Author Topic: The better SIG?  (Read 9654 times)

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The better SIG?
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2007, 06:05:13 AM »
700 to 1000 rounds a month is GOOD for the average shooter. 

I hear ya on the price of ammo!  I buy 9mm reloads for about $10 for 50 rounds.  But still I shoot more 22 than anything.
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

-Will-

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The better SIG?
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2007, 04:52:22 PM »
I have owned a few sigs in my short time being legally allowed to own a pistol. I've had a 226, but have small hands, so i bought a 239 and found it unruly chambered in .40. the first sig i ever owned was a 229 in 9mm. best gun i've ever had. i sold it on trade for the 239 and i've been kicking myself ever since. i traded the other two in for a brand new 'used' sig 229 equinox. kinda like the gun the guy above was talking about. when i got it, it still had the first fire shells and spare mag still wrapped in oiled plastic.
lately with school and work i'm lucky if i get to the range once a month. being a broke college student doesn't allow for lots of range time. so i wait until dick's sporting goods is having an ammo sale and i buy bulk once or twice a year. then i drive to an outdoor free range and have fun until its too dark to see the targets.
-Will-

zoom6zoom

  • Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The better SIG?
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2007, 05:15:22 PM »
I can't see much difference performance wise in the two construction methods. All my SIgs are milled, but I have AK's with stamped receivers that have near 10K rounds through them without a stutter.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk