toddm

I'm personally intrigued by the barrel hood cut out. It appears first look Legion xfives, had a loaded chamber indicator, others such as the ones on Sig's site show no cut in the barrel hood or slide. It appears what is shipping is barrels with the hood cut for the chamber indicator, but not the slides. I wonder if Sig decided against having a loaded chamber indicator but is using up barrels that were cut for it. Here's a pic from an early first look gun, with a loaded chamber indicator, this one still had a solid trigger, but the legion optic plate cover is clear. First Look Legion Xfive with loaded chamber indicator Here's a pic from what is currently on Sig's website with no cut in the barrel hood or slide.

I believe it's a credit to be used in the Sig Store online. Hard to say if there are any strings attached, doesn't seem so from the promo details. Prices there are not great, but better than nothing. It does look like you only have 60 days to spend it from the last day of the promotion submission date, so depending on when you submit and when they process it might be less than 60 days. I remember getting a $100 credit at Eurooptic once, thinking it was a great deal but then finding out it could only be used on full priced items, it was actually hard to use because most of the stuff there I buy is already on sale and didn't qualify for the $100 off. You also could not use it on an online order it had to be phoned in.

Well if they have the round button floorplate then the best I can say is at least one user has reported the round button version did not fit theirs, and someone else had replied that it was a known issue with the early round button version vs the square 2nd gen. I don't have any of the round button version to test, only the square, unfortunately. It makes me think they switched fairly early on because my X-five was bought in mid 18' and had all square button versions. Thread in question: https://sigtalk.com/sig-sauer-pistols/354862-p320-x-five-legion-magazine.html

Be careful with the 21 round mags. Sounds like the older 21 round mags need to be modified to work in the new Legion. Evidently Gen 2 21 round mag base plates with a square access/button in the floor plate are fine, but older ones with a round button need modification to fit. Sig even needed a gen 2 21 round magazine in less than 2 years. Anyone that has 21 round mags, not sure what modification is needed, but you can get just the gen 2 base pad to update for about $15 a pop.

Not sure if I got poor info from Sig CS, or if they've reversed position, but I emailed Sig asking about the Legion promo, saying that I'd seen promo ads with and without the Legion 320 on it and if it was part of the promo or not. Even the promo ad that does not show the 320 anymore states ""Offer valid on any new full-size or compact Legion purchased between July 1-31" The response I got was "The P320 X5 Legion eligible as long as all other eligibility requirements are met." Not sure I'd want to bet $200 on it, since we've seen conflicting answers from Sig CS before, nor would I make a purchase counting on that $200, but if you've already bought one, it might be worth submitting for it just in case. You just never know, there was a similar situation with a $200 rebate back on Bushnell Tactical optics when GAP was blowing out for 4.5-18 LHRS scopes for $750, there were posts saying it would not qualify, did the paperwork, and a couple months later a $400 check showed up.

For the experienced gamers where the cost of the gun is insignificant compared to ammo and travel etc. probably. I'd be willing to be a lot of new shooters who can get a Q5 Match + entire setup, range bag and couple thousand rounds of ammo to shoot for less than the cost of the Q5 Match SF may still chose to go that way starting out to keep the initial investment low. It would be interesting to see if any shooters prefer a lighter weight handguns in competition. It doesn't seem that way, I suppose unlike the long guns the time lost in transition is more than made up for in follow up shot time, and the overall weight is still quite low. I suspect the Q5 Match will still outsell the Q5 SF at a significant ratio overall. It's no different than how many Glocks sell compared to Zev's or STI's to SVI's. Anytime you more than double the price of your product, you are going to lose volume. I know a lot of guys that own a Q5 Match just as a range gun, most of them will not spend 2.3 times the price for the same gun with a steel frame. For them at the end of the day the small amount of performance increase is not going to be worth the price jump from $700 to $1600.

Sure but when you pay that extra $700 for the Accushadow 2, you are getting a lot for that $750 markup. Significantly better trigger job (shorter reset, hand fit disconnector, custom hammer, lighter shorter pull, better reset), hand fit slide, various other hand fit parts, different barrel bushing setup, 3" 50yd accuracy guarantee, etc. To me that's a lot above and beyond what a stock Shadow 2 is. Shooting is never a cheap sport and certainly ammo will always be more expensive than any of our guns over the long run, but to me, and I'm happy to be in the minority, if a company doubles the price of a gun, I want more than just a metal grip and a couple base pads. You can buy a Q5 Match for <$700 delivered, so this is almost $900 for a steel frame, +2 base pads, and magwell on the same internals/slide/trigger/barrel. It's not that I can't afford it, but to me that's asking a lot for a grip, magwell, and base pads. If it fit my "game" needs I might be more inclined to overlook the upcharge for its current uniqueness. Again I've spent way more than this on several guns, but I at some point it becomes the principle of what you get charged for what they are offering. This is how we ended up with $800 bipods and $3000 tripods for precision rifles.

So what does this gun really have over the plastic frame Q5 Match? It's 2x the price, but from what I'm seeing it's basically the same slide/barrel/controls, optics cut, etc. Don't get me wrong I really like the Q5 Match and the idea of a steel frame on one is nice, I just don't think it's 200% markup nice. The only differences I really see are of course the steel frame, +2 mag floorplates, and magwell. Is the trigger significantly better, is the barrel/lockup better? I mean it's a HUGE price increase over the normal Q5 Match. We're talking CZ TSO prices here, $150 more gets you a STI Edge, $400 less gets you a Shadow 2, or you could by 2 Q5 Match guns.

Wasn't carrier breakage an issue with the first generation of the Gen 2 guns, I may be thinking of the MCX? I know they changed the firing pin and carrier a few months into the MPX Gen 2, and I thought it not was not only breaking firing pins (more common) but also carriers for some. Is your ejector screw still tight inside the action? I've heard of some of them coming lose and I'd imagine that could do some damage.

Optics Planet offers two versions it turns out, I only found out when I asked where the low mount was when mine arrived. There is the version you posted a link to which is SOR31002, evidently the retail box packaging, low and high rail mounts etc. and of course not on sale. There's also SOR31099, which they have on sale for $269, it's pictures and description also indicate it comes with the low mount. In fact it's even in the package contents list at the link below: https://www.opticsplanet.com/sig-sauer-romeo3-1x25-mm-reflex-sight-3-moa-red-dot.html It turns out this version is an OEM version Sig must be blowing out, perhaps the Romeo 3 is on the way out. It's just the Romeo 3, with the cover on, and the high QR mount, battery tossed into a black plastic Sig parts bag. Palmetto is also blowing these out at $250 and they also do not include the low mount. Great deal if you don't need/want the low mount.

Just curious if anyone has seen an aftermarket Romeo 3 low M1913 mount, or the Sig version. A couple places have the Romeo 3's on sale but they are in OEM packaging, just in a Sig parts bag, with the high QR rail mount, but no low mount. I tried contacting Sig and was told they don't sell mounts/parts separately for their optics, which wasn't very helpful but I can't say surprising. I know I've seen some posts that say the Cmore RTS2 sight is the same mount pin/screw placement and they do sell a low rail mount for about $50, but I thought I remembered reading somewhere the length of the two is significantly different. Thanks

Seems to me the factory X5 has a spring rate ramp up problem and recoil spring/rod friction issue, the reason being exactly alma said, it displays the issues of both a too strong and too weak recoil spring at the same time for many users even after hundreds of rounds. The gun isn't going back into battery that's too weak of a recoil spring, but the same recoil spring has problems ejecting factory 9mm ammo which indicates a too strong of a recoil spring. When mine was new, even Nato rounds only went 2-3' standard 9mm ammo went about 8-10" toward the shooter. If you're factory handgun is weakly ejecting Nato 9mm, and problems returning to battery the manufacturer did something wrong. When mine was new out of the box it would refuse to go fully into battery even with a "half" rearward release, so I took care to clean/lube various parts one at a time to ID what was really causing the issue, the only thing that made a big difference was getting the recoil spring/guide really wet. I replaced mine with the Gray Guns guide rode and their 15# recoil spring, and what do you know goes into battery solid, and ejects properly with factory ammo, and you can feel the slide moves much smoother the whole slide travel. Mine also printed way low, so much so getting it to zero caused the rear sight to fly apart (I must have got to it's last turn or so and shooting it after must have been enough to back it the rest of the way out). My guess is Sig is trying to use the tallest sight they can possibly get away with in order to work with the Romeo1 reflex sight with it's built in rear sight notch and hoping the adjustable sight can compensate.

Yep, I bet they were holding orders till the issue was fixed, I just got a notice that my order was filled/shipped today as well.

I wonder if they are holding up full-filling orders due to that issue. I ordered mine the 18th, but aside for an order confirmation have heard nothing else and the kit has not arrived. Which would be just fine with me, better to have them wait and get the kits right than deal with installing it, having it be wrong and returning it. It would be nice to get a heads up order status email etc. about the delay if it's impacting a lot of orders.

I ran across a post here earlier (below) on the issue and I believe Dawson's recommendation then was the 0.205x0.90 for the X-five. The stock is a 0.252. Looking at Dawson's sight calculator as low as mine was I'd probably try the 0.180. If Sig wanted a 0.252 it's hard to argue with their specs, again I wonder if it's to get it to work with the Romeo1 sight with the rear sight notches to co-witness. On the plus side for Dawson they probably sell a lot of 320 front sights

Yeah we'll see what Sig says, my last couple interactions with them on my MPX were less than impressive. If I have to send it in, and there's no lower front sight option from them anyway, as you said there's no point. The Glock/XD and S&W rear sight service kits from Dawson appear to have springs that look very similar to those in the X-five rear sight for $10 ?, another $30 will get a lower front sight from Dawson. If Sig can't send me a lower front sight and rear sight springs, I see no point in sending it to them. I thought about not bothering since I was thinking of putting a red dot on it, but if the front sight is too high and I try to co-witness the rear notch in the red dot with the front sight I'll probably run into the issue of the front sight being visible both under and over the dot. I may still try it out before ordering a front sight.

Answering my own ? there are definitely 2 springs under the rear sight. There's a picture in the large X-five thread of someone having an issue with disassembly that has the rear sight screw removed and tilted up and you can see 2 springs under there. I do see there is a tiny detent ball in the top of the rear sight and the rear sight elevation screw is notched for the detent. My guess is I had to raise it so much that the springs were no longer applying any pressure for the detents to be felt. They appear to be very short 1/4" but very stiff springs.

Yeah this one was built in early March. I was surprised when I was adjusting the elevation that there was no detent in the adjustments, and the screw moved pretty easy. I want to say there was for the left/right adjustment but honestly I don't remember for sure. There was also no loctite on the elevation screw. I didn't notice the POI drifting high, my guess is I was on the last thread or so to get the POI raised enough, cause the rear sight was way up there. I read, probably here, that Dawson recommends a 0.205 for the x-five, but as high as mine was I might even try a 0.180. I wonder if SIg is putting a highest front sight they can get away with on it to better work with their Romeo reflex sight that has the rear notch in it. Sig's new theory seems to be that if you have any issue, the whole gun needs to come back, it's getting pretty ridiculous. I was recently told the same thing for the MPX on firing pins, I have an older Gen 2 (without the firing pin spring that's known to break firing pins) I had broken one but still had an old version spare I'm shooting now. In the past Sig just sent out an updated carrier and firing pin for those that had issues. Now the entire gun needs to be returned to be updated. They've also stopped selling various parts. I was unable to get them to sell me a spare bolt buffer, ejector, extractor, gas plug etc. for the MPX. They said those were not replacement parts and if there was a failure of one the entire gun would have to be returned for the parts to be replaced. That alone turns me off, I like to make sure I have a variety of common spare parts for my guns for the exact reason that I don't want to be down a gun for a couple months. Perhaps Sig's new plan is they want to motivate people to buy 2-3 of all their guns for spares to avoid downtime.

It would be fun to try the smaller grip, however, knowing Sig "any time now" usually translate to a couple years if ever. When are those MPX caliber conversions coming out again? How about those 4 versions of the P210 we were told at SHOT by the head of SIg Handguns that would be all out by the end of 2017 ? Sig's reps from CS to the highest level would be much better off learning the phrase "We don't have a release date yet" as opposed to continually promising things they can't follow through on.

Well my new X-five made it almost 100 rounds on it's first range trip, kinda hoped by now Sig would have worked the kinks out of it with their usual pattern of early customers being free QC testers. It was shooting 4" low and 2" left for me at 7 yards, even off the lane table. I figured it's a new gun, first couple mags of the day, picked up the Shadow 2 and XDm and right down the center. Had the RO shoot it, same issue. So I started to adjust the sight, which worked, but two mags after that was dialed in the rear sight flew apart. I should have just stopped while I was adjusting because I remember looking at the gap between the rear sight and the frame thinking something must be wrong to have to adjust it that far. I didn't think about it at the time but I was using a "center hold" as I do with every target gun I won, so I expected impacts at the top of the sight post centered in the bullseye. If I had covered the bullseye center with the fiber optic I probably wouldn't have needed as much adjustment but it still would have been way high in the rear. Looks like I'll need a significantly lower front sight. Amazingly I found the screw and one spring, I should have bought a lottery ticket cause I could lose parts in a clean room sealed in a zip lock bag. However when I looked under the rear sight it looks like there's two round recesses cut out side by side, so perhaps there's 2 springs under there. So it looks like I may need another spring. I checked the manual and it doesn't look like Sig lists parts for the rear sight, just the entire rear sight and optic cover assembly as a whole. Either way I'll have to call Sig and request a lower front sight if they offer one, or replace it with a Dawson. Seems Sig isn't test firing these to check the sight alignment and is just hoping there's enough adjustment in the rear sight to cover tolerance stacking, these days with Sig that's probably a bad assumption.

Haven't received anything but a order confirmation on mine since the order was placed the 18th. With the apparent sear "grit" issue I'm happy to wait as long as it's right when it arrives. Nothing more annoying than installing a custom part that fails to perform right from the install.

I think CZ custom also does a reach reduction kit but I believe they offer about the same amount of reach reduction. I'd imagine mechanically if you shorten the DA length of pull too much there are other issues that crop up, especially in a DA/SA design. I'd imagine a DA only design might be easier to reduce the LOP. I suppose it's the handles need to store a magazine but I never seem to have problems reaching the trigger on revolvers. CZ's DA does seem longer than most, I've shot the P226 and FNX tactical and I have an easier time getting to either of those than the S2. The S2 also has a lot of "meat" in the grip it wouldn't need and could help reduce the reach to the trigger, but most people seem to prefer the large grip. Having medium size hands but stubby fingers honestly I just avoid DA guns as a rule, in fact I avoided the S2 for a long time until I ran across the RRK. I can run the Shadow 2 with the RRK and it's much better than without it, but it's still not the level of trigger control I'd like. FNX Tactical is the same, I can run it, but not as well as I'd like so I've never bought one. The reality is people like us are the minority and most gun makers won't design guns that fit us, versus the average. As a result I typically just stay with SA and Striker fired guns.

Yeah I did hear back from JP, the picture on the top is their bead blast "tactical" finish, it's only listed in the Rifle Builder or by request, it's not in the normal barrels purchasing area as a finish option, and it's $100 up charge. JP did not have a picture of the machine finish off hand, they said most of their rifles and kit barrels are either high polish or light polish finish, the high polish being pretty darn shiny. I have a 18" supermatch barrel and it must be the light polished version. They did say the machine finished barrels have no clean up done to them and can be pretty rough showing a lot of machine marks and inconsistency in finish from shiny to dull.

It appears to be one of their finish/color options for their barrels. They offer "Machine Finish", Light Polished, High Polished, and Black Teflon. From what I gathered on their webpage their barrel kits and built guns come with High Polish Since Machine Finish appears to be their "standard" finish (others are all an upcharge) I figured it would be a popular option and someone would have a picture handy without bothering JP but I can send them an email.

Looked around the internet, forums, and JP's website with no luck, does anyone have a picture of what their standard "Machine Finish" actually looks like? There's a picture at: https://www.jprifles.com/buy.php?item=JPSM6.5C-22M8XL that shows one barrel that looks like a flat grey, almost a dark bead blasted finish, I'm wondering if it's that because that looks about exactly what I'd prefer. Thanks