Talk:SIG P220

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	Switzerland Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

The p220 is chambered only in .45 caliber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Perhaps today it is; however, it was available in all of the chamberings mentioned at one time. I've seen examples of each, except for the .22LR conversion. D.E. Watters 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merger proposal 2 Phosphorous coated internals 3 Price on private market 4 Pictures

[edit] Merger proposal

I would like to propose that SIG P225 be merged into this article, per WP:GUNS#"Target" versions; which states that variants of firearms that were only changed slightly from the original should be in the same article as the original. As the P225 is just a shortened P220, with a smaller pistol grip, it is not different enough to warrant its own separate article in my opinion.--LWF 05:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phosphorous coated internals

Can someone confirm this? It seems to me the weapon would catch on fire... Could it be "Phosphatized", which is a corrosion protection treatment? Grabbi 22:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Price on private market

The "Bund" article doesn't say ex-army P220s cost 30 CHF! It gives this number for ex-army SIG 510 assault rifles - which may be correct. I myself bought one for only 50 CHF from an ex-soldier, the market for old army rifles in Switzerland is an extreme buyer's market, because there are so many around, a decreasing number of private shooters and export is virtually forbidden. But used pistols don't go from private to private for 30, rather 500-800 CHF! Please delete this wrong information, otherwise the article is nice.

Greetings from Switzerland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.239.46.63 (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought too that the price is very low, but that's what the paper reported. Every year, some 10,000 soldiers are discharged and many get (or got) a pistol for free, after all. I'll try and find the article again. If we find some other quote from a reliable source, we can put that one in. Sandstein 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the article and read it. http://www.espace.ch/artikel_434460.html It sais ex-soldiers have the possiblity to keep their weapon for an administrative fee (30CHF for a pistol, 60CHF for a SIG 510 rifle, 100CHF for a SIG 550 rifle or so...). As far as I know, that's correct. But that's not the private market but only the deal between the army and it's soldiers about the used weapon they served with for many years. From private to private, prices for used SIG 510 (Stgw57) rifles are extremely low because there's much more supply than demand for them. Prices for used SIG 550 and SIG P220 however are somewhere in the range from 600-1000 CHF, I know that from experience. The "Bund" article doesn't say anything about pistol prices on the private market, only that the 30CHF fee for the pistol is quite a bargain... In fact every officer/corporal/whatever (normal soldiers are not equipped with sidearms, only assault rifles) who gets the opportunity to privately own and freely sell a P220 for only 30CHF is an idiot if he doesn't invest that sum, because he will make at least 500CHF profit when giving it away. I guess the last paragraph of the article caused you to understand it wrong. Newspaper appear to be systematically writing about such things in a confusing way... I suggest you delete the "going rate on private market about 30CHF" and add the 30CHF to the sentence about the adm. fee, where it belongs. Greetings, 77.239.59.140 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. On re-reading the article, the weapons dealer quoted (Guggisberg) does appear to be talking about the administrative fee, not the price, which would appear very low indeed. I'll make the change. Sandstein 06:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Can we please have some new up-to-date pictures of this handgun, the current images are of a quite dated (European) model. Hayden120 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)