Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 168

Thread: SIG Intros 1911X Pistols

  1. #41
    Site Supporter Elwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Midwest
    If I was getting into 1911s with a fresh start today, I think it would be very hard to go with something other than this in the production range of options, especially at $1500. And I hate saying that about a SIG.

    The optic cut makes perfect sense. On a 1911, I’d argue that the two best options right now are either going with the K/RMSc footprint for concealment or doing a direct mount ACRO or 509 for open carry or duty uses.

    It’s a solid feature set that I’d only see myself making a couple tweaks to. Assuming it works, it may be “the answer” for an optic capable 1911 that’s meaningfully under two grand.

    All of which means that, like others, I’m wondering when and how SIG is going to ruin a good thing.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Elwin View Post

    All of which means that, like others, I’m wondering when and how SIG is going to ruin a good thing.
    SIG will screw this up (aside from any QC issues that may pop up) by not getting the Commander size out on time and then by generally not supporting the pistol. As we all know, SIG seems to randomly just drop production of various products on a whim.

    SIG 1911s have seemed to be generally free of drama. At least functionally. Lots of gnashing of teeth, especially early on, about the dumb slide profile and lack of holsters. That's not as big an issue now with some holster makers offering specific SIG holsters.

    This new gun seems to check all the boxes for a modern single stack 1911 aside from maybe the choice to stick with 45 Auto. I like 45 and have shot a bunch of it over the years. I wouldn't hesitate to carry Gold Dot or HST on duty. I'd also say the same for a 9mm and feel comfortable with a couple extra bullets in the clip.



    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Tokarev; 03-07-2024 at 01:04 PM.

  3. #43
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    N. Alabama
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    Isn't that what the EPS already uses? Doesn't the 407/507K, EPS Carry and EPS all have the same mount?

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
    Maybe, but the EPS base is wider than the EPS Carry. I'm talking something that starts small at the bottom, for narrow slides (P365, 1911, etc) and flares out slightly for the window. Not to SRO or 507Comp size, but rather to standard EPS/508/509 sizes.

  4. #44
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Cincinnati OH
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM Engineer View Post
    Maybe, but the EPS base is wider than the EPS Carry. I'm talking something that starts small at the bottom, for narrow slides (P365, 1911, etc) and flares out slightly for the window. Not to SRO or 507Comp size, but rather to standard EPS/508/509 sizes.
    I mean, what's the real difference between the deck being narrow then window wider, vs the "step" in width being at the transition from slide to optic depth?

    You're certainly right in that either way can be done.

  5. #45
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    I was doing dryfire practice last night with the new G45 and ACRO against my original iron sighted G45. It really showed how much easier I work with red dots these days as my eyes continue to degrade.

    One of these might be a very good personal option for an easy button 5” .45 with RDO.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  6. #46
    Site Supporter Sensei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Greece/NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokarev View Post
    SIG will screw this up (aside from any QC issues that may pop up) by not getting the Commander size out on time and then by generally not supporting the pistol. As we all know, SIG seems to randomly just drop production of various products on a whim.

    SIG 1911s have seemed to be generally free of drama. At least functionally. Lots of gnashing of teeth, especially early on, about the dumb slide profile and lack of holsters. That's not as big an issue now with some holster makers offering specific SIG holsters.

    This new gun seems to check all the boxes for a modern single stack 1911 aside from maybe the choice to stick with 45 Auto. I like 45 and have shot a bunch of it over the years. I wouldn't hesitate to carry Gold Dot or HST on duty. I'd also say the same for a 9mm and feel comfortable with a couple extra bullets in the clip.


    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
    If it doesn’t fit in a 1911 holster, then I have one thing to say…

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/77501c3...a-300d570d9104
    I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Sensei View Post
    If it doesn’t fit in a 1911 holster, then I have one thing to say…

    http://https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/77501c38-45f0-4d5d-82ca-300d570d9104
    The gun will probably fit into a Safariland Staccato duty holster with an X300 or TLR-1 attached. And then any of the various multi-fit holsters that go off the light and not the pistol will probably work.



    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

  8. #48
    Member zaitcev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
    Does the scallop above the extractor actually work, or is it a boomer superstition?

  9. #49
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitcev View Post
    Does the scallop above the extractor actually work, or is it a boomer superstition?
    Lowering the ejection port keeps empty cases from being dented during ejection. Not much to do with reliable function.

    The flared section that you refer to as a "scallop" is mostly cosmetic to go along with the lowered port.

    There were actually reasons Browning designed the original ejection port the way he did.

  10. #50

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •