• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YAGT: OMG I love guns

Page 334 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The 290? I like it for what it is. It's not ugly.

9704c156_o.jpeg


It's functional. If you don't want a shitty Ruger or Keltec, this is pretty much the pocket carry gun.

fa20a748_l.jpeg


Sure, I can pay 200 bucks more for something that is less geared torward what I want just because it's purdy, but meh. Kahr is still a great choice for around 400, and the P290 is pretty similar but I think it will shoot better.
 
Love my 238 as a pocket gun but sig service sucks if you're not Leo.

I've shot a 938 and it doesn't kick that bad. My issue is that it's too big for pocket carry and if I'm IWB then I carry single stack .45. The 938 just doesn't fit my carry style.

Had a Berra thunder and they're not bad, but for your first ccw I still recommend the ruger lcp. Cheap, reliable, and the best concealment gun out there.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
Love my 238 as a pocket gun but sig service sucks if you're not Leo.

I've shot a 938 and it doesn't kick that bad. My issue is that it's too big for pocket carry and if I'm IWB then I carry single stack .45. The 938 just doesn't fit my carry style.

Had a Berra thunder and they're not bad, but for your first ccw I still recommend the ruger lcp. Cheap, reliable, and the best concealment gun out there.
Click to expand...

I find that in the hot summer, my single stack 45 is too difficult to conceal iwb. That is where my 938 comes in handy for me. Are you able to conceal the 45 with shorts and t shirt that fits properly? Some folks wear large t shirt to help, but I don't like the baggy look...
 
I think I'm definitely out on the P238/938. Why do all of Sig's newer designs seem to have enormous amounts of reported problems in the first year or two?

I try to take things with a grain of salt...reported feeding issues are often as simple as someone never cleaning the gun or not getting it through an initial break-in. Trigger complaints are often someone simply buying the wrong gun...like the mentioned DAO...'the trigger is rough/not smooth/binds/ect'...that's valid. But if you buy a DAO and complain that 'the trigger is too long'...congrats, you're a damned idiot.

Anyway...the Sig 'Mustangs' seem to have a lot of outright parts failures. Like most new Sigs. It seems like they're the Electronic Arts of the gun industry. 'We'll just patch it later.'

I'm a little less leery of the 290, but obviously it suffered similar teething issues.

I'm trying to be more open to wider guns, and there's a lot out there that I just don't hear anything about. Anyone ever try a PX4? For some reason I find myself interested in that wonky-looking thing.
 
phucheneh said:
I think I'm definitely out on the P238/938. Why do all of Sig's newer designs seem to have enormous amounts of reported problems in the first year or two?

I try to take things with a grain of salt...reported feeding issues are often as simple as someone never cleaning the gun or not getting it through an initial break-in. Trigger complaints are often someone simply buying the wrong gun...like the mentioned DAO...'the trigger is rough/not smooth/binds/ect'...that's valid. But if you buy a DAO and complain that 'the trigger is too long'...congrats, you're a damned idiot.

Anyway...the Sig 'Mustangs' seem to have a lot of outright parts failures. Like most new Sigs. It seems like they're the Electronic Arts of the gun industry. 'We'll just patch it later.'

I'm a little less leery of the 290, but obviously it suffered similar teething issues.

I'm trying to be more open to wider guns, and there's a lot out there that I just don't hear anything about. Anyone ever try a PX4? For some reason I find myself interested in that wonky-looking thing.
Click to expand...


These are guns that have only been on the market a few years. That being said, I haven't read of any outright part failures on the 238/938..?

I don't know of any semi auto gun design or redesign that has gone 100% smoothly from the get-go. I remember when colt released the mustang and it had its own teething problems.... And don't get me started on colt "rattles", or their rollmark problems.

Because of this, in my mind warranty service matters most. The one time I've dealt with sig was a headache, they majorly botched a repair. After some back and forth they replaced the gun. Honestly I doubt any other company would've done better, even though it was a frustrating experience. I'm happier than the springfield XD owners who are on month 6 of backlogs on repairs.

Also keep in mind that there are a LOT of backyard gunsmiths out there nowadays, especially on the internet, who do stupid crap and then blame the manufacturer. From botched youtube trigger jobs to "breaking in a gun" by putting valve grinding paste on the slide rails. These people never fess up to what they broke, instead they send the gun in and blame the manufacturer.

I've had 3 sigs, and all were super tight from the factory. They all had a stovepipe or jam in the first 100 rounds, then ran flawlessly for 1000's of rounds after that.

I've also owned many springfields, glocks, HK, beretta, and others. Most were fairly loose from the factory, and ran flawlessly for 1000's of rounds.

Personally.. I prefer the slightly tighter sigs. I'm not shooting from ditches or anything like that, and just prefer a tighter gun with closer tolerances.
 
Maybe 'part failure' is not the right term, as some of it may not be that concrete. I just saw 'broken ejector' a lot for the 938, but all the firsthand accounts just say 'it was jamming so I sent it back,' more or less. I was also thinking of some kind of roll pin failure...hell, maybe that wasn't even a Sig model...the stuff just kinda sticks in your head and you start to say 'man, that seems like a lot of issues for a major manufacturer.'

I hear people mock Springfield, S&W, and other popular ones, too...generally over a single issue, like the most recent stuff with the XD's and the Shield recall. I don't regard either gun as exceptionally failure-prone...although with firearms, one problem is often one too many, provided we're talking about newer guns, and not 'oh no something happened to my pistol after 20,000 rounds!'

One of the things I find curious is how a lot of the 'smaller' brands (in quotes because being more unknown doesn't mean they don't produce an enormous amount of guns) just don't get much bad stuff said about them.

Relevant example...I've been looking at Turkish guns again. I had seen a SAR or two in gun stores, but for some reason had not put together that 'SAR' was not actually an acronym, but simply short for Sarsilmaz, who makes a shitload of guns, including most of the handguns being bought by the Turkish Army as well as Turkish LEO's.

I was thinking they were the root of Canik guns, too, but now I'm not so sure. Both Canik and SAR are primarily CZ clones, and it's becoming hard to figure out what's what. If you see a 'new' EAA model, that's a SAR. I'm wondering if they intend to stop importing the very similar but more expensive Tanfoglio models.

Anyway, what peaked my interest was the polymer SAR's (lol SARS lol). I was hoping they were making a 'RAMI' version, but alas, no.

I can't find a good pic of the compact version, but it's a pretty trim gun. 1.2" width on all the polymer frames.

844143f4_o.jpeg


I may pick one up just 'cause I like CZ clones and they're so damned cheap...$285 on Bud's, IIRC. If it's as good as my Canik, I may even be inclined to use it for CC. Even with a polymer frame, it's prolly still too heavy for my liking, though.
 
phucheneh said:
Maybe 'part failure' is not the right term, as some of it may not be that concrete. I just saw 'broken ejector' a lot for the 938, but all the firsthand accounts just say 'it was jamming so I sent it back,' more or less. I was also thinking of some kind of roll pin failure...hell, maybe that wasn't even a Sig model...the stuff just kinda sticks in your head and you start to say 'man, that seems like a lot of issues for a major manufacturer.'

I hear people mock Springfield, S&W, and other popular ones, too...generally over a single issue, like the most recent stuff with the XD's and the Shield recall. I don't regard either gun as exceptionally failure-prone...although with firearms, one problem is often one too many, provided we're talking about newer guns, and not 'oh no something happened to my pistol after 20,000 rounds!'

One of the things I find curious is how a lot of the 'smaller' brands (in quotes because being more unknown doesn't mean they don't produce an enormous amount of guns) just don't get much bad stuff said about them.

Relevant example...I've been looking at Turkish guns again. I had seen a SAR or two in gun stores, but for some reason had not put together that 'SAR' was not actually an acronym, but simply short for Sarsilmaz, who makes a shitload of guns, including most of the handguns being bought by the Turkish Army as well as Turkish LEO's.

I was thinking they were the root of Canik guns, too, but now I'm not so sure. Both Canik and SAR are primarily CZ clones, and it's becoming hard to figure out what's what. If you see a 'new' EAA model, that's a SAR. I'm wondering if they intend to stop importing the very similar but more expensive Tanfoglio models.

Anyway, what peaked my interest was the polymer SAR's (lol SARS lol). I was hoping they were making a 'RAMI' version, but alas, no.

I can't find a good pic of the compact version, but it's a pretty trim gun. 1.2" width on all the polymer frames.

844143f4_o.jpeg


I may pick one up just 'cause I like CZ clones and they're so damned cheap...$285 on Bud's, IIRC. If it's as good as my Canik, I may even be inclined to use it for CC. Even with a polymer frame, it's prolly still too heavy for my liking, though.
Click to expand...

Sigh...I know you are trying for a cheaper gun. But this is the second time you have used that logic.

There are less complaints about them because they sell less. Remember when you got upset at us for not talking about them?

Just buy the gun you want. If you pull the trigger and it goes bang, AWESOME!

But please stop with the 25k word uninformed replies bashing well made, high profile guns. Its not making you look better. On the contrary...
 
You getting Sig-butthurt doesn't make you look any better, either.

I simply find it curious that there are plenty of $300-400 guns out there with excellent reliability reports, yet some of the 'big boys' (or so it is perceived) seem to fuck up most of the new models they put out...even when they're making copies, too.

I'm happy to pay a decent chunk of change for a firearm, but it should be pretty damn reliable relative to its cost. If a $1500 Colt AR had high failure rates and a $600 'off-brand' was universally reliable, I don't think anyone would get all nutted up over questioning of the former. Apply your own logic and be happy with your $1000 pistol rather than bitching about someone mentioning lesser known guns.

Go find me one single report of someone buying one of the Turk guns and having it fail within the first 100 rounds. Sorry, that shit is off-putting.
 
Last edited:
phucheneh said:
You getting Sig-butthurt doesn't make you look any better, either.

I simply find it curious that there are plenty of $300-400 guns out there with excellent reliability reports, yet some of the 'big boys' (or so it is perceived) seem to fuck up most of the new models they put out...even when they're making copies, too.

I'm happy to pay a decent chunk of change for a firearm, but it should be pretty damn reliable relative to its cost. If a $1500 Colt AR had high failure rates and a $600 'off-brand' was universally reliable, I don't think anyone would get all nutted up over questioning of the former. Apply your own logic and be happy with your $1000 pistol rather than bitching about someone mentioning lesser known guns.

Go find me one single report of someone buying one of the Turk guns and having it fail within the first 100 rounds. Sorry, that shit is off-putting.
Click to expand...

Nobody is butt hurt. I'm trying to explain why there are more bad reviews of popular guns than ones that don't sell as many units.

Buy whatever makes you happy. I hope you enjoy whatever you get.
 
rudeguy said:
Nobody is butt hurt. I'm trying to explain why there are more bad reviews of popular guns than ones that don't sell as many units.

Buy whatever makes you happy. I hope you enjoy whatever you get.
Click to expand...

Well, sorry, that's just not what it comes off as. Give me shit for being long-winded, speculative, indecisive...whatever you want. It won't offend me all that terribly.

But when I perceive something as 'fanboyism,' that gets under my skin pretty bad. Implying that the constant hammering Sig's QC has gotten in recent years is simply a result of volume is silly.

The more I look around, the more inclined I am to be a Sig-hater. The biggest fans seem to either be in complete denial that Sig has ever made one bad gun, or they excuse things with silly analogies to Ferrari or some other 'exotic' product. 'Who cares if my Sig breaks; at least I know I bought the best!' It's making even Glock and HK lovers seem downright reasonable.
 
He (rudeguy) isn't bitching about "lesser known" guns, he's just pointing out why smaller companies/guns have less bad reviews/problems with them. And it's pretty fricking obvious WHY they do.
 
phucheneh said:
Well, sorry, that's just not what it comes off as. Give me shit for being long-winded, speculative, indecisive...whatever you want. It won't offend me all that terribly.

But when I perceive something as 'fanboyism,' that gets under my skin pretty bad. Implying that the constant hammering Sig's QC has gotten in recent years is simply a result of volume is silly.

The more I look around, the more inclined I am to be a Sig-hater. The biggest fans seem to either be in complete denial that Sig has ever made one bad gun, or they excuse things with silly analogies to Ferrari or some other 'exotic' product. 'Who cares if my Sig breaks; at least I know I bought the best!' It's making even Glock and HK lovers seem downright reasonable.
Click to expand...

Ummm... I'm a Glock guy 😛

I don't comment on Sig failures because I never paid attention. I have no clue. Now we can talk about gen 4 Glocks failing. That was a bad rollout.

Seriously man..buy what you like. The only thing I ask for is gun porn afterwards.
 
phucheneh said:
One of the things I find curious is how a lot of the 'smaller' brands (in quotes because being more unknown doesn't mean they don't produce an enormous amount of guns) just don't get much bad stuff said about them.
Click to expand...

That's because they don't see as many firearms. Less guns out in the wild means less reports of failures and other issues. Generally, people only take the time to share their experiences with a product in two scenarios: they absolutely love it, or they ran into issues and are upset. So regardless of make and model, you'll see a biased collection of reports overall.

Some designs (not so much brands, IMO) seem to be inherently more reliable than others in certain conditions. The polymer-framed pistols with steel tabs that the slide engages like Glocks, M&Ps, and others have a lot of clearance between the frame and slide. This seems to make them much less likely to have problems with stoppages due to dirt and debris. There are still bad apples in every bunch though: the Kahr PM9 that I had for a while and put around 500 rounds through was an absolute POS. The slide was eating away at the frame, the barrel was peening, and the rear sight was noticeably off from the factory. On the other hand, take a polymer pistol and subject it to a significant amount of heat, then do the same to an all-metal pistol. The polymer is much more likely to warp, crack, or melt. Sure, your pistol is far less likely to encounter a 300 degree oven than a bunch of sand, but it still is worth noting.

Finally, some of the small brands do indeed have plenty of issues. I absolutely love my Seecamp, but it is VERY picky about ammo. Rounds have to have the correct overall length or they won't feed (and often won't even fit in the magazine). Rounds that are too powerful risk damaging the gun, and those that aren't powerful enough may not cycle the slide. Rohrbaugh's R9 is another example. Still, despite the issues, you won't see as many complaints about Seecamp or Rohrbaugh as you would Sig, Colt, Ruger, Glock, etc. Why? People know they're a small company, so they give them a break, and they're generally proud of their uncommon and expensive firearm, so they ignore some of the annoyances that would drive them nuts on a $500 Glock or a $600 Sig.
 
Last edited:
CurseTheSky- the thing is, I'm not just referring to all the less talked about foreign manufacturers. Even someone like Ruger seems to register a lot less gripes. And I don't think you can argue volume on that. Ruger surely far outsells Sig in dollars, and even if you ignore the .22 pistols and rifles, I'd bet Sig's numbers are less than the amount of LCP, LC9's, P45's, ect being sold. Especially if you don't factor in law enforcement sales.

Yes I don't seem to hear nearly the number of negative reports with those guns. Nor do I with Glock. I readily admit, it's an extremely hard thing to judge. Manufacturers don't even want to disclose sales, let alone any kind of failure rate. Then you still have major variables...e.g. it's pretty easy to dismiss any idea of Ruger reliability by pointing out how many people buy their guns and then throw them in a purse, a glovebox, or whatever, and never shoot them...well, yeah, those aren't too likely to get sent back for repairs.

But it's hard to read anything about Sig (or talk about them at a range or gun shop) and not have the same stuff pop up repeatedly. I think the best thing to compare Sig to...is themselves. I've generally thought of Sigs as very reliable guns, but when I think about it, what have I based that on? Lots of old German-made P226's and P228's. In contrast, newer models, and even the well-established ones now being made in the US...just doesn't seem like they're got a stellar rep anymore. Not by a longshot.

I'm not just hating on the brand. I like the feel of their guns, and there are some guns they make that I'd really love to own. I just have...doubts.

Derail aside, I did mean to ask one extremely generic question: 'Sup with Sig Pros? 😀

They actually seem to be held in pretty positive regard and are plenty affordable...but just not mentioned much. Does it just have to do with Sig fans generally being pretty anti-polymer?
 
phucheneh said:
Derail aside, I did mean to ask one extremely generic question: 'Sup with Sig Pros? 😀

They actually seem to be held in pretty positive regard and are plenty affordable...but just not mentioned much. Does it just have to do with Sig fans generally being pretty anti-polymer?
Click to expand...

SIG Pros are very cost-effective, but there are two reasons they get overlooked:
- They're pretty heavy among polymer pistols. When people go with polymer it's usually because they opt to carry it. There are several choices that are leaner than the Pro, even the P250...if you can get past the really long trigger reset. I think when they start selling the P320 it'll really shrink the small Pro market share.
- The decocker is different from the usual P-series, and I think this is why SIG fans usually thumb their nose at the SIG Pro. When I saw an earlier SP2022, it was wonky...there was a metal standoff between the lever and the frame, gave to flexing a bit. Didn't instill confidence, but the latest version is just as good as the classic SIGs.

I don't understand the all-steel fetish...even at the very beginning of this thread I was "WTF?"...and I am a SIG fan. P226 is the best pistol I've fired yet, but I'd trust my life to my SP2022. 150+ rounds on the break in, not a single failure, and it's more accurate than I am. And this is an all-American SIG (Exeter stamped on both frame and slide), so I can't speak to their QC issues. Some reviews refer to it as a poor man's P226 but it's more like the P229...slightly larger but same barrel length.
 
coxmaster said:
Saw that yesterday.. I'm not surprised it didn't perform, and nobody else should be either. Too bad people will continue to buy it thanks to the marketing hype
Click to expand...

Thing is, it was a complete failure like many people assumed it would be. It still did technically meet the FBI's standards with 12.75 (or 12.5..i cant remember) of penetration. I know many people didnt think it would be able to even do that. It does have some what i consider MAJOR issues in the fact it had feeding issues. But actual perforance wise i didnt do half bad. Not what they advertise but still an acceptable level.

What is going to keep the round from going main stream is two factors
1) reliability. If it doesnt feed people wont buy it.
2) Cost. At 2.50 a round its fing expensive and to run at least a 100 round test to make sure your gun likes it is just to expensive for me over other options

THose both relate. I wont run the ammo unless ive put 200 rounds through my gun and had flawless cycling and performance. Im just not willing to pay the price for the ammo when Critical Defense or Gold Dot will work just as well to stop someone and costs a quarter of the price
 
velillen said:
Thing is, it was a complete failure like many people assumed it would be. It still did technically meet the FBI's standards with 12.75 (or 12.5..i cant remember) of penetration. I know many people didnt think it would be able to even do that. It does have some what i consider MAJOR issues in the fact it had feeding issues. But actual perforance wise i didnt do half bad. Not what they advertise but still an acceptable level.

What is going to keep the round from going main stream is two factors
1) reliability. If it doesnt feed people wont buy it.
2) Cost. At 2.50 a round its fing expensive and to run at least a 100 round test to make sure your gun likes it is just to expensive for me over other options

THose both relate. I wont run the ammo unless ive put 200 rounds through my gun and had flawless cycling and performance. Im just not willing to pay the price for the ammo when Critical Defense or Gold Dot will work just as well to stop someone and costs a quarter of the price
Click to expand...

but only half the round is making it that far. i'd rather use normal self defense ammo and still have a good portion make it through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top