What is the Rolls Royce, money not an issue 9mm ?

[JohnKSa]

Greetings from Anchorage Alaska, having owned at least several of all the guns mentioned...

Hey Monte,

What did you think of the Korths and the Korriphilas you owned? I'm impressed, I've never heard from anyone who owned a Korriphila, let alone several.

 

[Serpico]

You could spend more, but I don't think there are two finer 9mms than the Hi-Power and the P7.

 

[ShootinDave]

The S&W 3953 is my favorite 9mm i have ever shot..... it might not be a rolls royce psitol.... but I wouldn't trade it for one. A lot of my buddies like their Sig better.... but the S&W fits me much better and was half as much.

Price and reviews don't make a pistol. Its how you shoot it.... thats your Rolls Royce.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Yes, I shoot my 2 210's. I find them to be very nice and easy to shoot well but to a certain extent I do not believe they are "intrinsically" better then say a very nicely hand built 1911. What you are buying is the workmanship, not a fundementally better design. Yes it has some advantages, but if it were that dramatically better everyone would copy it.

The reason that no one copies the SIG P210 is the prohibitive expense of its manufacture. The difficulty of precisely machining full length inverted frame rails from scratch is one example. By contrast, CZ-75 and its clones get around this problem by substituting cheap castings for forging or steel billet. Similar considerations apply to the Luger that inspired its method of frame/receiver coupling. The only postwar Lugers machined from forgings in the traditional fashion have been priced over $10,000.

In fact, the difficulty of copying the P210 design ultimately stymied even its original makers, whose manufacturing techniques and quality of fit steadily deteriorated starting in 1981. A typical P210 of recent manufacture can scarcely measure up to its predecessors made from the Sixties through the mid-Eighties.

 

[PhillyGlocker]

The Glock 19

 

[Zero_DgZ]

No, I think the G19 is more like the '76 olds that simply refuses to die, no matter what you do to it.

And if that's so, my Storm is the '99 Honda Accord with a jet engine strapped to it.

 

[Dodger02WS6]

Hmm, since you said target, and no carry, I'd say Beretta Steel I 92 SA, not as rare as a Billie and not as flashy, but still gets the job done at 1/2 the cost.
If you don't like the Vertec Grip, find an Elite II 92G.

 

[Manedwolf]

No, I believe the Glock is the Saturn. Or Ford Taurus.

Absolutely NO style at all, but it'll run.

 

[4fingermick]

you all forgot the......................

Peters Stahl, definetly in Rolls Royce territory.

My recommendation would be from what I've seen:

Bullseye/USP style Target shooting:

952 S&W:
(more Lincoln/Cadillac territory than Rolls)

SIG 210:
(definetly a Roller)

Peters Stahl:
( A real Roller this one and you can get different cal barrels, most of which you can't use in Australia. This is made like Swiss Watch and is made of metal that just won't quit, a great for Service Pistol in Australia, but make sure it fits in the box for IUT/Olympic style shooting*)

Service style shooting

SIG 226 or whatever the new one is:
great pistol and definetly in Rolls territory.

You can make a 1911 perform like a roller, but these guys are no expense pistols, straight out of the box, are priced accordingly and work like a dream.

Best all rounder first pistol for a new shooter in a pistol club in Australia:

a .22LR standard pistol (the new Baikals are as good as some of the Rolls Royce pistols at half the price. You can compete in more matches with this sort of pistol, aren't reliant on relaoding ammo or getting someone else to do it and will prepare you properly for a centrefire (I know you didn't want to hear this, but if you seriously want to be a good shot, you have to get your ground strokes right.)

Best all rounder first centrefire pistol for a 'newish' shooter in a pistol club in Australia who has learnt to master his 22:

S&W 38 Special or 357. K frame without the sexy underlug (al la 586, these are too heavy to hold one handed for most target disciplines).

Go ask the champeens, none of them started with a centrefire and in Australia you are a target shooter period :-(

Bitter pills to swallow, but that's the way it is, if you are not serious about becoming a really good shot, start at the top, it's up to you. Good luck.

Mick.

 

[Texas9]

I'm going brave on this one. I read the first 70 or so posts, and didn't see one mention of the Sexiest Damn Pistol on Earth, the Beretta 92FS Inox.

Oh, it's bling you want? I give you the 92FS Deluxe.

The drooling starts now.

Also available in blued.

 

[berettaman]

Hands down it's the Billineum.

 

[Shear_stress]

The reason that no one copies the SIG P210 is the prohibitive expense of its manufacture. The difficulty of precisely machining full length inverted frame rails from scratch is one example. By contrast, CZ-75 and its clones get around this problem by substituting cheap castings for forging or steel billet.

No argument from me about the first sentance. However, the second and third are not quite accurate. There is nothing magical or particularly difficult about milling inverted rails. At worst, it is simply a matter of making up a custom cutting tool to chuck in the mill. I assure you that this would be one of many custom-made cutters needed to perform all the machining operations in practically any firearm.

The third sentance confuses a cast frame (which CZs have, just like a multi-thousand dollar Caspian-framed race-gun) with cast-in features. Yes, the full-length frame rails of a CZ pistol are indeed machined (you can tell by the rough commie tool marks, natch). I know you are a fan of the P210, but, please, there is no need to run down other pistols in order to enjoy yours.

Now back to your first sentance. I agree that the prohibitive cost of the P210 is due in part to that famous Swiss quality, but it is also a product of high labor costs and simple economies of scale. The Sig P220 was developed for a reason, sheetmetal slide and all.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

There is nothing magical or particularly difficult about milling inverted rails. At worst, it is simply a matter of making up a custom cutting tool to chuck in the mill. I assure you that this would be one of many custom-made cutters needed to perform all the machining operations in practically any firearm.

The word from P210 historians is that SIG found the inverted frame rails much harder and costlier to machine to the required dimensions and tolerances. I have no idea why the same considerations should not apply to the slide rails on the M1911. But absent reliable evidence or knock-down arguments to the contrary, I am inclined to take them at their word.

Yes, the full-length frame rails of a CZ pistol are indeed machined (you can tell by the rough commie tool marks, natch). I know you are a fan of the P210, but, please, there is no need to run down other pistols in order to enjoy yours.

The cost of machining plummets when gunmakers start out with castings made in the shape roughly approximating the finished part. By contrast, "old school" P210 frames started out as forging that weighed 2.33 kg, ending up at .033 kg after 107 machining operations. No other postwar service handgun was nearly as labor-intensive.

The Sig P220 was developed for a reason, sheetmetal slide and all.

Yes. But note that Sauer continues to treat its design as cost-effective even after taking its execution upmarket with the X-Five and the like. Regrettably, that was not to be with the P210.

 

[doubleg]

 

[Shear_stress]

The cost of machining plummets when gunmakers start out with castings made in the shape roughly approximating the finished part. By contrast, "old school" P210 frames started out as forging that weighed 2.33 kg, ending up at .033 kg after 107 machining operations.

Both forging and casting result in blanks that are approximately the same shape as the finished part and both forged and cast blanks require serious hogging out in order to obtain their final shapes. That's part of the entire point of forging, besides work hardening the material. The P210 frame is not machined from a billet like the "flame pantographed" Inglis High-Power (made by a washing machine company, of all things) or even the original AK-47 receivers. And for some perspective, until CNC became king, it took over 2000 operations to build a simple S&W Model 10 in the 1950s, not including 500 different inspections. Recall that, until the late 1990s, nearly every part of a S&W Model 10 was forged, machined and hand-fitted.

The word from P210 historians is that SIG found the inverted frame rails much harder and costlier to machine to the required dimensions and tolerances. I have no idea why the same considerations should not apply to the slide rails on the M1911. But absent reliable evidence or knock-down arguments to the contrary, I am inclined to take them at their word.

I am not sure who these historians are, or whether they also happen to be engineers as well as historians, so it is difficult to respond to this argument. However, this does not change the fact that the Czechs, Italians, Israelis, Turks, and Chinese are also somehow capable of machining inverted rails in CZs and CZ clones without resulting in one, two, or three thousand dollar guns.

Again, I do not say this to diminish the quality of the P210. There is no question that it is a fine piece. All I am trying to convey is something you say yourself:

No other postwar service handgun was nearly as labor-intensive.

This is the key to the high cost of the P210: labor, not design. The gun was expensive to make because it was largely made by hand by Swiss laborers. Cost, volume, and production efficiency were not priorities, so SiG could indulge in more time-honored methods of manufacture. For comparison, look at the Smith and Wesson Registered Magnum, considered by some to be one of the finest revolvers ever made. From a design standpoint, it is essentially the same as any other Hand-Ejector. However, each RM involved a tremendous amount of hand fitting and finishing. That is where the cost came from, not a design handed down from god or reversed engineered from alien spacecraft or made from dead unicorns.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

The cost of machining plummets when gunmakers start out with castings made in the shape roughly approximating the finished part. By contrast, "old school" P210 frames started out as forging that weighed 2.33 kg, ending up at .033 kg after 107 machining operations.

Both forging and casting result in blanks that are approximately the same shape as the finished part. The P210 frame is not machined from a billet, like the "frame pantographed" Inglis High-Power (made by a washing machine company, of all things) or even the original AK-47 receivers. Both forged and cast blanks require serious hogging out in order to obtain their final shapes. And for some perspective, until CNC became king, it took over 2000 operations to build a simple S&W Model 10 in the 1950s, not including 500 different inspections. Recall that, until the late 1990s, nearly every part of a S&W Model 10 was forged, machined and fitted (often by hand).

The original pattern of SIG P210 frame forgings can be seen in Lorenz Vetter, Das große Buch der SIG-Pistolen, Stuttgart, Verlag Stocker-Schmid, Dietikon-Zürich / Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 1995, p. 180. Whereas H.P. Doebeli, Die SIG Pistolen, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 1981, p. 190, spells out the transition to frames machined out of steel billet.

The word from P210 historians is that SIG found the inverted frame rails much harder and costlier to machine to the required dimensions and tolerances. I have no idea why the same considerations should not apply to the slide rails on the M1911. But absent reliable evidence or knock-down arguments to the contrary, I am inclined to take them at their word.

I am not sure who these historians are, or whether they also happen to be engineers as well as historians, so it is difficult to respond to this argument. However, this does not change the fact that the Czechs, Italians, Israelis, Turks, and Chinese are also somehow capable of machining inverted rails in CZs and CZ clones without resulting in one, two, or three thousand dollar guns.

I have identified the historians above. The key aspect of the P210 is its manufacture to strictly regulated dimensions and tolerances. As I pointed out above, this quality is not to be found not only in the CZ-75 and its derivatives, but also in the Neuhausen pistols produced from the Eighties onwards.

No other postwar service handgun was nearly as labor-intensive.

This is the key to the high cost of the P210: labor, not design. The gun was expensive to make because it was largely made by hand by Swiss laborers. Cost, volume, and production efficiency were not priorities, so SiG could indulge in more time-honored methods of manufacture. For comparison, look at the Smith and Wesson Registered Magnum, considered by some to be one of the finest revolvers every made. From a design standpoint, it is essentially the same as any other Hand-Ejector. However, each RM involved a tremendous amount of hand fitting and finishing. That is where the cost came from, not a design handed down from god or reversed engineered from alien spacecraft or made from dead unicorns.

The word on this board is that postwar S&W triggers and hammers have been punched out of steel plate, then cold forged and machined as necessary. If that is the case, it would account for much of the cost disparity. Note also the switch to a cast hammer action housing on the P210, taking place some time in the early Nineties.

 

[Shear_stress]

The original pattern of SIG P210 frame forgings can be seen in Lorenz Vetter, Das große Buch der SIG-Pistolen, Stuttgart, Verlag Stocker-Schmid, Dietikon-Zürich / Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 1995, p. 180. Whereas H.P. Doebeli, Die SIG Pistolen, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 1981, p. 190, spells out the transition to frames machined out of steel billet.

That's terrific, but it doesn't really get to the heart of my argument. My examples of the Inglis High-Power and AK-47 both demonstrate that you can make a cheap gun entirely from billet if you have to. The pattern of the forgings is neither here nor there. If you really want to draw a comparison, please post some pictures or engineering specs that show how these patterns are radically simpler than, say, the average S&W frame.

The word on this board is that postwar S&W triggers and hammers have been punched out of steel plate, then cold forged and machined as necessary. If that is the case, it would account for much of the cost disparity.

Right. Forgings have to start out as something--plate or billet or, dare I say, even a casting.

The key aspect of the P210 is its manufacture to strictly regulated dimensions and tolerances. As I pointed out above, this quality is not to be found not only in the CZ-75 and its derivatives, but also in the Neuhausen pistols produced from the Eighties onwards.

Once again, I clearly wasn't trying to compare the tolerances of the CZ with the P210, just to highlight the fact that the design is less important than you have been arguing. Recall that the P210 borrows much from the French Model 1935-A, anyway. The point is that it's costly to achieve tight tolerances when you are using highly-paid labor and Old World production techniques and you are building in relatively small volumes.

And that is what makes something the Rolls-Royce of anything.

 

[PzGren]

The Rolls Royce would probably really be the Korth, they were pretty much made to custom order.
The SIG P210 is probably one of the nicest 9mm semi autos around but is more of a regular production gun. The German Bundesgrenzschutz had the P210-4 and the Danish army had them as a regular issue, P210-2, I think.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

My examples of the Inglis High-Power and AK-47 both demonstrate that you can make a cheap gun entirely from billet if you have to. The pattern of the forgings is neither here nor there. If you really want to draw a comparison, please post some pictures or engineering specs that show how these patterns are radically simpler than, say, the average S&W frame.

Vetter reproduces the original engineering briefs, which would be a good starting point for anyone qualified to evaluate this issue. I do not claim such qualifications. My contribution is to report admittedly partial views of this gun's makers and hagiographers arguing that its design is particularly ill-suited to cheap manufacturing techniques. That is, other factors being equal, it costs more to maintain dimensions and tolerances on the P210 layout than it does on the M1911, the TT-33, the GP35, the Modelle 1935, etc.

 

[incursion]

SIG 210

I've shot multiple SIG 210s. The gun is the ish.

P7s

Victor Tibbets 1911 Commander bobtail

 

[BUGS]

Hands down...Sig 210, BUT my HK P9S .45 Target out shoots it ! Both have superb triggers.

 

[briansp82593]

p210 p88 korth are all nice now what about the gun you cant get
the sig X-SIX muahahaha

 

[g5reality]

The Hummer of 9mm

When It comes to guns I want functional and reliable. I don't want expensive repairs & maintanence. Therfore, I would chose a Glock 9mm or a sig. I like the beretta's that Texas9 shows above, they are beautiful guns, but I hate jams and expensive repairs.

Easy Field stripping readily available parts, it's a Glock. And I'd consider a Glock to be more a hummer type vehicle, go anywhere do anything tough, and almost indestructible.

I've driven RR and I don't like them I prefer a Bently. But when It comes to SD, HD, survival, or anything else I want to know It's going to work and work well. Golck or Sig in 9mm

 

[DMK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_pistol

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I've had the following:

SIG P-210-6, Sphinx 2000 (series), and Luger, custom AT-84s (precursor to the Sphinx?), and Browning Hi-Power. (No longer have the SIG or Luger.)

The SIG and Sphinx shoot with similar accuracy, but the Sphinx is more user friendly. The Luger was marvelously accurate (despite a post-WWII rearsenal job in the Soviet Union and a badly-pitted barrel), and the AT-84s is close to the Sphinx in most regards, but not quite as accurate.

The S&W 952 (never had one, but have shot them, and close to the Model 52 I did have) is also a fine gun. The CZ Challenger (based on the standard 75B farme) is probably close in most ways.

I'd argue that only the P-210 and Sphinx warrant the comparison to a Rolls Royce, in terms of finish and fitting and quality work -- but all of the gun mentioned here shoot remarkably well/accurately.