Xander wrote:badkarma56 wrote:HOSSISFREE wrote:I have a certain respec for Sigs. I fired both Sig and H&K before getting the H&K because they're both conidered some of the best. The Sig felt better in my hand, but I shot better with the H&K. And then there's the fact the Federal Air Marshalls can select from H&K or Sig in the .40 or .357.
Hoss
I feel exactly the same way, Hoss. Nothing at all against Sig Arms, but H&K's
unambiguous lifetime warranty really pushed me toward H&K. Sig's website advertises a limited lifetime warranty, but all of the warranty information I've seen
first-hand in Sig operator manuals states that it's a one-year warranty.
What gives?
I dunno what gives, but I can confirm that my owner's manuals do claim only the one year warranty. I've also heard complaints about Sig's warranties before, so your mileage may vary. As for me, as many rounds as I put through my guns, if they have any problems, I'm convinced they'll show up in under a year, so it's not particularly important to me.
Seriously though....The warranty issues that I've heard about, I took into account, and in the end, decided I liked the guns enough to take the risk.
-Xander
Makes sense to me. Warranty issues aside, I seriously doubt that a new P226 Navy would prove to be a problematic weapon...afterall, this is one of the many weapons the SEALS allegedly use. Furthermore, as you suggested, any issues that quality guns
may have are bound to show up early on,
if ever.
My dad trained me to "break in" all pistols with 300-400 rounds of the strongest ammo that the design can stand, that way you know
right off the bat whether the weapon will endure
hard use. Accordingly, when I first shot my USP9C, I used 350 rounds of 9mm NATO FMJ ammo for the very first range trip with that weapon. The 9mm NATO round is significantly
hotter than commercial 9mm FMJ, and would be considered a +P round. Alas, The USP9C stood up like a champ, with no hiccups whatsoever.
I'm gonna go ahead, and give Sig a try despite this warranty issue.