I love my new p226!

[Ray-500]

The other option is simply drift in another set of sights... problem solved... IIRC they make them in varying heights. It wouldn't be a consideration, IMO... I've had a lot of guns that I liked that I had to do this on anyways.

-Mike

Mike, unless there is really a gross sight/POI divergence, why not look to the shooter? There are so many variables. Before looking at the piece or the sights, how about looking at the shooter first? IT (being the piece) will only perform within the ammo being used and the capability of the user....and of course its own inherent makeup....good or bad. It all has to be sorted out. That's the "trial and error" part.

 

[yanici]

Yeah, my Sig 229 was shooting about 6" low at 50' also. I was going crazy trying to figure it out. Had another guy shoot it that was a good shooter and it shot low with 4 different ammo loads, some more than others, but all low. I sent it back to Sig. They said they adjusted the sights, but it still shot low. So, I went out and bought a bunch more of different ammo. Found out the gun shot POA with 165 grain Blazer and Speer Gold dots in 165 grain. End of story.

 

[Ray-500]

Yeah, my Sig 229 was shooting about 6" low at 50' also. I was going crazy trying to figure it out. Had another guy shoot it that was a good shooter and it shot low with 4 different ammo loads, some more than others, but all low. I sent it back to Sig. They said they adjusted the sights, but it still shot low. So, I went out and bought a bunch more of different ammo. Found out the gun shot POA with 165 grain Blazer and Speer Gold dots in 165 grain. End of story.

Yanici, I find this interesting from the viewpoint of a multiple Sig owner. Up front...no, I have no relationship with Sig other than a customer.

Have multiple Sigs, each with their own characteristics. My P226 Blackwater(old model) printed differently when I swapped out the stock grips for Hogues. No big adjustment, but the "feel" was different. Had to become familiar with the config. Now....no problem....at all.

P220 Equinox. Put about 300 rds. through it just for "zeroing". Yup, wanted to know "exactly where it shot. No problem, dead on. Added the strobe/laser unit, and after zeroing aggrravation, (what is, is the opposite of what manual states). Language? Put another approx. 800 rds. through it with the unit attached. Some of the rds. were really filthy and smoky (indoor range). (Crappy Ammo) The laser cut through all the crap and was dead on. Did not look at sights once...just followed the dot for trigger pull. All rds. were exactly where the laser dot was printing.

Other than their very "high end" items, I do think Sig need to address trigger pull. Given their purported usage, both of the above are more than adequate. Simply "know the piece". The X-5 and X-6 models are a different ballgame. Grin, how about a 2 1/2-3 1/2 trigger pull on .45 ACP?....with a 6" bbl? Hell, I'm and old fart and don't expect to win anything....just want to keep my basic skills sharp.....but am looking forward to next year's plate matches to see what the pieces (and I) can do. Who knows, I might even be able to actually win at least one of the series.

 

[TheRoland]

I think this has been covered, but to make double sure: Sigs with night sights or three-dot sights are setup, from the factory, to hit the front dot and not the tip of the front-sight. This makes them work really well as night-sights, but makes the point of impact 4-6 inches low at 50 yards. Personally, I don't like this, and will probably try to replace my front sight at some point. It's not the shooter, it's the design.

Totally separately, Sigs in .40 tend to shoot low unless you're using the same grain load as they anticipated you using. I don't recall what this is (as I don't have one).

 

[2000GM]

Congrats! I call my P226 .40 my "Caddillac" because it shoots soooo nice. My 1997 vintage P228 is my daily CCW. I'd actually like to trade the P226 for a P220 though, only because I have chased all the other .40s out of the safe and I want another .45

 

[richc]

Back from the range shooting the 226 in 9mm. I'm shooting my own reloads. Just plinking today at a plate at 50 feet, and at clays at 50 yards.

She sure ain't the prettiest or the flashiest girl at the range. They really are very utilitarian looking.

But the list of my likes is huge:
- It shoots every time
- It shoots what I'm aiming at
- Preban hi-cap mags are available for us MA residents
- The engineering is brilliant... break down is so simple
- Recoil is very manageable
- Hogue grips make a world of difference for me

Some firearms exude sex appeal. I drool when I look at some of Greg Derr's custom 1911. The Sig is homely by comparison. But once you get past the homely look, she sure is sweet!

One more thing. I know the MA compliant version has the loaded chamber hole. Not sure if that is something just on the MA/CA version or not. But I rather like it. I can look down and quickly determine in there is a round in the pipe. I understand the contrarian opinions, but I like the quick and easy look/see for a chambered round. I find it less objectionable than, for example, the new chambered round indicator on the MA version of the Kahr 9, with all the silly writing on the slide... DOH!

Cheers,

Rich

 

[TheRoland]

Glad to hear you are liking it. I'm not sure I agree that it's an ugly gun; maybe it's because I'm an engineer, but I think my Sig is at least as pretty as my SW1911.

I have a 229 and sometimes wish I had the extra tiny bit of sight-radius of the 226. When you aim with the front dot (instead of using the sight tip) are you still low?

I also like the loaded chamber hole. I had a first-round Failure to Feed shooting IDPA my first time (had to do Tap-Rack-Bang on the clock) and ever since, I always check the hole after loading.

 

[wacky_doug]

I know the MA compliant version has the loaded chamber hole. Not sure if that is something just on the MA/CA version or not. But I rather like it. I can look down and quickly determine in there is a round in the pipe.

+1. It's the least offensive of the "MA holes".

 

[drgrant]

Mike, unless there is really a gross sight/POI divergence, why not look to the shooter?

I guess, but sometimes there isn't a "problem" with the shooter. A particular shooter may want all (or most) of his guns to react a certain way WRT
sighting. Some guns I left alone, others I changed the sighting on.

-Mike

 

[Harleynut]

The other option is simply drift in another set of sights... problem solved... IIRC they make them in varying heights. It wouldn't be a consideration, IMO... I've had a lot of guns that I liked that I had to do this on anyways.

-Mike

Well that is where I was going with this. My plan was to measure what the site height is now then file it to shoot the way I want it to then order a new one that height. That way I wont have to guess and order more then one.

 

[GSG]

One more thing. I know the MA compliant version has the loaded chamber hole. Not sure if that is something just on the MA/CA version or not. But I rather like it. I can look down and quickly determine in there is a round in the pipe. I understand the contrarian opinions, but I like the quick and easy look/see for a chambered round. I find it less objectionable than, for example, the new chambered round indicator on the MA version of the Kahr 9, with all the silly writing on the slide... DOH!

Why don't people like the loaded chamber cutout? I've heard people make noises about it, but I don't know why...?

 

[wacky_doug]

Why don't people like the loaded chamber cutout? I've heard people make noises about it, but I don't know why...?

It's more of an irritation on principle. The "dealer compliant list" in MA puts a lot of restrictions on equipment, which is why there are a lot of guns we can't buy from dealers in MA. The loaded chamber indicator is just one of those requirements. (I'm sure you know this already.)

At least Sig's indicator isn't unsightly while still being functional.

 

[GSG]

It's more of an irritation on principle. The "dealer compliant list" in MA puts a lot of restrictions on equipment, which is why there are a lot of guns we can't buy from dealers in MA. The loaded chamber indicator is just one of those requirements. (I'm sure you know this already.)

At least Sig's indicator isn't unsightly while still being functional.

Fair enough. As a former 20-year prisoner of the Massachusetts Gulag, I'm intimately familiar with stupid handgun regulations. Although I'm a Glock guy, I much prefer Sig's chamber cutout to Glock's Loaded Chamber Indicator extractor, which sometime mars the lining of holsters because it stick out.

I didn't know if there was a well documented string of failure's to feed or something similar caused by the cutout...nothing to see here folks.

 

[PaulD]

It's more of an irritation on principle. The "dealer compliant list" in MA puts a lot of restrictions on equipment, which is why there are a lot of guns we can't buy from dealers in MA. The loaded chamber indicator is just one of those requirements. (I'm sure you know this already.)

At least Sig's indicator isn't unsightly while still being functional.

To be pedantic, it's really the AG BS that limits what we can buy as MA inmates. If all we had was the EOPS list, we'd have a lot more handguns to buy since everything that qualifies for CA's list would qualify for ours.

I agree on the Sig MA-hole though. It's certainly a lot better than what Kahr did on the PM9.

 

[Jose]

Totally separately, Sigs in .40 tend to shoot low unless you're using the same grain load as they anticipated you using. I don't recall what this is (as I don't have one).

That is true of all firearms. Their sights are regulated for a particular load and deviation in load used will lead to deviations in point of impact.

 

[jasons]

That is true of all firearms. Their sights are regulated for a particular load and deviation in load used will lead to deviations in point of impact.

FWIW, after a few hundred rounds mine is pretty damn close to POA=POI at 21 feet out of the box with cheap Blazer 165 grain. I tried a few rounds of my current carry ammo (165 grain Federal HST) and it was also dead on. It's a couple inches low at 50 ft but that's normal external ballistics.

I haven't tried any 180 grain yet, but honestly I don't really see the point of using 180 grain .40 anyway - If I wanted heavy and slow I'd get a 45. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Gravity: It's the law.

 

[GSG]

That is true of all firearms. Their sights are regulated for a particular load and deviation in load used will lead to deviations in point of impact.

I guess youl learn something new every day.

Do you know of a place that posts the info for which loads were used by the manufacturer's of each gun?

 

[yanici]

I guess youl learn something new every day.

Do you know of a place that posts the info for which loads were used by the manufacturer's of each gun?

I know that the test target that the Sig smith sent me stated that it was shot with 180 grain. 40, Lawman. I found that the gun actually shot 165 grain to POA. Be patient and try different loads.

 

[GSG]

I know that the test target that the Sig smith sent me stated that it was shot with 180 grain. 40, Lawman. I found that the gun actually shot 165 grain to POA. Be patient and try different loads.

You Sig came with a test target? When I bought one a few years ago it didn't come with one, is that a new thing? Now I feel gypped.

It'd be nice to see an online database where you could punch in a make & model and it would tell you what the manufacturer used. Similar idea to www.packing.org, only without the long-term disappearing act.

 

[yanici]

You Sig came with a test target? When I bought one a few years ago it didn't come with one, is that a new thing? Now I feel gypped.

It'd be nice to see an online database where you could punch in a make & model and it would tell you what the manufacturer used. Similar idea to www.packing.org, only without the long-term disappearing act.

Sorry for the misundrestanding. As new, the gun did not come with a test target. I sent the gun back to Sig because it shot low. It was returned with a letter from the smith stating that he adjusted the sights. He included a test target. I never could duplicate the test target with 180 grain ammo like he used and found that 165 worked better on my own.

 

[GSG]

Sorry for the misundrestanding. As new, the gun did not come with a test target. I sent the gun back to Sig because it shot low. It was returned with a letter from the smith stating that he adjusted the sights. He included a test target. I never could duplicate the test target with 180 grain ammo like he used and found that 165 worked better on my own.

Ah, OK, now I get it. Thanks for the info.