SIG versus P220 versus Ruger P97

J

JohnKSa

Administrator
From two articles in the 2001 Shooting Times Annual titled
45 ACP and .223 Autoloaders.

Sig P220
10,000 Rounds Total
All Black Hill Ammunition 230 Gr Ball

Malfunctions
FTFeed @ 3322
FTEject @ 4723
Stovepipe @ 5352
FTFeed @ 6443
Misfire @ 4104 (overlength round)
Broken Trigger Pivot @ 6028
10 round groups from Ransom Rest @ 25 yards
Accuracy at the beginning 2.51"
Accuracy at the end 1.94"

Ruger P97
5,000+ Rounds Total
Made up of:
4,000 Rounds Winchester 230 Gr Ball
100 Rounds each of:
CCI 200 Gr TMJ
Cor-Bon 165 Gr JHP +P
Federal 180 Gr JHP
Hornady 185 Gr JHP
PMC 230 Gr JHP
Remington 185 Gr JHP
Golden Saber 185 Gr HP
Winchester 170 Gr JSP
Winchester 230 Gr SXT
Plus additional ammo used for accuracy testing @ 1000 round intervals.

No Failures of any kind.
8 round groups from a sandbag rest @ 25 yards
Accuracy at the beginning 2.25"
Accuracy at the end 2.18"
 
Tough to tell much using a test group of one. Id prefer to see an analysis using a large number of guns (perhaps ten to twenty guns of each type) and seeing some averages. I'd also like to see the same ammo used throughout the tests.
 
Latest issue of Shotgun News has the data from the OH State Patrol tests of a boatload of pistols (10 guns ea. type). The 220 was in there, but I don''t recall about the P97. 220 didn't make the cut, tho the 226 and 229 came out on top. There's a magazine on the shelves that reviewed only .45's and .223 rifles (don't recall publisher) and they did a 10,000 round test of a 220 w/excellent results. Gun Tests liked the 220, tho their's was also a 1 gun test.
 
treeprof,

The magazine you speak of is the one I took the information from. Both articles were from the magazine, but by different authors.

Kind of interesting, isn't it. Reading the article on the P220 gave a very different impression than just reading the headline/tease line from the index/front cover.

I agree that testing a single gun doesn't tell you everything there is to know, in fact, the P97 I had (for a very short time) was defective from the factory and wouldn't even fire a complete magazine without misfiring a round or two.

My point was mostly that the Sig malfunctioned with FMJ while the Ruger didn't malfunction at all with all sorts of ammo. Also that the accuracy comparison was very favorable. That's without even considering that the Ruger is less than half the cost of the SIG.
 
Is it just me or does the ammo list of problems add up to more than the 10,00 tested? :confused:


Could just be a lemon. For some reson I never was the biggest SigSAUER fan- would love a SIG 210. I personaly shoot great with the 226, it just seems the gun is overpriced for the cheap engineering tricks used in its manufacture.

For a cheap gun that works (unless a lemon) Ruger is great.
 
I own both of these pistols and I am sure the P220 has the edge. The question is; is it worth over twice as much a the Ruger P97? I doubt it very much as my Ruger P97 is an excellent weapon. I also have a P90 that will give a P220 a run for the money. Of these weapons it is what ever rocks your boat. Make your choice and it is okay with me. Regards, Richard
 
Izzy,

The numbers listed next to the malfunctions are round count at the time of the malfunctions.

For example:

FTFeed @ 3322 means that there was a Failure To Feed at round number 3,322. NOT that there were 3,322 failures to feed.
 
Sig has a terrific reputation for reliability, but based on my experience with my Sig 220 I can easily belive 5 malfuctions in 10,000 rounds. Shooting somewhat dirty LSWC rounds mine will start having feed problems way before 3,322 rounds.

For some reason I have yet to see a 45 from any maker that is as reliable as the full size Beretta/Taurus 9mm twins, it sounds like the Rugers are close though. To bad Taurus went with a new design for their 45 instead of adapting the 92 series.
 
IMO, it is nice general information but in the end it is meaningless.

The two different guns were shot with different ammunition. Only one gun represented for each sample. The guns were shot differently. The shooters were different. There was only one shooter per gun.

To me, even just using the same ammo from the same lot would have been a huge step to get even just a slight tidbit of usable information. As is, though, it's data not worth remembering. I sure would have liked to have run to tests though, even if it didn't mean anything with respect to comparing the two guns.
 
I agree with hksigwalther.
That "test" is pretty worthless IMO.
If they wanted to reach objective results, both pistols should have been fired with the same type of ammo.
 
Actually, most shooting of both guns was with 230 FMJ ammo, which is the easiest feeder. However, the Ruger had 1000 rounds of mixed HPs. Thus, the Ruger had a more extensive test in some respects.
 
JohnK, my P220 will choke each and every time with 200 gr LSWC bullets and if you feed it round nose lead bullets it leads up in a hurry. What is your secret for success? I have always heard that lead should be avoided with polygonal barrels. Regards, Richard:confused:confused:
 
Let's see, the P-220 had one malfunction at shot number 3300 and another one at #4700. The Ruger packed up and went home after #5000. The SIG stuck around for another 5000 rounds with only two more jams (excessive cartridge OAL doesn't count; that's like saying a gun is "prone to" squib loads and dud primers). Who knows what the Ruger would have done between number 5k and 10k?

The Rugers are fine autos and outstanding values, but I've had more jams with "P series" Rugers over the years than with P-series SIGs...
 
220 v. P97

First off I'm going to have to admit to a bias in favor of Rugers, but, having said that , I would like to see a test to breakage on both the Ruger P95 and P97; and then have a look at what broke. In my area P95's NIB can be had for about $350.00; would like to see better sights though.
 
Richard, I generally load SWC's in the 45 ACP to max OAL that will fit in the magazine, that seems to take care of feed problems from the bullet hanging up. That works for the Sig and my 1911.

This is the first time I'd heard not to shoot lead in Sigs, Glocks sure every other post about a Glock says not to shoot lead in them.

Maybe the alloys I've been shooting in mine are hard enough not to lead the barrel, much of the 230gr LRN I've shot has been from Dillon the rest just standard LRN from companies like Bull-X and various local casters in the northwest. Or maybe my Sig doesn't have a polygonal barrel, mine is the older style with the sharp hammer spur, unlike the nice round hammers that have been on everything else.
 
What's wrong Siggies...don't like the posssibility of a cheaper alternative being as good... :rolleyes: ...

G

(putting on flame retardant suit)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top