American-made Sig P210 Target

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know what they should have called the new gun, but at least they added the "A" to the P210 designation when they released the American version. My American version still has the en bloc lockwork that can be lifted out of the pistol as a unit. I haven't tried to interchange the American unit with the lockwork housing in the Swiss or German guns, but it looks to be the same design. Perhaps something different to interact with the firing pin safety? The American, like the German version, has the firing pin safety, the thumb safety lever is re positioned, the slide stop extended, and of course it has the side button mag release. The biggest difference IMHO, is the change in the way the barrel locks into the slide. Now it's like the X-5 and other SIGs. Different, and undoubtedly easier to manufacture and fit precisely, but every bit as solid in battery as my other 210s. Always slight manufacturing tolerances, but slide/frame rail dimensions seem to be the same as the earlier guns. Certainly enough differences to make comparison interesting between the American and earlier 210s. From owner reports, and my own experience to date, the American version seems to display the accuracy and reliability of the earlier guns. I guess the thing we can't know for now, is what long term durability will be.......ymmv
 
You earlier mentioned that the folks who buy the P-225A1 aren't getting a P-225. True, but I suspect that in most respects the P-225A1 might be a better weapon than the P-225. I also suspect, that the folks who are enthused about the P-225A1 feel that way because the updated version of the P-225 feels, in hand, like a P-225, shoots like one (if not better), and still shares the same basic design parameters.



Comparing almost any quality Swiss-made weapon to something built elsewhere and expecting the non-Swiss-made gun to match up is generally a losing proposition.

Swiss gunmakers have a well-deserved reputation as master craftsmen, but the Swiss firearms industry appears not to have mastered the knack of using modern technology to turn out guns that are as good as the ones that required a lot of hand fitting and attention.

The new Sphinx line (you have several, I think, and I've had several of the older 2000-series Sphinx models and still have a Sphinx SDP) seemed to be moving in that more-modern direction. The changes to the basic Sphinx design was done to make the guns better suited for the newer technology without intentionally giving up on the gun's overall quality. .But, as has happened a number of times before with these marvelous Swiss made guns, the manufacturer failed financially. Hopefully the new American-based company building the Sphinx line will pull it off. I haven't seen any of the US-made versions of the Sphinx guns, yet, but remain curious and hopeful.

It might just be that SIG, with the new US- and German-made P210 series, is doing what the Swiss were unable to to do -- adapting the basic design to move the P210 out of artisan shop into the modern factory -- allowing the guns to be sold at a price level that doesn't force them out of the market.

I get that I am not being negative about the pistol I am simply stating the reality. Most people I have talked to about these pistols don’t realize that they are a different design than the Swiss P210. The way Sig presents it is misleading IMHO.

They market it as “The P210 Target takes the precision of its 1947 Swiss predecessor and greets it with new sleek, custom walnut target grips, a precision-machined stainless steel slide and frame, and a lightweight target trigger. ”

The fact is that the precision of the predecessor comes from the design of the guns barrel and its tight lock up. That does not mean Sig did not find a way to get fantastic results from the new design but the “precision” cannot flow from the old design if you don’t use the old design.

I have talked to a fair amount of people who were looking at the pistol and considering buying it but did not know it was a different design. Many people are confusing it with the P210 Legend.

The Sphinx anology is to extent on point because if Sig did not move their production away from German stamped slides a no mim parts to Exter with milled stainless and mim everywhere they could use it effectively they would have gone under. She Cohen took over they were in trouble and losing tons of ground to Glock.

It seems like people are getting their panties in a wad because I am pointing out the reality of the US made P210. I have not said in anyway it’s not a good gun. Most range reports have been positive. The ones I have seen looked good not Swiss good but good. Yet everyone seems to be getting defensive about it. I am not sure why. I guess people are taking my comments as sauer grapes. I almost bought one LNIB the other day for $1350 but I passed because I am not much of a target shooter.

This is very good gun for the money I just wish it did not have any MIM. IMHO a $1,600 Pistol shouldn’t be built with powder metals but many people don’t feel that way.

Oh well. Enjoy the pistol.
 
WV, Always enjoy your posts, and no panties in a wad here sir;) I don't like MIM either, whether in SIGs or other manufacturer's guns. I've not had any MIM parts cause an issue, but still don't like it. No matter what a manufacturer may say, it's just used to cut costs. Didn't help my perspective on the issue when I saw SIG parts in an Indo-MIM ad for the first time either. I've had several Swiss guns, and have to say I think the internal machine work of the American and German guns is at least the equal of the Swiss guns, and the external finish a bit finer than the Swiss guns, other than for the polished blue P210-1. In any case, keep your comments coming.
 
WV, Always enjoy your posts, and no panties in a wad here sir;) I don't like MIM either, whether in SIGs or other manufacturer's guns. I've not had any MIM parts cause an issue, but still don't like it. No matter what a manufacturer may say, it's just used to cut costs. Didn't help my perspective on the issue when I saw SIG parts in an Indo-MIM ad for the first time either. I've had several Swiss guns, and have to say I think the internal machine work of the American and German guns is at least the equal of the Swiss guns, and the external finish a bit finer than the Swiss guns, other than for the polished blue P210-1. In any case, keep your comments coming.

Thanks I am not trying to ruffle feathers like I said if I was a target shooter I would have bought one by now. I understand that they made modifications to the lock work to make it easier to manufacture. IIRC it is adjustable at the factory but they lock it after adjusting it so it is not user adjustable.

I know they changed the barrel lugs to make them similar to the P series guns. There is a huge cost to making a barrel that long with the traditional P210 barrel. Lots of milling and fitting of the barrel and the slide. The way Sig is doing it for this guns changes all that.

These are the 2 main reasons they were able to bring the costs down to where they did. I know there is MIM is there also cast parts?
 
Since the subject of MIM parts has arisen, this may be a good place for this slight diversion:

Wirth regard to MIM technology, the following is from another forum, and was posted there by Mr. Herb Belin of S&W. I kept the article, but neglected to record WHERE (which forum) it was first posted.

Mr. Belin is (or was) Product Innovation Manager at Smith & Wesson, and before that was product Manager/Director of Emerging Techknowledgy at Smith & Wesson. He's a long-time employee, having worked there since 1981. This explains both the business case for using MIM parts, and the technical issues involved with MIM use. It also explains the related quality control issues, quality a continuing focus for S&W management.

I have read with much interest the many comments in this forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts" and "no one has said why" I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hardlook at our "Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action Sear that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or loose there "edge" the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts. Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light Magnum J frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer’s reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM.

The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is Revolver-to-Revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no Fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and Trigger Pull Monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Lets shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even Titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a Wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a “Green Part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the Green Part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The Green Parts are then placed in a Sintering furnace filled with dry Hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the "Wax" in the Green Part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our Heat Treat facility for hardening and in the case of Hammers and Triggers, Case Hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, Case thickness and core hardness are for the most partidentical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, Cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn’t happen resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between 30,000 and 50,000 dollars. Once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have in my view a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb
Over the past few years, I've heard relatively few complaints about MIM related problems. There were some problems during their early introduction, but some of that was probably due to people getting into the business without enough or proper preparation.
 
I get that I am not being negative about the pistol I am simply stating the reality. Most people I have talked to about these pistols don’t realize that they are a different design than the Swiss P210. The way Sig presents it is misleading IMHO.
They probably consider it smart marketing. And why not piggyback off the proven gun? It is the buyers responsibility to investigate it. Sure, it would be nice if all makers were 100% up front about everything, but that isn't reality. I never thought the new gun was an exact copy. Isn't important to me though, all I care about is this new gun.
 
Since the subject of MIM parts has arisen, this may be a good place for this slight diversion:

Wirth regard to MIM technology, the following is from another forum, and was posted there by Mr. Herb Belin of S&W. I kept the article, but neglected to record WHERE (which forum) it was first posted.

Mr. Belin is (or was) Product Innovation Manager at Smith & Wesson, and before that was product Manager/Director of Emerging Techknowledgy at Smith & Wesson. He's a long-time employee, having worked there since 1981. This explains both the business case for using MIM parts, and the technical issues involved with MIM use. It also explains the related quality control issues, quality a continuing focus for S&W management.

I have read with much interest the many comments in this forum pertaining to MIM, MIM Parts and the use of same in a S&W product. So far I have come away with several impressions and they are "people in general don't like/trust MIM parts" and "no one has said why" I will take a stab at this issue and see where it goes.

As background to our decision to use MIM in some areas of our Mfg Process we took a long hardlook at our "Life Time Service Policy". It was clear to us that any change in any of our products such as the use of MIM components had to show equivalent or better performance and durability to those components that were being replaced or the "Lifetime Service" would haunt us forever. The second consideration was to determine if the change was too radical a departure from S&W mainstream design.

For the performance and durability issues we decided that if MIM could be used for the fabrication of revolver hammers and triggers successfully this would truly be an "Acid Test". There is nothing more important to a revolvers feel than the all-important Single Action Sear that is established between the hammer and the trigger. Mechanically few places in a revolver work harder than at the point where the hammer and trigger bear against each other. If these surfaces wear or loose there "edge" the "feel" is lost. Initial testing was on these two critical parts. Over time we arrived at a point where our best shooters could not tell the difference between a revolver with the old style hammer and trigger and the new MIM components. Special attention was given to their endurance when used in our very light Magnum J frames such as the early prototype 340 & 360 Sc's. None of our revolvers work their components harder than these small magnum revolvers. Throughout this testing MIM held strong and finally we determined that this change judged on the basis of durability and feel was a good one.

The second area of concern to S&W was our customer’s reaction to this departure from the traditional. Many heated, intense discussions resulted but in the end the decision was made to move ahead with MIM.

The issue of cost was only one of the considerations in making this decision. Equally as important was the issue of part-to-part uniformity and the result of this of course is Revolver-to-Revolver consistency. We found that revolvers that used MIM hammers and triggers required almost no Fitter intervention in those areas during final assembly and final inspection and Trigger Pull Monitor rejection rates dropped markedly on finished guns. From an internal process point of view it appeared a "Winner".

Lets shift gears for a moment and talk about the MIM process. It is unclear to me as to the reason for many of the negative feelings on the forum concerning MIM. Typically when people complain and aren't specific in the reason why, the problem is often created by a departure from the "Traditional". Perhaps that is indeed what is bothering some people when they view MIM.

The term MIM stands for Metal Injection Molding. It holds some similarities to Plastic Injection Molding and many differences as well. To start we would take a finally divided metal powder. This could be stainless or carbon steel. Today even Titanium is being used in some MIM fabrications. We would mix the metal powder and a thermoplastic binder (generally a Wax) forming slurry of sorts when heated and inject this mix into a precision mold and finally form what is known as a “Green Part". This part is roughly 30% larger than the finished part it will become at the end of the process. Interestingly enough the Green Part at this stage can be snapped in two with simple finger pressure. The Green Parts are then placed in a Sintering furnace filled with dry Hydrogen gas and the temperature is brought almost to the melting point of the metal being used. Over time the "Wax" in the Green Part is evaporated, the metal fuses and the part shrinks 30% to it's final correct dimensions. At this stage of the process the MIM part has developed 98 to 99%of the density of the older wrought materials and a metallurgy that is almost identical. Dimensionally it is finished and no machining is required. However the job is not yet done and the MIM parts are brought to our Heat Treat facility for hardening and in the case of Hammers and Triggers, Case Hardening. Depending on the particular metal alloy that was used at the start of the process we apply a heat treat process that is the same as would be used if the material were the older wrought style. Final hardness, Case thickness and core hardness are for the most partidentical to parts manufactured the older way.

Lets look for a moment at how we achieve dimensional precision when comparing these 2 processes. The old parts were each machined from either bar stock or a forging. Each cut and every resulting dimension was subject to machine variations, Cutter wear, operator variations etc. If every operation was done exactly right each and every time and the cutter didn't let you down you would have produced a good part but sometimes this didn’t happen resulting in a rejected gun and rework or in the worst case an unhappy customer. With MIM parts you must still machine to very high tolerances and your cutters have to be perfect and your machinist has to be highly qualified but all of this only has to come together one time. That time is when the injection mold is made. Typically a mold for this process costs S&W between 30,000 and 50,000 dollars. Once it is perfect every part it makes mirrors this perfection and you have in my view a wonderful manufacturing process.

Hopefully this description will help us all better understand the MIM process. Please forgive the spelling errors and misplaced punctuation. I have no spell checker on this and the phone continues to ring!

Have a Great Weekend,

Herb
Over the past few years, I've heard relatively few complaints about MIM related problems. There were some problems during their early introduction, but some of that was probably due to people getting into the business without enough or proper preparation.
Thanks for sharing that Walt. Good info.
 
I picked up the American P210. Here are a few quick iphone pics, that don't do it justice. It has a wonderful feel, a glass-smooth slide, and a very nice trigger. So far, I'm very glad I bought it. It feels well justified by the feel, balance, and initial perception of quality. I'll take it out for a spin, or two, in the next few days. Likely tomorrow.

 
Last edited:
The bloated, ridiculous grips are just abominable.

Do any other less grotesque grips fit this gun?
 
Walt, I had read this somewhere before, but enjoyed reading Mr. Belin's comments again. I've never has a MIM part fail, but admit I still don't like the "idea", I guess, of MIM. Perhaps partly because it is not traditional, and now with the internet, there are plenty of photos of failed MIM parts. That being said, it's only fair to add that the DA on my American manufactured SIGs, with MIM lock work, is smoother than the DA on the quite a few pre-MIM SIGs I've owned. Same with the couple of S&W revolvers I've owned with the MIM lock work parts Mr. Belin mentions. The DA pull is just smoother right out of the box than most of my older pre-MIM S&Ws were.

R.O.A., Very nice new pistol you got there sir.
WV, I don't know if there are cast parts in addition to the MIM in the American P210s.
Venom, the American 210's European Free Pistol looking grips fit me just fine. But they are still a bit much IMHO. I'm looking forward to someone making service type grips available.
 
Last edited:
The bloated, ridiculous grips are just abominable.

Do any other less grotesque grips fit this gun?

Most of what makes the grips look large is the bottom, which is styled like a magwell.

The grips are very comfortable, as Hickok45 noted on his review. The contour is quite ergonomic.

Gaudy? Maybe. But they seem well suited to a target pistol.

enjoyed reading Mr. Belin's comments again. I've never has a MIM part fail, but admit I still don't like the "idea", I guess, of MIM.

I agree. Machined bar stock, milled to half a thousandth tolerance, then heat treated, sure sounds better. But I guess that heat treating does induce warping. In theory, MIM is a good idea. From a practical perspective, the P210 has a Lifetime Warranty.

I should find out a lot this afternoon, at the range, with my little neighbor girl who is practicing for her carry permit with her first pistol (an XDS Mod 2 in 9mm with night sights).
 
Most of what makes the grips look large is the bottom, which is styled like a magwell.

The grips are very comfortable, as Hickok45 noted on his review. The contour is quite ergonomic.

Gaudy? Maybe. But they seem well suited to a target pistol.
I think they look great and very functional. They sure look like a Nill Grips design and make to me. I have two sets of Nill Grips on different guns and they are fantastic IMO.
 
I got a few quick P210 test groups in with my standard handloads, as I helped a little neighbor girl with her first pistol. 8 shots each, from a rest, 25 yard line. I'll have a little more time later in the week, as I was more focused on helping a new shooter with their first pistol.


I'm pretty happy with the P210. No malfunctions.
 
About six months ago a friend bought a new P210 and he was kind enough to let me shoot it. The trigger is very good out of the box and I shot it well, given that I am a mediocre shooter. It just had that look and feel of a well made gun. I have small hands and the grips were simply too big to fit me. This was a distraction for me the whole time. I later did a brief internet search for aftermarket grips that would hopefully be smaller. I did not find any. One firm indicated that they were "considering" making grips for the P210. I was discouraged. I wanted to so like this gun and I did in about every other way, except the hughe (to me) grips. In summary I admired the gun but felt I needed to pass on buying one for now.
 
Awsome shooting!

The shooting was done with a rest on a sandbag. I can't shoot like that in an Iso stance...unless I could disregard about half the shots ;) That was simply a gun accuracy test, and a test of the whether the gun liked my regular handload recipes. Pistol isn't my best shooting skill. (I have moments of being "Jesus" with a shotgun though ;) )
 
This was a distraction for me the whole time. I later did a brief internet search for aftermarket grips

I liked the grips. I don't have giant hands, but I get 'Large' motorcycle gloves. I'd bet there will be aftermarket grips shortly, thinking Sig might sell a reasonable quantity of these P210(s)...they're really in the same price category as a Semi-Custom 1911, and by the looks of it, deservedly attract people that want a pretty accurate target or Bullseye competition pistol. That said, in terms of my predictions, I'd never have predicted some of the things I see on the news 20 years ago...so take my predictions with a grain of salt. ;)
 
I handled one at a local gun shop, and I have to agree that the grips are just too big. No one makes any aftermarket grips, and Sig couldn't care less, so I'm not going to buy one of the new ones.
 
Why not ask Herrett to make some from a hand tracing?

They’ve done my Bullseye stocks for 30+ years.
 
I handled one at a local gun shop, and I have to agree that the grips are just too big. No one makes any aftermarket grips, and Sig couldn't care less, so I'm not going to buy one of the new ones.

It is interesting to see more of these opinions on the grips. They're smaller than the classic Smith and Wesson revolver target grips that most everyone seemed to like, and they're more ergonomic. To me, it is only the fact that the grips form a Magwell that makes them look big. Now you could make a case that this single stack 8 round pistol might not be used in IDPA/USPSA-type events, and doesn't need a magwell...

I'd have expected more criticism, from lefties, that the safety wasn't ambidextrous.

Like most everything, individual tastes and preferences vary.
 
Not being a southpaw, I am just glad to see a safety I can reach. My -6 is well made and accurate and all that stuff, but it is not very ergonomic.
 
I've never handled the S&W revolver target grips. I have small hands, but I can hold & shoot almost everything but the largest diameter grips. These grips are not even close to being comfortably sized. The traditional P-210 grips are good for me, I'd just like that option on a gun that is going to cost me $1500 or more. Also, if I wanted a mag funnel on this gun, I wouldn't want one made of wood.
 
:thumbup:R.O.A., Good shooting, with an obviously accurate pistol. Since the '60s, I must have loaded a ton of 9MM with 6 grains of Unique and 124/125 grain bullets. Not a light wimp load at all, always chronographed at 1200+ FPS for me. I test my guns over a rest at 25 yards too. I want to see what the gun itself is capable of, by removing as much of the shaky human factor as possible. With this method, I have actually discovered guns, purchased new, that would not group at all at 25 yards, more like pattern like a shotgun....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top