G&R Tactical
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 78

Thread: Hilton Yam's first impressions of the STI Staccato P (video)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    And don't forget about the Staccato C. Oh man, now *that* could wrest my M&P Gen 2 out of my hands and get me back onto the sorta 1911 (2011) platform for defensive use. But usually a late adopter, more than happy to let others debug new things first.

    https://stiguns.com/product-lineup/staccato-c/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    CDA
    Posts
    4,069
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    I'd like to know what, if any, design or function difference this and the Wilson EDC9 besides almost a 1K difference.
    Someone here needs to take out a second mortgage and buy both, and give us a head to head comparison
    "There is a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs." -George R.R. Martin, A Storm of Swords

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    8,761
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    I won’t lie, I would like to own a Staccato just because.

    But the reality is, that gun will do the same as a G17 in the hands of 99% of shooters 100% of the time.



    Also, the irony.


    I still would like to have one.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Answer The Bell...” J.W.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    214
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I own both the P & C. The P with it's lack & recoil and excellent trigger is a dream to shoot. And the new mags work. I've got 6 of them and all have run flawlessly. And every single stack 9mm mag I've ran in my C, have also worked flawlessly. I actually had to get use to the lack of recoil, as all my other 1911's are in .45. And from someone who loves Glocks and been shooting them for almost 30 years, there's really no comparison with the P. IMO, the P is just in it's own world. But the P does cost 4 times as much.

    Check for an STI demo day near you and try these for yourself.

    https://stiguns.com/events/
    Last edited by Dump1567; 09-17-19 at 13:01.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
    And from someone who loves Glocks and been shooting them for almost 30 years, there's really no comparison with the P. IMO, the P is just in it's own world. But the P does cost 4 times as much.
    Since you've run both--what are your main reasons for preferring one of these (for defensive or service use) over a standard Glock? And, say you could run a tuned/accurized Glock, that has an improved trigger and barrel but is still reliable enough for service use. Would that change the equation, as far as your prefs are concerned?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    14,318
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WickedWillis View Post
    Someone here needs to take out a second mortgage and buy both, and give us a head to head comparison
    Or be Yam, LAV, etc who can get them for testing easily enough. I'm also still not "getting" all the interest in this gun where as Wilson had the SecOp9 years ago, and now the EDC9. The obvious differences being the price of course, but it's as if some acting like STI has finally broken the 1911 based double stack 9mm pistol that's reliable out of the box problem, and that's not the case at all. I posted here about the SpecOp9 when it came out, and people mostly pissed on it. While the STI is less $ to be sure, the "but I can buy 3 or more G17" comments don't seem to be happening where they did for the Wlison product.

    At around 2k, the STI is not exactly a bargain pistol either.

    At the moment, it seems more like STI has made a less expensive Wlison EDC9, and there's nothing wrong wit that at all, but that's all I'm seeing so far. From a CCW POV, Wilson appears the better choice where as the STI perhaps the better duty & competition choice.

    Anyway, a comparison vid I found:

    Last edited by WillBrink; 09-17-19 at 14:10.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    Performance/Fitness Advice For the Tactical Community

    www.OptimalSWAT.com


    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    214
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    For me it's trigger and ergonomics of the 2011 platform. First time I ever shot my P, I noticed I was a better shooter with it over any Glock I've shot. But my P is a bigger gun to carry & conceal. So at time I carry the Glock for size and weight.

    I would need to shoot any upgraded Glock and do a side by side comparison.

    But nothing I say matters. Everyone has to go out and shoot these side by side and make up their own mind.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    214
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    Or be Yam, LAV, etc who can get them for testing easily enough. I'm also still not "getting" all the interest in this gun where as Wilson had the SecOp9 years ago, and now the EDC9. The obvious differences being the price of course, but it's as if some acting like STI has finally broken the 1911 based double stack 9mm pistol that's reliable out of the box problem, and that's not the case at all. I posted here about the SpecOp9 when it came out, and people mostly pissed on it. While the STI is less $ to be sure, the "but I can buy 3 or more G17" comments don't seem to be happening where they did for the Wlison product.

    At around 2k, the STI is not exactly a bargain pistol either.

    At the moment, it seems more like STI has made a less expensive Wlison EDC9, and there's nothing wrong wit that at all, but that's all I'm seeing so far. From a CCW POV, Wilson appears the better choice;

    Anyway, a comparison vid I found:

    I think the better comparison would be with the similar sized STI DVC-C, but that's a $3000 gun. The P is more of a full size duty gun than a concealed carry gun. And there's talk that STI has kept the P's price down to compete in the LEO market (I got mine for $1800 OTD).

    I originally went to buy a DVC-C, but came home with the P. I just couldn't see where that extra $1200 was going. But I still want one.

    There's plenty of info. on STI guns on the 1911 Forum in the STI section. Including several shooting impressions from STI Demo Days. But these guns can get into the $4000 price range not counting optic.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    At the moment, it seems more like STI has made a less expensive Wlison EDC9, and there's nothing wrong wit that at all, but that's all I'm seeing so far. From a CCW POV, Wilson appears the better choice where as the STI perhaps the better duty & competition choice.
    Exactly. I raised this issue in the STI thread in the semiauto forum earlier. I'm very interested in the STI and would consider one, absolutely not dumping on them. But--aside from cost--I'm not seeing the advantage of the STI. If cost were no object, I'd choose the Wilson hands down. One good reason is that, in their modernization of the 1911 platform, they wisely eliminated the grip safety. If I were modernizing the 1911, some of the first things I'd do would be to make an integral plunger tube, improve on the internal extractor design and the whole 'extractor tensioning' thing that every 1911 shooter knows and loves, and eliminate the grip safety. Wilson did all those, and their design is extremely well thought out and endorsed by a lot of 1911 pros we'd respect--like LAV.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
    For me it's trigger and ergonomics of the 2011 platform. First time I ever shot my P, I noticed I was a better shooter with it over any Glock I've shot.
    Yep, I think that's it and the reason that I still even bother owning 1911's as well: because I shoot them better/more accurately than any plastic striker-fired pistol I've ever owned or tried, whether accurized or not (though admittedly I've never owned or tested an accurized Glock--which is why I wondered about that). I think that's the most common answer shooters give to the "Why would you run one of these vs say a Glock that is cheaper, equally reliable (if both are maintained well per platforms guidelines), and accurate enough for service/CCW use."

    If I didn't shoot my 1911's better, and also enjoy it more in the process, I wouldn't bother with the hassle/cost of setting them up and maintaining them. For me, 1911's are not mainly a nostalgia piece, they're a viable modern carry weapon. The only pistol that I could ever come close to my 1911 shooting performance, was CZ (the 75/85 platform, not the recent polymer designs). However that platform for me was less enjoyable to shoot, I definitely didn't like DA/SA or the specialized SA-only ones, and at least when I was still running some, they had a variety of reliability issues, like frequent broken trigger return springs and broken slide stops. In the end, CZ's are awesome and you can get them running reliably, but I still shoot 1911's more accurately and strongly prefer a tuned 1911 trigger to any CZ, whether stock or custom.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •