TexasCHLforum.com

flechero wrote:

MaduroBU wrote:I have not been impressed by Sig of late. It used to be the tool of professionals, but now it seems that they surrendered that in favor of marketing to portray that image.

The P365 looks perfect on paper, but I am suspicious of it. With a G43, I can print two 8" circles at 10 yards...one center mass and one low left when I start flinching. And that's with cheapo 115 grain blasting ammo. I can chew the middle out of a target at 25 yards with a 357 Sig which makes 2.5x the muzzle energy from a 40 oz all stainless pistol, so it's not exactly recoil sensitivity. I think that polymer frame pistols produce very snappy recoil which makes it very tough for me to get back on targey quickly.

The P365 seems to be better than my P232 stainless in every way....until I start shooting it. I get that my comments are far from universally applicable, but I feel that I cannot be the only person who feels that way.

Your comments are common of many people shooting a lightweight, small framed pistol. But I would bet my wallet that the gun wasn't the difference... same thing would happen with a 365 as a CM9, PF9, LC9, G43, etc.

I can shoot PF9's and LC9 decently, but I have had them for years and have a lot of trigger time on them. Even still, I shoot them a little slower than I can a full size gun, or even a 4" officers framed 1911. That's the trade off in concealed carry, for those of us that have to conceal. The small guns are easier to carry, but harder to shoot. Compound that with most guys take the full size gun to the range and dial in with that and only occasionally shoot the little carry gun. I think people should start and finish each range session with the carry gun.

I'd love a small, all steel gun with a good trigger... but there are VERY few of those to be had and they are expensive. I can carry extra weight better than I can conceal a larger gun.