Talk:SIG Sauer P220

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chamberings[edit]

The p220 is chambered only in .45 caliber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Perhaps today it is; however, it was available in all of the chamberings mentioned at one time. I've seen examples of each, except for the .22LR conversion. D.E. Watters 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I would like to propose that SIG P225 be merged into this article, per WP:GUNS#"Target" versions; which states that variants of firearms that were only changed slightly from the original should be in the same article as the original. As the P225 is just a shortened P220, with a smaller pistol grip, it is not different enough to warrant its own separate article in my opinion.--LWF 05:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, but not only the P225, the entire family, like we did with the Glock. Koalorka (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would kind of make sense, except that you don't know enough about Sig Sauer firearms. The P225 is a shortened version of the P226, not the 220. And the P220 may LOOK identical to the P226, and they are in fact close the same size looked at from the side, they're not the same pistol. Regardless of caliber, the P220 has a single-stack magazine with a slim-profile grip, while the 225 and 226 are double stack and "fatter" through the grips. Different pistols, although, yeah, they're obviously related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.53 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it they say about glass houses and throwing stones? You just confused the single-stack P225 with the double-stack P228. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The P225 is the "commander" type, reduced size version of the P220. As the previous poster noted, it is slimmer, and single stack. It is also known as the P6, in its European police variant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.243.33 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completly disagree with the merger of these two articles. Just because they are from the same manufacturer and look somewhat identical, they are not the same and merging these two articles will do neither model any justice. The P220 is a single stack pistol that is availible in a wide range of calibers globally. It has seen military service all across the globe, from Chile to Iran. The P226 is one of the most widely used pistols in the CT world, and has been in the arsenal of such elite units as the SAS and the US Navy SEALs pretty much since it first manufactured. Both models' histories are rich and varied enough to support their own articles. They are not the same in more ways then they are alike. The original SIG P-220 was a more conventional European pistol (down to the heel-mounted mag release), while the P-226 was a much more updated pistol to meet current military and police needs. While the P-220 has caught up with this (at least in the .45 calber models sold here in the United States), they are far from the same.SAWGunner89 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


By the way, the users section on the P220 article is nowhere near complete. Chile and Japan manufacture domestically and use the SIG P-220 as their standard service model. This is made very apparent in Ian Hogg's Military Small Arms of the 20th Cenury 7th Edition. And the P220 and P225 are the single-stack models, the P-226, P-228, and P-229 are the double stack versions. Whoever said that the P-225 is the "Commander's" version of the P-220 was closer to the truth.SAWGunner89 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The P-226 is quite different since it comes in 3 different calibers(.40S&W, .357SIG, 9x19MM Parabellum), while the P-220 only comes in .45acp and is single stacked which is slimmer than the P-226 magazine well. While I do believe that a link which is very common can be inserted from each of the P-22x variants and leads to each explanation of the characteristics of each model is fine with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusible (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what you're talking about, admit it. Koalorka (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment about the relative knowledge of different editors. However, I think it would be wrong to merge the P226 into the P220. While similar, the relative members of the SIG family are different in ways that the Glock pistols are not. The P226 and the P220 are different pistols which were created for different reasons, with separate families based off of them. I'd rather they weren't merged. Skywalkert65b (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No merger. It might be BASED off the P220, but it isn't a VARIANT of the P220. No merge. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Consensus:No Merge Feel free to bring this up later, but there is no merger at this time. --Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will most definitely be a merger, once I have the time to rewrite the page. The community is wrong, yet again. The quality and accuracy of the article will not be sacrified to appease 5 or so misinformed editors with an opinion. Sources and accuracy trump any misguided consensus. Koalorka (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given any reason why there should be a merger. The general consensus is that there should not be, because they are two rather different pistols. If you have any reason why there *should* be a merger, you haven't yet given it. So why should there be? Skywalkert65b (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not immediately apparent from looking at his userpage, User:Koalorka was blocked indefinitely in November 2009 and remains so; based on the above, I'm not surprised. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorous coated internals[edit]

Can someone confirm this? It seems to me the weapon would catch on fire... Could it be "Phosphatized", which is a corrosion protection treatment? Grabbi 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Price on private market[edit]

The "Bund" article doesn't say ex-army P220s cost 30 CHF! It gives this number for ex-army SIG 510 assault rifles - which may be correct. I myself bought one for only 50 CHF from an ex-soldier, the market for old army rifles in Switzerland is an extreme buyer's market, because there are so many around, a decreasing number of private shooters and export is virtually forbidden. But used pistols don't go from private to private for 30, rather 500-800 CHF! Please delete this wrong information, otherwise the article is nice.

Greetings from Switzerland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.46.63 (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought too that the price is very low, but that's what the paper reported. Every year, some 10,000 soldiers are discharged and many get (or got) a pistol for free, after all. I'll try and find the article again. If we find some other quote from a reliable source, we can put that one in. Sandstein 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article and read it. http://www.espace.ch/artikel_434460.html It sais ex-soldiers have the possiblity to keep their weapon for an administrative fee (30CHF for a pistol, 60CHF for a SIG 510 rifle, 100CHF for a SIG 550 rifle or so...). As far as I know, that's correct. But that's not the private market but only the deal between the army and it's soldiers about the used weapon they served with for many years. From private to private, prices for used SIG 510 (Stgw57) rifles are extremely low because there's much more supply than demand for them. Prices for used SIG 550 and SIG P220 however are somewhere in the range from 600-1000 CHF, I know that from experience. The "Bund" article doesn't say anything about pistol prices on the private market, only that the 30CHF fee for the pistol is quite a bargain... In fact every officer/corporal/whatever (normal soldiers are not equipped with sidearms, only assault rifles) who gets the opportunity to privately own and freely sell a P220 for only 30CHF is an idiot if he doesn't invest that sum, because he will make at least 500CHF profit when giving it away. I guess the last paragraph of the article caused you to understand it wrong. Newspaper appear to be systematically writing about such things in a confusing way... I suggest you delete the "going rate on private market about 30CHF" and add the 30CHF to the sentence about the adm. fee, where it belongs. Greetings, 77.239.59.140 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. On re-reading the article, the weapons dealer quoted (Guggisberg) does appear to be talking about the administrative fee, not the price, which would appear very low indeed. I'll make the change. Sandstein 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some normal soldiers are equipped with a sidearm. Me, for instance... I was a medical soldier and we all had sidearms only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.24 (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Can we please have some new up-to-date pictures of this handgun, the current images are of a quite dated (European) model. Hayden120 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


P6 Skeleton (Hooked) Hammer[edit]

It's been back and forth on this page for a while over whether the hooked hammer is for a zip tie or to show if the gun has been dropped on its hammer.

I'm of the latter opinion. I've seen the Youtube video of the guy saying it's for a zip tie, but I've had former German police officers tell me that they had a big problem with them getting dropped on their hammers and damaging the firing pins/firing pin blocks, so my anecdotal evidence is at least as good as the other guy's.

I've been trying to contact Sig for some time to get an answer from them about this; could others do the same? I hate to see incorrect information on Wikipedia no matter who's right. Jwjohnson (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I heard back from Sig:

"It was a requirement of the West German Police on all their pistols (regardless of manufacturer) to help prevent a discharge if the pistol landed on the hammer. The P225 already has internal safety mechanisms to prevent that, so P225 didn't have that hammer."

Hopefully this back-and-forth business is over now Jwjohnson (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During my time at the Police Academy of the West Berlin Police in 1980, we changed from the P1 to the P6. There were two other things changed, the holsters, from the P1 WWII style soft shell type to a so called quick draw holster, and the draw techniques as well. When some of my older workmates practise that at the first time, they let their pistols drop to the floor. Inspections by the armourers shows that this may harm the internal firing pin safety block and/or the firing pin. That's why SIG-Sauer installed the deformation spur at all P6. It takes the energy from the drop and show the pistol had to be inspected. No other German police pistol with an extrnal hammer has or had this deformation spur. Not the older pistols like the P1, not the P5, P226 or the P228. Think SIG-Sauer learned their lesson. Respectful at all, I don't think SIGarms Inc. isn't the right source decades after the introduction of the P6 in Germany. ReinickendorferFuchs (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SIG P220 Sport Variant Missing[edit]

Just a note that the Sport variant doesn't seem to be included for some reason. Voratio (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Nonsensical sentence[edit]

"This simplifies manufacture but has no functional disadvantages."

The "but" implies a detraction, a problem in comparison to the just stated issue. Does this single lug design simplify manufacturing but create a disadvantage or does it simplify without any functional disadvantage? Perhaps it should be mentioned that it simplifies manufacturing at the price of a wider and boxier slide. But I'm not a weapons expert so I don't know exactly what this does. Perhaps a page on the virtues of this and other locking systems should be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.119.226 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have simply replaced "but" with "and". Would have been quicker, more efficient. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Browning BDA[edit]

  • The P220 was initially imported to the United States as the Browning Double Action (BDA) and then as the P220.

This article contains this unsourced assertion. If it's true, it should be added to the Browning BDA article as well. If it isn't, it should be deleted. Rezin (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added reference to that today on this page. It was already on the Browning BDA page.Digitallymade (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on SIG Sauer P220. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SIG Sauer P220. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_Sauer_P220&oldid=1210375010"