quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by ruger357:
I understand that the current production 365s are ok but I still don't trust it yet,

I did near from an insider that the Springfield has been very reliable in testing so far.

So, let's see- you're ready to accept this nifty new and untried pistol over one of the hottest selling pocket pistols of the last decade which is in the hands of thousands upon thousand of shooters, and all because you heard from a "Springfield insider" that their new and untried pistol is "very reliable in testing so far".

Would you care to explain the logic of this to me? I just don't get this. You can find page after page of real-world testing and performance reviews of the P365, but you're ready to go with the neato new kid on the block that you've never even handled, much less shot, because it might turn out to be "better". Just how exactly would you make this comparison? How long do you think this new pistol might have to be out before the amount of information available about it is comparable to the information currently available about real-world testing of the P365?

Never said I was ready to accept the new pistol either. I said so far it's proving to be reliable. If I've learned anything, it's never jump on a new pistol until all of the beta testers have discovered all of the fleas.

Yeah, any new product starts a 6-12mo clock on potential purchase for me.

The P365 has gone through it's teething problems, and, by all accounts, has come out the other side, and now seems (by reports) pretty reliable. The Hellcat has no track record yet.

When the P365 first came out, I said (and was FAR from alone in saying this) that anyone who wants one should wait 6-12 months and see what it's track record was. As it turns out, that was the right call. If you bought early, you may very well have had issues to deal with. If you bought one a year into production, you'd have likely been fine. I'm saying the same thing about the Hellcat.

quote:

Originally posted by RH45:
I keep wanting to buy a 365, but, I'm having a hard time justifying it.
It's a little larger than my Kimber Solo, but, smaller than my M7P compact.
Now, Springfield comes along with the Hellcat.
I've never warmed up to Springers, but, for a production gun, every Sig I've ever shot has been accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Unless one magazine is a duplicate of the other and they're so close that they're interchangeable, it would seem to be a pointless discussion about the irrelevant.

I think you're on the right track. Ever since the P365 was released, I read blurbs about how its magazine had three patents. I could only find one, and it's a Design patent (note: clicking on 'Images' in the links below will take you to the complete patent document).
D858,680 for "Pistol magazine"

I did find another Design patent for the P365.
D854,642 for "Semiautomatic handgun"

And a Utility patent for its trigger.
10,337,817 for "Firearm trigger assembly"

Design patents are easier to obtain, because they more or less only cover the look of something. Utility patents are more in-depth and cover how something works. I think Sig would have an uphill battle trying to argue that a competitor's magazine, such as the Hellcat's, is so close to the P365's that a reasonable person would have trouble telling them apart.

quote:

Patent infringement is an issue for the manufacturers, but nothing has been provided which suggests it's at all an issue here. At the purchaser end, the only real concern is whether the pistol works.

I've seen successful patent infringement cases where the losing party is sued, fined, and has to remove its copycat product from market.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe at the present time that there is any concern regarding patent infringement?

Has there been any insinuation (other than this thread), legal filing, argument, or complaint?

It seems that all the talk here is little more than wild speculation, with zero substance. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

As a potential buyer, I wouldn't care so much. Even if it's real, it's an issue between the two companies.

Who gives a crap about patents? Has no impact on us.

Buying from a company that undermines gunowners and LGSs? That’s more of a concern. Can’t believe everyone here is so quick to forget. Of course, I thought SA, Inc was a POS company before their political debacle.

I'm with BuddyChryst, but I'm also kind curious to see whether the difference between a 10-round flush fitting magazine and an 11-round flush fitting magazine really makes all that much difference to anyone. Aren't both companies offering larger-capacity magazines for their respective pistols anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I'm with BuddyChryst, but I'm also kind curious to see whether the difference between a 10-round flush fitting magazine and an 11-round flush fitting magazine really makes all that much difference to anyone. Aren't both companies offering larger-capacity magazines for their respective pistols anyway?

In many ways this reminds me of the debate between the original P228 and the Glock 19. I think this will come down to personal preference.

I'll just say that I don't trust SA, Inc for shit. I won't go into the details, but I've felt this for a long time. I own a couple of vintage M1As from the early 1980s but there's about zero chance that I'll buy another of their products.

I take some interest in patents. How does it affect us? E.g., when the patent for a pharmaceutical you need expires, and you can then buy the generic version of it for 15% of its name brand version, then it might matter to you. Anyone else here remember when Claritin was a $1 per pill?

The P365 was an industry game-changer. When it was introduced, SF members were posting, "How long will it take Glock, et al. to reverse engineer it and put out something similar."

The purpose of a patent is so that if your competition reverse engineers and copies your product, then you have some legal and financial recourse against them. On one hand, critics will argue that stifles competition. On the other hand, if you invent a better lightbulb or better mousetrap, why shouldn't you be able to profit it off it and charge others to use your design?

Sig marketing said the P365 was protected by patents. Initially I suspected their patents would prevent similar 1.5 stack, 10+ rd micro-compacts from entering the market. From the approved patents I could find, that doesn't seem to be the case. If anything, I'm surprised it has taken this long for another manufacturer to put out a serious competitor. Perhaps we can expect more P365-class pistols in the near future.

I agree, I don’t give a shit what Springfield comes out with. Never again.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
Who gives a crap about patents? Has no impact on us.

Buying from a company that undermines gunowners and LGSs? That’s more of a concern. Can’t believe everyone here is so quick to forget. Of course, I thought SA, Inc was a POS company before their political debacle.

I've carried an XDS for the last 5 years, and while this looks like a nice pistol, I'm disappointed in the lack of grip safety. I do like the sight picture though

Why would it need a grip safety? If you carry the pistol as it should be carried- in a holster which covers the trigger guard, what purpose would a grip safety serve?

Its a safety measure I appreciate, requires no extra training to use

The only "extra training" required is the standard universal practice of keeping one's finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

A grip safety does not mitigate that.

Before I get into this, I'll say I prefer an active manual safety to the grip safety. Having said that, do you really think the ole' "keep the booger hook off the bang switch" concept provides enough safety? I've seen situations where it didn't.

One thing I like about the P365 is that it offers a manual safety.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
The only "extra training" required is the standard universal practice of keeping one's finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

A grip safety does not mitigate that.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Having said that, do you really think the ole' "keep the booger hook off the bang switch" concept provides enough safety? I've seen situations where it didn't.

Do I think that proper handling is safe? Yes.

If one doesn't handle the firearm properly, then no amount of manual safety will compensate.

On a concealed carry pistol, I prefer no external safety. It's a feature I appreciate about the P365, G43, etc.

I'll carry the G43 or the P365 all day long in a pocket holster without concern, and I do.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Having said that, do you really think the ole' "keep the booger hook off the bang switch" concept provides enough safety? I've seen situations where it didn't.

Do I think that proper handling is safe? Yes.

If one doesn't handle the firearm properly, then no amount of manual safety will compensate.

On a concealed carry pistol, I prefer no external safety. It's a feature I appreciate about the P365, G43, etc.

I'll carry the G43 or the P365 all day long in a pocket holster without concern, and I do.

I agree.
Under stress, a manual safety is just one more thing that you might forget to disengage.

I think it really comes down to the training you do. With a 1911, for example, my thumb goes to the safety and it's as natural as breathing to engage and disengage the safety.

When I carried a Beretta, it wasn't even a second thought to bring the safety off, or to decock.

There are police officers alive who survived a "gun grab" because the offender couldn't figure out how to get the safety off. There are legitimate applications, and one of them is institutional use, especially among a wide spectrum of experience.

If someone is up to snuff and training, a "cocked and locked" pistol that's ready to go, out of the holster, makes sense and can absolutely be carried and used safetly, and effectively.

A pistol such as a P320 is cocked and unlocked, and can also be carried safely and effectively. In a weapons retention emergency, when someone else is taking control of that firearm, however, there are no barriers to the weapon being used against an officer or private citizen, or against fat fingering, objects in the holster during re-holstering, etc, and so on.

Some feel more comfortable with a manual safety.

A LOT of Glocks are carried. The Glock is "half-cocked. No manual safety, unless one is the e xtreme rare minority going in for the cominolli aftermarket safety.

It might be argued that a manual safety is more useful if one isn't going to train, excepting cases where firearm retention is the issue. For the typical concealed carry holder, a "gun grab" isn't really relevant; the weapon is hidden and thus unknown. The one exception might be losing the weapon during a physical struggle. Otherwise, if the pistol is out during a confrontation, the safety should already be off, and if one loses physical control at that point, the safety is irrelevant. Thus it comes back to handling, which comes back to training.

I have actually seen pistols in which the sear could be released, but the hammer not drop due to the safety; snicking off the safety would allow the hammer to drop or follow, with the potential of discharging the firearm. I had a Star Firestar that did just that.