a U.S. subsidiary of Kriss-Switzerland, the firm that bought out Sphinx Systems Ltd.,) made a number of changes to the Sphinx design, focusing on CNC production methods. These changes were done to give comparable Sphinx performance standards while requiring less-costly hand work.

I wonder whether SIG has done the same?

I think the the Browning lock up matters just the way it does in a 1911. Again it does not mean there is not another way to skin that cat. Lets look at what effects accuracy on a 1911 and then apply it to the P210.

1. Minimize frame / slide clearance -- 15%
2. Install match grade barrel -- 10%
3. Fit / install accuracy bushing -- 20%
4. Minimum chamber headspace -- 10%
5. Eliminate rear barrel side play -- 20%
6. Consistent full barrel lug engagement -- 20%
7. Beyond reach -- 5%

To me 40% of the of what makes a 1911 accurate has to do with barrel lock up and engagement. Again not that you can't do it another way but with skilled craftsman like the Swiss this is why the old P210 is what it is.

It is possible that Sig is getting equal performance out of the new P210 but I have not see a factory test target at 50 meters from a US produced P210 like the one I posted. I have not seen any verifiable testing over 25 meters. The Swiss guns ability to do that was not just the stuff of legends. As to the Sphinx IMHO is a great comparison. The current US made Sphinx SDPs are not as good as the Swiss made ones from just a few years ago. The new SDPs are not as good as the old Sphinx guns. They changed them not to make them better. They changed them to make the cheaper to produce for the mass market. A true Sphinx from Switerland will cost you $4800+. I believe the Sphinx analogy is spot on. The SDP made in the US is full of compromises to hit a price point. They are great guns I own 2 of them but they are not on the same level as the guns that came before them with the Sphinx name and are not the equal of the guns made in Switzerland today.

https://edelweissarms.com/sphinx-3009-compact-duotone-1787/





I am not trying to piss on the OP. The current Sig P210 will be an awesome present to his brother. My comments are informational because everytime the P210 comes up it seems like 50% of the people commenting do not know the history behind the gun and are viewing them as equal which IMHO is exactly what Sig hopes you do. Anyway I am out on this one OP I hope your brother loves the P210 and it serves him and his family well.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

It is possible that Sig is getting equal performance out of the new P210 but I have not see a factory test target at 50 meters from a US produced P210 like the one I posted. I have not seen any verifiable testing over 25 meters. The Swiss guns ability to do that was not just the stuff of legends.

And we're back to a point I addressed earlier: the lack of evidence is not evidence. You may be correct, but I'd like to see some testing and comparisons before I jump on board.

I'm pretty sure, however, that the original SIG M49, while an exceptional weapon, was NOT as accurate or as finely tuned as the later models developed for civilian use. The M49 was equivalent to the original P-210-2, and there were a number of other models that were later versions that had other features, but I've never been able to find out if these later models where given extra attention when being built. I think M49s are still being used by the military in Denmark.

As to the Sphinx IMHO is a great comparison. The current US made Sphinx SDPs are not as good as the Swiss made ones from just a few years ago. The new SDPs are not as good as the old Sphinx guns. They changed them not to make them better. They changed them to make the cheaper to produce for the mass market. A true Sphinx from Switzerland will cost you $4800+. I believe the Sphinx analogy is spot on. The SDP made in the US is full of compromises to hit a price point. They are great guns I own 2 of them but they are not on the same level as the guns that came before them with the Sphinx name and are not the equal of the guns made in Switzerland today.

Every gun produced for wide (mass market) consumption uses a design based on compromises.

A true IPSC gun made by Sphinx would have cost you at LEAST $4800, but those guns weren't really production guns -- they were more like some of the custom 1911s you can buy here in the U.S. They were arguably built for with a much different design objective in mind: P-210s didn't shoot in IPSC competitions -- not enough mag capacity.

The 2000 and 3000 series Sphinx production guns made a few years ago used the same Browning barrel/slide design as the current Sphinx guns. The differences, if they are different, might have more to do with the time and effort put into crafting a gun that consistently locks up than with the barrel/slide design itself. Consistent lockup, which doesn't necessarily involves all of those areas (10%, 20%, etc cited in your response for 1911 guns above), seems to be the most important factor when doing aimed fire.

​

If the CNC automation doesn't work as well as the hand-fitting of a master craftsman, then we'll have to wait for the next technological advance -- if we can still have handguns, then.

You may be correct when asserting that newer Sphinx guns are not as accurate as the older Sphinx models, but that was not my experience.

That said, my experience has been limited to comparisons that involved shooting at 25 yards or so -- i and I don't have a Ransom Rest setup or the appropriate inserts. Shooting by hand from a rest, the performance of the two older Spinx 2000 models I once owned (one was a 2000P) and my SDP showed differences that might more properly be attributed to the shooter than the guns.

I'd like to see a comparison between those two model lines, as well.​

Have you seen a shoot-off between a SIG P-226 X-5 in 9mm and a SIG P-210? I haven't, but I would like to see that, too.

But like the P210 vs Sphinx IPSC guns, the 226 X-5 and the P-210 were designed for different venues. (I would never consider carrying a P-226 X-5, but it was a real-world option with my SIG P-210-6.)

 

[WVsig]

And we're back to a point I addressed earlier: the lack of evidence is not evidence. You may be correct, but I'd like to see some testing and comparisons before I jump on board.

I'm pretty sure, however, that the original SIG M49, while an exceptional weapon, was NOT as accurate or as finely tuned as the later models developed for civilian use. The M49 was equivalent to the original P-210-2, and there were a number of other models that were later versions that had other features, but I've never been able to find out if these later models where given extra attention when being built. I think M49s are still being used by the military in Denmark.



Every gun produced for wide (mass market) consumption uses a design based on compromises.

A true IPSC gun made by Sphinx would have cost you at LEASET $4800, but those guns weren't really production guns -- they were more like some of the custom 1911s you can buy here in the U.S. They were arguably built for with much different design objective in mind: P210s didn't shoot in IPSC competitions -- not enough mag capacity.

The 2000 and 3000 series Sphinx production guns made a few years ago used the same Browning barrel/slide design as the current Sphinx guns. The differences, if they are different, might have more to do with the time and effort put into crafting a gun that consistently locks up than with the barrel/slide design itself. Consistent lockup, which doesn't necessarily involves all of those areas (10%, 20%, etc cited in your response for 1911 guns above), seems to be the most important factor when doing aimed fire.

​

If the CNC automation doesn't work as well as the hand-fitting of a master craftsman, then we'll have to wait for the next technological advance -- if we can still have handguns, then.

You may be correct when asserting that newer Sphinx guns are not as accurate as the older Sphinx models, but that was not my experience.

That said, my experience has been limited to comparisons that involved shooting at 25 yards or so -- i and I don't have a Ransom Rest setup or the appropriate inserts. Shooting by hand from a rest, the performance of the two older Spinx 2000 models I once owned (one was a 2000P) and my SDP showed differences that might more properly be attributed to the shooter than the guns.

I'd like to see a comparison between those two model lines, as well.​

Have you seen a shoot-off between a SIG P-226 X-5 in 9mm and a SIG P-210? I haven't, but I would like to see that, too.

But like the P210 vs Sphinx IPSC guns, the 226 X-5 and the P-210 were designed for different venues. (I would never consider carrying a P-226 X-5, but it was a real-world option with my SIG P-210-6.)

I love that you just love to debate for debate sake. You do realize that the Sphinx guns in the pics above are current production. $4800 is what they cost today. One of those is clearly not an IPSC gun. You simply are arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even have the facts right but you keep punching. You ignore facts and counter points in order to further your position. The fact is that Swiss P210 shipped from the factory with 50 meter test targets that looked like this. That is a factory gun. By the time it shipped the reputation for accuracy of the Swiss P210 was well established. Of course there will be variance from one gun to another but still this is proof of what those guns could do. I will add that those groups at that time were not shot from a ransom rest.

That is not some customized post factory test target that is the target that shipped with the pistol from the factory. Sig in NH is not shipping a new P210 with that target.Sorry look at the target. That it is a frickin quarter and that is 50 meters. Facts lets try to stick to them verse your hyperbole and conjecture.

It is pointless. This is why sometimes it is best to not engage.

 

[Rock185]

CharliesHammer, I assume you're considering one of the newer SIG P210A pistols made in the US of A for your brother. As has been discussed, they are different than the Swiss originals. Main difference IMHO is the barrel/slide lock up, which is similar to the X-5 and traditional P series SIGs. I can see that the new lock up would be less expensive to produce, but I'm not at all sure that it's actually inferior in performance. I have one of the American 210s. The barrel has no detectable end play when locked into the slide. With the pistol assembled and in battery, there is no up/down play at the breech end of the barrel. There is no slide/frame play or looseness at all with the slide closed. New standard models are available for around $1100.00, new Target models around $1400.00. I can't say that the new P210A is better than another manufactuer's gun in the same price range, but I doubt your brother would be disappointed in receiving a new P210A, unless he is a collector rather than shooter. I agree that the Swiss 210s have a mystique that the US guns are unlikely to ever achieve. I've had a few Swiss and German 210s, and most recently an American made example. I currently have examples from all three countries, and consider them all fine pistols.

PS, I have a great brother too, and have given him a gun or two over the years.

 

[Bert W.]

Mr. Hammer saw his brother admiring a P210 and made a mental note for a 50th birthday gift. He asked if there were negatives of the P210. The thread has been hijacked by experts debating about Swiss 210 being superior to the US version. Now all we need is someone to chime in and say don't by brother a P210, get him a Glock.

 

[CharliesHammer]

I do know the gun is a newer model that is different than the original Swiss guns. I have had no experience with these weapons so I asked the group to share their experiences.
The gun will be a target model and he will be happy. He has quite a few Sigs already.

 

[Jim Watson]

Sounds good to me.
The 210 American has better ergonomics than the Switzer.
Unless you are a Master class 50 yard shooter or are in the habit of going over your guns with a magnifying glass, you (he) will be quite happy with the current model.
By the way, I have a -6 and still think the A is a good choice.

 

[Kp321]

Since I don't have a brother, I gave myself a P-210 for my 70 th birthday. I planned to shoot bullseye with it but my eyes were not up to the task. I heard about the Armorycraft red dot mount so can now use a red dot. My comparison standard for bullseye shooting is my S&W 52-1. First match I came within 10 points of my 52 scores so with some load development I feel it will be a viable option.
Sure, it is not the Swiss or German gun but I didn't buy it to look at.

 

[Riomouse911]

The negative is I don't have a brother like you to buy one for me!

Beat me to it!

Stay safe.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

You ignore facts and counter points in order to further your position. The fact is that Swiss P210 shipped from the factory with 50 meter test targets that looked like this. That is a factory gun. By the time it shipped the reputation for accuracy of the Swiss P210 was well established. Of course there will be variance from one gun to another but still this is proof of what those guns could do. I will add that those groups at that time were not shot from a ransom rest.

What facts have I ignored? You've offered facts about the accuracy of the older P210s and nobody has questioned those facts. But, you've offered no facts about the accuracy of the newer models.

You've offered opinions and your analysis as to why the newer guns must be less accurate, and your opinions and analysis may prove to be correct, but no proof has been offered, thus far.. The Oxford dictionary defines a FACT as a thing that is known or proved to be true.

• If you or anyone else participating here has relevant facts about the accuracy of the new guns compared to the older, please share that information with us, and I'll acknowledge that you -- WVsig -- are correct about the differences in accuracy.

• I have owned a P-210-6 and shot several others. My P-210-6 came with a proof target showing a 1.7" 5 shot group at 50 meters and I found that impressive. But, as I noted in an earlier response, all P-210s were not created equal, and while the P-210-6 was generally thought to be one of the better versions, I saw a proof target from a P-210-2 that had a sub-1" five shot group.

• I was led to believe that the proof target from the guns in the late 70's onward were shot using a Ransom Rest. Mine was made in 1976 and apparently set on a distributor's shelf for almost 20 years before I got it. It was NIB. If all of the Proof Targets for P-210s from that period were NOT shot from a Ransom Rest, that may account for the almost 1" difference between my P-210-6 and a friend's P-210-2. Or, it may be that my gun's proof target shooter might have had a long day...

• Do you have any evidence that the Browning barrel/slide design is the key factor in the old style gun's great performance, and additional evidence that the newer versions using the SIG lockup design is innately less accurate than the older design? Facts, please, not opinions or analysis. That seems to be your claim.

I have owned several Star Firestar 9mms that had the same basic Browning slide/barrel lockup design as the P210, and the Firestars also ran the slide inside the frame like the P-210. And while they were pretty accurate guns, they weren't SIG P-210s. I know, too, that they were not meticulously hand-fit at the factory, and I didn't find proof targets for them. (CZ has done that for years with most models, and they're shot freehand -- more to show function than accuracy.)
You can call what I've been doing arguing for the sake of arguing if you like, but, as I said earlier, the lack of evidence (in this case the lack of properly done comparison testing or the absence of newer proof targets) is not evidence.

 

[denster]

I have both the target and standard model and in my opinion they are both worth the cost. I have well over 4 thousand rounds through them without one problem. The trigger is awesome and accuracy is out of the park. The fit and finish are exceptional. The argument that they are not built to the same standard as the originals is to my thinking irrelevant. I doubt the original guns provide any additional accuracy factor that is within the limits of human ability and the difference in cost is to say the least significant. Your brother is a lucky fellow.

 

[CharliesHammer]

I have both the target and standard model and in my opinion they are both worth the cost. I have well over 4 thousand rounds through them without one problem. The trigger is awesome and accuracy is out of the park. The fit and finish are exceptional. The argument that they are not built to the same standard as the originals is to my thinking irrelevant. I doubt the original guns provide any additional accuracy factor that is within the limits of human ability and the difference in cost is to say the least significant. Your brother is a lucky fellow.

Thank you for the response neither he or I are professional shooters. We are both old and half blind. He recently in fact had eye surgery. He will however be able to see and enjoy the aesthetics and know it shoots great.

 

[Rodentman]

I have a new P210A and am quite satisfied with it. I know it is not the same as the original ones, although I am not a handgun expert. I find the fit and finish well executed and the price reasonable. I NEVER buy a handgun as an "investment" as I don't count on future value. It is a fun gun to shoot and since all guns are capable of greater accuracy than I can achieve I don't dwell on that aspect either.