Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns CCW - G26 v Sig 365?

The Rockwell hardness of 70 didn't sound right to me. That along with buyers remorse for spending $100 on a striker was enough for me to send it back and take my chances with the Sig part. Steel of that strength is typically pretty brittle, which seemed to be the problem with the bad batch of P365 strikers that were breaking, so that didn't give me much confidence that I was doing any worthwhile upgrades.

According to Sig there's a < 1% chance mine will break. That along with the > 99% chance I won't use my gun in a self defense scenario gives me enough confidence in the Sig as it sits. I will pass the 1000 round mark today and continue to shoot it regularly.

I am going to keep it, I know the manufacturer. They have sold over 50 of them and their test P365 in their rental cabinet has one installed and has 2000 plus rounds through it. In addition the trigger pull is better. I tested it a few dozen, in one string I unloaded 10 rounds in under 2 seconds. Call me foolish but a CNC milled SS part makes a lot more engineering sense than MIM.

The one I got didn't do anything for my trigger pull, felt the same. The weight and demensions were almost identical so I'm sure they will work fine for those that want one. The hardness and price just turned me off. I'd be curious as to what steel they are using and how it's being hardened without becoming too brittle. At 1100 rounds and many dry fires, I'm not too worried about mine going bad. This little gun eats everything so far.

I won't call you foolish, but I can tell you aren't an engineer, and don't know what makes "engineering sense". There are plenty of times when MIM makes more sense to use, but you might have to be familiar with the engineering and manufacturing details behind it to understand why.

I also question the "Rockwell 70" hardness number and suggest that it's misleading at best. Being quite familiar with 17-4 stainless steel, I know that it can't be hardened to 70 on the Rockwell C scale, which is the standard scale used for hardened steels. At full hardness it can only reach ~42-43 Rc. But of course LSI doesn't specify which Rockwell hardness scale, so the number is a meaningless marketing gimmick. LSI is probably using the Rockwell A scale, with the thought that 70 sounds better than 40 and most people won't know the difference. Personally that's enough to push me away; I'm not interested in being a sucker for someone's marketing speak.

Personally if I were making an aftermarket "improved" striker, it wouldn't be with 17-4 anyway. It's a great steel, but I don't think that's the right steel for that application.

Let’s see you don’t own a P365, have not tried the striker, are not aware that factory mim strikers have broken, are not an engineer but suddenly have more knowledge than a company that has been making strikers for well over 10 years? What are your credentials yondering? I have often wondered what your background is because you know more than anyone else about guns?
I have 3 of their strikers and have had two for years. So fill us in as I will hold my tongue as you expound from your knowledge base.

Yeah, when you absolutely must cut cost, and the mechanical properties are not critical.

I had a chance to handle a Sig 365 today. Wasn’t really impressed, especially side by side with my Glock 43.

A few extra rounds is nice, but I can buy 9 round mags.

Reliability is key, and ergonomics are key, and the 365 didn’t fit my hand as well as the Glock 43, or a Glock 26, for that matter.

I’m unconvinced the 365 is a game changer.

Didn’t shoot it, so maybe I missed the magic part.

My 365 shoots better for me than my G43. Better in the sense that I am more accurate with the 365 (probably due to the trigger) and the Sig definitely shoots smoother, less snappy. Neither fit my hand as good as a Glock 19 but having 11 or 13 rounds of 9mm in a pocket sized gun is nothing to turn your nose up at. While it's not rendering the Glock 43 or M&P Shield obsolete, I think it has raised the bar for design with the micro 9's.

Ive been following this thread for several weeks. I have now been carrying and shooting my P365 for about 6 weeks. I have almost always carried 1911s and hadn’t really planned to switch EDCs. I also have Shields in 9mm, 40 S&W and 45ACP. I like the Shields quite a bit, especially with the Talon grips on the 9s & 40s, as they are a bit narrow for my hand.

However, after handling the P365, now having shot several hundred rounds through it and carried it daily for weeks, I’m convinced about my choice to use it as my EDC.

The grip angle, thickness, surface and length fit my hand particularly well, making hitting with it easy and consistent. The sights present a quick sight picture both in daylight and night. I prefer straight 8s, but these Sig X-rays are quite good for 3 dot tritiums.

I had one slide lock failure on my second magazine but it was clearly due to operator error. I usually shoot thumbs high and forward and had this type of grip with the right thumb on the slide lock, causing this malfunction. I’ve now adjusted my grip so the thumb rests under the slide lock. No other rmalfunctions with either FMJs or a variety of HP SD loads.

Although I’m very skeptical of marketing hype, I believe this subcompact high capacity pistol is a breakthrough. The level of concealability combined with the 11 or 13 round capacity and shootability make the P365 stand apart. This pistol is what the Shield or G-43 should have been,

Its not a bad pistol, I have over 600 rounds now through mine, I do like the grip angle and the trigger better than the g43. The G43 and shield are still well proven designs, the glock will eat anything at anytime and go bang. I like them both as well. If you had $550 to buy a CCW to me it would still be a toss up between the G43 and the P365, with the shield in there somewhere, because I am more used to the glock trigger.

Actually I am an engineer, specifically a mechanical test engineer; my career is in breaking things, which includes having a good idea of how and where they could break before hand. I'm also a machinist and sometimes gunsmith on the side, and work a lot with various tool steels and 17-4 stainless. I heat treat my own 17-4 parts; when I said I was familiar with it I didn't just mean that I know what it is.

I have never claimed to know more than anyone else, but with my background I do know more than the average bear about this sort of thing.

I'd question the choice of machineable stainless to make a striker for a defensive pistol. I'd prefer a suitable carbon alloy tool steel machined striker.

If faced with the choice of machined stainless or an MIM striker, i'd likely opt for the MIM unit. MIM parts strike no fear in my heart. I work in heavy industry and some of the MIM components used endure incredible wear cycles. I understand that there has been some breakage in factory strikers, and even a 1% rate raises my eyebrows.

Machined stainless is generally a trade-off. Also useful in many applications, but there are many variables as to hardening and heat treating. I don't see the need for heat or corrosion resistance in a defensive pistol striker, so i'd choose different properties and a different steel.

All of this said, and i don't know what steel they are using for the sig striker. More questions than answers, but i'm pretty sure that sig will nail it down...

Did you read the part where several had broken in a low # release product.

I understand that there is a trade-off in just about everything and that nothing mechanical is perfect.

If I find a p365 I will buy it, but haven't laid eyes on one to date. MSRP for the unit runs about 20% of my weekly gross, and they are experiencing some mechanical failures.

In 1970, my father who did the same work that i do now, bought a model 27 S&W. It cost him a full weeks pay, IIRC. 2nd trip to the range and he had a mechanical failure. He was upset, but S&W made it right.

In 1970, durable goods were generally higher priced, but perceived to be of better quality. the difference was likely due to the cost of extensive cycle testing and evaluation.

Everything changes but nothing is new or different. Just a little variation on angle...

[quote=johnw. I understand that there has been some breakage in factory strikers, and even a 1% rate raises my eyebrows.

[/quote]

Not much wrong with my reading skills...

And there are more gun owners and higher demand today than ever.

With absolutely no knowledge of sale figures for either one, I'll bet you a coke that the p365 has already eclipsed the Smith model 27 in numbers sold.

I'd enjoy buying you the coke if I'm wrong...

I'm not sure why you thought either of us missed that? That is what we're talking about here after all...

Sig obviously has a design or manufacturing issue with their 365 striker, hopefully they'll address it. I don't think it's accurate or informed though to say it's because they used MIM for the striker, it would be more realistic to say it's because they didn't design it correctly for an MIM part, or there's something about their MIM process that allows a few bad parts to wind up in customer guns. Keep in mind Glock has been using the MIM process for many years for their strikers with excellent results.

A good tool steel striker could certainly be more durable, as well as lighter. But that's not what LSI is doing with their striker. Johnw's comments on the material choice are spot on; I'm guessing he knows a bit about steels too.

A new release in January now has more guns sold than a smith and Wesson classic revolver, that’s rich. We had 5 come in and out of the 5 we had 1 striker that broke. The test gun with the new stainless striker has more than 2000!rounds fired no problems Logic tells me that based on the above the LS striker is reasonably good to at least 2000 rounds (so far).