Walther Forums banner

21 - 40 of 92 Posts

Registered
Joined
2,859 Posts
I have seen it. That guy is an arrogant prick. But so am I 馃檪

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.
 

Registered
Joined
1,287 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
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 馃檪

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.
 

Registered
Joined
3,305 Posts
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.

 

Premium Member
Joined
1,427 Posts
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.
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,427 Posts
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).
 

Registered
Joined
3,305 Posts
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.
 

Registered
Joined
284 Posts
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."

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 鈥渢he gun guy鈥 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鈥檚 not a 500-rd.-per-day range toy with five magazines...
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,427 Posts
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.
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,427 Posts
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.
 

Registered
Joined
3,842 Posts
  • 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.
 

Registered
Joined
7,136 Posts
Really hoping to handle one and experience the sights, but I really like the P365.
Proof will be in the pudding.
Moon
 

Registered
Joined
1,287 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Let鈥檚 be clear on this gun....in marketing, we call this a product extension. I must have been the target audience because I didn鈥檛 buy a 365 or an XL but I did an SAS 馃檪

If we REALLY cared about being proficient with a carry gun, I think we would all admit, practice more than the tool itself is likely to lend good results. I might add too, that I am a kick boxer. I box 6 to 9 times a week religiously. In a confrontation I have options that most don鈥檛 have. In a fraction of a second I can put a guy on the ground and can probably do it faster than he can draw on me and he would never see it coming. I also practice disarming assailant. I am 5ft 9 inches and 175 lbs. I am not a big guy which I also thinks adds to the element of surprise.

A firearm is just a tool. Like a paintbrush, some people can draw stick figures and others can paint a chapel.

The best carry gun, is one that someone actually carries and is proficient in its use.

I carry about almost never. I do, however, plan to carry the SAS.
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,427 Posts
Let鈥檚 be clear on this gun....in marketing, we call this a product extension. I must have been the target audience because I didn鈥檛 buy a 365 or an XL but I did an SAS 馃檪

If we REALLY cared about being proficient with a carry gun, I think we would all admit, practice more than the tool itself is likely to lend good results. I might add too, that I am a kick boxer. I box 6 to 9 times a week religiously. In a confrontation I have options that most don鈥檛 have. In a fraction of a second I can put a guy on the ground and can probably do it faster than he can draw on me and he would never see it coming. I also practice disarming assailant. I am 5ft 9 inches and 175 lbs. I am not a big guy which I also thinks adds to the element of surprise.

A firearm is just a tool. Like a paintbrush, some people can draw stick figures and others can paint a chapel.

The best carry gun, is one that someone actually carries and is proficient in its use.

I carry about almost never. I do, however, plan to carry the SAS.
Well said Water. Well said.

Do let us know your impressions as you start working with that P365 SAS. It's a gun those dam marketing guys seem to have struck a nerve with fir a lot of us.

I still pocket carry an air weight "hammerless" J-frame. Sometimes something more capable but pretty much always that J-frame.

The hammerless, rounded profile, simple gutter type sight just work really well when presenting from a pocket. And yes, I understand the thing actually has a hammer.

The P365 SAS might be a gun that could finally get this dinosaur to replace that J-frame.

Thanks for taking the time to give us your honest impressions of the P365 SAS. Please keep it coming.
 

Registered
Joined
1,287 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Thanks man!

J frames are so under stated. Such a great platform for deep conceal. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, a lot more of us would carry one. Low snag, reliable, get the job done kind of gun. Also...can be pretty beefy or very light....take your pick. Heavy, long trigger. Which is good for SD use. I have even toyed with the idea of getting one, doing a trigger job just to make sure it is smooth and perhaps a bit lighter.....maybe 8 lbs. I think I would stick with an exposed hammer but bob it.

But for some reason people have been convinced they need a gazillion high round capacity.

I remind my students in class....most self defense shootings happen at arms length and less than 3 rounds.
 

Premium Member
Joined
1,427 Posts
Thanks man!

J frames are so under stated. Such a great platform for deep conceal. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, a lot more of us would carry one. Low snag, reliable, get the job done kind of gun. Also...can be pretty beefy or very light....take your pick. Heavy, long trigger. Which is good for SD use. I have even toyed with the idea of getting one, doing a trigger job just to make sure it is smooth and perhaps a bit lighter.....maybe 8 lbs. I think I would stick with an exposed hammer but bob it.

But for some reason people have been convinced they need a gazillion high round capacity.

I remind my students in class....most self defense shootings happen at arms length and less than 3 rounds.
For that arms length encounter where three or less rounds are expended, the J frame is tough to beat.

If you are involved in a confrontation where you are knocked to the ground, off balance, have to fire from a less than perfect firing stance or grip, the J frame is tough to beat.

As a middle aged civilian that looks to stay out of trouble at this point in life, it handles what I'd consider the mostly likely unlikely scenarios.

I carry something more at times but that J frame has been a constant for a while now.
 

Registered
Joined
3,305 Posts
I wrote my original P365 review in January 2018 and that review was overall positive. I have not purchased the P365 primarily because at the time of my review the 365 was in the midst of several issues.....the firing pin weakness primary among them.

Today I fired the new Hellcat and while I did not experience any failures I have to say my pattern was less than desirable. Following 35 rounds I finally gave in and decided that my 2 year layoff affected me more than I suspected. Luckily I had taken my PPS and PPQ 45 which enabled me to verify whether it was the Hellcat or me. End results were as follows:

Target distance 21'.

Pattern Diameter & Ammo Used
Hellcat 8" Magtech 115gr fmj
PPS 3.5" Magtech 115gr fmj
PPQ 4" Federal Premium 230gr HST +P

Obviously the shooter played a part in the results but even though the Hellcat was completely new to me it was very comparable to the PPS in all respects. However, I have not fired the PPS in over 3 years and had less than 200 rounds total fired through it.

The preferred pistol for me is the P365.
 

Registered
Joined
7,136 Posts
As regards the J frame, I'm a Centennial junkie. There's no temptation to cock the hammer, the only control is the bang switch, and, in particular, you can choke higher on the humpback than is possible with an exposed hammer version. This effectively creates a lower bore axis.
I can pocket a J-gun, but it takes a big pocket. A G42 works much better, and I'm hoping the 365SAS will as well.
Moon
 

Registered
Joined
3,842 Posts
  • 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.
Giving these comments of mine some thought, I've got an easy (theoretical, at this point) solution for the ported barrel -- see below in red.


Really hoping to handle one and experience the sights, but I really like the P365.
Proof will be in the pudding.
I had a SAS in my hands, today. After fondling it, I decided that I -will- be buying one, as it pointed very naturally for me and sight acquisition was VERY fast. Keep in mind that my current EDC (PPS Classic) is outfitted with XS Big Dots, so I'm already accustomed to defensive sights, complete with their advantages (speed) and drawbacks (not good for punching one ragged hole, but plenty fine for dropping bad guys at close range). I see the SAS's sights in the same vein as XS Big Dots, so I don't expect miracles out of them.

Note that I found the slide lock nearly impossible to actuate; it's inset far too deeply, and I don't have much in the way of finger nails. For me, this is fine, as I recognize that it's a slide lock (i.e. not a slide release), but I had to try using it as a release after chamber-checking the pistol, just to see if I could. (I couldn't.) Removing the magazine and then sling-shotting the slide works just fine, so I'm not bothered by how deeply the slide lock is recessed 鈥 but some people might be.

The trigger is, of course, mushy 鈥. just like every other P365 I've handled. Takeup is longer than I'd like, as well 鈥 again, just like every other P365 I've handled. But 鈥 it's a carry gun 鈥 and it's tolerable. Certainly the trigger is better than my original LCP's was (prior to smithing it). As poor feeling as I consider the P365 triggers, I still think they feel better than S&W Shield triggers. Also, I'm sure that if there aren't aftermarket triggers/mods out there already for the P365 鈥 there will be soon given the gun's popularity..

This brings me to the primary concern I had (beyond the sights possibly being a problem for me) -- the ported barrel. I believe (but have yet to confirm) that there's a stupidly simple solution to that for those interested: buy a standard P365 barrel 鈥 and replace the ported one with the standard one. That won't change the slide cuts, but it WILL address the increased noise problem -- as well as preclude blowing gas into one's face in very close quarters shooting (like say, inside a car or during a struggle to retain the weapon where one pulls the gun tightly to one's body in a partial crouch while still making use of it). Keep in mind that my loadout doesn't include +P rounds, so I have no need for recoil taming. I might tolerate the added noise of the ported barrel and slide if +P's were my thing, but they weren't and aren't.

I just got off the phone with the owner of my LGS, and he's got both a standard P365 and a SAS in stock 鈥 and said he'd give a barrel swap a try and let me know one way or the other if it's possible. (I see no reason why it wouldn't work, but it'll be nice to confirm, up front.)
 

Registered
Joined
3,305 Posts
Giving these comments of mine some thought, I've got an easy (theoretical, at this point) solution for the ported barrel -- see below in red.

With all the negatives you discussed and especially changing the barrel why would you buy the SAS? In my opinion the PPS has a better trigger and is as, if not more, accurate?
 

Registered
Joined
3,842 Posts
With all the negatives you discussed and especially changing the barrel why would you buy the SAS? In my opinion the PPS has a better trigger and is as, if not more, accurate?
Why I'd buy the SAS:
I want a no-snag duty caliber BUG, since I usually pocket carry my BUG (with either a trigger block or an Uncle Mike's to cover the trigger) -- specifically to replace my current BUG, a mousgun caliber Ruger LCP.

I don't consider the barrel change a negative. You might, due to added cost, but from my angle, the cost of a new P365 SAS + a standard P365 barrel + 3 magazines + trigger work will be about what my Ruger LCP + smithed trigger + P3AT springs + CT Laser Grip + 3 magazines ran me.

I don't consider the SAS sights a negative -- since they're defensive sights just like my XS Big Dots 鈥 with the same benefits and drawbacks of the XS Big Dots. Moreover, the SAS sights are superior to the LCP sights, which might as well not have them (and is why I have a CT Laser Grip on it -- despite hating lasers as primary sights). Last, I don't consider the recessed slide lock a negative (as noted in the post -- it's a non-issue for me). I don't use my PPS slide lock for a release, either, you see... and the LCP ... doesn't lock open, at all, after last shot. :)

So, what negatives (plural) are you talking about? The trigger is the only one that comes to mind -- and that's a singular issue that can be addressed the same way I addressed the issue on my LCP -- and I have no issue doing the required work.
 
21 - 40 of 92 Posts
Top