Talk:SIG Sauer P226/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Incorrect title

Is there a way to fix the title? 'Sig' needs to be changed to 'SIG' because it is an acronym, after all. (Yes, I'm nitpicky. :->) --Werbwerb 08:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is not P226!!! It is P228 I think

uhh...what? SIG also manufactures a P228 model. Transentient

NPOV

Somewhat edited for NPOV. The english version of Wikipedia is not for the citizens of the US only, and not every user of it considers members of the US Armed Forces heroes. Thank you.

Of course they do! What's wrong with you? (While you have a good point, your phrasing above could be interpreted as offensive. Plus, you probably should sign your posts) Epstein's Mother 20:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another point is that all sig-sauer weapons are made in Germany,or more exactly in Eckernförde.

There is a legal reason for that, which I've spelled out a bit. Epstein's Mother 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Many SIG Sauer pistols are made in Exeter, NH.

stop editing In Popular Culture. like it or not, it's a fact. get over it. -dogbert14

merge from SIG P229

There has been a {{mergeto}} tag on SIG P229 since July 2006. This seems like a no-brainer to me. I will merge it unless I hear some objection. --Selket Talk 07:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Go nuts. :) Veritas Panther 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. 64.149.213.194 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


US Coast Guard

The article says the P226R HSP "is now standard issue" while later the article says "The .40 S&W P229 DAK is the official sidearm of the United States Coast Guard." The first mention could just be a run-on sentence about how the pistols were barcoded; the reference may be, instead, toward the Department of Homeland Security's standard issue pistol. To support my assumption further I'd like to add that the .40_S&W article notes that the USCG uses the P229 DAK. Perhaps there was a recent switch. Anyone know the full story on this? --Trakon 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The USCG adoption of the P229 is well documented. D.E. Watters 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

US Miltary service ?

Who is using it besides the Navy Seals ?--Max Mayr 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Navy SEALs do not use the p226, they use the p228 (m11 pistol)--User:Beanerschitnzel 06:15, 28 October 2007 (PCT)
No, the P226 is known as the Mk 24 Mod 0 in Navy service. D.E. Watters 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
D.E. Watters is right, the SEALs do in fact use the P226. Take a look in P226 Navy in the article, there is both information and a photo (taken by myself) of a P226 Navy, and I handled it, and have handled a P228 in the past; they are different guns. On the note of who else in the U.S. Military uses it, I believe that is already covered.--LWF 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Army CID uses the M11 (SIG-Sauer P228). L.J. Tibbs (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service has been using P228 pistols for more than 15 years. They recently awarded SIG a new contract for P229 and P239 pistols. [1] Timothy A. Logsdon

Which is already covered in their respective sections on usage.--LWF (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add also, that U.S. Navy pilots and navigators are also issued the M11 (Sig-228) when flying combat missions. This can be seen on the documentary/TV series "Carrier" aired on PBS. --KineticRic (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Army CID uses the P228 "M11". --L.J. Tibbs (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Main image

Could we possibly have a better image for the infobox? It isn't really taken at the best angle. Perhaps a side profile shot, and if possible the standard and more up-to-date variant with the rail (P226R). Hayden120 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

It seems like most of this article is just a long list of variants and users. If someone has a good knowledge of this handgun perhaps a design section should be written up? Hayden120 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"after firing 2-5000 rounds through the Beretta 92F the slides started cracking, resulting in a catastrophic failure which made the slide fly towards a SEAL, breaking his jaw" - Isn't this also the reason why James Bond started using the PPK? Fuzzform (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage section

The usage section is getting way to long, I suggest culling the list to military, federal, and maybe state level organizations, and getting rid of the local ones per WP:NOTE. If no one objects, I'll do this in about a week. In the mean time I'm going to add columns to the section so it doesn't take up half of the page space. — DanMP5 18:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the changes since no one had any objections. — DP5 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I think you should make a users of the P226 page and link to it from that section. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that would be a bit overkill. Even the AKM and AK-47 don't have their own users articles. — DP5 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

XM9 Trials

"According to a GAO report, Beretta was awarded the M9 contract for the 92F due to better durability during endurance testing and a lower total package price. During the endurance testing none of the 92Fs broke, while two of the P226s cracked frames between six and seven thousand rounds." I'm confused by this entry. Elsewhere I've read that the only issue SIG ran into was that at the time, they did not have a factory on U.S. soil, whereas Beretta had one in Maryland, hence Beretta had the upper-hand. I've also read that the Berettas were the pistols with the cracked frame issues. I'm noting that the entry here isn't cited, so can we be sure that it's even accurate? Nolefan32 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the M9 Trials and the completion of the first round of bidding, the SIG P226 had the leading score of 853.6 in six evaluation factors, while the Beretta 92 scored 835.34.
However, in the final bids for the M9 contract, Beretta underbid Saco (SIG's U.S. importer at the time). Saco bid $77,816,000 for the pistols, magazines, and spare parts. Beretta bid $74,762,000. This was controversial since in the original series of bids, Saco had underbid Beretta by just over $9 million. With the final prices factored in, the scores changed to Beretta 858, Saco 847.
This led to allegations that the Army had leaked Saco's bids to Beretta for the purposes of undercutting them. This argument was bolstered by the fact that Beretta USA's general manager delivered their final bid personally. The bid document was type-written with blanks for the final prices, which were then written in and initialed with ink by the general manager. The General Accounting Office investigated this upon request by Congress. The report is titled Pistol Procurement - Allegations on Army Selection of Beretta 9-mm as DOD Standard Sidearm[2] (June 1986).--D.E. Watters (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That is fascinating and certainly enlightening, but it doesn't bolster the uncited statement in this article that the SIGs broke their frames in testing. Though I wouldn't be surprised that something was going on under the table with the Berettas, I was in the military when we did the switch from the old 45s to the 9mm, and the 9mm was a troublesome, finicky weapon not suited for most of the environments that we had to use them in. The 45 might not have been pretty, but it would take a lot more abuse than the Beretta would and keep firing. But that's neither here nor there, my only contention is that there's an uncorroborated statement in this article that nearly the opposite is reflected in other articles. Nolefan32 (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Cracks in the frames of the tested SIG P226 are mentioned in the GAO document I cited above.
  • "For example, through analysis of malfunctions, test officials determined that a SACO pistol which fired 7,000 rounds had actually cracked at round 6,523." (p31)
  • "In contrast, the SACO 1984 frame failures appear to have an explanation. For the 1984 test, the manufacturer tried to improve the weapon’s performance in adverse conditions testing by hollowing out areas in the frame. Both 1984 frame failures occurred in these hollowed-out areas. The 1984 SACO frame failures, after 6,523 and 7,000 rounds, respectively, had been fired, gave SACO an expected service life of 6,841 rounds." (p34)
  • "...two of SACO’s frames, however, failed after 5,000 rounds, while none of Beretta’s cracked through 7,000 rounds of firing." (p52)
  • "For example, SACO was notified of frame failures after 5,000 rounds of firing that shortened the pistol’s service life." (p53)
Clearly, it wasn't a major factor in the decision making given that the award really came down to the package price of the SIG vs. the Beretta. --D.E. Watters (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
One other factor was the location of the safety, in the case of the P-226 the de-cocking lever. The US government wanted ambidextrious components and the SIG 226 could not be manufactured with the de-cocking lever on the right side of the frame. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • IIRC, there was also an issue about magazines. Sig had difficulty promising the required number of magazines since they use a third party to make theirs, but Beretta made their own mags. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up this language!

"After chambering a round, the hammer will be cocked, so for safe carriage the hammer drop is actuated with the thumb (of a right-handed shooter), dropping the hammer in a safe manner."

What the hell does that mean? I would edit it myself, but I honestly don't know what that run-on sentence is trying to say. Four clauses, a parenthetical....chambering a round cocks the hammer. But "the hammer drop is actuated with the thumb"? What the hell?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.54.170 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I took care of it, I think. Does it make sense now? Zenmastervex (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

228 v. 229

I'm not clear about the differences in these two pistols despite reading the sections. Can someone make it clearer? MartinezMD (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clear it up - P229 has a milled stainless slide, P228 has a stamped carbon steel slide. Reason (mentioned elsewhere in article) is to handle increased forces from .357sig and .40s&w chamberings. --Brentgrabowski (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes helped. Thank you.MartinezMD (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Weights (Confusing)

The specified gun weights are confusing as they do not specify whether or not the weight is loaded or unloaded.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

P229, P228, P226.. all on one page. Curious.

I'm a bit confused as why one specific pistol (P226) has a page that includes the rest of the family. GLOCK 17 and 19 both are similar weapons, the 19 specifically being designed as a shorter version of the 17.. however we have separate pages for them. I'm just curious. -JE 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


I would like to know the answer to that question as well. I think at this point in time here in America, the 229 is far more popular and more 229 models are sold than the 226 models. --KineticRic (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree actually. I see the rationale behind merging them, but I think the P228/9 is notable enough on its own to deserve a separate page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Im new to editing.making Wiki pages, so I really dont feel comfortable making a Sig 229 page. But if someone else wants to do it, Im sure it would be very welcomed on Wiki. It only makes sense to have a separate 229 page. --KineticRic (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there used to be a separate Wiki article for the P229, but for whatever reason someone thought that there's enough similarities between the P226/P228/P229 that they should be combined into a single article. It's a similar mindset as to what happened with the Glock article; all of Glock's gun models are incorporated into a single Wiki page. Monoblocks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose Splitting Page into the Different Varients

This page is too confusing with all the variants of the P226 and should be split into separate pages.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Users

Almost half of the article is who uses it. Does anyone else think that streamlining the users section down would be a good idea? - parabellum904

I did this a couple of months ago (see two sections up), but it has been slowly filling back up. I may have time to clean it up again later, but feel free to do it in the mean time. Due to the very large number of users, I'm debating whether state level organizations should go too. — DanMP5 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi DanMP5- Thanks for the insight. What do you think of making the users listing more "generic"? Like, perhaps for USA just put "Various Federal, State, and Local agencies" with a few citations to pages that state usage? Condensing in that fashion would probably help a lot with the clutter. - parabellum904
I think the list of users is growing long and, as a whole, is unnecessary. Should we start taking a vote to keep or delete the list? MartinezMD (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The list needs to be condensed, perhaps, but not removed entirely. ROG5728 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is placing them in collapsible boxes...this may also curtail some of the false additions, if we are lucky.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

In light of the recent additions to this article, it must be noted that dozens of different guns, such as the HK416 rifle and HK MP7 submachine gun, are "reported" or "rumored" to have been used to kill Osama bin Laden. Rumor is not sufficient evidence for adding claims to Wikipedia, and that is especially true with regards to claims about a secretive DEVGRU operation. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sig 229

The SIG 229 may warrant a stand alone entry. It is treated as a separate entity by Sig-Sauer even though there is much in common between the two platforms. DeusImperator (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

P224

Now they've come out with a subcompact version of the P229 called the P224. There should be at least a small section about this on the P226 page, if not multiple sections for the different variants on a separate P229 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.250.152 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Air Marshals

These guys apparently switched to the SIG Sauer P250 some time after 2009: [3] Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently that order was cancelled because of unreliability. [4]
Thanks. Wonder if they switched to something else or if they're still on the P229. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Anodized Stainless Steel Finish?????

Design Details, paragraph 3 - "Therefore the current standard P226 has a black anodized, stainless steel slide" I didn't even think that was possible, but apparently there is an anodizing process for stainless. I've never heard of it being used on guns and I highly doubt if Sig uses it on their 226. The catalogue says it has a "Nitron" finish which I believe is a melanite coating. I'll look into it further and make sure before I edit. If anyone knows for sure please jump in...DrHenley (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

P229R Picture

Hey, guys. Is it alright if I grab a picture of the standard P229"R" from SIG's website and update the P229R picture? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is to replace this image:

Older model SIG Sauer P229R.

with this:


Any thoughts? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on SIG Sauer P226. 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 00:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous Webpage

This page has been so overdone with model information that it might as well be the Sig Sauer catalog. I suggest that this topic have MOST of the model variants removed and that the page refer to the P226 family with a few mentions of special models such as the Mk25 etc. Since none of this can be as authoritative as the Sig Sauer website is, the page should simply point to that page.

People, in general, won't read pages such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallymade (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that SIG Sauer P227 be merged into SIG Sauer P226, because the P227 is merely a variant of the P226, upsized to chamber .45 ACP, and I believe the P226 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the P227 article into this will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. RadiculousJ (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I oppose that idea. I have a P226 and I've handled the P227. I see no reason to lump these together just because they are both high capacity. Further more there is no logic in lumping the P227 in with the P220 either.Digitallymade (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are going to start combining models, then they should ALL be under the P220 from which they are all devolved.Digitallymade (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Just got off the phone with Sig Sauer in NH. The P227 is a much larger frame than the P226. The resemblance is cosmetic. As far as I am concerned it's a member of the P220 family which also supports 10mm now.
The Stamped Steel slides are more expensive to make than the monoblock slides which are made on Swiss Arms machinery. They are also all heavier due to the introduction of .357 Sig and .40 S&W. The frames remain aluminum.
Sig does make the P226 in .22 Long Rifle, rarely. They no longer make the Mosquito. The mosquito had European throating and was designed around European ammunition. There was only one US made .22 ammo that would result in reliable functioning and that was the CCI Minimag.
All Sig Sauer handguns use European style throating. All Sig Sauer pistols are able to use +P ammunition as standard.
Of course none of this can be used in the Wiki because there is nothing but VERBAL confirmation.

Digitallymade (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Users

Why are we including such a long list of military and police users? If we exclude criminal users, why do we include non-criminal users who are less notable? That seems to violate the basic neutrality principle of NPOV - including 'positive' info while excluding 'negative' info. The citations are almost all poor quality primary sources. Can anyone give a policy-based rationale for this lengthy section? Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Because a weapon being adopted by a national police force or armed force is noted by reliable sources on firearms, while crimes are not. There's a long list because this is a popular firearm with state purchasers, much like, say, Beretta 92, FN FAL, Steyr AUG, M2 Browning, RPG-7, PK machine gun and AK-47 have long lists. There's nothing "positive" or "negative" about a firearm being adopted for use, your argument is based around a false balance of adoption being a "good" thing about a firearm which ought to be balanced with "bad" things, even though, say, the MP40's use by Nazi Germany is probably something the remaining production company Steyr-Mannlicher would like to forget about. Also, criminals are more notable than national armed forces? What planet do you come from?
And poor quality? You seriously think, say, the GIGN or GROM don't know what kind of pistol they use? Herr Gruber (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Weapons being used by criminals are also noted by reliable sources on firearms. The two types of users should be treated the same for the sake of neutrality.
If criminal use is not a negative, then some of the arguments I've seen against including mentions of them don't make sense. If the material is neither positive nor negative then there's little reason to exclude it.
Many of the entities listed here are obscure, such as "Fredericton Police" of Canada, the "Unit 777" of Egypt, or the "University of California Police Department (UCLA)" of the United States.
Many of the sources are poor, and most of them or primary sources. Take these for example: a Youtube video, a police dept. website, a weapons broker, some dead link, a police academy yearbook?, another dead link, and so on.
The article devote considerable space to the list. As do other similar articles. There should be no problem with including a similar list of notable civilian users. Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No, they are not noted by reliable sources on firearms. Find me a book about guns that lists all crimes committed with them, even one. Again, this is just an attempt at a false balance argument where something you imagine to be good (even though it is neutral) must be "balanced" to shoehorn your pet issue into articles. Primary sources are fine for identifying basic information about a subject such as whether something is true or false (WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge," it is not a worse source as you keep asserting, just one more limited in applicability), and while a Youtube video isn't exactly a great source, it does perform the basic function of showing that the claim in the article is true since the operators are using the pistol in question. It's not a ref that should be used, but the argument that "this article currently uses bad sources so it's ok for me to put in anything I like" is a flat-out nonsequitur; if a section that is based on what is normally included in scholarly works on a subject uses poor sources, they need to be improved, not used as justification for including something completely different. And really, the police force of a metropolitan area of over a hundred thousand people and the counter-terrorist unit of an entire country are "obscure?"
As I said elsewhere, usage sections are because this is information which is true of a large number of firearms of a particular type, not just one; there is no information on how any individual in those organisations uses the firearm in question, and if there was it would require a much better scholarly source to show that this individual was considered notable by experts on the subject in question, not just proof that person exists. The fact that an entire air force operates a particular type of jet is notable, the fact that one collector owns one in and of itself is not, hence articles on jets including lists of air forces and airlines that operate them but not lists of the names of private individuals who own one (generally only including those preserved in museums). You will not, for example, find mention that Army Trucks Inc owns two Chieftain tanks modified to look like Abrams on the page for the Chieftain, even though these have been featured in a large number of movies, because no scholarly source on the Chieftain includes ownership by movie prop companies. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy I know of which says we can only include information that's in published books. I haven't seen any book which lists all of the police departments that use a particular pistol, though it wouoldn't surprise me if some books list some users. I have seen books, many books, which mention criminal users of guns.
Primary sources can be very reliable, and can be suitable sources for WP articles. But they aren't the best sources. In this article sources are often the websites belonging to the users themselves. In other words, no one independent of the agencies themselves has reported on their use of this weapon. Meanwhile, the use of this and other weapons in notorious crimes are often reported by multiple sources.
I don't see why the known use of a weapon in an infamous event by an individual should be considered irrelevant while the mere ownership of some numbers of the weapon by an official agency is automatically important enough to include. For our purposes, daily newspapers are probably more expert on crime than gun hobby magazines. Felsic2 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As said, because this is what expert publications in the relevant area do. Find yourself a book on firearms and it'll list services that use them, because this is regarded as important information. It won't list what kind of holsters and slings they're compatible with, and so this is not. There are whole books published on police firearms (this, for example) and it would certainly be better to cite those, but I don't see any reason to propose a police department's own website is not adequate proof that they use a particular type of weapon since there is little reason for them to make a false claim to that effect.
And, um, what books have you seen that do that? Are they written by experts? Herr Gruber (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you said it, but you never gave a policy citation that limits the content of Wikipedia articles to what "experts" write in books. Most books about firearms are put out by hobbyist publishers. Most books and magazines abot firearms never say anything negative about them. Most appeal to collectors and include prices, etc. There is no need to follow that format, and in fact do ing so would be a violation of Wikipedia's standards.
FWIW, here's a book which mentions the P226 that isn't about police.[5] I wouldn't use it to include material in this article, but it's a perfectly reliable source.
It doesn't take an expert to report that a particular weapon was used in a particular notable shooting. In most cases, the ultimate source of the information would be law enforcement or court documents.
The "Semi-Automatic Pistol in Police Service and Self Defense" you link to appears to be self-published by its author, Massad F. Ayoob.[6] He's also quite outspoken on gun politics. The content of Wikipedia articles should not be determined solely by activists on one side of an issue. Felsic2 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that's quite an assertion; you're assuming all books about firearms are written in states where it's even legal to own the firearms they describe. I own a fair few books published here in the UK (I'm not actually an American, BTW, and don't really have a horse in this race) where there is very little pro-gun political presence, centrefire semi-autos are essentially illegal and owning a firearm involves a process that's both convoluted and extremely expensive. We still have firearms experts and a press focused on informing people with an interest / fetish (take your pick) and they still omit this information even though there would be little political point since that ship sailed long ago. The same is true of other states with restrictive firearms laws; Japanese books on guns don't include this information, for example. I also have a book on SAMs and ICBMs that doesn't mention the terrible effects of American atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though no country permits civilians to own nuclear weapons.
The citation you give wouldn't really be sufficient for inclusion since it doesn't actually even state Lanza fired his P226, and the fact that it existed at the massacre isn't really notable by itself (otherwise people would make more of a fuss about the Saiga 12 he left in his trunk).
And come on, I'm not arguing to use that book as a source, it's just the first one I pulled up on google. Here's three more sources if you like. I'd also question how a guy who's politically outspoken is automatically considered a poor source on what firearms the police use despite having credentials that would make him an expert in the matter (1,000+ articles in multiple publications, several books (including through actual publishers), being called as a expert witness multiple times, self-defence and firearms instructor who's worked training law enforcement officers, police Captain with 32 years of experience, former Vice Chair of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, over two dozen professional special weapons and tactics certifications, a dozen professional awards, dozens of competitive combat shooting awards, and having one of his works cited in a court briefing by the Violence Policy Center of all people) that doesn't seem to follow. Isaac Newton was infamous for being a complete dickhole, that doesn't mean he wasn't an expert on physics, and short of digging up Samuel Colt or John Browning I can't see how you'd find a better expert than this guy, so I'm fairly sure his works published via Police Bookshelf would fall under the section on SPS being allowed because the author is a well-regarded expert who's been published elsewhere. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Variants and users

About 3800 words out of a total of 5800 words is deveoted to 24 different variants, 20 of them are 226 variants and the rest are related models. Here's a typical one:

  • The P226 SCT (Super Capacity Tactical) is an all black, Nitron finished P226 featuring front cocking serrations, accessory rail, a SIGLITE rear night sight, a TRUGLO Tritium Fiber Optic front sight and comes with four newly designed 20-round magazines for the 9mm version or four 15-round magazines for the .40 S&W version.

There's no source or other indication that this variant is in any way noteworthy. There's no independent view on the merits of this product. Trivia like this makes the article seem like a manufacturer's catalog rather than an NPOV encyclopedia article. IN some cases, the material is copied directly from the catalog.[7] On the most part, this material could be summarized in a few sentences, something along the lines of "The P226 has been produced in a number of variants, featuring different calibers, finishes, and accessories." This problem has been raised before. See Talk:SIG Sauer P226/Archive 1#Ridiculous Webpage and Talk:SIG Sauer P226/Archive 1#Propose Splitting Page into the Different Varients.

While I'm here, I'll reiterate a concern about the over-long "users" section. That, too, has elicited previous concerns: Talk:SIG Sauer P226/Archive 1#Usage section and Talk:SIG Sauer P226/Archive 1#Users, as well as #Users above.

The simplest way to proceed may be to start by deleting every entry in either lists that doesn't have an independent, secondary souce. Any better ideas? Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The proposal to merge P227 into P226 makes no sense whatesoever

The P227 is a .45 ACP caliber handgun. The P226 comes in 9 x 19mm, .357 Sig, and .40 S&W only. The P227 is more similar to the P220 which also comes in .45 ACP caliber.Digitallymade (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Many firearms are basically identical except for their calibre. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Variants. Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In Sig Sauer Handguns the slides vary a good deal. The .45 ACP models are NOT the same as the smaller versions. There is a reason each different model has a different model number. If they were all similar we could just list one number with different calibers, but that it NOT the case. The P220 and P227 share the same slide and bolt face, etc. These ARE NOT compatible with the P226 series which has two separate sizes of slides, the 9mm and the .357 Sig/.40S&W. If you confuse this you need to look into the details closer. Digitallymade (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The parts don't have to be compatible. The issue is probably more whether they have similar or identical actions. The overall Wikipedia issue with any article is whether there are sufficient sources to establish notability. WP:N. On that score, having separate articles may be appropriate. (That may not be the case with Blaser firearms - Template:Blaser Firearms.) Felsic2 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't group a Chevrolet and a Ford together. Different chassis are different guns. The P220 and P227 have the same slide and bolt face. The P227 is NOT similar to the P226. If you cannot tell the significance you need to take a course in logic. The .45/10mm P220 is the same family as the P227. Neither are in the family of the P226.Digitallymade (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ford and Chevrolet are different companies. Many car models within a family are covered in single articles.
It looks like the P226, but the SIG Sauer P227 chambered in .45 ACP has a much bigger bite. [https:www.handgunsmag.com/reviews/pistols/sig-sauer-p227-review]
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need to support your position. Felsic2 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have. I actually OWN Sig handguns (and others), including 9mm x 19mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. I would be highly offended if you tried to lump the P220 series in with the P226. The P227 was designed based on the larger frame, slide, block etc. of the P220 in .45 Caliber, not the smaller .357Sig/.40S&W slide, frame and block. Why are you having so much trouble understanding something so simple? What's YOUR problem? The science is clear.. so the problem has to be with your lack of comprehension. Digitallymade (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on SIG Sauer P226. 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) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on SIG Sauer P226. 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) 20:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on SIG Sauer P226. 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) 06:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in SIG Sauer P226

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of SIG Sauer P226's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jones2009":

  • From United States Secret Service: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35th edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From AT4: Jones, Richard D (27 January 2009), Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 (35 ed.), Jane's Information, ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Heckler & Koch GMG: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (27 January 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Milkor MGL: Jones, Richard D. (27 January 2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 (35th ed.). Jane's Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Equipment of the Bangladesh Army: Jones, Richard D.; Ness, Leland S., eds. (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 (35th ed.). Jane's Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Myanmar Army: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35th edition (27 January 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Glock: Jones, Richard D.; Ness, Leland S., eds. (January 27, 2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 (35th ed.). Coulsdon: Jane's Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Sterling submachine gun: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From M203 grenade launcher: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
  • From Uzi: Jones, Richard D. (ed.); Ness, Leland S. (ed.) (27 January 2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010 (35th ed.). Coulsdon, Surry: Jane's Information Group. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5. OCLC 268790196. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  • From List of equipment of the Indian Army: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (27 January 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Royal Air Force

As far as I know the P226 is the standard aircrew sidearm of the Royal Air Force. I have no idea where to look for confirmation of this, but perhaps it could go in the UK section of the users table. 146.90.179.42 (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_Sauer_P226/Archive_1&oldid=1181439256"