Sig SP2022, FN FNP-9, Les Baer PII, and Dan Wesson Specialist at the Range

M

Martowski

New member
Had a chance to take both of these to the range last weekend. The Sig was brand new, never fired, and the FN was purchased used (but yet unfired by me). Both performed well, delivering what you would expect in terms of service pistol accuracy and reliability. The "feel" of the FN vs. the Sig was very different though, with the Sig delivering noticeably less felt recoil. However, prior to going to the range I did swap out the barrel it came with and replaced it with a Sig Factory threaded version. That may have contributed to the difference in feel.

Anyway, here's a pic of both and then a pic of the Sig with the threaded barrel. I've included pics of the targets and a little more about this on my blog (link in the signature line). Also, the Les Baer PII and the Dan Wesson Specialist made it to the range as well (pics of both below, along with a more info in the blog including targets). Both performed well and both are great examples of top tier 1911s.

20170120_210905_zpshdlab2eb.jpg


20170212_201111_zpswbjcag9f.jpg


20170212_200943_zpsc99z8qwh.jpg


20170212_201035_zpsd2yvdplx.jpg
 
It could for sure, but I wouldn't try to carry it and not wear a jacket of some form. The slide seems to sit a little higher and the overall profile of the pistol feels a little wider to me. I'd also take the threaded barrel off for that. :)

I'd probably reach for the FN before the Sig if I wanted to carry.
 
A friend has one of the FN's in 40 Smith as does his wife in 9mm...it's been a cpl years since I shot them, but as I recall, they were a bit thicker (wider) in the slide area than the Sigs and with a similar to the Sig, higher bore line. Do you find that to be true? Too, if you're packing either one on the hip (with an OWB) as I do, an additional 1/8" off thickness just isn't significant. A bulge is a bulge...and it's the grip length that's really the 'printing' indicator. Assuming a concealing garment of suitable length.

Accuracy at that time, when comparing the two FN's to my P226 Mk25 in 9mm; the Sig was just a bit better than the FN's. Less than a 1/2" from the 15 yd. line (1-1/2" vs. 1" slow fire). But as I had very little time with the FNl's, it may have been just that...too little time to get used to it's feel. Very well built guns tho.

In your first pic, the Sig does appear, however, to have a little more distance between the top of the back of the grip arch to the sights, than the FN. lt could be just camera perspective, however. What say you?

Lastly, I was amazed by my wife's Glock 23 low bore axis, noticeably so. Wish all my favorites (Glocks are not among them for their triggers): 1911's & Sigs predominently, had that low profile...makes for less muzzle up-flip in my experience.

Best Regards, Rod
 
Last edited:
Here are some measurements. Both pistols are very similar in size.

FNP Slide (widest portion): 1.008"
SP2022 Slide (widest portion): 1.125"

FNP top of grip arch to top of rear sight: 1.834"
SP2022 top of grip arch to top of rear sight: 1.873"
Note that the FNP levels out in the frame arch area where the web of the hand hits, whereas the SP2022 is at an angle. This give the FNP the sensation of sitting lower in the hand. From just informal observations, the FNP seems to sit lower than the SP2022.

FNP bottom of frame rail to bore line: 1.278"
SP2022 bottom of frame rail to bore line: 1.319"

Again, not a ton of difference between the two, the FNP just feels a little more compact overall
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top