Indians For Guns

boris wrote: but i have seen most american gun owners praise the sig 226 very much,among glock 17,glock 19,sig 226,walther p99,beretta 92fs and HK USP compact how would you rate each of them

Please keep in mind that these are my opinions and reflect my personal biases.
Glocks do not fit my hand well. I have small hands and holding a Glock feels like I am holding a square piece of wood. I also have a thing about all-metal guns so do not care much for polymer framed firearms. I have fired the Glock 17, 19 and 22. I cannot tell you exactly why but I liked the Glock 22 the best of the bunch. Functionally, however, Glocks are very reliable and have a huge following. The bias that I have is personal and has nothing to do with the utility of the Glock.

The Sig 226 in 9mm is a pussycat. There is more than enough mass there to tame the recoil. The target can be acquired very rapidly for subsequent shots. Its is still enjoyable in .40 S&W. In .357 SIG, you know you have something there in your hands but the recoil is not even close to objectionable[*]. The double stack mag of a P226 makes the grip larger than I like, especially for the DA first shot but it is still do-able. I am also intimately familiar with the SIG manual of arms as one of the handguns in my carry rotation is the SIG P225 (As someone said: "SIG P225; it's like drawing Excalibur from the stone" ). This may have be part of the reason why I feel more comfortable with SIG's P series handguns. The SIG P226 is the standard issue sidearm of the elite US Navy Seals. They do however, also use other handguns depending on the mission. [*]When I say objectionable recoil, I mean something like a .357 Mag fired in a Scandium snubby.[/size]

I've shot a Walther P99 in .40 S&W and felt that for the size of the pistol, it should have handled the recoil better. Maybe the high bore axis in relation to the hand causes it to be more "flippy" than usual. My CZ P-06 which is a smaller pistol, handles the recoil of the .40 S&W much better, returning to the target faster and with more ease.

The 92fs is a large, robust and heavy gun. Shooting it in 9mm is no sweat. The grip is larger than I like but there is nothing wrong with the pistol itself. I wouldn't want to carry one concealed all day as there are many smaller and lighter weapons but it is not designed to be a weapon that is meant to be concealed. This is the standard handgun of the US armed forces and for the most part it seems to fulfill its role well.

I've never fired a HK USP compact so I don't really have any opinions about that.

Different guns are designed to fulfill different roles. Rather than trying to select a particular firearm for its aesthetics or brand name, one must first define the role that you want the particular gun to fulfill. Is it for concealed carry? Is it a range/competition gun? Nightstand (home defense) gun? Backup gun?
Once the specific role is defined then one should try to find a firearm that will fulfill that role. Many people try to do it backwards; the select a firearm and then try to make it fulfill a role.

Boris, maybe some others will chime in with their opinions.

The beauty about guns for a true gun lover is that there are all sizes, all kinds and all calibers to suit all needs/wants/fancies. You can take one of each (for different times of the month) or the one you like and let others be happy about what they like too. Its better than Baskin Robbins

Good analysis and comparison xl_target!

HSharief wrote:The beauty about guns for a true gun lover is that there are all sizes, all kinds and all calibers to suit all needs/wants/fancies. You can take one of each (for different times of the month) or the one you like and let others be happy about what they like too. Its better than Baskin Robbins

- especially, with the one about Baskin Robbins

Personally I love the glock for its shootability. I dont care much for the polymer frame either but I find it kind of absorbs the 'felt' recoil and thereby my accuracy. Sig P226 in 9mm feels much bigger in my hands and more so the Cz 75. But funnily the Cz is really fun to shoot. I managed to empty a whole magazine rapidfire into a fist sized target at 15 yards! The 92fs (Brigadier) which I was introduced to last year felt like a cannon in comparision to the rest of them. Didnt get to shoot it though but wasnt too eager either.

Jonah

xl_target wrote:

boris wrote: but i have seen most american gun owners praise the sig 226 very much,among glock 17,glock 19,sig 226,walther p99,beretta 92fs and HK USP compact how would you rate each of them

Please keep in mind that these are my opinions and reflect my personal biases.
Glocks do not fit my hand well. I have small hands and holding a Glock feels like I am holding a square piece of wood. I also have a thing about all-metal guns so do not care much for polymer framed firearms. I have fired the Glock 17, 19 and 22. I cannot tell you exactly why but I liked the Glock 22 the best of the bunch. Functionally, however, Glocks are very reliable and have a huge following. The bias that I have is personal and has nothing to do with the utility of the Glock.

The Sig 226 in 9mm is a pussycat. There is more than enough mass there to tame the recoil. The target can be acquired very rapidly for subsequent shots. Its is still enjoyable in .40 S&W. In .357 SIG, you know you have something there in your hands but the recoil is not even close to objectionable[*]. The double stack mag of a P226 makes the grip larger than I like, especially for the DA first shot but it is still do-able. I am also intimately familiar with the SIG manual of arms as one of the handguns in my carry rotation is the SIG P225 (As someone said: "SIG P225; it's like drawing Excalibur from the stone" ). This may have be part of the reason why I feel more comfortable with SIG's P series handguns. The SIG P226 is the standard issue sidearm of the elite US Navy Seals. They do however, also use other handguns depending on the mission. [*]When I say objectionable recoil, I mean something like a .357 Mag fired in a Scandium snubby.[/size]

I've shot a Walther P99 in .40 S&W and felt that for the size of the pistol, it should have handled the recoil better. Maybe the high bore axis in relation to the hand causes it to be more "flippy" than usual. My CZ P-06 which is a smaller pistol, handles the recoil of the .40 S&W much better, returning to the target faster and with more ease.

The 92fs is a large, robust and heavy gun. Shooting it in 9mm is no sweat. The grip is larger than I like but there is nothing wrong with the pistol itself. I wouldn't want to carry one concealed all day as there are many smaller and lighter weapons but it is not designed to be a weapon that is meant to be concealed. This is the standard handgun of the US armed forces and for the most part it seems to fulfill its role well.

I've never fired a HK USP compact so I don't really have any opinions about that.

Different guns are designed to fulfill different roles. Rather than trying to select a particular firearm for its aesthetics or brand name, one must first define the role that you want the particular gun to fulfill. Is it for concealed carry? Is it a range/competition gun? Nightstand (home defense) gun? Backup gun?
Once the specific role is defined then one should try to find a firearm that will fulfill that role. Many people try to do it backwards; the select a firearm and then try to make it fulfill a role.

Boris, maybe some others will chime in with their opinions.

a very good review from your side sir,thank you very much for it.The sig was a gun of interest because as you mentioned about the SEALS,the british SAS too replaced their favourite browning hi-power with the sig and it has been that way,the glock due to its heavy use by most american police and by the very positive review from a close relation in the indian special forces also became a gun of interest for me particularly its unique design and trigger.

talk about the 92fs many gun owners will say go for the taurus version instead its better.

nevertheless a very good review from your side.

thank you