Joined
·
1,579 Posts
Hi all,
S&W came out with their Sigma pistol in 1994 or so. It was a polymer-framed gun that bore an uncanny resemblance to the Glock pistol. In fact, one could put the slide of a Glock 19 on a S&W Sigma 9mm and fire the striker by pulling the trigger (a cop friend showed me, smirking, back in '94). Hmm. People called them "SWocks," back then. But they cost more than the Glocks of the day: IIRC, list on the initial Sigma was above $500 in '94 dollars, whereas the equivalent Glock ran right around $439 (list). The Sigmas had the 1911 grip angle, but, big deal. I remember picking a Sigma up and shaking my head, "Why would Smith want to make a polymer hunk of junk when their 3rd Gen guns are so nice?" The Sigmas did not have a good rep, to say the least. People complained of broken striker and extractors pretty often. Not many were sold. The onset of the AWB didn't help matters: who wanted a 9mm the size of a Glock 19 that carried only 10 rounds (it wasn't as if there were tons of pre-ban mags floating around on the market; this was a relatively recent introduction). Oh well, S&W was in bed with the Klintons, I thought: let them choke on their overpriced plastic Glock rip-offs.
I was further amused by what happened next to Smith & Klinton. Most of you probably know that Glock sued Smith for patent infringement, and that the whole fracas was settled in 1998. Glock (interestingly) dropped the "S&W" off the barrel markings on their .40 S&W guns (hmm
). Smith made some changes to their Sigmas (no more rectangular striker, some ergonomic changes), and introduced the 2nd Generation Sigma in 1998. At a much lower price - lower than Glocks, actually. With the AWB in place and no full-capacity magazines available, the world's reaction was another collective yawn. The reliability reports were greatly improved on the new guns, but no one bought them - again, who wants a full-sized 9mm with a 10-round capacity?
Well, thank God, the AWB sunsetted. (Who would have thought, really?) We all sighed with relief, and went back to buying Glock mags and AKs and ARs and every other danged thing we could cram tons of rounds into. And magazines, magazines, magazines.
Smith & Wesson continued to sell the Sigma, with indifferent results. The only people who bought them seemed to be people who didn't know any better - didn't everyone know that "Sigma" was practically synonymous with "junk"? The thing is, these reports kept popping up around the web: "I love my (second generation) Sigma! I don't know what you guys are talking about, but this thing works great! And it holds a lot of rounds, and it's cheap!" The US govt bought a number of Sigmas to send to the sandbox, to arm the friendly fuzzy-wuzzies. Nevertheless, those of us who "knew better" held our noses when these guns were mentioned. Gradually, though, we came to acknowledge that a LOT of people were pretty pleased with their 2nd Gen Sigmas.
When S&W brought out the M&P, they took great care to distance it from the Sigma. Some smart-alecs nevertheless called the M&P the "3rd Generation Sigma," while others insisted that the M&P was not at all like the Sigma. Their explanations for why not rang a bit hollow to me, though. The M&P has been widely regarded as a nice gun.
Meanwhile, S&W has been having a fire-sale on Sigmas - wholesale runs in the high $200s for the gun and two full-cap mags. Turns out that they are commonly found for sale new in the low $300s, and S&W has a current (1Nov07-8Jan08) deal where a new Sigma purchase entitles the purchaser to a $50 cash rebate and two additional full-capacity mags.
Well, a local dealer had a "Black Friday" sale with 2nd Gen 9mm Sigmas new with two 16-round mags for $289. I had a gun I'd been wanting to trade off, so I went over there with my friend Friday and made a swap. Came away with a green-framed SW9VE, whatever the heck that means, and a coupon for my $50 rebate and two additional 16-round mags. (I sent the coupon in immediately.)
The gun is the same size as a Glock 19, but with a 1911 grip-angle and a slightly thinner gripframe (the steel mags are thinner than a Glock's polymer mags - and hold one more round than the 19's). The trigger is smooth, unlike the Glock's, and wide. It's also a lot heavier: about 10-11 lbs compared to a Glock's 6 or 7. The pull feels better to me, though (and to my friend as well) with no "sproingy" finish - the Sigma feels very smooth, like a DAO S&W J-frame (complete with a hint of stacking at the end). I was able to shoot 10-shot groups of under an inch with any ammo - I have to say that the seemingly bottomless magazine combines with the heavy trigger pull to weary me by the end of a magazine . . . my full-mag groups always wound up being 3 inches or more (at 10 yards). The gun digested everything from weak WWB ball to hot NATO ball to slow/heavy 147-gr JHPs to hot +P+ JHPs. There was one flaw - the piece behind the magazine floorplate (sort of the equivalent of the aftermarked Glock "plug" - this was one of the ergonomic improvements in the 2nd Gen Sigmas, I believe) kept falling out when the gun was held on this piece. I'll call S&W for a new one on Monday - but this didn't affect functionality in the least. Despite the cold range conditions, I actually liked shooting this gun - something I've never thought about a Glock.
This thing is almost exactly the size of a Glock 19, but it is a wee bit (.25" or so) taller (probably how they packed the extra round into the mag). It's also a wee bit thinner across the slide (about an eighth of an inch) - this actually aids in carry. Believe it or not, an eighth of an inch makes a noticeable difference in how the gun sits in your waistband.
Also, the Sigma's 1911 grip angle means that it points for me like my forefinger. (I read an interview with a S&W exec who laughingly described how the company spent a lot of money to determine the correct angle for the grip - only to find that it was what JMB intuitively knew back in the early years of the last century.
![]()
) A Glock's grip angle is subtly "off" for me (and for many others - it's a common complaint I hear about the gun). The Sigma was not as wearying to shoot as a similar Glock. My friend and I shot more than 200 rounds in the cold, and would have happily continued had we not needed to get some food; I have shot that many rounds in a Glock but never enjoyed doing so . . . in fact, I have often said how I never enjoy shooting a Glock . . . or an AR. I suspect a lot of our enjoyment of shooting the Sigma was because it pointed correctly: we were not constantly having to hold our wrist in the "wrong" position - something that takes concentration and wears one down.
The smooth DAO/revolver trigger feel of the Sigma is due to the MIM fire-control parts it has on board. When I first got the gun, I tore it down, and then pulled out my Glock PTOOMA manual to look at how similar it is to a Glock (very!). I noted, however, that the MIM fire-control parts in the Sigma did not need ANY polishing - quite different from the stamped fire-control parts in a Glock (I've done a couple of twenty-five-cent trigger jobs in my day). There were still some stamped parts, and they were rough and responded well to a brief application of the Dremel and Flitz. The resulting trigger pull felt almost exactly the same as that of a J-frame DAO revolver (including the slight stacking at the end of the pull, which my friend actually prefers as a sign that you're ready to fire). It was not as L - O - N - G as the (admittedly smooth) pull of a Kahr auto. The reset was not as short as on a Glock. The wide, smooth trigger made the heavy pull weight bearable, and made it not hurt. Frankly, this thing shoots like a revolver that just refuses to run dry.
My chrono crapped out (too cold) before I could chrono all the loads, but I got enough to realize that the 4" conventionally rifled barrel on this gun shoots "fast." (All at 5950' above sea level, 35
S&W came out with their Sigma pistol in 1994 or so. It was a polymer-framed gun that bore an uncanny resemblance to the Glock pistol. In fact, one could put the slide of a Glock 19 on a S&W Sigma 9mm and fire the striker by pulling the trigger (a cop friend showed me, smirking, back in '94). Hmm. People called them "SWocks," back then. But they cost more than the Glocks of the day: IIRC, list on the initial Sigma was above $500 in '94 dollars, whereas the equivalent Glock ran right around $439 (list). The Sigmas had the 1911 grip angle, but, big deal. I remember picking a Sigma up and shaking my head, "Why would Smith want to make a polymer hunk of junk when their 3rd Gen guns are so nice?" The Sigmas did not have a good rep, to say the least. People complained of broken striker and extractors pretty often. Not many were sold. The onset of the AWB didn't help matters: who wanted a 9mm the size of a Glock 19 that carried only 10 rounds (it wasn't as if there were tons of pre-ban mags floating around on the market; this was a relatively recent introduction). Oh well, S&W was in bed with the Klintons, I thought: let them choke on their overpriced plastic Glock rip-offs.
I was further amused by what happened next to Smith & Klinton. Most of you probably know that Glock sued Smith for patent infringement, and that the whole fracas was settled in 1998. Glock (interestingly) dropped the "S&W" off the barrel markings on their .40 S&W guns (hmm
). Smith made some changes to their Sigmas (no more rectangular striker, some ergonomic changes), and introduced the 2nd Generation Sigma in 1998. At a much lower price - lower than Glocks, actually. With the AWB in place and no full-capacity magazines available, the world's reaction was another collective yawn. The reliability reports were greatly improved on the new guns, but no one bought them - again, who wants a full-sized 9mm with a 10-round capacity?Well, thank God, the AWB sunsetted. (Who would have thought, really?) We all sighed with relief, and went back to buying Glock mags and AKs and ARs and every other danged thing we could cram tons of rounds into. And magazines, magazines, magazines.
Smith & Wesson continued to sell the Sigma, with indifferent results. The only people who bought them seemed to be people who didn't know any better - didn't everyone know that "Sigma" was practically synonymous with "junk"? The thing is, these reports kept popping up around the web: "I love my (second generation) Sigma! I don't know what you guys are talking about, but this thing works great! And it holds a lot of rounds, and it's cheap!" The US govt bought a number of Sigmas to send to the sandbox, to arm the friendly fuzzy-wuzzies. Nevertheless, those of us who "knew better" held our noses when these guns were mentioned. Gradually, though, we came to acknowledge that a LOT of people were pretty pleased with their 2nd Gen Sigmas.
When S&W brought out the M&P, they took great care to distance it from the Sigma. Some smart-alecs nevertheless called the M&P the "3rd Generation Sigma," while others insisted that the M&P was not at all like the Sigma. Their explanations for why not rang a bit hollow to me, though. The M&P has been widely regarded as a nice gun.
Meanwhile, S&W has been having a fire-sale on Sigmas - wholesale runs in the high $200s for the gun and two full-cap mags. Turns out that they are commonly found for sale new in the low $300s, and S&W has a current (1Nov07-8Jan08) deal where a new Sigma purchase entitles the purchaser to a $50 cash rebate and two additional full-capacity mags.
Well, a local dealer had a "Black Friday" sale with 2nd Gen 9mm Sigmas new with two 16-round mags for $289. I had a gun I'd been wanting to trade off, so I went over there with my friend Friday and made a swap. Came away with a green-framed SW9VE, whatever the heck that means, and a coupon for my $50 rebate and two additional 16-round mags. (I sent the coupon in immediately.)
The gun is the same size as a Glock 19, but with a 1911 grip-angle and a slightly thinner gripframe (the steel mags are thinner than a Glock's polymer mags - and hold one more round than the 19's). The trigger is smooth, unlike the Glock's, and wide. It's also a lot heavier: about 10-11 lbs compared to a Glock's 6 or 7. The pull feels better to me, though (and to my friend as well) with no "sproingy" finish - the Sigma feels very smooth, like a DAO S&W J-frame (complete with a hint of stacking at the end
). I was able to shoot 10-shot groups of under an inch with any ammo - I have to say that the seemingly bottomless magazine combines with the heavy trigger pull to weary me by the end of a magazine . . . my full-mag groups always wound up being 3 inches or more (at 10 yards). The gun digested everything from weak WWB ball to hot NATO ball to slow/heavy 147-gr JHPs to hot +P+ JHPs. There was one flaw - the piece behind the magazine floorplate (sort of the equivalent of the aftermarked Glock "plug" - this was one of the ergonomic improvements in the 2nd Gen Sigmas, I believe) kept falling out when the gun was held on this piece. I'll call S&W for a new one on Monday - but this didn't affect functionality in the least. Despite the cold range conditions, I actually liked shooting this gun - something I've never thought about a Glock.This thing is almost exactly the size of a Glock 19, but it is a wee bit (.25" or so) taller (probably how they packed the extra round into the mag). It's also a wee bit thinner across the slide (about an eighth of an inch) - this actually aids in carry. Believe it or not, an eighth of an inch makes a noticeable difference in how the gun sits in your waistband.
Also, the Sigma's 1911 grip angle means that it points for me like my forefinger. (I read an interview with a S&W exec who laughingly described how the company spent a lot of money to determine the correct angle for the grip - only to find that it was what JMB intuitively knew back in the early years of the last century.
The smooth DAO/revolver trigger feel of the Sigma is due to the MIM fire-control parts it has on board. When I first got the gun, I tore it down, and then pulled out my Glock PTOOMA manual to look at how similar it is to a Glock (very!). I noted, however, that the MIM fire-control parts in the Sigma did not need ANY polishing - quite different from the stamped fire-control parts in a Glock (I've done a couple of twenty-five-cent trigger jobs in my day). There were still some stamped parts, and they were rough and responded well to a brief application of the Dremel and Flitz. The resulting trigger pull felt almost exactly the same as that of a J-frame DAO revolver (including the slight stacking at the end of the pull, which my friend actually prefers as a sign that you're ready to fire). It was not as L - O - N - G as the (admittedly smooth) pull of a Kahr auto. The reset was not as short as on a Glock. The wide, smooth trigger made the heavy pull weight bearable, and made it not hurt. Frankly, this thing shoots like a revolver that just refuses to run dry.
My chrono crapped out (too cold) before I could chrono all the loads, but I got enough to realize that the 4" conventionally rifled barrel on this gun shoots "fast." (All at 5950' above sea level, 35
