There is a thread over at the sigforum, http://www.sigforum.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/007478.html that suggests that the stainless steel slides that SIG is using now on the 226, 229, ST, and Sport lines are actually from cast bar stocks made by Ruger's Pine Tree Casting group. Anybody have any info on this? I have a bad feeling that this may be correct. If it is SIG has been ripping us off.
SIG's slide are cast?
- Thread starter Amish
- Start date
I only own one SIG, a 220. It has a hardened steel block set into the slide to form the standing breech. Why would they do that if the slide was tough enough to handle the beating? Answer, because it is a casting. I was told a long time ago that their slides were castings, even the ones made in Europe.
Well, while it's true that casting technology these days is such that it is possible to cast high-strength parts, it's somewhat misleading to make a statement like that.
It's true that all alloys start out as molten and are then cooled into some form, however, forged metals are cooled and rolled or hammered into bars or sheets outside of a mold--not exactly the same as casting which involves pouring the material into a mold which is roughly the shape of the finished object.
The bars or sheets are then shaped/drilled/milled/welded together into the final form.
The issue is that castings have a tendency to internal flaws and can be more brittle (due to some metallurgical mumbo jumbo that I can't begin to repeat) while the process of forging steel into bars or sheets is much less prone to such problems.
However relatively recent advances in casting technology processes and the development of new alloys have made high-quality castings pretty much the equal of forged metal parts.
Anyway, that's how I understand it...
Good shooting,
John
There is a lot more to a functional gun than whether its components are forged or cast. Certainly they choice of alloys, quality of heat treatment, and workmanship make a great difference.
I have not heard anything bad about the durability of Sig 220's, so if the slides have always been cast, I would not feel ripped off.
Look at it this way: pre-'95 FN HiPowers had forged slides. However, it was heat treated to a RC of 20. Newer HiPowers are cast, but heat treated to RC 40. The 9 mm is a higher pressure round than the .45 ACP, about double the pressure, yet nobody complains about the durability of the HiPower. As a matter of fact, it is a much praised design.
I have not heard anything bad about the durability of Sig 220's, so if the slides have always been cast, I would not feel ripped off.
Look at it this way: pre-'95 FN HiPowers had forged slides. However, it was heat treated to a RC of 20. Newer HiPowers are cast, but heat treated to RC 40. The 9 mm is a higher pressure round than the .45 ACP, about double the pressure, yet nobody complains about the durability of the HiPower. As a matter of fact, it is a much praised design.
GeneralChang
New member
The 220, 225, 226, 228 all began life with a stamped sheet metal slide with hardened breech blocks.
The 229 was the only model that had a one piece stainless steel slide which was probably (?)to handle the higher pressure of the .357 SIG and .40 S&W cartidges.
A few years ago (not exactly sure) SIG introduced the 226 in .40 and .357 and they changed the slide to a one piece SS. I think that SigArms is making some parts in Germany and importing them into the US for assembly.
I believe that older SIG models--220,225,226,228, were proofed in Germany which was maybe why they were so expensive. The proof marks can be found on the slide just below the muzzle. Now they don't proof them any longer and have yet to pass the savings to the consumer. HTH
The 229 was the only model that had a one piece stainless steel slide which was probably (?)to handle the higher pressure of the .357 SIG and .40 S&W cartidges.
A few years ago (not exactly sure) SIG introduced the 226 in .40 and .357 and they changed the slide to a one piece SS. I think that SigArms is making some parts in Germany and importing them into the US for assembly.
I believe that older SIG models--220,225,226,228, were proofed in Germany which was maybe why they were so expensive. The proof marks can be found on the slide just below the muzzle. Now they don't proof them any longer and have yet to pass the savings to the consumer. HTH
U.S.-market stainless-slide guns have the slides made at SIGarms' plant in NH, while the German-made frames are shipped over here for final assembly. The U.S.-market P-239 and (I think) the P-245 are entirely made in NH.
The non-stainless U.S.-market P-225/226/228's are still entirely made in Germany and rack up frequent-flier miles the old-fashioned way. (Do they still catalogue the 225? Haven't checked in a year or two. Hope so, as it's a swell little pistol that isn't entirely replaced by the 239.)
The non-stainless U.S.-market P-225/226/228's are still entirely made in Germany and rack up frequent-flier miles the old-fashioned way. (Do they still catalogue the 225? Haven't checked in a year or two. Hope so, as it's a swell little pistol that isn't entirely replaced by the 239.)
stellarpod
New member
Anyone who knee-jerk dismisses castings, especially investment castings, needs to drag their technical knowledge up to 21st century standards.
It's a tired old urban legend that you can't get a quality component from a casting. Today's quality product, be it a firearm or a commerical jet, uses a multitude of materials and processes to arrive at a product that produces adequate strength/quality at a competitive price point.
Those who continue to bemoan all castings as being inferior simply don't have a grasp of the facts.
It's a tired old urban legend that you can't get a quality component from a casting. Today's quality product, be it a firearm or a commerical jet, uses a multitude of materials and processes to arrive at a product that produces adequate strength/quality at a competitive price point.
Those who continue to bemoan all castings as being inferior simply don't have a grasp of the facts.
GeneralChang
New member
I thought the 226 stamped slide version is out of production all together.
While some of their guns may say they are made in Germany they are not assembled there any longer, unless German Laws requiring the guns to be proofed are no longer in effect. As I mentioned in a previous post, late model SIGs seem to be sans proof marks which I believe were required under German Law. I could be wrong though.
While some of their guns may say they are made in Germany they are not assembled there any longer, unless German Laws requiring the guns to be proofed are no longer in effect. As I mentioned in a previous post, late model SIGs seem to be sans proof marks which I believe were required under German Law. I could be wrong though.
There is a lot of difference between casting and machined from bar stock. Forged is another manufacturing method.
We have the advertisers to thank for a lot of confusion. All three manufacturing methods have to be machined to final shape and finish, so parts made by any of the three methods can be (and are) described in ads as "machined".
The SIG pistols made from stamped metal with a separate breech block were/are very strong. That block does not depend on the little pin to resist the pressure; it is firmly fitted into the slide with large abutment surfaces.
Jim
We have the advertisers to thank for a lot of confusion. All three manufacturing methods have to be machined to final shape and finish, so parts made by any of the three methods can be (and are) described in ads as "machined".
The SIG pistols made from stamped metal with a separate breech block were/are very strong. That block does not depend on the little pin to resist the pressure; it is firmly fitted into the slide with large abutment surfaces.
Jim
Silver Puss
Inactive
I bought my 229 in 1994 after seeing the review in Gun Tests.
Even back then I heard that the stainless steel slide was formed by investment casting and machined only as necessary. The alloy frame was still being imported from Germany.
If the SIG slides are indeed being cast at the Ruger plant, then Ruger are doing a better job than on their own guns!
Economy priced eastern European products, such as the FEG GP35 copy being imported at the time, were probably forged or machined from solid stock. However they didn't look remotely as nice as the "cast" SIGs.
Even back then I heard that the stainless steel slide was formed by investment casting and machined only as necessary. The alloy frame was still being imported from Germany.
If the SIG slides are indeed being cast at the Ruger plant, then Ruger are doing a better job than on their own guns!
Economy priced eastern European products, such as the FEG GP35 copy being imported at the time, were probably forged or machined from solid stock. However they didn't look remotely as nice as the "cast" SIGs.
CastleBravo
New member
Hint for those worried that cast parts can't be strong enough: all those famously rugged Ruger revolvers are all made from castings. The Smith & Wesson revolvers everyone worries about wearing out from too much full-power ammo are forged.
The way I understand it: Sig's slides are made is one of two ways. They are either formed or they are milled. The formed slides are just that, they are beaten into their shape. The milled slides just have metal removed to give them their final shape. IIRC the 228 had a formed slide and the 229 was constructed by milling the slide.
Edited with the help of Tamara's wisdom
Edited with the help of Tamara's wisdom
Last edited:
Silver Puss
Inactive
The Ruger Super Redhawk in 454 Casull is a 6-shot which means that the metal separating the chambers is very thin. I've always thought Ruger products lacked refinement, but I have no complaints about their strength or safety.