Another nail in the coffin for SIG handguns. Sig 0-2 https

Dude it did pretty good.

>>31183485

What's with all the sig reliability videos lately?

File: 00001.png (629KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 900x900px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAEbbhRJNYw

It did pretty good my dude.

>>31183550
sperglords sperging about how sig got btfo by MAC who took a break from kike shilling to to larp about 'what if your sig had to be drug through the mud before you shot it'

I am a bit more disturbed by the light primary strikes that he was. It is great he kept such thorough track of everything, so we all have the information to make our own conclusions.

>>31183485
It did fairly well other than the light primer strike issues.

>>31183873
Unless the ammo he was using is known for hard primers then I would definitely say the striker spring isn't nearly strong enough. The water inside the striker channel is going to slow the striker down, but he had a light primer strike in the break in period as well. As far as cycling I think it did okay. Failure to go into battery isn't all that surprising with all that mud on there, and it still did way better than the Legion 226.

>>31183695
>>31183950
t. sigfags

>>31183485
>because I encounter lots of mud in realistic self defense scenarios

Maybe if I lived in a mud hut or something.

>>31184420
People in this thread might recognize me from the last thread where I was shitposting literally all day about how bad the 226 Legion did and how embarrassing it was for Sig to get beaten by a cheap slavshit clone of their own gun. I am the furthest thing from a sig fanboy. The 320 didn't blow my mind in this video but it did acceptably well. The light primer strikes are a major cause for concern though.

>>31183876
Yeah. What the hell is wrong with the 226 that a fucking P320 does better than it?

>>31183485
Results are pretty much what I was expecting, but it should be noted that MAC is kinda a retard when it comes to new guns. He never cleans his guns, his philosophy being is that it should be absolutely usable out of the box. That means that any gun that has packaging grease or whatever and fails due to it is the manufacturer's fault because lol right out the box.

Not saying that's what happened here, but I noticed that his new guns were always super dirty and then he commented what I said above.

>>31184952
Bruh

He shot 200 rounds through it to break it in, and then cleaned it thoroughly. Did you watch the video?

>>31185012
I'll admit I skipped through most of this one, but what I wrote was the case with the older ones, most notably the VP9.

>>31185278

I thought MAC said he neglects guns that stay in the safe but cleans carry weapons thoroughly. So his VP9 would've been clean/lubed before those torture tests.

He did mention he doesn't believe in break-in periods in this video, though. Meaning out of the box the gun should perform flawlessly and I'd tend to agree. I only have a small collection of 8 guns and none of them required a break-in. I bought them, cleaned/lubed, then fire 200+ rounds to see if there are any malfunctions. I've heard of some anons here requiring 500+ rounds of breaking in their CZ before everything smoothed out and it functioned 100% and that's bullshit imo.

>>31183485
It did fine though?

>>31187252
it did. the dust still hasnt settled from the horrendous p226 performance

File: IMG_0496_web.jpg (55KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x600px

>>31183485
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZTRjXD7AVU
If Dugan says its good to go, it's good to go,
Also the target is sexy.

File: 1467673810674.png (318KB, 449x425px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 449x425px

>>31187281
>P320 Target RX

File: glockfagbtfo.png (1MB, 1376x857px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1376x857px

>>31183485

>>31183485
except it did fine?

File: ahegao-face.jpg (56KB, 340x326px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 340x326px

>>31187281
>p320 target