Sig p220 vs FNP 45

I am fairly new to the handgun world and have learned tons here already. I recently acquired a Kimber ultra raptor II via trade from someone who really wanted a Shield I happened upon. I don't shoot much and I feel like it is a waste to have this gun sitting around. I wouldn't mind having a .45 and have been offered a FNP .45 and a P220, both with similar amounts of cash in addition. Would love some thoughts on personal experiences and recommendations on all 3 guns.

 

GBP is a really big gun especially the grip. The 220 is kinda the opposite with a nice slim grip and is easily carried whereas the two is IMO only suited for nightstand and competition duty.

 

I'll start off by saying I'm not a fan of Kimber but I love 1911s. I've owned a few 220s and a FNP 45 Tactical. Make sure you shoot the FNP because they are big, I'm 6'6" and have large hands and that thing was big for me. I find a P220 is more ergonomic than the FN. I suggest you try to shoot each and them make your choice from there.

 

FN45....one of the few guns I find to be bulkier than a Glock 21

 

Take the 220. I've got both and the Sig is better by far!

 

Just don't think you can go wrong with a 220, IMO. The FNP is pretty massive.

 

I *loved* my Sig P220R when I had it. ONLY reason I sold it really is that I'm getting out of .45. If money was no object (or less of an object), I'd still own it. Best shootin' 45 I've ever had, including the few 1911's I've owned.

 

No experience with the FNP, other than holding it and it is big. I do have a P220R Carry (FS grip, sub 4" bbl), and it is one of the best .45s I've shot; especially for DA/SA w decocker. It is my nightstand gun with a TLR-1s, 10rd extended mag, and 2 8rd mags.

View attachment 47391

 

Thanks for the replies. Pretty unanimous for the Sig.

 

I also have the P220 Carry with the DAK and it's one of my favorite guns..

Sent from this using that...

 

P220 Handsdown.