sig 220st

[boogeyman]

is anyone carrying this model year round? how difficult is it to conceal? is anyone issued the pistol? on the non stainless model, is the frame made to withstand +p loads every now and then? are there 10 round mags out? etc. etc.

just give me knowledge

BTW HAVE A WONDERFUL 4th of July

[D-Ric902]

Don't have one but I have been looking into it. :D
I understand that the ST is more of a shooters gun that a carry gun. Weighs more than the standard Sig 220.

Same size as the "regular" 220 so concealment is the same.

[boogeyman]

i understand it is same size and all. in all actuality, the sig 220 is like a DA/SA commander on steroids in terms of size. what i was particularly concerned about was the fact the gun is fat. a government size all stainless 1911 can be easily concealed for it is long and skinny. this is just my opinion; but, the shorter and stockier the gun it seems to be harder to conceal. although i would rarely ever carry the gun... i have a g19 for that... i would occasionally think about it as a car gun (carried crossdraw) or as a light woods gun (i only go hiking a few times a year now). 99% of the time it will be a pure bedstand/range gun. does it sound like a good choice?

[Gixerman1000]

It not that wide, I have CC'ed my standard P220 with no problem, with the weight of my P220ST I think it would be a little tiring but I haven’t tried.

[Kestrel]

I like the standard P220 very much, but I'm not wild about the ST. The ST doesn't have the feature that draws me to the P220, that is - a lightweight frame. I might be in the minority on the ST, since it seems that most people that have them really like them. They are just heavier than I care for in that gun.

If I was going to carry it, I would definitely recommend the standard P220. Since you mentioned it would be a nightstand or car gun, it probably won't matter much. The thing about car guns, though, is they are also carried concealed sometimes. I've been in a few places that I needed to carry my "car" gun and was glad it was a handy carry size.

The 1911 is definitely slimmer and more comfortable for carry than an ST is. A Commander is a much better carry gun, to me.

[Surefire_U2]

The ST was never designed to be carried, IMO. Its a range/target/HD gun at heart. Recoil is practically zero, and followup shots are faster than many 9mms IMO. Balance is PERFECT IMO (the full-sized alloy Sigs feel too muzzle heavy to me). And with the SS frame, it should have a longer life than an alloy frame.

I prefer the ST over the alloy 220 by a HUGE margin. If I wanted to carry, I'd use a smaller gun anyway.

My conclusion, the ST is NOT good for carry. If that is what you are after, get a LIGHTER gun.

[boogeyman]

it's purely a hd/car/range gun. i think you just sold me on my new purchase!

[sig-it]

i love my st, IT IS NOT MY CARRY GUN..i have a 226 in .357 as a car gun, and a 229 for concealed if needed...BUT my 220st is the most fun to shoot..best balance and returns to point of aim faster than any fullsize 1911 i have shot....but i have larger hands, so the fat sig grips are prefered over the skinny 1911.

if your looking for a carry gun in stainless...go with the 226st in .40 cal....its a bit smaller, same great second shot capability and well...its one of the best tools in the shed. OR get that new stainless 229...that is by far the best hi caliber compact sig...long life and durability of stainless, fits lage hands well while accomodating for smaller ones and well its a sig....

[Surefire_U2]

it's purely a hd/car/range gun. i think you just sold me on my new purchase!

In this case, IMO, there is no contest. The ST is the much better hd/range/target/car gun. Much better balance than the alloy 220 (IMO), stronger frame, unbelievably low recoil, super-fast follow-up shots, great grip (love the rubber grip), etc...

I'd definitely say that the ST is the better choice if hd/car/range is your primary use....

Eventually, like most of us, you'll want one (or more) of each model though. ;)

[sig-it]

amen to that...shorthy lafer i picked up my 229, i was checking my credit limit to see if i could buy the 229st in .40....and a gsr, and a...well you get the point

[boogeyman]

sig-it,

isn't the sig 226 st 40 nearly just the same size as the 220 st? if i recall correctly, the only difference is that the 226 is .1" smaller in height and length and .1" wider than the 220. the only weight difference is roughly .5 oz too, once again if i recall correctly. how would this equate to a better carry gun than the 220?

does everyone agree that the 220st is better than the kimber stainless tle pro rl2 for aformentioned reasons?

[sig-it]

yes mr. boogeyman,

the 226 in all calibers is .1" bigger in both legnth and width...this is why its my car/nightstand....and not my carry....


if you re-read my post (not necessairy....) i was kind of talking through my thought......i should have edited to just mention the 229st.....its a .40 too and i got to shoot one this past weekend...its a well balanced gun...

the 229 has more than .5" less in legnth, .1 in height, and shares the same width ...it is slightly more concealable IWB...well actually its a hell of alot more comfortable ion my 6'1" 170 frame.....but it is just half of an inch.... ;)

...alot of people will tell you that they would never go anywhere without thier fullsize 1911 cocked and locked.....and thier are an equal number of wheelgunners that feel stronly about thier snubbies.

i prefer my 226 to the 220....but as ive said before..i carry my 229 the most often....