Why the p220?

[dakota1911]

On some forum they asked if you couldn't carry a 1911 what other .45 would you carry. My answer was a P220, although my next one will most likely be in 10mm.

[JDBerg]

As much as I liked the P220 I used to own, the P227 SAS Gen 2 is essentially a P229 chambered in .45 ACP, and is a new & improved P220 suitable for carry.

[highpower3006]

I also dont look at anything as "defensive" either, thats not the correct mindset. The weapon may be used in defense, but there will be nothing defensive about what happens, after it starts.

My double stack Glock 9mm's are thinner/smaller across the grip, and in all directions, than my Colt GM's and Commanders, and SIG P220's were. More than double the on board ammo too. Just because I have double the ammo, doesnt mean its there to be wasted.

As to the last part, about learning to shoot, I think TunnelRat summed things up nicely. If you shoot the least bit realistically, you understand, that those cute little groups you shoot on a static range, at a little black spot, really tell you little, as to what your skills are. That basic stuff, simply confirms you have the basics down. Once you see you have that down, you should move on to the more advanced challenges, if you hope to be real world proficient.

You do have a point. However I would like to know how often you go into areas where you are likely to be assaulted by multiple thugs?? I have made a point to avoid such situations by having situational awareness and staying away from spots where the youfs hang out. I will admit that I am now too old to run and too stubborn to give up, so if there is going to be a shootout, so be it.

It has been awhile since I looked at the FBI statistics, but I seem to remember that they showed that the average gunfight was over in three shots or so and was shot from a distance of seven yards or less. I think that there has been far too much internet commando thinking put into the whole carry gun thought process.

I do practice regularly on reactive targets with a draw from my carry holster and rapidly acquiring the target and pulling the trigger. No, I don't do the stand and shuffle to one side stuff. I do know about adrenaline though as I worked for many years for the prison system.

BTW, my standard carry gun is a Shield and in the winter when I primarily go out wearing a coat I take my Sig 226.

[TunnelRat]

You do have a point. However I would like to know how often you go into areas where you are likely to be assaulted by multiple thugs?? I have made a point to avoid such situations by having situational awareness and staying away from spots where the youfs hang out. I will admit that I am now too old to run and too stubborn to give up, so if there is going to be a shootout, so be it.

You could use that exact same argument to say that you don't need the gun in the first place.

It has been awhile since I looked at the FBI statistics, but I seem to remember that they showed that the average gunfight was over in three shots or so and was shot from a distance of seven yards or less.

The statistic you're referring to is often called the "Rule of 3s". 3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 yards. An average number of shots is just that, an average. It does not mean that it can't be significantly more, or significantly less. The vast majority of people carrying and even most police officers will never fire a shot as the result of an assault. Having the ability to engage more attackers or stay in a fight longer is simply additional insurance. Many people choose not to carry a gun because they assume, and on average they are correct, that they will not need it. I imagine that you probably shoot at distance greater than 3 yds at the range, despite the fact that on average you won't need to. Again, it's about how much insurance you do or don't want.

I think that there has been far too much internet commando thinking put into the whole carry gun thought process.

It is true that you can use ad hominems to dismiss reasonable points brought up by others.


I'd like to point out that there is a world of difference between you saying that you personally feel comfortable carrying with 8 shots and you saying:

What? Are you alluding to the fact that most shooters are such lousy shots that they now equate 15 near misses with effectiveness?

I'll repeat myself, if you learn how to shoot, you don't need a dozen rounds.

I think the point I and possibly AK103K (I don't like to claim to speak for others) are making is that there are any number of logical reasons why someone would choose to carry a higher capacity handgun. You may disagree with those reasons, but to be dismissive to the point where you say it's only because such people are bad shots is both insulting and naive.

[T. O'Heir]

Mostly because not everybody(most likely very few) has the grand or more a different SIG pistol, that does exactly the same thing, costs.
"...3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 yards..." Suspect that is beyond the skill level of most shooters. In the old days, when we were shooting bowling pins, the really fast, keen, guys were shooting a tick faster at 7 yards(buddy of mine did 5 pins in less than 3 seconds at least once. He practiced a lot. 2500 rounds per week for a few months leading up to Second Chance in '89.), but most of us were a lot slower.
"...you don't need a dozen rounds..." Yep, but it's nice to know you can have 12 or more. The whole thing is more about being good enough with what you have vs changing tools just because one lets you carry more ammo. At a thousand bucks plus.

[dgludwig]

QUOTE: If you learn how to shoot, you won't need twice as many rounds to do the job.

Apparently you have a crystal ball that can predict the self-defense scenario you might find yourself engaged in. Defending yourself against multiple adversaries is not that far-fetched of a possibility and the heightened adrenaline factor associated with facing incoming bullets is likely to compromise accurate shooting, no matter how good your training regimen has been.

As others have noted, relying on a high capacity pistol for carry purposes has absolutely no bearing on your marksmanship skills and might well be indicative of having a better understanding of what it might take to survive a shoot-out. To suggest otherwise is only to condescend.

Imo, other than the extra weight and bulk commensurate with pistols having a higher ammunition capacity, there is simply no downside to having extra rounds on board when exchanging bullets with a criminal-and this opinion comes from someone who carries a revolver on occasion.

[Airman Basic]

facing incoming bullets is likely to compromise accurate shooting, no matter how good your training regimen has been.

This. Can say from experience, I was watching what the other guy was doing with his gun more than I was watching my front sight.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

Mostly because not everybody(most likely very few) has the grand or more a different SIG pistol, that does exactly the same thing, costs.

"...3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 yards..." Suspect that is beyond the skill level of most shooters. In the old days, when we were shooting bowling pins, the really fast, keen, guys were shooting a tick faster at 7 yards(buddy of mine did 5 pins in less than 3 seconds at least once. He practiced a lot. 2500 rounds per week for a few months leading up to Second Chance in '89.), but most of us were a lot slower.

"...you don't need a dozen rounds..." Yep, but it's nice to know you can have 12 or more. The whole thing is more about being good enough with what you have vs changing tools just because one lets you carry more ammo. At a thousand bucks plus.

With the sheer number of SIGs on the used market I honestly think folks are crazy to pay full retail unless there is a certain model or combination they desperately need. For a standard P220 def go used.

While the rule of 3s is a great goal for shooters I don't think I explained it well enough. It is meant as a summary for a confrontation between two individuals involving a gun(s). I'm not sure it includes drawing time and the shot count is likely among both individuals or groups in the confrontation. The other guys can and do shoot back. Taking that into account makes it a little less intimidating. Still the takeaway is that many conflicts are up close and fast and people should try to work on speed. Of course at ranges that close you can trade a little accuracy (you can generally point shoot at 3 yds if you've worked on it and you adapt to the pistol's point of aim). Still my point is if I have ammo left over at the end I don't think I'll be upset about having carried it.

[Walt Sherrill]

And, a point that is overlooked in this discussion is that if you can do "..3 shots in 3 seconds at 3 yards..." well and consistently you can also do other things well, with some additional practice, a bit more slowly and at a slightly greater distance.

[357 Python]

There are people who still carry 6 shot revolvers, myself included. There are also some that carry 5 shot revolvers. I don't know how many rounds the 250 can hold but 8 rounds of 45 ACP are quite enough if the shooter does their part. Also there is the 227 with 10 rounds instead of 8. Either one would be very good for defensive purposes.

[lamarw]

Why do we always seem to define self defense with the opposition being another armed human combatant as the threat?

I often think in terms of a hostile threat being a large dangerous animal, a rabid animal, a snake, wild dogs, wild hogs and etc.

Maybe some of the other forum member lives only involves the possibility of a less than civilized environment in some urban living. Some of us see more wild life than other humans, and more often than not it is very civil fellow human.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by lamarw

I often think in terms of a hostile threat being a large dangerous animal, a rabid animal, a snake, wild dogs, wild hogs and etc.

That's a good point, and one I bring up from time to time. We've had a lot of dog attacks in this area over the years... People who walk or jog are probably more at risk than they realize.

[Elkins45]

Way back in 1987 I wrapped my hand around a P220 and just went "aaahh". To this day I have never held a handgun that fits my hand better or that I can shoot more accurately than the P220. That's all the reason I need.

The gun on my nightstand is a DAK version with Crimson Trace Lasergrips and tritium sights. During the winter it's also my CCW gun. And I still have the one from 1987 that still shoots as well as the day I bought it.

[SgtGunner]

I have long held the belief that the classic P220 is by far the finest shooting, best built double action .45ACP ever put to market. I have seen NO gun in the 20+ years Ive owned mine to make me rethink tat opinion.

[Walt Sherrill]

Originally Posted by SgtGunner

I have long held the belief that the classic P220 is by far the finest shooting, best built double action .45ACP ever put to market. I have seen NO gun in the 20+ years Ive owned mine to make me rethink tat opinion.

Some feel the same way about the CZ-97B, but for me, the CZ grip was a bit too large. I did like the extra rounds, though. (Since then thinner grips are available, as is a trigger kit that shortens the pull.) Some of the higher-end Tanfoglio/Witness guns are arguably in that group, too, and grip size was more manageable for me.

All of them are accurate, out of the box. The P-220, because of its size, is certainly a more suitable gun for concealed carry than the other .45s mentioned. I've owned at least three standard P-220s, along with a P220 Match and a P220 Super Match.

(My only SIG now, is a Gray Guns-tuned P228 with the short reset trigger option, which I like better.)