Talk:SIG Sauer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I plan on citing the sources throughout this article to get rid of the flag. I will be using the sig website as my main source just to site everything. I also belive that the history part could be split into multiple sections. In my opinion I believe that there should a part dedicated to the history before Sig moved to the United States and a part dedicated to after their move. Some of my peers believe that the history section is kind of overwhelming with all the facts there so I think this could be solved with a split. My main goal however will still be to make the page better. I have added the logo to the page and wish to get rid of the flag and possibly make it easier for the reader to absorb the information.

Removed ref[edit]

Removed the reference to the P226 being adopted as the Mk24 Mod 0 as it appears incorrect. On the P226 page it notes that the 226 lost out to the 92F as the standard US military sidearm. Perhaps the poster was thinking of the Mk 23 Mod 0 (note that the mod denoted variants and 0 is simply the standard, Mk 23 is the name), which the US SOCOM does make use of. However that's an H&K gun, not a Sig one. --Sycraft

Bad Links[edit]

Most of the links to different types of guns have no article at the other end. I will allow a while for someone to put articles at this end, or they will be deleted.

thank you --Robin63 06:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


SIGARMS has recently changed their name. I suggest that this article be renamed to Sig Sauer, and have SIGARMS linked here. Sig.steve 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Deon Steyn 07:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Just finished switching all of the redirects to point here.--LWF 12:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED to SIG Sauer per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SIG SAUERSig SauerWP:MOSTM states that non-standard capitalizations (such as all caps) should be avoided, even if that's the company's name. —Sticky Light (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support since I see many examples of it written without all caps. Although "Sauer" is a name and should not be in all caps, SIG is an abbreviation and maybe should be? What about "SIG Sauer"? Definitely not all in caps though. Callmederek (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:MOSTM. And anyway, the articles for most of the products have "Sig Sauer", I think this article should maintain uniformity across the encyclopedia. Nburden (T) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support SIG Sauer, SIG is an acronym as mentioned by Lox.--LWF (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wow, nobody noticed that the new name is still breaking MOS? That was stealthy, GTBacchus! But now it should be renamed to Sig Sauer, as originally suggested and as prescribed by MOS. -- (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Got that wrong, it was discussed, sorry GTBacchus! Still breaks MOS and must be renamed. MOS explicitly mentions this case, so unless someone comes up with a reason to contradict MOS here, it has to go. -- (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated this page to reflect additional biographical information about the company's current president and CEO, Ron Cohen. Dream-king (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

outdated items[edit]

appears there are some out dated items out there that could be cleaned up. I wasn't able to access all of the resources, so haven't made any changes to those outdated items. --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC) ++


Most of the model numbers are incorrect[edit]

In this list the ONLY handgun made by SIG is the model P210. All the rest were designed and produced by Sig-Sauer. The P210 lacks the design and features imparted to the P220 series by Sig's partnership with J.P. Sauer and Sohn. Thge P210 was licensed from France in the 1940s and was based then on the French Petter-Browning locking mechanism.

The P220 series is a creation of Sig-Sauer and has an improved locking system, double action trigger and hammer decocking device that appear to have been from the Sauer 38H model. None of these features is on the P210. The P220 series also use the "automatic" firing pin block safety which was found on Walther and Sauer pistols in the 30s. The trigger pull of the P220 series is superior to that of the Walther which is considered the first truly commercially successful double/single action handgun.

Do not confuse SIG with Sig-Sauer, they are not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallymade (talkcontribs) 20:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of product listings that are not from Sig Sauer, Exeter, New Hampshire or Sig Sauer, Eckenrode, Germany Comment[edit]

The listing of subsidiary companies of L&O Holdings on this page is inappropriate. Each already has a page. The information here, is redundant.Digitallymade (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of promotional product listings[edit]

Listings of promotional products, not manufactured by Sig Sauer and sourced solely by advertisements and primary sources are promotional, and not in keeping with encyclopedic standards. Just because a company sells a t-shirt or mug with their logo does not make it "their" product. Additionally, please read WP:BRD - It was Boldly entered, and has been Reverted. Now is the time to Discuss - not to edit war over it. ScrpIronIV 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure of all the items, but the list was over-broad. "Gifts" is not a reasonable entry. Further, a link to a retailer, [1], without any indication of what's being referenced, is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I quite like the gifts and would appreciate knowing they are there. I particularly like the Mouse pads. Digitallymade (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Companies have their own websites for that sort of thing. A mouse pad isn't really encyclopedic, unless you have a neutral, reliable published source. - BilCat (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. We don't need Wikipedia for anything more than pointing us to the authoritative real source. Digitallymade (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines and policies. It is not a lot of things many people might think it is. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

which was, which was[edit]

there's triple "which was", and the sentence in general seems to be broken

 The Petter-Browning patent which was a refinement of the Browning Hi-Power (P35) which was John Moses Browning's last design which was created for, but not adopted, the French 1935 pistol.

--Richlv (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SIG Sauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)