Tried to buy a new Sig Sauer P365 but too late

[Dean C.]

This is what you want, Colt Woodsman Match Target WAY better than a 41 IMHO

 

[doddg]

Just saying from personal experience stay the hell away from newer production Model 41's. My father bought one two years ago and that SOB would not run to save it's life , had to send it to Smith and Wesson twice and run about 2,000 mimi-mags through it before it would shoot through a 10 round magazine jam free.

It's a beautiful 22 but honestly look up an old Match Target Colt Woodsman. Same basic shape with better lines and they shoot amazingly well. I will grab some photos of mine tomorrow as they are kind of hard to come by

This is what you want, Colt Woodsman Match Target WAY better than a 41 IMHO

1. WOW!

 

[Bosshoss]

This is what you want, Colt Woodsman Match Target WAY better than a 41 IMHO

Beautiful gun. How is the parts availability?

 

[Dean C.]

Beautiful gun. How is the parts availability?

Well since they have not been made since 1976 they are kind of highly in demand

 

[doddg]

I love to drift off-topic and especially on my own thread, but I need to make a comment about my Sig 365:
got my expensive $50 ($47 or $48 to be exact) 12 round mag.

Not a huge difference over the 10 round pinky: but a slightly better "purchase."
I'm also betting it will give me tighter accuracy.
The difference in accuracy between the 10 round and the 10 round pinky extension was striking.
I doubt if the difference will be that much between the 10 round pinky and the 12 round,
but I remember when I first shot a friend's 365 with a 12 rounder it shot as well if not a little better than my two other CZs (not the Shadow 2) I had at the time which floored me!
It is why I bought one, even though my Shield would have been a sufficient tool for a CC, but if you can get another 4-5 rounds and more accuracy: why not?
I wouldn't have done it a year ago b/c the cost $280 for the Shield and $585 for the Sig 365 ($500/gun + tax/$35 + magazine/$50 = $585) is hard to justify.
A striking difference of $305: not logical for a CC tool.
It is why I never went after the Sig 938 (price), that could have been a fine CC.
When I retire, if I become poor, I can always go back to the basics, but while I'm working and have income: I am enjoying myself.

 

[Route 45]

A striking difference of $305: not logical for a CC tool.

It's funny how people look at things differently. To me, cost is no object when choosing a defensive pistol, because it is the most important firearm that I will own.

Makes no sense to me to skimp on a tool to potentially save your life, while spending several hundred on a toy to do nothing but poke holes in paper.

 

[Vigilant]

So, 7 pages of this, and I STILL don’t know when my 26 is going up for sale?

 

[Vigilant]

It's funny how people look at things differently. To me, cost is no object when choosing a defensive pistol, because it is the most important firearm that I will own.

Makes no sense to me to skimp on a tool to potentially save your life, while spending several hundred on a toy to do nothing but poke holes in paper.

Hmmm? Get outta here wit dat logic!

 

[edporch]

It's funny how people look at things differently. To me, cost is no object when choosing a defensive pistol, because it is the most important firearm that I will own.

Makes no sense to me to skimp on a tool to potentially save your life, while spending several hundred on a toy to do nothing but poke holes in paper.

I would agree with you if the $price tag was the only determinant of the reliability of a defensive pistol.

 

[doddg]

It's funny how people look at things differently. To me, cost is no object when choosing a defensive pistol, because it is the most important firearm that I will own.
Makes no sense to me to skimp on a tool to potentially save your life, while spending several hundred on a toy to do nothing but poke holes in paper.

1. For a CC, a $300 Shield is just as good as a $1000 _______ (fill in the blank) (imo).
2. They both will go "bang" every time.
3. I look at a "tool" as function over form, this is why I would not dress up a CC with handles and other visuals, but I have bought better grips b/c it was needful.
4. I certainly get the "$100s for hole-punchers" reference: I have been corrupted from my original intentions.

 

[doddg]

So, 7 pages of this, and I STILL don’t know when my 26 is going up for sale?

1. It will be very hard for me to give up my G26 since is is what I go to training with and I have confidence in it.
2. It will be when I need to trim more seriously, and I have bought three .22LRs in the past week b/c of my sickness.

 

[gregkl]

It's funny how people look at things differently. To me, cost is no object when choosing a defensive pistol, because it is the most important firearm that I will own.

Makes no sense to me to skimp on a tool to potentially save your life, while spending several hundred on a toy to do nothing but poke holes in paper.

One of my mottos is "The best is just good enough for me." I know folks who buy firearms purely for utility. Especially farmers it seems like. And they perform their duties admirably.

For me, it is more than utility. Aesthetics play a part and I have also found that the higher quality firearms hold their value better and sell easier for me if I decide I no longer want it.

But I am like this on most everything I own. If I was to buy a chainsaw, it would be a Stihl or a Husky. Overkill for me? Sure. But that's how I roll. Right now I'm thinking about learning how to play guitar. I'm old and still trying to convince myself that I'm not too old to learn so I haven't bought one yet. And for this endeavor I'm not going to spend a ton of money but I have already stepped up to a Squire Contemporary Telecaster HH with a Fender Champion 40 amp. Not professional grade, but not bottom of the barrel either. Why? If I stick with it, I will never outplay it. If I fail and give up on it, I think it will sell better than a $100 guitar and amp package will.

 

[Route 45]

I would agree with you if the $price tag was the only determinant of the reliability of a defensive pistol.

Price is definitely not the determinant of reliability. I've seen $1000+ Kimbers that wouldn't run. But I'm not going to whimper about a few hundred if I see the more expensive pistol as a better option for a lifesaving tool. The Shield is a fine small defensive pistol and would be my choice if the P365 was not available and I wanted something small in 9mm. But the considerations are reliability, size, shootability, capacity and general utility as a self-defense weapon. Cost is not a factor.

 

[WebSnyper]

1. It will be very hard for me to give up my G26 since is is what I go to training with and I have confidence in it.
2. It will be when I need to trim more seriously, and I have bought three .22LRs in the past week b/c of my sickness.

Just to clarify, is the Glock 26 what you routinely carry?

 

[WebSnyper]

Price is definitely not the determinant of reliability. I've seen $1000+ Kimbers that wouldn't run. But I'm not going to whimper about a few hundred if I see the more expensive pistol as a better option for a lifesaving tool. The Shield is a fine small defensive pistol and would be my choice if the P365 was not available and I wanted something small in 9mm. But the considerations are reliability, size, shootability, capacity and general utility as a self-defense weapon. Cost is not a factor.

I factor in the cost of more than one (one is none, two is one), as well as lots of extra magazines (all things equal, I'd prefer $20 OEM magazines over $50 OEM magazines) , holster, etc. That said, I'm not going to put myself into something unusable or that is not reliable, etc due to cost. These days there are plenty of handguns that meet the criteria you have presented (and mine as well) for what most folks (at least here) would consider reasonable cost.

 

[Route 45]

I factor in the cost of more than one (one is none, two is one), as well as lots of extra magazines (all things equal, I'd prefer $20 OEM magazines over $50 OEM magazines) , holster, etc. That said, I'm not going to put myself into something unusable or that is not reliable, etc due to cost. These days there are plenty of handguns that meet the criteria you have presented (and mine as well) for what most folks (at least here) would consider reasonable cost.

I don't have 2 of the exact same model for any of my firearms, although I have a couple that can take the same mags. But I am considering buying another P365. The mags are kinda salty at around $50 a pop, but until someone else comes out with a better 12+1 pocket pistol in 9mm, I'll grin and bear it.

 

[doddg]

Just to clarify, is the Glock 26 what you routinely carry?

1. I'm afraid to answer that since I know I'll get grief for it.
2. No, it is not, b/c I routinely CC a Smith 642 hammerless with a pocket holster or ankle carry.
3. But, I can't use the 642 for training b/c you are expected to use a OWB holster and a semi-auto.
4. I had been CC a Glock 42 b/c I liked the size so well, which is why I got the Sig 365 and sold the Glock immediately, since I was wanting out of the .380 ammo guns (sold 3 of them that I had).
5. I have carried the G26 with either an IWB or OWB if I I'm dressed for it which is rarely, therefore, the pocket carry.
6. This is why the Sig 365 is quite to my liking: small, 9mm, and reputation for utter dependability.
7. Alright, I have confessed: I'll wait for be spanking now from someone.
8. I don't talk much about holsters, I learned better, but did get some great advice and bought a whole line of OWB paddle holsters from holsters for my G26, Shield 9, and Glock 42.

 

[WebSnyper]

1. I'm afraid to answer that since I know I'll get grief for it.
2. No, it is not, b/c I routinely CC a Smith 642 hammerless with a pocket holster or ankle carry.
3. But, I can't use the 642 for training b/c you are expected to use a OWB holster and a semi-auto.
4. I had been CC a Glock 42 b/c I liked the size so well, which is why I got the Sig 365 and sold the Glock immediately, since I was wanting out of the .380 ammo guns (sold 3 of them that I had).
5. I have carried the G26 with either an IWB or OWB if I I'm dressed for it which is rarely, therefore, the pocket carry.
6. This is why the Sig 365 is quite to my liking: small, 9mm, and reputation for utter dependability.
7. Alright, I have confessed: I'll wait for be spanking now from someone.
8. I don't talk much about holsters, I learned better, but did get some great advice and bought a whole line of OWB paddle holsters from holsters for my G26, Shield 9, and Glock 42.

You constantly indicate that you get grief, etc or go out of your way to state that you won't say something due to that, etc. Probably time to let some of that go. Yes, you will get many different opinions on INGO. Obviously everyone will incorporate some and discard others, etc. But constantly going out of your way to say things like "I won't say how much it cost because others told me not too" comes across a bit odd.

Back to the point. Getting training is great, and some of it will certainly carry over, however, as you already seem to know, it seems counter productive to train (especially a formal training class) with a different gun/setup than you carry, especially one this drastically different. That said, I understand some courses don't allow certain type of holsters, etc so you have to make a choice about that. I just don't get undertaking a training class which such a radically different setup (using a semi auto when one's most regular carry gun is a revolver, etc).

Not trying to "spank" you on this. It's entirely up to you. I just don't personally understand it. If one of the trainers or folks more versed than me offers a reasonable counter point on this, I'm open to it.

 

[T-DOGG]

You constantly indicate that you get grief, etc or go out of your way to state that you won't say something due to that, etc. Probably time to let some of that go. Yes, you will get many different opinions on INGO. Obviously everyone will incorporate some and discard others, etc. But constantly going out of your way to say things like "I won't say how much it cost because others told me not too" comes across a bit odd.

Back to the point. Getting training is great, and some of it will certainly carry over, however, as you already seem to know, it seems counter productive to train (especially a formal training class) with a different gun/setup than you carry, especially one this drastically different. That said, I understand some courses don't allow certain type of holsters, etc so you have to make a choice about that. I just don't get undertaking a training class which such a radically different setup (using a semi auto when one's most regular carry gun is a revolver, etc).

Not trying to "spank" you on this. It's entirely up to you. I just don't personally understand it. If one of the trainers or folks more versed than me offers a reasonable counter point on this, I'm open to it.

My instructor does a Revolvers only class from time to time.

Central Indiana Firearms Training - Defensive Shooting Concepts

 

[WebSnyper]

My instructor does a Revolvers only class from time to time.

Central Indiana Firearms Training - Defensive Shooting Concepts

That's what I'm getting at. Find a training class that works for what you carry, etc.

If I carried a revolver, I'd train and attend training classes using a revolver.