DAtrigger4Ruger, I have a question.
You identified that your P97 couldn't compare to the accuracy and reliability of your Sigs.
Yet, you give us NOTHING to use to justify it- other than your statement that the Sigs were better.
How?
You'll just have to find the posts. This is getting redundant.
I gave measured group sizes to demonstrate that MY P97 grouped better in MY hand than a P220Combat did, by a group size about 1/2 the size of the Sig. I didn't intend to claim Sigs aren't capable of better group sizes. The intention of my comments was to indicate that not all shooters have the same results with different brands/designs, and that MY experience made me appreciate the Ruger more.
Ok. That's cool
I am willing to concede that the Sig is probably more accurate. However, I would like to hear you identify what makes the Ruger P97 less reliable.
- How often did it fail to feed a round?
What type of round was it and did you use the same types in the Sig?
If so, how did the Sig do?
How often did it fail to eject a round?
What type was it and did you use the same types in the Sig?
If so, how did the Sig do?
Can you give us any shot group size measurements to compare?
All I am reading is 'I like it better'- with no data.
I am not disagreeing with you. That is definitely your feelings about the guns in your hands. And many will agree with you.
What I am looking for is any type of objective details to support it.
In an earlier post, I mentioned my experiences and listed group sizes. I forgot to mention, but could have mentioned that I didn't experience a single FTFeed, FTFire, FTEject or any other reliability issue with over 5000 rounds through my P97 so far. I also didn't experience any of these with my Sigs.
Of course, your experiences, like mine, and like most gun reviews, are a sample of one- and are thus statistically interesting, but insignificant. However, no data to report doesn't support much.
The only data I can remember is from a 2001 Shooting Times report, in which these were two of the guns tested. There are flaws with the methodology, but the Sig P220 had a FTFeed and FTE in the first 5000 rounds of 230 FMJ, while the P97 didn't have any failures, with 4000 rounds of 230FMJ and 1000 of a variety of HPs.
The group sizes were at 25 yards and were only about .25" better for the Sig, and that could be accounted for by the fact that a Ransom Rest was used for the Sig and sandbags for the Ruger.
This is 'measured' data.
It is flawed.
It is a sample of one gun for each model/brand.
Yet, it is actual measured data.
This would support the notion that the accuracy difference is probably statistically insignificant for someone who is not a bullseye competitive shooter. If the sandbag vs Ransom Rest variable were taken out, it is conceivable that the group sizes
might have been even closer in size.
So, what is it that makes YOUR experience that makes you feel that the Sig is so much better that you Laugh your A** Off at those who have such success with the P97? Because, without any data in support, your post has a weird vibe to it.
I am not arguing for Ruger Loyalty above all else. I am only asking for an explanation of the experiences that make you believe the Ruger P97 is LESS reliable than your Sigs and that it is LESS accurate.
Lastly, do you have the folded-steel slide Sig P220, or the newer solid steel slide? That makes a difference also in reliability, as the older folded steel slides require replacing pins that hold the firing pin block into the slide about every 5000 rounds. The solid slide doesn't have this replacement part issue, and neither does the Ruger.