Glock vs. Sig

M

mwerner

Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Messages
5,354
Likely a discussion that's been done to death...

Our department has been issuing the Glock M23 (.40 S&W) for years now. At least 15. It was the weapon that we used to transition from revolvers back then.
To date, the Glocks have been remarkably reliable; I'm not familiar with a single failure or malfunction ever occurring.

However, the armorer we hired from another department has never been fond of the Glock, for reasons he has never specified. For some time, he's been pushing for a replacement weapon, and it appears he may be getting his way.
The department is seriously considering dropping about $15,000 for SIGs. (presumably the 226)
By all accounts, a fine pistol as well. However, I don't see any great (or any...) advantage.

The Glock is superbly reliable, utterly simple to use, and has more than enough accuracy for any combat situation.

The SIG, A drop-hammer-safety design, has a more complex "manual of arms" and has a grip design (like Glock!) that's loved by some and hated by others.
( I see Glock might be coming out with a changeable back-strap model this year)

From my experience shooting the M23 over the years, I don't think I could ask for a better combat pistol.
Opinions?
 
i have both and like glocks better, i dont think SIGs are as reliable as a glock, i know i have had issues with all 3 of my SIG's (P220, P225, P228)with certain ammo and i have never had a malfunction with any of my glocks (ie 19, 32C, 33, 26) with any ammo, SIGs are good accurate pistols though, and well made, i just think they are a bit more finicky about ammo vs the glocks which seem to work with anything,
 
Love my 226. More accurate, feels more solid, and fits in my hand better.

However, I'd probably give the edge in reliability to my Glock.
 
I don't think the grip angle is the same between the Glock and Sig. The Sig has a more traditional grip angle that you'll find on Beretta M9s, 1911s, and HK USPs. The Glock has a unique grip angle. I've not noticed any reliability problems out of either. The sig is going to be heavier since it's all metal unless you get one of the polymer framed sigs (which I never cared for and the grip feels funny to me on those). The biggest change will be the trigger. Sigs have a DA/SA trigger so your first shot is going to be a long heavy DA pull and then follow ups will be a shorter lighter SA trigger. I don't care for either as I've found the reset on the Sig to be too long. Never shot one of their SAO guns... those might be better, but the SAS, DAK, and standard trigger have too long a reset for my taste. I prefer Glocks because they can be tweeked to have a reset of about 1/4 to 1/8th of an inch. The Sig is going to have a much longer reset. You guys are gonna have to do a lot of training to get used to the new trigger system. I have no idea if this is true but a dealer I speak to often told me that Sigs quality has gone a little down hill in the last few years. Can't say if this is so. But it wasn't the type of discussion where I was considering buying one and he was trying to talk me out of it. It was just a random discussion about guns in general. And I trust his opinion as he's very knowledgable about guns.
 
mwerner said:
I'm not familiar with a single failure or malfunction ever occurring.
Click to expand...

I got me feet wet on Glocks, and now own 11 of them. I tend to accumulate things I like.

Also have 2 Sigs. The Sig is a fine gun, but it never quiet did it for me. Perhaps if I had started out with Sig, I'd own a bunch of them and only a couple of Glocks.

But for me, the Glock is a superior carry gun because it is highly reliable (the most important trait of a defensive gun), has few moving parts (contributing to its reliability), can be field stripped in 4 seconds and detail stripped in a couple of minutes, and is my preferred double action only - at least Glock's version of DAO. Plus, it has no external safety, hammer dropper or other switches or gizmos for you to fiddle with while someone is shooting at you.

Not much to dislike about the Glock.

I guess I'm wondering why an armorer would have any influence on the decision, unless he is carrying the gun.

:thumbup:
 
powernoodle said:
Not much to dislike about the Glock.

I guess I'm wondering why an armorer would have any influence on the decision, unless he is carrying the gun.

:thumbup:
Click to expand...


That was my thought, too... However, according to a guy in ICE out here in Seattle, they are also transitioning from Glock to SIG... If I was inclined to go for conspiracy theories, this coincidence may get my antennae up and wondering... :confused: :o

Okay, I do believe in some conspiracy theories... :D

But I still prefer my Glocks in .40 short and wimpy for daily carry... :thumbup:
 
I've shot a Glock 17, Glock 19 and what ever version of the 19 that comes in .40 S&W. The 17 and 19 were pretty good. I've also shot the SIG P226 9mm and own and shoot a P225 9mm. I personally would go with a SIG over the Glock only because I like the handle better on the SIG. Both IMO are great guns.

I see no reason for a department to change out guns if they are all working well. Then again, if you go to SIG pistols let me know how I can get my hands on one of your Surplus pistols.

Heber
 
My department carries the Glock model 22 40 caliber. We have had no issues with Glocks. My personal off duty carry gun is a Glock 22. I am an armorer and love the simplicity of them. I own lots of handguns and my Glock's are my go to carry guns!

Mike
 
I ran the revolver to Glock transition course for my PD years ago. The Glock was the perfect gun for that sort of move. Both are great guns that will work pretty much flawlessly if properly mainaned. I'd give the edge to Glock for the poor to average shooter (most cops, unfortunately).
I know Glock is big on swapping new Glocks (and sometimes holsters) for used whatever you have now. Tell them you're thinking about going Sig, you can probably get some G-22's or G-23's for free. Management has a hard time turning down "free".
 
I started with Sigs -226,232 and 229, the latter being my favorite all time pistol until I got a 27, 19, and 26. I like each better than my favorite SIG for SD because of the reliability (I shoot the cheapest ammo I can find ands SIG either doesn't like it or its springs have weakened with age).

Sigs are more fun to shoot at the television however.
 
Shot the SIG 229 and 239 for what seems like forever, but is probably closer to a decade without a single problem of any sort. I like the weight of them (vs. the Glock) and I shoot them better, which is a personal thing. I also had nothing but good experiences in my dealings with the company. On the other hand, my wife loves her Glock 19 and I shoot that quite a bit too. My gun dealer says he'd shoot SIGS if it wasn't for Glocks. The best handgunner I know says the exact opposite.

Both are fine, reliable guns and I never found the SIG manual of arms complex, but that's probably about reps. I think you're dealing with a strong personal preference relating to the armorer. Now I think everything I said above is pretty objective...but if I had my choice, which is purely personal and based on more experience with the SIGS than the Glocks, it would be a no brainer for me to pick a SIG. However, like your armorer, if you pushed me I wouldn't have a specific answer. Could be like blondes or brunettes!
 
Last edited:
It's a bit of a mystery to me... Some older coppers (hehe-this guy is my age...) still have a thing about "plastic pistols".
I have no such prejudice; especially for a duty gun. Don't really care about aesthetics if it works, and the Glock seems to work superbly...
 
mwerner said:
It's a bit of a mystery to me... Some older coppers (hehe-this guy is my age...) still have a thing about "plastic pistols".
I have no such prejudice; especially for a duty gun. Don't really care about aesthetics if it works, and the Glock seems to work superbly...
Click to expand...

How much extra weight does your department want on your belt everyday? What is driving the expense?

Some Police and Fire departments are controlled by things outside of actual function and cost. Rumor and personal preference can result in costly changes for better or worse.

From a legal liability standpoint, a lot of desk bound bureaucrats will use the double action of the Sig over the "Safe" action of the Glock to justify a personal preference for the Sig. Sigs are sexy, Glocks are not. ;)

Firearms have a lot of non-functional issues related to them in most cities.
 
Difficult to say here in the "campus" environment. We understand there are administrators (few any more...) who wonder why we should be armed at all....

For the most part, the folks who run the place seem to be clueless about what we do, and content only that we do it without undue negative publicity.
 
Have owned and used both and would also give the nod to the Glock.

Aside from the brand difference, why would anyone switch from a .40 down to a 9mm for duty use???
 
Stimulus money to spend?

Mod 66 in your area in the late 70's[SLCPD].

My FL LE SIL likes her Glock.

I've haven't shot either one. It is curious though about this being an armorer's decision - what no task force and/or study group and/or union inputs?
 
Last edited:
Have owned and shot the G17 and g19 for close to 30 years now, will be getting a G20 very soon.
I've fired a 226 extensively, and didn't like it. Could well be because I am so used to Glocks, but the grip was too big for me, didn't like the battery of arms (you cannot beat a Glock for simplicity) and it was just heavier, and I don't see the point of the extra weight when there is no advantage, nothing extra.
Even when comparing them on an even level the Glock wins out for me, but add the pricing to that, and what are we talking about?? In Holland at least, SIGs are double the price of a Glock! And parts and add-ons are even worse for SIG.

Glock is cheap, as in inexpensive. They are the Subaru of guns. That seems to me to be the main reason quite a few people don't like them. Me, I like inexpensive things that are utterly reliable and effective. Subarus, Glocks... :D
 
I have owned and shot both,I prefer and still have the Sig 220.The Glock I had was the 17.
 
philwar said:
Have owned and shot the G17 and g19 for close to 30 years now, will be getting a G20 very soon.
I've fired a 226 extensively, and didn't like it. Could well be because I am so used to Glocks, but the grip was too big for me, didn't like the battery of arms (you cannot beat a Glock for simplicity) and it was just heavier, and I don't see the point of the extra weight when there is no advantage, nothing extra.
Even when comparing them on an even level the Glock wins out for me, but add the pricing to that, and what are we talking about?? In Holland at least, SIGs are double the price of a Glock! And parts and add-ons are even worse for SIG.

Glock is cheap, as in inexpensive. They are the Subaru of guns. That seems to me to be the main reason quite a few people don't like them. Me, I like inexpensive things that are utterly reliable and effective. Subarus, Glocks... :D
Click to expand...

Your thoughts are well aligned with mine. I'm a Glock'aholic by most definitions and like you, shoot the Glock best. I like the Sigs though and find the grip to fit my hand very well. The Glocks shift a little more in my hot sweaty hands during Summer then I like. With 20+ years of practice, I'm sure I could learn to shoot the Sig as well as my Glock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top