LooseRounds.com5.56 Timeline
Weaponsman.com

 

8 thoughts on “Sig P210”

  1. If SIG really wants my money, they need to do up a bunch of the original prototypes they did up with 16-round magazines. I saw where they sent some up to Sweden for one of the marksmanship clubs, and they still have one or two functional–I do not remember the source, but there is video of someone firing the damn things, and I have to say the amount of sheer jealousy I felt was nauseating.

    I’ve handled and fired a late 1960’s P-210 that was done up as a target pistol. It was the pride of my friend’s collection, and I’m here to tell you that that pistol was pure sex–Just pulling the slide back was a near-orgasmic experience, if you appreciated finely-machined steel firearms.

    Of course, I think that the comparison in terms of value back then meant that a similar pistol would cost you upwards of $5,000.00-10,000 today. If I remember right, he said his uncle had paid right around $1,600.00 for it, purchased from some well-known Swiss gunsmith who’d massaged the factory model before he bought it through the Rod & Gun Club up at Bad Tolz. There was a stack of paper with it in the case that traced out the whole thing.

    Reply
      • The M1911 series lost all of its allure for me after experiencing their severely faded glory in the Army during the 1980s. Well, that, and the fact that nearly all the civilian models I dealt with during that same era were prima-donna little bitches that seemed to require extensive smithing before they would run acceptably well in the real world.

        I think it was the mid- to late-nineties before I saw 1911-type pistols that would run well out of the box. Which has, I suspect, somewhat warped my opinion of the platform…

        Reply
        • Kirk nails down a savagely truthful point:

          The original Colt 1911’s (and A1’s) ran like Swiss sewing machines – until they were worn out, and the ones that US Army had in inventory by the 70’s were quite worn.

          When the first pistols started being produced by outfits other than Colt on CNC machines, they all seemed to obsess about closing up tolerances and allowances – to the detriment of reliability.

          This is one of the big reasons why it really bugs me when I hear some shooter (but non-gunsmith) tell me that “CNC machines can do it better.” No, they can’t. They can do it more cheaply, they can do it more consistently, but they cannot do it “better” than hand-fit guns of old. Part of the reason why is that people driving CNC machines in production of gun parts don’t actually understand what they’re making, and how it all comes together in operation. They’re just cranking out parts and slapping them together.

          In 1911’s, we went through a period of time when new companies thought “We can make it better with CNC machines! We can just program the machines to close up the allowances and tolerances, and the guns will be tighter than an eight-day-clock.”

          Right, and they won’t be reliable.

          Now, after 30 years of experience in the market with 1911’s being cranked out by CNC machines in shops that aren’t Colt (or any other defense supplier), the market is starting to learn how to make a 1911 that is reliable again.

          I keep going back to the original Army/Dep’t of War acceptance test for the 1911 that made it the 1911 (instead of the 1912, or 1913, etc): The guns under the test had to fire 6,000 rounds, with a pause allowed every 1,000 rounds for cooling and minor lubrication. That’s it. The gun we know as the 1911 made it through that test – it proved itself quite reliable, and more reliable than several other designs that also had big money and support behind them (one of the competitors was the Luger in .45 ACP). The 1911, as originally designed and produced, has a track record and test record that it works and it is reliable.

          Reply
          • oh man, I have been ranting about the same thing for years. Hard fit 1911s and companies not making them to spec. its a pet peeve of mine

          • What are your thoughts on the really high-end 1911s, the Les Baers, Wilson Combats, Nighthawk-type guns? Reliable enough or too tight?

  2. A P210 is on my bucket list of guns to own. My one beef with it is that the 9×19 cartridge isn’t easily loaded with a semi-wadcutter or full wadcutter bullet to make reading the target easier, as the S&W Model 52 was designed to do (or a revolver can do).

    1911’s can feed lead SWC’s and they work quite nicely at punching nice, clean holes in targets. I like 185’s for IPSC or target work in 1911’s.

    But the 9×19 has a dearth of SWC bullets available. There are some out there, but you usually have to step up to a fairly heavy (for the 9×19) bullet weight. This increases felt recoil, decreases velocity, etc.

    Other European target guns I’d like to acquire: A CG-63, and a CG-80.

    Reply

Leave a Comment