Since you basically misquoted me, let me elaborate here.
Quote:
|
Anybody that suggests that a Sig 229 or 226 isn't more accurate then a Ruger SR, or a S&W M&P, Or Beretta PX4, in my opinion should re-evaluate their statement, I don't care what distance you're shooting at or what level of shooter you are, you will see a difference.
|
I never said it wasn't more accurate. I said that the differences will be negligible to a newer shooter. Every M&P I've seen shoots very accurately. Sig makes good guns, don't get defensive about it. My point was that at combat ranges, and in a combat situation, that tiny bit of better accuracy is going to make a difference...hint...it won't!
Quote:
|
Reliability can be argued all day, Sigs are among the best, and I don't think that can be disputed. Are they the MOST reliable? Of the guns you mentioned, YES,
|
I'd argue that the S&W and Ruger are just as reliable as a Sig. Sigs are great, but you make it sound like they are the best guns ever made and anyone who doesn't think that doesn't know what they're talking about. Yet, Sig's make up a fairly small market share when compared to Ruger, S&W and Glock. This, of course, could have something to do with price, as you will pay a premium for a Sig over those particular brands.
And there's the crux. It's your opinion. Let me guess, the majority of guns you own are Sigs? Of course you think they're the best...you need to justify your purchases, right? Actually, wrong, you don't need to justify them. Sigs are good guns, and most people know that. But, in context of what the OP wants, what he wants the gun for, and his experience, if anything, a Sig is marginally better than the other brands. And is that possible marginal difference worth the $200-$300 premium over an M&P or SR series? I honestly don't think so (yes, before you call me out, this is my opinion). However, I wouldn't fault the OP for getting a Sig, they are good guns. I just think you're over hyping them a bit.
Quote:
|
And of every gun you mentioned an interest in, the Sigs and probably the Beretta 92 are more accurate than the others.
|
Got any evidence of this? Or just more opinion? Here's some facts. Granted, it's a fairly small sample, but it's a sample of some of the better shooters in the country, and what they shoot in IDPA for practical competition. If Sig were this amazing gun that, in your opinion, is far and away more reliable and accurate than other guns, you'd expect them to have a huge share. Yet, their share is so small that it's not listed, and instead, covered under "Other." And keep in mind, we're talking IDPA where only very minimal mods are allowed, so we're not talking about Glock or M&P raceguns.
http://www.idpa.com/blog/post/2012/1...The-Range.aspx
To conclude, Sigs are great guns. But there is nothing about them that make them far and away better than any other leading brand. They aren't noticably more accurate or reliable than other brands, and certainly, just for the possible increase in reliability and accuracy aren't worth the 30% premium in price. In the end, get what you want, and what shoots good for you. If it's a Sig, great, if it's an SR9, awesome. You won't go wrong with any of the guns you mentioned.