SIG P210 Review

[larvatus]

Please see my draft review of the SIG P210 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/larvatus/33732.html). I will gladly entertain and thankfully consider all questions and comments.

[Greg Bell]

Great stuff. It should be linked to all discussions of the 210. The only (very small) criticism I have is the discussion of what guns truly deserve the title of SIG. I understand your point, but it is not necessary and a little distracting early on.

Otherwise, it is probably one of the most informative pieces of gunwriting ever. Packed from beginning to end with fascinating information about the 210.

[larvatus]

Thank you for your kind words and incisive criticism. I have been very fortunate to have learned from Alonzo Church (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Church.html) that I should never make casual remarks, because they do not belong in the baggage of formal logic (http://www.math.metu.edu.tr/~dpierce/mathematics/Church/rota.html). Unfortunately, I am not very good at applying this advice. The logical content that I am trying to get across is that excellence in mechanical engineering often comes through design by a committee refining an invention of a great pioneer. As proven by their divestment from gunmaking, SIG never even made a lasting commitment to the art. All they had was the profit motive in the service of military procurement. Nonetheless, their accomplishment in this genre is arguably far more estimable than that of such storied brand as Beretta. I am impressed by this outcome.

Another missing piece of the logical puzzle, which I am regrettably unable to furnish, is the Browning-Saive departure from the direct linkage between the trigger and the sear in the GP35. In view of the design chronology, I find it hard to attribute this departure to patent constraints. Yet no other sensible explanation for moving the transfer bar into the slide comes to mind. Does anybody know the reasons for this change?

[auto45]

Well thought out and interesting reading.

The biggest problem is there aren't enough 210's around to fondle and shoot to compare, at least for me. And, at the current prices it would really need to be compared to a semi-custom/custom 9mm 1911 in so far as accuracy/ durability, etc.

[Chetnik]

Excuse my ignorance, but referring to the 4th to last paragraph how is it possible to stamp a handgun slide? Makes sense for a thin walled receiver like an AK, but not for something as thick as a slide. :confused:

[clu]

Excuse my ignorance, but referring to the 4th to last paragraph how is it possible to stamp a handgun slide? Makes sense for a thin walled receiver like an AK, but not for something as thick as a slide.

I believe the slides are mandrel formed and welded at particular areas. And yes they are made of chrome-moly steel sheet, then have a machined "breech block" held in place by a roll pin.

Another missing piece of the logical puzzle, which I am regrettably unable to furnish, is the Browning-Saive departure from the direct linkage between the trigger and the sear in the GP35. In view of the design chronology, I find it hard to attribute this departure to patent constraints. Yet no other sensible explanation for moving the transfer bar into the slide comes to mind. Does anybody know the reasons for this change?

Most references I have seen refer to the patent infringment issues however I do know that Saive was mostly responsible for the GP-35 design, as the last design Browning was personally involved with was the superposed shotgun (the design was on his desk at FN when he died) His last pistol design was clearly the "Grand Rendement" (trsl. "high capacity") developed for the French military and tested by them in 1922. When looking at Brownings last patent, which bears U.S. Patent Office #1,618,510 and was filed 6-28-1923 its clear that the pistol depicted is the Grand Rendement, with features such as a breech bolt running through the slide from the rear, which never made it to the pistol we know today as the Hi-Power. the Grand Rendement had a 16 shot capacity which Saive reduced to 13 shortening the grip, he shortened the slide and frame reducing weight where possible, and did away with the breech bolt design in favor of a system similar to a 1911, the Grand Rendements grip/tang mounted safety was replaced with a safety similar to a 1911. The most likely reason for the sear lever concept was that it was either held over from the Grand Rendement design or was an attempt to attain as slim a pistol as possible (or it could be another case of weapon designer ego?)

[clu]

Excuse my ignorance, but referring to the 4th to last paragraph how is it possible to stamp a handgun slide? Makes sense for a thin walled receiver like an AK, but not for something as thick as a slide.


I believe the slides are mandrel formed and welded at particular areas. And yes they are made of chrome-moly steel sheet, then have a machined "breech block" held in place by a roll pin.

This is also why they designed the enlarged, squared chamber area to achieve lock up between slide and barrel as machining radial lugs into the slide would have been near impossible and more costly.

[Chetnik]

Thanks for the info..

Is it correct to say that the Glock slide is machined from billet, and if so is the similar enlarged chamber flange just a "good design" consideration, i.e. easy access in case of stoppage, etc..?

[clu]

Is it correct to say that the Glock slide is machined from billet, and if so is the similar enlarged chamber flange just a "good design" consideration, i.e. easy access in case of stoppage, etc..?

I dont know if the Glock slide is machined from billet or a forging but it is certainly not made of sheet steel, I think the Sig style chamber block is easier and less costly to manufacture and gives a tight, accurate lockup without alot of hand work, radial systems work well but it varies by manufacturer and pistol design (Browning Hi-Powers are famous for having their locking mechanism upset by firing 9mm+P ammo)