Sure. Head over to glock talk and do a search. There are at least 3 threads on this specific issue and even the most diehard glock fans concede that the sig is a more accurate pistol.
If you don't like that then do some reading on average group size. The sigs are noticably smaller.
Again, physics don't change because something is coated in tennifer.
I don't want posts on a board that are opinion or subject to human error in shooting. Show me some iron clad proof. Listen, I'm no fan boy. I carry a glock but I think it's the ugliest pistol on the planet. But it works 99.999999999% of the time. Sigs jam a little too much for my taste (Although they rarely jam either) but the Glock has always IMHO seemed to be more reliable and I've never noticed an appreciable difference in their accuracy. That being said I'm not shooting at golf balls at 50 yards playing some game. I train for real life defensive situations. Fact is their both sloppy pistiols when you compare them to something like a hand fitted Ed Brown. And tight doesn't have to mean less reliable. My Ed Brown Special Forces has yet to jam on me in 1,000 rounds. That's not a lot but it's enough to substantiate the gun's reliable. The "Tightness" of a sig does not automatically mean accuracy. I've shot sigs that were very inconsistant groupers. Of course this means as much as your experience as it's subjective and anecdotal at best. Some may be better than others but their close toloerances don't always equal better accuracy. You can have a tight weapon that won't hit the broad side of a barn and if you deny this you're just being dishonest with yourself. My Ed Brown isn't as tight as MANY Kimbers I've picked up but I can promise you it's more reliable and probably more accurate in a static environment though I don't know if such information is available so it's all opinon. Like the company says "It doesn't have to be tight, it just has to be right".
I doubt that. There isn't a glock alive that can touch a 210.
So you believe so highly in your abilites that you're saying NO shooter with a Glock 34 can out shoot you with a Sig 210? I'd put any amount of money on that not being true.
But of course thats not the point. I can find someone who will shoot the pants off John Q Public with a musket. Thats not a reflection on the weapon, but on the shooters. Thats why this line or reasoning is irrelevant.
No, that's why it's the most important. You say that sigs are more accurate as though it were fact. Because you and other guys on other forums say so. I suggest that they may be more accurate for you, but you are hardly the benchmark for accuracy. I've never hear of the STAGE 2 accuracy qualifier. There are shooters out there that will shoot more accurately with a Glock than you will with a sig. It's just a fact. So more accurate is subjective without concrete laboratory testing in a static environment.
And? What does IDPA have to do with whether a pistol is more accurate or not? Nothing.
Everything. It shows they are a superior fighting weapon. I'm not talking about John Q public here. I'm talking about some of the best shooters in the world. And MANY of them choose Glocks, there's a reason. It's a better weapon in a combat/defense situation. Easier to use, better triggers, awesome function, and regardless of ergos, get's the job done faster more often than not than a sig. Sigs have the same Problem HKs do... they have a trigger pull that is a mile long and have a retarded amount of reset. Their triggers are TERRIBLE. This will almost always result in a slower shooting weapon with less of a garauntee of combat accuracy in a stressful environment with anyone other than the most experienced of shooters.
Glocks are combat accurate. Thats plenty fine for things like defensive shooting, police work, IDPA, etc. I haven't said anything to the contrary.
Yes you did. We're all talking about if a police department should stick with Glocks or Go with Sigs. And you said sigs because they're more accurate. You followed that up with the statement that it's ok if they jam more often because police don't need many rounds anyway. This is rediculous reasoning. The reason a Glock should be issued to a police officer is because they shoot faster are more relibable and easier to shoot accurately in a high stress environment. More so than a sig at any rate.
Honestly, the biggest problem with glocks isn't the pistols, but the legion of fanboys who get all butthurt when someone has the audacity to point out that some other pistol might do something better.
I see, so you're not mad at Glock. You're just mad at people who like them? So it's personal for you? There's a reason more experienced shooters go with Glocks. Because they work better than a lot of other guns. Many a professional shooter choose Glocks. Much like 1911s, they are HIGHLY favored in competition. What's that got to do with anything? Competitive shooters go with what shoots best. Any more often than not... it ain't a sig.
I don't live in fantasy land, I live in reality. And the reality is that glocks can and have failed.
You do live in fantasy land because I never said they can't fail.
The reality is that glocks aren't the most accurate factory pistol.
Never said that either. But it ain't sig. There are tons of sigs that have to be sent back to the factory for out of spec parts that cuase the weapons to jam, shoot stupid groups, or fail in multiple other ways.
The reality is that glocks aren't the most ergonomic pistol around.
No one sad that either. Most of the auto loading guns out these days are fairly sloppy and not as accuracte as a hand fitted custom job. Mainly because they need to be a little sloppy to be accurate because they can't take the time to fit every part and produce a 6-700 gun. Just can't be done. So we get some slop, with decent accuracy, in a reliable package. I do think the Glock is the best compromise on all these things. I've owned just about every gun made under $1,000.00 and though I hate the Glocks looks, they've been the best performer I've come across. And that's just MHO... it means no more than yours.
