A rewording of a line from Shakespeare's
Henry II Act III Scene II:
"For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of SIGs".
OK, the word should be 'Kings' but recent events have made me wonder.
First, I own two SigSauer pistols, a P250 compact and a full-size classic P226. (And I love my Rohrbaugh R9s). But here's the story. My P250 bought 3 months ago has always worked perfectly and is extremely accurate. My sister and brother-in-law were looking for a semi-auto 9mm pistol and after trying perhaps a dozen different makes/models, also like the P250 compact (with medium grips) since it fit both their hands and styles best.
After ordering, waiting and received theirs, we all went on to shooting. Soon found out two interesting things: SIG had in a short time and without any notice to dealers, accessory manufacturers, etc. significantly changed the design: First, accessories (like my LaserMax laser sight and StreamLight tactical light) which USED to fit on the rail, can no longer can be mounted since SIG changed the curvature and depth of the grooves on what they advertise as a Picatinny rail. Second, all the magazines -- including those being sold everywhere by dealers -- for the new designs are NOT
compatible with the older ones; and SigSauer did not notify anyone of the changes, nor did they change the dealer part numbers. They kept the part number and
are now shipping magazines in the same plastic boxes, with just a small paper sticker on them saying 'new'.
I checked with LaserMax and they were likewise unaware of the changes, and thus that they were selling accessories which would no longer fit the P250. "Let the Buyer Beware".
As for SIG, after spending more than an hour on hold, their Customer Service Representative stated that the changes in the rail were made to 'go back to the original Picatinny rail design'). I think this answer was and is nothing but PR "Corpspeak".
The design standard for the Picatinny rail (MIL-STD-1913 REV A) was last changed on 10 JUNE 1999. STANAG 2324 was and is just an official adoption of this design. This standard specifies precisely the cross-section of the rail body and the spacing, width and depth of the grooves. So either their original implementation on the 'Handgun of the Year' was incorrect, or the current one is incorrect, or -- possibly -- neither is compliant. Which is it?
Then, my sister's SIG P250 failed permanently (trigger mechanism failure - weapon would not load or fire) after about 200 rounds, requiring it to be sent back to SIG for repair/replacement.
Second incident: while sister was still waiting for her SIG to be returned (don't bother trying to call SIG's customer service line: even the dealers
have to give up after an hour or so on hold), I sent my P226 back the the SIG Custom Shop for two things: to have new Meprolite Night Sights installed (this was done correctly) and for a 'Trigger Enhancement Package' designed to smooth out and somewhat equalize the DA/SA trigger pulls.
On receipt of my P226, I shipped it to Bob Cogan [of Accurate Plating and Weaponry/Cogan's Custom Shop (
http://www.apwcogan.com)] for plating and some other work.
He immediately phoned me and told me that this pistol had been rendered Single-Action-Only and was extremely dangerous. The SIG armorer had returned the pistol as 'job completed and tested' when it actually would not cock and lock back the hammer when the slide was pulled.
You could manually cock the hammer back on a chambered round, but the trigger pull couldn't even be measured: it was on the order of a few ounces.
Dangerous? You bet. Anyway, Mr. Cogan took on the fight with SigSauer, and basically sent it back to SIG, where they returned the pistol back to
him, with a new, unmodified stock trigger system. Did I mention I'd already paid SigSauer for the 'upgrade'?
At any rate, Mr. Cogan will now and in future do all the work on my hanguns, and I will leave the people in Exeter, NH behind forever.
Having lived in Switzerland for several years in the late 1990's and used their products there, I've always had an admiration for the quality of their work and their attention to design mechanics. Perhaps this is still the case, a few instances do not make a damning case against an entire large company -- I can personally state, however, that their 'customer service' in multiple cases here seems to be pretty lacking.
