Hellcat vs Sig 365 Review - Shot both today

[PPS1980]

Originally Posted by WaterDR

I have seen it. That guy is an arrogant prick. But so am I 🙂

My only concern with the gun though after watching it is the accuracy. Both of these guys seem like skilled shooters yet struggled with this gun.

Hit the nail on the head. When I was looking for SAS reviews the second I realized he was the reviewer I moved on to another review. That said, no matter how comparable the HC is to the 365 I'll never own one because SA is selling them.

[WaterDR]

I think the gun is supper cool. However I know the ports are controversial, the sights are controversial and so is the slide release. As long as the gun sling shots, who cares right?

The gun kind of reminds me of the new Jeep Gladiator. Is it super unnecessary or useful? Either way, not sure I care. I am giving it a try 🙂

The gun will only be a $150 mistake at least. The $550 I paid for it minus the $400 I could get for it used.

[chandler5566]

My understanding of the SAS design is to eliminate the possibility of snagging the pistol when pulled from a concealed holster. Once the pistol is drawn the SAS and the standard P365 are effectively equal. So the question arises as to how many deadly confrontations are decided by clearing the holster faster than the attacker. With a question like that I always refer to Dr. Bill Lewinski's test data that shows the following:

Behind the Curve

In one startling test, for example, a female volunteer who had never before held a firearm (simulating an inexperienced offender) was able to pull a hidden gun from her waistband and shoot at an officer in an average of 16/100 of a second. The typical officer going for his weapon in a Level I holster requires 1.5 seconds to draw and fire a sighted shot once he perceives a stimulus to act. "In 1.7 seconds, an attacker using a Glock 9mm pistol can deliver six rounds on average," Lewinski says. "Considering just reaction time alone, the officer is screwed."

Amazingly, that's true even if the officer has his gun out in a "ready" position and is mentally committed to defending his life once a lethal threat is evident. Lewinski compared the timing of the woman "assailant" against officers with guns held in the belt-tuck, low-ready, close-ready, and "Hollywood high-guard" positions. In every case, the woman with her hand on the hidden gun in her waistband was able to produce a deadly action faster than the officers could perceive the threat and respond with a defensive reaction. Lewinski independently and scientifically replicated these findings with other volunteers.

That strongly suggests (to me) that the SAS would prove no better than the original P365 and other traditionally sighted pistols under the same conditions. I am also including a Sig video that includes range work in the last half. The demonstrator makes what I believe is an important comment regarding the sight acquisition at the 4:52 mark in the video.

You Tube

You Tube

[Jimmo952]

Originally Posted by chandler5566

My understanding of the SAS design is to eliminate the possibility of snagging the pistol when pulled from a concealed holster. Once the pistol is drawn the SAS and the standard P365 are effectively equal. So the question arises as to how many deadly confrontations are decided by clearing the holster faster than the attacker. With a question like that I always refer to Dr. Bill Lewinski's test data that shows the following:

Behind the Curve

In one startling test, for example, a female volunteer who had never before held a firearm (simulating an inexperienced offender) was able to pull a hidden gun from her waistband and shoot at an officer in an average of 16/100 of a second. The typical officer going for his weapon in a Level I holster requires 1.5 seconds to draw and fire a sighted shot once he perceives a stimulus to act. "In 1.7 seconds, an attacker using a Glock 9mm pistol can deliver six rounds on average," Lewinski says. "Considering just reaction time alone, the officer is screwed."

Amazingly, that's true even if the officer has his gun out in a "ready" position and is mentally committed to defending his life once a lethal threat is evident. Lewinski compared the timing of the woman "assailant" against officers with guns held in the belt-tuck, low-ready, close-ready, and "Hollywood high-guard" positions. In every case, the woman with her hand on the hidden gun in her waistband was able to produce a deadly action faster than the officers could perceive the threat and respond with a defensive reaction. Lewinski independently and scientifically replicated these findings with other volunteers.

That strongly suggests (to me) that the SAS would prove no better than the original P365 and other traditionally sighted pistols under the same conditions. I am also including a Sig video that includes range work in the last half. The demonstrator makes what I believe is an important comment regarding the sight acquisition at the 4:52 mark in the video.

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

Hello Chandler. My take is the SAS features are about pocket carry. At least the scenario where those features really come in to play is pocket carry.

I could be wrong. That's just my take.

[Jimmo952]

Originally Posted by PPS1980

Hit the nail on the head. When I was looking for SAS reviews the second I realized he was the reviewer I moved on to another review. That said, no matter how comparable the HC is to the 365 I'll never own one because SA is selling them.

I agree with your take on the reviewer. I sometimes watch his videos for entertainment or comedic value but I don't put a lot of weight in his opinions. I don't see him as a great shooter or much of an expert on anything. To his credit, I think he would admit that. Maybe not.

I respect your decision on SA purchases. That CEO is horrible. I've heard people say consultants or lawyers were behind the whole thing but the CEO is captain of the ship. He either condoned it explicitly, set up the conditions that encouraged it or had no idea what his people are doing (incompetent).

[chandler5566]

Originally Posted by Jimmo952

Hello Chandler. My take is the SAS features are about pocket carry. At least the scenario where those features really come in to play is pocket carry.

Pocket carry is certainly one CC method. I found it interesting that the shooter in the video I posted was using an appendix holster and did not demonstrate a pocket draw.

If those features are primarily intended for pocket carry I have to believe Sig would be limiting the customer segment which I suspect is just one reason the shooter used the holster.

[MMA10mm]

Originally Posted by chandler5566

My understanding of the SAS design is to eliminate the possibility of snagging the pistol when pulled from a concealed holster. Once the pistol is drawn the SAS and the standard P365 are effectively equal. So the question arises as to how many deadly confrontations are decided by clearing the holster faster than the attacker. With a question like that I always refer to Dr. Bill Lewinski's test data that shows the following:

[B]Behind the Curve

In one startling test, for example, a female volunteer who had never before held a firearm (simulating an inexperienced offender) was able to pull a hidden gun from her waistband and shoot at an officer in an average of 16/100 of a second. The typical officer going for his weapon in a Level I holster requires 1.5 seconds to draw and fire a sighted shot once he perceives a stimulus to act. "In 1.7 seconds, an attacker using a Glock 9mm pistol can deliver six rounds on average," Lewinski says. "Considering just reaction time alone, the officer is screwed."

That strongly suggests (to me) that the SAS would prove no better than the original P365 and other traditionally sighted pistols under the same conditions. I am also including a Sig video that includes range work in the last half. The demonstrator makes what I believe is an important comment regarding the sight acquisition at the 4:52 mark in the video.

I completely agree with his research, which is why, even as “the gun guy” on my department, I teach going for the offender, rather than our own gun. In a toe-to-toe reaction situation, the only viable option is moving off-center and getting control of the opponent/their weapon. Therefore, what gun you have means nothing in that circumstance.

I think this grossly mistakes the point of deep-concealed pistols. The deep-concealment pistol is used when the opponent is distracted, unsuspecting, or any of the other ways you have gotten inside his OODA loop. In that circumstance, having the fastest, smoothest draw is critically important.

Having snag-free handling helps hide it deeper, as you worry less about things which can mess up the draw. Reloads are highly unlikely, especially with a 12-rd mag, so poor manual of arms is fine; it’s not a 500-rd.-per-day range toy with five magazines...

[Jimmo952]

Originally Posted by chandler5566

Pocket carry is certainly one CC method. I found it interesting that the shooter in the video I posted was using an appendix holster and did not demonstrate a pocket draw.

If those features are primarily intended for pocket carry I have to believe Sig would be limiting the customer segment which I suspect is just one reason the shooter used the holster.

Sorry. I probably didn't explain myself well.

I'm not say the feature are intended only.for pocket carry. I'm saying I think the features will be of most use to those who pocket carry.

[Jimmo952]

Actually, an exception to what I said above is the ported barrel. I'm not sure what that is about. I mean I understand the idea is to tame muzzle flip but...the feature seems out of place on a small carry/self defense gun.

Porting has been debated on this forum and others forever. I can't add anything to that debate, just that it seems a little out of place on this particular gun.

[surrealone]

• Smoothing out the pistol for pocket carry? Check!
• Implementing some innovative defensive sights, while at it? Check!
• Porting the barrel/slide? Whoa! Whoa! You went too far for the practical crowd, SIG -- but tacticool aficionados will definitely bite.