Sig Sauer P365

[Stringfellow_Hawke]

Does anyone here have one? I know the first several releases had a lot of problems. I ultimately chose the Glock 43 because of that when I was looking into my concealed carry weapon.

 

[marineimaging]

Just so you know, I don't have anything Sig nor Glock. Mine are Ruger, Browning, S&W, Taurus, Heritage, HiPoint. I like to take the junkers to the range and make them shoot almost as good as a brand name. Sometimes even better.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I say this as a huge Sig Sauer fan...I'd rather have the Glock 43.

Edit: ...with night sights. I'm not a fan of the standard Glock sights, especially on a concealed carry gun.

 

[Stringfellow_Hawke]

Just so you know, I don't have anything Sig nor Glock. Mine are Ruger, Browning, S&W, Taurus, Heritage, HiPoint. I like to take the junkers to the range and make them shoot almost as good as a brand name. Sometimes even better.

Never had an issue with a Taurus. My Ruger LCP2 was trash though

 

[marineimaging]

Never had an issue with a Taurus. My Ruger LCP2 was trash though

I took my sisters down and did a little deburring on the catch and polished the face so that minor variations in rim thickness were less noticeable and we went from about 80% cycle to 99.5 percent or 1/200 might have failed to cycle correctly) I think with some range time even that will improve.

 

[marineimaging]

Never had an issue with a Taurus. My Ruger LCP2 was trash though

this is what I am carrying right now..., with a spare mag and some hot, hand loaded Gold Dots.

 

[marineimaging]

I say this as a huge Sig Sauer fan...I'd rather have the Glock 43.

Edit: ...with night sights. I'm not a fan of the standard Glock sights, especially on a concealed carry gun.

Not having ever owned or even shot a Glock, what is so special about them that can't be found on other guns?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Not having ever owned or even shot a Glock, what is so special about them that can't be found on other guns?

Nothing really, and to be honest, I'm not a fan of Glocks in general. I think they're basically ugly bricks on sticks. I suppose my response was in the context of which I feel would be a better CC weapon, the Sig P365 or the Glock 43. Don't get me wrong, I like Sigs and own a few. But they really have yet to knock it out of the park in the CCW department. They seem to either make chopped down fat little things like the P224, slimmed compacts like the P365, or subcompacts with cumbersome controls like the P238. In my opinion, they really have yet to make a good subcompact pistol that I would consider a good concealed carry choice for most people.

The Glock 43, on the other hand, is a very reliable, extremely lightweight subcompact that is literally a point-and-shoot gun (like the Springfield XDS) with none of the "manipulate this or that control first" requirements like the Sig P238 or the M&P shield with the optional thumb safety. When I consider a CCW I personally want small and light enough that I will carry it every day, and if I have to use it I can unholster, raise, point, and pull the trigger and it will go bang...100% of the time, no exceptions. No doubt there are several subcompacts in that category, but between the two options given, the Glock is the only one.

 

[marineimaging]

I have the XDS .45 and the Taurus G2 9mm. I will carry either one as the .45 gives a hard hit, but only 7 rounds unless I carry a second mag. The Taurus gives me 12 rounds of 124 grain GDHP and is unbelievably accurate at 20 yards but you can feel that width and weight difference with the XDS being lighter and thinner.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Not having ever owned or even shot a Glock, what is so special about them that can't be found on other guns?

Handled a few, but never shot one. They are light, they are reliable, they last a long time, most say they point very naturally; and they feel like a toy; and look like a brick.