Sig Sauer P225

[Boondock Saint]

there are a few that show up on CGN on occasion fitted with a longer barrel. As I recall the 225 is a shortened Sig 220 in 9mm. You could keep your eye open for a ex-German Sig 220 in 9mm but it will have the heel release. The 220 in .45acp is single stacked as well and has the side mag release. The Norinco NP-34 is a direct copy (except for lock block) of the Sig 228, or you could buy the 229. If you are on a budget and don't want the Norinco, seriously consider the Sig 2022 in 9mm. Try to fondle the guns before buying as each gun will fit your hand differently.

Not sure if I would opt for 9mm, I'll stay with the acp, I'm used to the load. Fondle ur gun....like that!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

SFRC has ex-armorer 226's from time to time. When they go onsale they can be an extra %25 off. Theyre like new, but covered with scratches from people taking them apart repeatedly. I picked up a DAK with night sights for under $500. Ordered a can of Duracoat from Beetle Outdoor Supply for $45 and now it looks like new. Id avoid the Norc unless you can get a known good used one from somebody at your club; which will only set you back $200 or so.

Actually you be better off to buy a new Nork as the quality has improved (each generation is better than the next) and they fixed the rail cracking issue with the winged locking block. The frame rail issue is basically the same issue as the real Sig, but it happens earlier. I suspect the early Norks will also suffer the RH hole elongation issue as they use the early Sig spring design as well.

Since this shooter appears to be on a tight budget, there is no way he will shoot enough to wear out the Norinco gun anytime soon. You have to look at the whole budget, gun, accessories, cartridge costs, membership costs, storage.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is a 9mm 220 for sale on CGN for $850, this has the European style heel release

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1127705-SIG-P220-9mm

 

[TimneyTime]

You technically could get a Delorean, a mad scientist and a well placed lighting bolt to go back in time... or possibly forward in time if the new common sense law changes our system... but your safer gamble is back in time.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm

You can buy a Sig P225-A1 from Firearms Outlet Canada, and have it shipped right to your house.  PMQ and any military style barracks/shacks etc might be a bit difficult about this, check with them first.  But, if you're living civvie side, and have an RPAL, you can buy one no problem.  The P225 is NOT a prohibited firearm.  It is restricted.

Finding a place to shoot it can be painful depending on where you live.  You can't just beetle around in the woods with it, or even in your back yard, for that matter.  You must follow a specific path to and from an approved range, and must inform the RCMP when you move (this can be extremely painful for military members).

IMO the Military should be a little more permissive about this sort of thing, since troops who are avid sports shooters could easily transfer the skill to the military.  I have made marked improvements with my marksmanship, just by going to the range a few times a month on my own dime, with my own firearm.

My personal experience in the military is that people look at you like you're growing snakes out of your eyeballs when you start talking positively about personal firearms use.

PS I'm not suggesting people should be cavalier about it.

 

[RocketRichard]

You can buy a Sig P225-A1 from Firearms Outlet Canada, and have it shipped right to your house.  PMQ and any military style barracks/shacks etc might be a bit difficult about this, check with them first.  But, if you're living civvie side, and have an RPAL, you can buy one no problem.  The P225 is NOT a prohibited firearm.  It is restricted.

Finding a place to shoot it can be painful depending on where you live.  You can't just beetle around in the woods with it, or even in your back yard, for that matter.  You must follow a specific path to and from an approved range, and must inform the RCMP when you move (this can be extremely painful for military members).

IMO the Military should be a little more permissive about this sort of thing, since troops who are avid sports shooters could easily transfer the skill to the military.  I have made marked improvements with my marksmanship, just by going to the range a few times a month on my own dime, with my own firearm.

My personal experience in the military is that people look at you like you're growing snakes out of your eyeballs when you start talking positively about personal firearms use.

PS I'm not suggesting people should be cavalier about it.

This. Last time I shot the service pistol it was abysmal. Once domestic niner gives approval will ‘pull trigger’ on buying a pistol so I can practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JesseWZ]

IMO the Military should be a little more permissive about this sort of thing, since troops who are avid sports shooters could easily transfer the skill to the military.  I have made marked improvements with my marksmanship, just by going to the range a few times a month on my own dime, with my own firearm.

Not to sound combative, but what would you suggest the military do about gun legislation? What permission does the military have the authority to grant?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not to sound combative, but what would you suggest the military do about gun legislation? What permission does the military have the authority to grant?

Maybe soldiers pay for their personal firearms and allow them to bring them home 

 

[QV]

Not to sound combative, but what would you suggest the military do about gun legislation? What permission does the military have the authority to grant?

How about authorize soldiers to sign out their service weapon to take to a private range for marksmanship practice.  Members of the CAF are considered Public Officers and are exempt the normal firearms laws for the purpose of their duty or employment.   

 

[RocketRichard]

How about authorize soldiers to sign out their service weapon to take to a private range for marksmanship practice.  Members of the CAF are considered Public Officers and are exempt the normal firearms laws for the purpose of their duty or employment. 

That would be awesome and save members cash and much hassle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TimneyTime]

Not to sound combative, but what would you suggest the military do about gun legislation? What permission does the military have the authority to grant?

I was definitely not suggesting the military change government legislation...

I was suggesting that the military be more permissive in terms of it's attitude towards storing firearms in Qs. I have heard no end of stories about members moving around and then not being able to store firearms where they move to, so they have to sell them.  Also, I've heard of extra visits to Qs where firearms are stored, for no other reason than firearms are stored there.

Basically, harassing firearms owners simply because they own firearms, and treating them like criminals.  Firearms owners are not criminals by default...  That's what I was talking about.

 

[TimneyTime]

How about authorize soldiers to sign out their service weapon to take to a private range for marksmanship practice.  Members of the CAF are considered Public Officers and are exempt the normal firearms laws for the purpose of their duty or employment. 

Also, this is an awesome idea.  Especially if members already have an RPAL, and have at least passed their PWT1.

 

[QV]

Also, this is an awesome idea.  Especially if members already have an RPAL, and have at least passed their PWT1.

CAF members do not need an RPAL now, and you wouldn't in my suggestion either. Don't complicate this. Just being a qualified soldier should be the criteria as you are trained on the weapon already. 

 

[JesseWZ]

Also, this is an awesome idea.  Especially if members already have an RPAL, and have at least passed their PWT1.

This should prove to be an interesting discussion topic. There are more than a few areas where significant changes would need to take place in both law and policy before this could become reality.

Who templates and certifies the private range for CF weapons? Does DND pay for that? What happens if there is an "incident?" Is the member on duty when they have their weapon system with them?

What about the ammunition used? Will it be stock #'d, tracked and accountable? If not, should we be using non CF ammunition for a CF weapon system?

In this scenario, we'd be completely re-writing how we do ammunition tracking...

What about storage? As it stands, the CF has pretty robust security policy for "personal weapons". Will they be allowed in members homes? Cars? Will transport to and from work be allowed? Pit or coffee stops?

Then questions come in about legal authority. While members of the CF may be Public Officers in some situations, what are the boundaries of that authorization? Who is going to be accountable to make firing a CF weapon at a private range part of "employment"...

I would wager taking a personal weapon system home to play with on a private range is going to fall outside of "duty". How far do we take this? Can an Inf Wpns Pl member lug their C6 to the range?

Personally, the quality of weapons handling I've seen in some persons on base security details would make me seriously reconsider allowing carte blanche troops to visit a private range with our weapons. Don't forget, absent LEOs and certain other "close with and destroy" type trades, most CF members handle their weapons a few times a year...

If the political will exists to re-write most of our security, ammunition and weapons policy, and the money exists for ammunition for target shooting, and range templating, and range renumeration, and... someone high and mighty enough is willing to take the risk and assume liability for all that this entails, then maybe this idea has traction.

 

[QV]

This should prove to be an interesting discussion topic. There are more than a few areas where significant changes would need to take place in both law and policy before this could become reality.

Who templates and certifies the private range for CF weapons? Does DND pay for that? What happens if there is an "incident?" Is the member on duty when they have their weapon system with them?
Ranges are already certified in the province they are located.  Training is considered on duty. Travel for training is also duty travel.
What about the ammunition used? Will it be stock #'d, tracked and accountable? If not, should we be using non CF ammunition for a CF weapon system?
CAF should supply the ammo.  We're talking about 9mm and 5.56. This is about personal weapon proficiency.  Not support weapons.
In this scenario, we'd be completely re-writing how we do ammunition tracking...
I'd suggest a lot could be re-done if you're talking policy...
What about storage? As it stands, the CF has pretty robust security policy for "personal weapons". Will they be allowed in members homes? Cars? Will transport to and from work be allowed? Pit or coffee stops?
Normal storage and transport requirements apply.  Easy peasy
Then questions come in about legal authority. While members of the CF may be Public Officers in some situations, what are the boundaries of that authorization? Who is going to be accountable to make firing a CF weapon at a private range part of "employment"...
Not "may"...they are.  The CF would authorize the training use.  The RCMP authorize their employees to take their service pistol to private ranges for training.  This is not abnormal.
I would wager taking a personal weapon system home to play with on a private range is going to fall outside of "duty". How far do we take this? Can an Inf Wpns Pl member lug their C6 to the range?
"Play with"... well when you put it that way... No but really, training is duty.  Have them sign it out in the am and return after shooting if you want to tighten up storage.
Personally, the quality of weapons handling I've seen in some persons on base security details would make me seriously reconsider allowing carte blanche troops to visit a private range with our weapons. Don't forget, absent LEOs and certain other "close with and destroy" type trades, most CF members handle their weapons a few times a year...
No worse than untrained civvies with ARs in some cases... .
If the political will exists to re-write most of our security, ammunition and weapons policy, and the money exists for ammunition for target shooting, and range templating, and range renumeration, and... someone high and mighty enough is willing to take the risk and assume liability for all that this entails, then maybe this idea has traction.

 
This doesn't have to be that hard... It would only be as hard as the CAF makes it...

 

[TimneyTime]

This should prove to be an interesting discussion topic. There are more than a few areas where significant changes would need to take place in both law and policy before this could become reality.

Who templates and certifies the private range for CF weapons? Does DND pay for that? What happens if there is an "incident?" Is the member on duty when they have their weapon system with them?

What about the ammunition used? Will it be stock #'d, tracked and accountable? If not, should we be using non CF ammunition for a CF weapon system?

In this scenario, we'd be completely re-writing how we do ammunition tracking...

What about storage? As it stands, the CF has pretty robust security policy for "personal weapons". Will they be allowed in members homes? Cars? Will transport to and from work be allowed? Pit or coffee stops?

Then questions come in about legal authority. While members of the CF may be Public Officers in some situations, what are the boundaries of that authorization? Who is going to be accountable to make firing a CF weapon at a private range part of "employment"...

I would wager taking a personal weapon system home to play with on a private range is going to fall outside of "duty". How far do we take this? Can an Inf Wpns Pl member lug their C6 to the range?

Personally, the quality of weapons handling I've seen in some persons on base security details would make me seriously reconsider allowing carte blanche troops to visit a private range with our weapons. Don't forget, absent LEOs and certain other "close with and destroy" type trades, most CF members handle their weapons a few times a year...

If the political will exists to re-write most of our security, ammunition and weapons policy, and the money exists for ammunition for target shooting, and range templating, and range renumeration, and... someone high and mighty enough is willing to take the risk and assume liability for all that this entails, then maybe this idea has traction.

5.56 is available for civilians... members could just buy their own ammo.

I think the idea for taking eg. a C7 would be to go to a military range and shoot it at a military range, with your own ammo.  I understand the concern about unapproved ammo, and you'll have to forgive my ignorance with the paperwork involved, but wouldn't it just be a few checks in boxes?

Canadian Forces, and the Firearms Act:

From the firearms act:

    3 (1) This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

    Marginal note:Canadian Forces

    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), this Act does not apply in respect of the Canadian Forces.

Even futher, with respect to storage and handling in SOR/98-209, section 2 says that the regulations in the Firearms Act do not apply to members of the Canadian Forces.

Application:

    2 (1) These Regulations do not apply to members of any of the following classes of persons who are acting in the course of their duties or for the purposes of their employment:

        (a) peace officers;

        (b) members of the Canadian Forces or of the armed forces of a state other than Canada who are attached or seconded to any of the Canadian Forces;

etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but I interpret this as; only subsection 1 applies to Canadian Forces members, meaning that regular criminal law applies to CF members, but not the firearms act itself.  Of course, a judge can decide whatever he wants in court, but that's how the language reads to me.  Meaning that a CF member can't just run down the street firing off rounds, yelling "ALL HAIL THE QUEEN!!!" or some such nonsense.

It's literally a catch all to actually allow Canadian Forces members to handle firearms while on duty.

This is why members are allowed to operate a myriad of prohibited firearms without having to have a license to do so, other than their CF ID card.

Further, the conditions on your RPAL actually already allow you to transport and operate restricted and prohibited firearms, as long as you have the conditions to do so... and you DON'T have to be a member of the CF, necessarily, to do so.  Such is especially the case with grandfathered prohibited firearms.  You can get this approval by requesting it from the CFO for your province, and it's not that much of a hassle, other than waiting a long time for the paperwork to get done, and for them to send you the papers that authorize you to do so.

I understand the dangers of certain military members with questionable common sense, which is a legitimate concern.  However, if they've passed their training, that should be the measure by which they are approved to have the privilege of extra time on the range.  Maybe if these types of members went to the range more than once a year, they wouldn't be bungling idiots with their weapons handling proficiency.  No offense to bungling idiots out there.

I disagree with allowing CF members taking CF weapons to private ranges, that would be asking for trouble.  But taking your own rifle or handgun to a CF range to shoot on your own time should not involve Civilian entities.  CF Members should be allowed to do this simply by driving to the range and checking in at the hut, as long as a range is available.  I know for a fact that our range is not in use, most of the time... it's just sitting there unused most of the time.

The big nail in the coffin is pretty much approval from higher authorities. Never going to happen, because they don't want to accept the responsibility, rightly so.  I wouldn't.  But I wish there was someone with big enough cahones to do it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

5.56 is available for civilians... members could just buy their own ammo.

That'll never work.
For starters members technically aren't allowed to even use aftermarket slings on their C7s - CAF issue only.

Members would run shitty surplus ammo or hot hand-loaded ammo, first gun that blows up would shut everything down.

I remember drawing C7s, bolts and mags to do BFT work up in the reserves.

Now for security we have to separate the rifle and the bolt (because you can'y buy a bolt for $99 without a license).

 

[TimneyTime]

That'll never work.
For starters members technically aren't allowed to even use aftermarket slings on their C7s - CAF issue only.

Members would run shitty surplus ammo or hot hand-loaded ammo, first gun that blows up would shut everything down.

I remember drawing C7s, bolts and mags to do BFT work up in the reserves.

Now for security we have to separate the rifle and the bolt (because you can'y buy a bolt for $99 without a license).

The sling stuff is minor.  I wouldn't mind following all those rules, if it meant that I could bring a C7 to the range to practice with on my own time.

It's not as if the CF is running American Eagle XM193 rounds through its rifles... I've literally had to pick out rounds with dents and other imperfections from cf ammunition.

I've seen rounds come apart due to the forces involved in just the bolt sliding, and all kinds of other crazy things that are already happening, all conveniently swept under the rug as "jams".  Which they are, technically.

I even remember one special guy that had an "incident" with a C6... won't get into details there either, but you can imagine.  Basically, yes, things happen with firearms.  They jam, they malfunction, they break apart.  Is that not something that is going to happen in battle? It's just a factor of dealing with firearms.  I don't agree with the sentiment that the forces shouldn't be doing things just because of what "might" happen.  If you're going to live like that, we might as well train troops not to get out of bed at all.

I also think that if a member is going to take the responsibility of going to the range and practicing in order to improve their marksmanship, THEY should be responsible if anything happens.  Basically, you want the privilege, you take the full responsibility of anything that happens while the firearm is under your care.  Don't want to accept it?  Don't take one out.  Simple as that.  The reward is better marksmanship.  It just makes sense in my mind.

Also, the rifles themselves could use some love, not going to get into the laundry list of problems there, because I don't want to come off as a complete you know what.  And as I said, all it would take is for the armory to approve the ammo the member was using... or... allow them to purchase rounds from the CF maybe?

CAF members do not need an RPAL now, and you wouldn't in my suggestion either. Don't complicate this. Just being a qualified soldier should be the criteria as you are trained on the weapon already. 

You're right, I was going with the most restrictive route, but I think that extra safety training with regards to transport and storage should be a factor there.  That's why I said RPAL, also I already have one, so it wouldn't matter to me.  ;D  but you're totally right, RPAL isn't really necessary at all to begin with.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Being in the army taught me 'How not to shoot a pistol", "How to shoot a rifle very well on a square range". Decent for the time SMG training. It also taught me that central storage is a incredibly bad idea.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Almost every armoury had it's own .22cal range in the day, when working Class B used to shoot on my lunch hour. I have a .22cal subcal for my AR, works great for drills and shooting out to 30m. If we eventually go G17, we should get the sub cal kits for those as well. Shooting used to be encouraged, with parades for the best shooters. Time to bring back that tradition. Every new Armoury must have a .22cal range.

 

[Old Sweat]

Our high school had a .22 range in the auditorium with individual traps that were hauled out and set up while we moved the chairs. I learned to shoot not too bad there, and it helped when I joined the army as I got crossed rifles first time out and added the crown on the second annual classification I fired before going on officer training.