Sphinx 3000 Tactical .45 cal $2350????????????????

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sphinx 3000 Tactical .45 cal $2350????????????????

Posted: 4/6/2006 7:06:40 PM EDT

Sphinx 3000 Tactical .45 cal
Does anyone have any information on this?
I know its a Swiss company yada yada,
I want to ask if its worth all those franklins$$

$2350.00
What makes it the cream of the crop?

Posted: 4/6/2006 7:47:55 PM EDT

[#1]

Jesus! $2300 for a CZ copy! That better come with a blow job and a laser beam to scratch you ass from space! But seriously, what does make it cost THAT MUCH?

Posted: 4/6/2006 7:50:07 PM EDT

[#2]

I'll pass.

Posted: 4/6/2006 8:17:49 PM EDT

[#3]

Something called "tactical" and costing $2300 should at least have a threaded barrel.

Posted: 4/6/2006 8:25:38 PM EDT

[#4]

Hmmm...

Maybe I'll trade my MK23 for it...

Posted: 4/6/2006 10:17:34 PM EDT

[#5]

Looks like a Glock got raped by a CZ. Proof positive that ugliness is hereditary.

Posted: 4/6/2006 11:02:01 PM EDT

[#6]

hmmm a new Ed Brown, MK23, or Sphinx? Who buys that?

Posted: 4/7/2006 12:56:45 AM EDT

[#7]

Never shot one, but I've heard they have a stellar reputation. I'm gonna take a guess and say that they're fitted well and made with high quality parts, which is exactly what you get with the highest quality semi-custom 1911s, and it's the same price, yet nobody is complaining about the tacticality of those. And it's Swiss, which, like you said, means something.

It may look like a CZ, but that doesn't mean it's a CZ.

Posted: 4/7/2006 2:39:02 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Never shot one, but I've heard they have a stellar reputation. I'm gonna take a guess and say that they're fitted well and made with high quality parts, which is exactly what you get with the highest quality semi-custom 1911s, and it's the same price, yet nobody is complaining about the tacticality of those. And it's Swiss, which, like you said, means something.

It may look like a CZ, but that doesn't mean it's a CZ.

Ditto. I would not spend $2300 on it brcause I will not spend that on any pistol but I would spend $2300 on that before I did on a plastic pistol or a custome 1911. It is modeled after a CZ just like you have $400 SA G.I.s and $2500 custom jobs.

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:08:04 AM EDT

[#9]

If you've never handled a Spinx you would not understand the price. They are extensively hand fitted.
They are glass smooth too. I have handled and shot the 9mm versions and they were superb. I like them more than my BHP's and that's not an easy accomplishment.
But, $2300 for a CZ copy does seem a little steep. I wonder how a CZ 97 with some smoothing out would compare?

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:15:14 AM EDT

[#10]

For $2300 I would rather have a Bren Ten. The Bren is a CZ75 copy, and is a collector's item.

Posted: 4/8/2006 11:27:29 AM EDT

[#11]

Where I to spend that kind of money on a non 1911 style pistol it would be for a brace of Sig P220R SAO.

Posted: 4/8/2006 2:05:07 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
If you've never handled a Spinx you would not understand the price. They are extensively hand fitted.
They are glass smooth too. I have handled and shot the 9mm versions and they were superb. I like them more than my BHP's and that's not an easy accomplishment.
But, $2300 for a CZ copy does seem a little steep. I wonder how a CZ 97 with some smoothing out would compare?

Well, CZ's are already well built enough that they, imho, do not need a bunch of tuning.

A trigger job would certainly help out, accuracy on the base models seems good enough. Maybe fit a match barrel if its that big of a deal.

As for having a smooth action...I could care less. I rack the slide exactly once every time I go shooting. And I could care less how it feels when I do it.

Posted: 4/8/2006 8:08:28 PM EDT

[#13]

So it's safe to say there's not that many Sphinx owners out there?
Where can a guy find "hands on" information about these pistols?
thanks

Posted: 4/9/2006 7:44:27 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Where I to spend that kind of money on a non 1911 style pistol it would be for a brace of Sig P220R SAO.

You could get 4.....

Posted: 4/9/2006 11:05:10 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If you've never handled a Spinx you would not understand the price. They are extensively hand fitted.
They are glass smooth too. I have handled and shot the 9mm versions and they were superb. I like them more than my BHP's and that's not an easy accomplishment.
But, $2300 for a CZ copy does seem a little steep. I wonder how a CZ 97 with some smoothing out would compare?

Well, CZ's are already well built enough that they, imho, do not need a bunch of tuning.

A trigger job would certainly help out, accuracy on the base models seems good enough. Maybe fit a match barrel if its that big of a deal.

As for having a smooth action...I could care less. I rack the slide exactly once every time I go shooting. And I could care less how it feels when I do it.

Most guns are built well enough and are fairly accurate. But, this is not a mass produced CZ. They are not made to be "good enough". I shoot box stock Brownings, Kimbers and Colts and also do not see the need for thousands of dollars in custom work. But, some people like high end weapons with all the hand fitting and custom touches. This Sphinx is for them.

Posted: 4/9/2006 11:36:58 AM EDT

[#16]

Yes, I know.

I guess I come from a different school of thought. If I am going to pay that much money for a handgun, I want it to be match accurate, dead nuts reliable and have the ability to change out parts without worrying about fittment issues. To me, THAT is whats worth money. And thats why the only handgun I have or will ever spend that much money on is a Mk23.

But obviously, thats just my opinion. As we all know, theres a market for a firearm like that, whihc is why people like Baer, Yost, etc are in business.

Posted: 4/9/2006 12:18:08 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Yes, I know.

I guess I come from a different school of thought. If I am going to pay that much money for a handgun, I want it to be match accurate, dead nuts reliable and have the ability to change out parts without worrying about fittment issues. To me, THAT is whats worth money. And thats why the only handgun I have or will ever spend that much money on is a Mk23.

But obviously, thats just my opinion. As we all know, theres a market for a firearm like that, whihc is why people like Baer, Yost, etc are in business.

I too would rather own a Mark 23 over any custom 1911 or jacked up CZ. The Mark 23 can do everything the other guns can and does not need be worked over my gunsmith and it can accept a suppressor.

Posted: 4/9/2006 3:37:52 PM EDT

[#18]

The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Posted: 4/9/2006 4:10:46 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Nor was it ever intended to be.

The kind of reliability, accuracy and longevity of the MK23 is frankly not needed for a CCW.

Posted: 4/9/2006 4:22:57 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Nor was it ever intended to be.

The kind of reliability, accuracy and longevity of the MK23 is frankly not needed for a CCW.

Under that reasoning, there's no reason to compare Mk 23s and Sphinx's except in monetary terms. And I would disagree that that kind of reliability, accuracy, and longevity isn't needed for CCW. I would think for a life-protecting weapon, you would want the best available of all those things. If your use for the Mk 23 isn't as a life-protecting CCW, then it's probably for fun or competition (assuming you are not a Navy SEAL). And I don't see how fun or competition use makes a Mk 23 superior to a Sphinx in a self-defense role, or any other $2500 gun in a self-defense role.

Posted: 4/9/2006 5:10:17 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Nor was it ever intended to be.

The kind of reliability, accuracy and longevity of the MK23 is frankly not needed for a CCW.

Under that reasoning, there's no reason to compare Mk 23s and Sphinx's except in monetary terms. And I would disagree that that kind of reliability, accuracy, and longevity isn't needed for CCW. I would think for a life-protecting weapon, you would want the best available of all those things. If your use for the Mk 23 isn't as a life-protecting CCW, then it's probably for fun or competition (assuming you are not a Navy SEAL). And I don't see how fun or competition use makes a Mk 23 superior to a Sphinx in a self-defense role, or any other $2500 gun in a self-defense role.

My point is...a 4 inch 1911 does not have the same reliability, accuracy, or longevity of a MK23, but it does the job just fine. A CCW needs to be reliable, of course. Accurate, sure, it helps. But do you need to be able to fire 5000 rounds through it before your next cleaning? Nope.

Theres more in life than just CCW, range use and competition. Its the other stuff that the MK23 was designed for.

I never said the sphinx wouldnt do the job. It puts .45 where you aim it. I just said, I wouldnt pay that much money for a hand fitted pistol. If I am paying that much, I don't want to have to deal with hand fitting each and every part.

And yes, a monetary comparison is completely relevant. I don't know too many people who would be want to CCW that firearm. It appears on the larger side anyways, imho, there are better options out there. But that, of course, doesn't say someone couldn't or wouldn't CCW it. Just an observation.

Either way, you're the one who brought up CCW, not me, or anyone else in this thread for that matter. So I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion, since I never even made that comparison to begin with.

Posted: 4/9/2006 6:23:27 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Nor was it ever intended to be.

The kind of reliability, accuracy and longevity of the MK23 is frankly not needed for a CCW.

Under that reasoning, there's no reason to compare Mk 23s and Sphinx's except in monetary terms. And I would disagree that that kind of reliability, accuracy, and longevity isn't needed for CCW. I would think for a life-protecting weapon, you would want the best available of all those things. If your use for the Mk 23 isn't as a life-protecting CCW, then it's probably for fun or competition (assuming you are not a Navy SEAL). And I don't see how fun or competition use makes a Mk 23 superior to a Sphinx in a self-defense role, or any other $2500 gun in a self-defense role.

My point is...a 4 inch 1911 does not have the same reliability, accuracy, or longevity of a MK23, but it does the job just fine. A CCW needs to be reliable, of course. Accurate, sure, it helps. But do you need to be able to fire 5000 rounds through it before your next cleaning? Nope.

Theres more in life than just CCW, range use and competition. Its the other stuff that the MK23 was designed for.

I never said the sphinx wouldnt do the job. It puts .45 where you aim it. I just said, I wouldnt pay that much money for a hand fitted pistol. If I am paying that much, I don't want to have to deal with hand fitting each and every part.

And yes, a monetary comparison is completely relevant. I don't know too many people who would be want to CCW that firearm. It appears on the larger side anyways, imho, there are better options out there. But that, of course, doesn't say someone couldn't or wouldn't CCW it. Just an observation.

Either way, you're the one who brought up CCW, not me, or anyone else in this thread for that matter. So I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion, since I never even made that comparison to begin with.

You said you would rather have the Mk. 23 than any handfitted pistol. I simply stated that there's not much use for it if you can't carry it, except in fun or competitive purposes. IMO, the inability to have it with you for defensive purposes erases its strengths as far as durability and reliability. On the other hand, it would make a great SHTF sidearm. Assuming the Sphinx/any handfitted gun and the Mk. 23 are in the same price range, that's why I felt the Sphinx/any handfitted gun would be a better buy than the Mk. 23 which you brought up. Anyway, I'll just agree to disagree here, and sorry for the thread jack.

Posted: 4/9/2006 11:57:13 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Nor was it ever intended to be.

The kind of reliability, accuracy and longevity of the MK23 is frankly not needed for a CCW.

Under that reasoning, there's no reason to compare Mk 23s and Sphinx's except in monetary terms. And I would disagree that that kind of reliability, accuracy, and longevity isn't needed for CCW. I would think for a life-protecting weapon, you would want the best available of all those things. If your use for the Mk 23 isn't as a life-protecting CCW, then it's probably for fun or competition (assuming you are not a Navy SEAL). And I don't see how fun or competition use makes a Mk 23 superior to a Sphinx in a self-defense role, or any other $2500 gun in a self-defense role.

My point is...a 4 inch 1911 does not have the same reliability, accuracy, or longevity of a MK23, but it does the job just fine. A CCW needs to be reliable, of course. Accurate, sure, it helps. But do you need to be able to fire 5000 rounds through it before your next cleaning? Nope.

Theres more in life than just CCW, range use and competition. Its the other stuff that the MK23 was designed for.

I never said the sphinx wouldnt do the job. It puts .45 where you aim it. I just said, I wouldnt pay that much money for a hand fitted pistol. If I am paying that much, I don't want to have to deal with hand fitting each and every part.

And yes, a monetary comparison is completely relevant. I don't know too many people who would be want to CCW that firearm. It appears on the larger side anyways, imho, there are better options out there. But that, of course, doesn't say someone couldn't or wouldn't CCW it. Just an observation.

Either way, you're the one who brought up CCW, not me, or anyone else in this thread for that matter. So I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion, since I never even made that comparison to begin with.

You said you would rather have the Mk. 23 than any handfitted pistol. I simply stated that there's not much use for it if you can't carry it, except in fun or competitive purposes. IMO, the inability to have it with you for defensive purposes erases its strengths as far as durability and reliability. On the other hand, it would make a great SHTF sidearm. Assuming the Sphinx/any handfitted gun and the Mk. 23 are in the same price range, that's why I felt the Sphinx/any handfitted gun would be a better buy than the Mk. 23 which you brought up. Anyway, I'll just agree to disagree here, and sorry for the thread jack.

Well, I live in IL so CCW is a non issue anyhow, which is why I tend not to worry about it.

The MK23 is ideal for anything but CCW. Which happens to cover every other kind of shooting I might do. There are certainly better choices for CCW than a MK23. I'm sure the sphinx would do the job, and do it quite well. I'd personally go with something like a P2000, or a production Kimber 1911.

Posted: 4/10/2006 1:25:14 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Mark 23 isn't exactly practical for everyday CCW.

Nor was it ever intended to be.

The kind of reliability, accuracy and longevity of the MK23 is frankly not needed for a CCW.

Under that reasoning, there's no reason to compare Mk 23s and Sphinx's except in monetary terms. And I would disagree that that kind of reliability, accuracy, and longevity isn't needed for CCW. I would think for a life-protecting weapon, you would want the best available of all those things. If your use for the Mk 23 isn't as a life-protecting CCW, then it's probably for fun or competition (assuming you are not a Navy SEAL). And I don't see how fun or competition use makes a Mk 23 superior to a Sphinx in a self-defense role, or any other $2500 gun in a self-defense role.

My point is...a 4 inch 1911 does not have the same reliability, accuracy, or longevity of a MK23, but it does the job just fine. A CCW needs to be reliable, of course. Accurate, sure, it helps. But do you need to be able to fire 5000 rounds through it before your next cleaning? Nope.

Theres more in life than just CCW, range use and competition. Its the other stuff that the MK23 was designed for.

I never said the sphinx wouldnt do the job. It puts .45 where you aim it. I just said, I wouldnt pay that much money for a hand fitted pistol. If I am paying that much, I don't want to have to deal with hand fitting each and every part.

And yes, a monetary comparison is completely relevant. I don't know too many people who would be want to CCW that firearm. It appears on the larger side anyways, imho, there are better options out there. But that, of course, doesn't say someone couldn't or wouldn't CCW it. Just an observation.

Either way, you're the one who brought up CCW, not me, or anyone else in this thread for that matter. So I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion, since I never even made that comparison to begin with.

You said you would rather have the Mk. 23 than any handfitted pistol. I simply stated that there's not much use for it if you can't carry it, except in fun or competitive purposes. IMO, the inability to have it with you for defensive purposes erases its strengths as far as durability and reliability. On the other hand, it would make a great SHTF sidearm. Assuming the Sphinx/any handfitted gun and the Mk. 23 are in the same price range, that's why I felt the Sphinx/any handfitted gun would be a better buy than the Mk. 23 which you brought up. Anyway, I'll just agree to disagree here, and sorry for the thread jack.

Well, I live in IL so CCW is a non issue anyhow, which is why I tend not to worry about it.

The MK23 is ideal for anything but CCW. Which happens to cover every other kind of shooting I might do. There are certainly better choices for CCW than a MK23. I'm sure the sphinx would do the job, and do it quite well. I'd personally go with something like a P2000, or a production Kimber 1911.

Good point. CCW is sort of an iffy thing here, too. I wasn't trying to slam your gun, in fact it's something I've dreamt of owning myself (it's not Cali-legal because of the threaded barrel), I was just trying to stick up for Sphinx's and other fancy schmancy guns. My uncle owns three but I've unfortunately never got a chance to try shooting them.

Posted: 4/10/2006 7:55:13 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

The MK23 is ideal for anything but CCW. Which happens to cover every other kind of shooting I might do. There are certainly better choices for CCW than a MK23.

True, same size and match accuracy:

(special thanks to Rose)

Posted: 4/10/2006 9:28:09 AM EDT

[#26]

So if I got a real good deal on one, say 1/2 price, Would it be hard to turn down?

The Kimber CDP II is around $12~1300 OTD.
OR I put another $4~500 boot for the Sphinx.

The purpose of either will be CCW although neither will be carry on the hip.
Just to have with me in car.
Or just to own a REALLY nice weapon

Posted: 4/10/2006 12:53:00 PM EDT

[#27]

Definitely get it. They're extremely high quality guns, and unique.

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:48:08 PM EDT

[#28]

Is it worth it to me? No. I can't see paying that much for any pistol though. If I just wanted something to brag about there are plenty of pretty LTW 1911s I would buy before Herman Munster's gun (and at that price you better believe looks come into play), but I'm not that type of guy. There are many very reliable defensive pistols for <$700 so, to me, that price is far over the top- especially for a butt-ugly contraption like that.

One man's opinion.
Cheers

Posted: 4/10/2006 5:52:55 PM EDT

[#29]

Thanks for all the info
I've held one and agreed its not as pretty as a Kimber, BUT it IS a good looking gun up close.
I will post the pic if I decide to invest in one.
thanks

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sphinx 3000 Tactical .45 cal $2350????????????????

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us