Glock vs. Sig

[joeshredd]

It should interest you to know that more departments and agencies are dropping the glock in favor of the sig. If the glock is the end all be all defensive pistol then this shouldn't be happening. Of course if the glock is like any other pistol with its plusses and minuses then this isn't a surprise.

Not trying to enter the SIGvsGlock argument, but this goes back to my conspiracy jab... I've yet to hear of a valid reason for any agency, local, state or federal, for why the switch is happening... And I'd wager it has nothing to do with the guns in question, but in politics and pork... But that's just my $.02... Either way, I won't be giving up my Glocks anytime soon... I've grown used to them...

 

[STAGE 2]

Not trying to enter the SIGvsGlock argument, but this goes back to my conspiracy jab... I've yet to hear of a valid reason for any agency, local, state or federal, for why the switch is happening... And I'd wager it has nothing to do with the guns in question, but in politics and pork... But that's just my $.02... Either way, I won't be giving up my Glocks anytime soon... I've grown used to them...

Undoubtedly. Lest anyone think any different, money and budgets are the #1 #2 and #3 reasons why a department or agency chooses a firearm. Thats how glock got so many contracts and thats how other makers are displacing glock.

Any modern pistol (glock, sig, hk, cz, walther, ruger, 1911, etc) is more than fine for leo or defensive use. The differences are how cheap the department can get them.

 

[Infi-del]

Ok. Look at the ransom rest groupings between the two pistols. There is a significant and tangible difference.

Show me some evidence.

No. But I am saying that as far as accuracy goes, there isnt any factory glock that can come close to the 210.

That's just not true. You can't quantify that every single 210 ever made can out shoot every glock ever made. I did also want to add that the 210 ain't really like the Sig 22X series pistols either.

Sigs are more accurate because when the human element is removed, they produce smaller groups than glocks.

You can't remove the human element. That's what I'm getting at. Ultimately a handgun is going to have to be shot in human hands. And MANY of the draw backs to sigs are why they aren't shot as accurately or as fast as Glocks. This is why the best shooters rarely choose them. Doesn't matter if they are more accurate clamped in a vice and shot by a trigger pulling machine. This isn't real world results. In the field in a real defense situation they are not more accurate because of their short comings in shootability.

If someone doesn't shoot a sig well, then this is a moot point.

No it isn't. You can take the worlds most accurate handgun, give it a 32 pound trigger, a 1 inch reset and it is going to prove to be a slow poor handling weapon in a real life shooting situation. Even if the pistol is capable of 1/4" groups at 100 yards from a rest.

However more people are going to be able to shoot a more accurate pistol better.

Not if other shootability elements aren't there.

The problem, however, is that none of this has to do with what I originally stated, namely that sigs are more accurate pistols.

It absolutely does. What matters most is end results in a real world shooting scenario. Nothing else matters when we're talking about combat pistols. And regardless of sigs tight tolerances they are not as shootable as Glocks. Even if from a rest with aimed shots the sig could shoot tighter, this means little when you are in a combat/defense situation as you do not have time to sit down, rest on a bench, dust off your front sight, take your time and squeeze that god awful trigger in order to achieve that difference the toloerances allow you. Just doesn't happen that way. in a speed shooting situation the sig is not more accurate as it cannot be shot quickly as well.

This is where the fanboy component comes in. The question in this thread is asking why a department would switch from glock to sig. I gave 3 factual legitimate reasons. I didn't say the sig was a better pistol, or that the glock was a bad one. I merely gave 3 differences that would cause a switch.

There is a fanboy here but it ain't me. I don't think much of Glocks as a firearm to cherish or love. They're ugly and very spartan in their design. not like my beautiful Ed Brown of which I am a fanboy. But they work. It's a tool, my Ed Brown is a work of art. The Glock is like a hammer. And it does it's job well. I hated them for the longest time but the more I got into competitive shooting I began to lay guns like Sig, Hk, and the like down because they were slow. And when required to place multiple shots in rapid succession they were not as accurate as the Glock. perhaps they could both shoot tighter from a rest. But this does not translate into real world accuracy in a defense/combat situation. Accuracy in the real world is many shots in as small a space as fast as one can shoot. And speed is the key to surviving a shootout. Not bench top performance. The sig and hk's groups both noticably open up when shot quickly and under stress. Because their triggers suck.

You have read in all sorts of things that I never said.

No I haven't.

Any modern handgun even moderately maintained is going to be able to go through a couple of mags without a problem. Thats far more rounds than any cop is ever going to need...

I didn't read anything into this. You basically said it's ok if sigs jam more cause cops don't need many mags worth of reliability.

You keep proving my argument. Because some competition shooters shoot glocks, they are automatically the best pistol out there? Thats a fanboy argument.

It isn't BECAUSE they shoot them. The question is WHY do they shoot them? Just because one particular shooter has a gun doesn't make it good. But when a large number of the best shooters in the world... better than you or I... choose Glocks... what's the reason? Do you know? It ain't price, they can shoot whatever they want. Why don't you see more sigs dominating a competition that at it's heart is about real world defensive pistol shooting. I know Glocks aren't the most accurate. The 1911 probably gets that award which is why the top bullseye guys use those. You don't see those guys pulling out sigs either though. But why in stock pistol class do Glocks win more so than any other weapon? Why do they dominate the defensive pistol competitions. Because they deliver better real world results. And fewer shooters can shoot sigs and hks and like better than Glocks because they have serious shootability draw backs. If sig was this magically more suitable defense pistol... they pros would be using them more. But they don't.

Some people like glocks. Some people like sigs. Some people like others. Thats life. What is used in competition isn't a good indicator of what is being used in the leo/mil worlds.

Stock pistol class is. It pits the best shooters with a wide variety of guns against one another. The ones that rise to the top use Glocks. And they use them for a reason. They work. They work fast and they work well.

It should interest you to know that more departments and agencies are dropping the glock in favor of the sig. If the glock is the end all be all defensive pistol then this shouldn't be happening. Of course if the glock is like any other pistol with its plusses and minuses then this isn't a surprise.

I believe this is due to poor training. There have been a number of accidents with Glocks in the hands of poorly trained individuals. I've heard department heads say they feel that this gun or that gun is safer because it has a safety lever or a heavier trigger. What this is gonna translate into is poorly trained officers with guns that are even harder to shoot well in a stressful situation. bad combo. I've met some very well trained cops out there that have never had a single problem with their glocks. unfortunately not every department cares as much about training their people.

 

[Infi-del]

Undoubtedly. Lest anyone think any different, money and budgets are the #1 #2 and #3 reasons why a department or agency chooses a firearm. Thats how glock got so many contracts and thats how other makers are displacing glock.

Any modern pistol (glock, sig, hk, cz, walther, ruger, 1911, etc) is more than fine for leo or defensive use. The differences are how cheap the department can get them.

I agree with this completely. unfortunately sig and HK are $700.00 and $800.00 pistols. In order to compete they are going to have to make them more cheaply. And I think they rash of sig QC problems lately illustrates this.

 

[Infi-del]

No, but you can't have a high grade of accuracy without tight tolerances. Look at every target oriented pistol out there and you won't find anything lose.

As long as everything if fitted correctly it doesn't have to be skin tight. And it only need be tight in cetain key points to make all the difference. Again though, simply because sig has less slop doesn't mean it has higher accuracy. You can have a tightly fitted piece of junk.

 

[STAGE 2]

Show me some evidence.

Ok. Here's one from Gun Tests. These were shot from a rest @15 yards

[Average Group Sizes]
SIG P220 1.9" [smallest 1.3"]
H&K USP45 2.0"
SIG P245 2.1"
Colt CCO 2.2"
Kimber Ultra Elite 2.2"
Ruger KP97DC 2.2"
Springfield Ultra Compact 2.2"
S&W 4553TSW 2.5"
Beretta 8045F 2.6"
Glock 36 2.8"
S&W 4566TSW 2.7"
Springfield Champion 3.0"

Is the glock terrible, not at all. Is it on the larger end of the accuracy scale, yes. Is the sig noticably better, yes. Again, head over to glock talk and look at the several threads there. Read a gun mag and look at the groups they get.

Mechanical accuracy is only one factor in the choice of a pistol, but its a factual measurable factor.

That's just not true. You can't quantify that every single 210 ever made can out shoot every glock ever made. I did also want to add that the 210 ain't really like the Sig 22X series pistols either.

Sure I can. For the same reason that I can say every ferarri is faster than every honda accord. They were built for different reasons.

You can't remove the human element. That's what I'm getting at.

Then with all due respect you didn't understand what I wrote. How accurate a pistol can be is measured mechanically. Its a statement of fact. Whether that pistol is the best choice for a person is a TOTALLY different question. Some people will like it and some people wont.

Ultimately a handgun is going to have to be shot in human hands. And MANY of the draw backs to sigs are why they aren't shot as accurately or as fast as Glocks. This is why the best shooters rarely choose them.

What someone uses in competition has little to do with what makes a good defensive weapon.

In the field in a real defense situation they are not more accurate because of their short comings in shootability.

Again with the fanboy propaganda. Sigs have shortcomings. So do glocks. I can guarantee you that there are people who shoot sigs far better than glocks. This is because glocks have terrible ergos and terrible triggers. EVERY pistol has short comings. The question is whether or not the particular shortcomings are something that affect you or not.

No it isn't. You can take the worlds most accurate handgun, give it a 32 pound trigger, a 1 inch reset and it is going to prove to be a slow poor handling weapon in a real life shooting situation. Even if the pistol is capable of 1/4" groups at 100 yards from a rest.

Another irrelevant point. Sigs dont have 32# triggers or 1" resets.

It absolutely does. What matters most is end results in a real world shooting scenario. Nothing else matters when we're talking about combat pistols. And regardless of sigs tight tolerances they are not as shootable as Glocks.

Thats your complete opinion. Some people don't like striker fired pistols. Some people don't like the spongy glock trigger. These are shootability elements as well. All you are doing here is stating your preference as fact.

In a speed shooting situation the sig is not more accurate as it cannot be shot quickly as well.

Again more fanboy opinion. A sig can be shot just as fast as a glock. Whether someone prefers it is just that, a matter of preference.

I didn't read anything into this. You basically said it's ok if sigs jam more cause cops don't need many mags worth of reliability.

No, what I said was that all of the glock torture test BS like freezing the gun or dropping it from an airplane is moot because thats not what happens with police weapons. ANY firearm properly broken in and lubed is going to perform just fine for hundreds of rounds. The average cop will never shoot his weapon. The average cop who shoots his weapon doesn't ever use a full magazine. Thus, a sig is more than reliable enough for leo use.

It isn't BECAUSE they shoot them. The question is WHY do they shoot them? Just because one particular shooter has a gun doesn't make it good. But when a large number of the best shooters in the world... better than you or I... choose Glocks... what's the reason? Do you know? It ain't price, they can shoot whatever they want. Why don't you see more sigs dominating a competition that at it's heart is about real world defensive pistol shooting. I know Glocks aren't the most accurate. The 1911 probably gets that award which is why the top bullseye guys use those. You don't see those guys pulling out sigs either though. But why in stock pistol class do Glocks win more so than any other weapon? Why do they dominate the defensive pistol competitions. Because they deliver better real world results. And fewer shooters can shoot sigs and hks and like better than Glocks because they have serious shootability draw backs. If sig was this magically more suitable defense pistol... they pros would be using them more. But they don't.

Bolded the important part while I scratch my head. If you know that glocks aren't the most accurate then why the arguing?

Stock pistol class is. It pits the best shooters with a wide variety of guns against one another. The ones that rise to the top use Glocks. And they use them for a reason. They work. They work fast and they work well.

Thats wonderful, but thats not a point I have been arguing. Apples meet oranges.

I believe this is due to poor training. There have been a number of accidents with Glocks in the hands of poorly trained individuals. I've heard department heads say they feel that this gun or that gun is safer because it has a safety lever or a heavier trigger. What this is gonna translate into is poorly trained officers with guns that are even harder to shoot well in a stressful situation. bad combo. I've met some very well trained cops out there that have never had a single problem with their glocks. unfortunately not every department cares as much about training their people.

Well, then here's a gem for you. If these individuals are so poorly trained that they can't handle a gun without having a ND then they sure as hell aren't trained enough to reap the benefits that the glock offers for defensive shooting.

I must say, however, what I find funniest about what you say is your assertion that sigs are somehow lacking as a defensive weapon. Most european police forces, including their versions of swat, use sigs and not glocks. Our own special forces use a combination of 1911's HK's and Sigs, not glocks. Homeland security has recently dropped the glock in favor of the sig. Other agencies are following suit.

I think this speaks to a larger issue. Specifically, competition is swell for competition, but it doesn't directly translate to defense. Targets dont shoot back and the stress is very very different. A perfect example of this is Todd Jarrett. He's wicked fast with a pistol, and his qualifications as a competition shooter are beyond question. He was giving a lesson to some recon marines and looking at their shooting course and said something to the effect of "this doesn't look difficult at all". Well, they gave Jarrett a ruck, did a couple miles of hills and then had him shoot the course. It didn't turn out that well.

Just because someone can win a trophy doesn't mean that they are going to be equally adept at shooting an attacker.

 

[mnyshrpknvs]

Good, that must have been an embarrassment to sig.

I would think so to. Those kinda quirks don't normally make it past quality control.

 

[Lycosa]

Scuse me... is this the Messerschmitt vs Spitfire thread??

 

[Wildewinds]

Can't really argue against fanboys. It's pointless.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

The 1911 is a great pistol all around no matter how you slice it. I think cops would do well with it if PC departments could get over letting their cops carry condition 1.

Do you think more training could help? I've heard a lot of people complain about grip size and I can see why it could be a problem. But then again I know a female shooter that goes to IDPA with us. She's about 5'2" and has way smaller hands than me and she shoots a dang Glock 21 which is a pig of a gun. And she beats the pants off a lot of folks. But it's because she shoots that thing at least 500 rounds a month. I think trigger time is the great equalizer when it comes to ergo problems.

No argument there. Most of the top bullseye shooters in the world shoot 1911s. Those things were made to shoot.

Agreed. IMHO the three most important things in a handgun for me are trigger, trigger, and trigger. It's hard to beat a 1911 trigger. I call it a button instead of a trigger LOL.

those of us in favor of authorizing the 1911 had some opposition, but not from where one would think.

management really didn't care. oddly, it came from one of the firearms instructors, who ironically, was the third person to carry one on duty.

some people are just natural shooters. regardless of the weapon, they can self-correct and adjust to any differences.

with some shooters, it takes finding the right combination of grip size, weight, and recoil, and they are able to overcome most defficiencies. while this is largely a psychological problem, i think the physical differences amongst varying firearms also plays a significant role.

if someone is uncomfortable with their weapon, regardless of the reason(s), it is very difficult to overcome. if they believe another weapon, caliber, whatever, is the answer to their prayers, then it is.

 

[Rob72]

Again more fanboy opinion. A sig can be shot just as fast as a glock. Whether someone prefers it is just that, a matter of preference.

Actually no, and it's a matter of physics. The lower bore-axis means the shooter has more control during the recoil impulse.

Have both platforms, shoot both a lot.

 

[mwerner]

It's apparent that the differences between these two weapons are minimal. The Sig may be slightly more accurate, but in a combat pistol this is not a consideration when we're talking a bout a few tenths in group size at 25 meters.
I can assure you that no officer on our department would ever notice the difference....

As I understand it, the bill for the changeover will be in the neighborhood of 15,000. That's ammo, guns, holsters, training...
Seems like a lot of money for not much (if any) benefit.

One metric most on the board here are not considering is that we, like most departments, have a number of "enthusiast" officers and also a number of officers who are completely uninterested in shooting or firearms and carry one only because they have to.
For these folks, the simpler the better. The Glock gets the nod in this regard, IMO.

Comments apply even more so to M1911 designs; I tend to think of these weapons as more for the expert shooter.

 

[STAGE 2]

Actually no, and it's a matter of physics. The lower bore-axis means the shooter has more control during the recoil impulse.

A lower bore axis lessens felt recoil. This has nothing to do with the speed at which a weapon can be shot. Bore axis is only one in series of factors that affect felt recoil.

 

[STAGE 2]

and also a number of officers who are completely uninterested in shooting or firearms and carry one only because they have to.
For these folks, the simpler the better. The Glock gets the nod in this regard, IMO.

Depends on what you define by simple. Glocks and new/inexperienced shooters have led to many accidental discharges. If the differences in the pistols are minimal, but one is less accident prone, that seems like a legitimate reason for a switch does it not?

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Depends on what you define by simple. Glocks and new/inexperienced shooters have led to many accidental discharges. If the differences in the pistols are minimal, but one is less accident prone, that seems like a legitimate reason for a switch does it not?

quite possibly, but that may be agency specific.

if the dept in question has no issues with ad's, then it is a non-issue. if that is how they are trying to sell the change, then it should be statistically supported. if this is just because the rangemaster likes sigs or another personal reason, it should not be done. it is one thing to authorize a new firearm for duty use, another to change the whole dept.

whether we like it or not, or agree or not, financial concerns must also be considered. in order to transition an entire dept to another firearm requires not only the cost of equipment, but also the man hours lost to the field.

imo, the cost-benefit makes switching from glocks to sigs (or any other pistol) pointless.

 

[Infi-del]

Ok. Here's one from Gun Tests. These were shot from a rest @15 yards

[Average Group Sizes]
SIG P220 1.9" [smallest 1.3"]
H&K USP45 2.0"
SIG P245 2.1"
Colt CCO 2.2"
Kimber Ultra Elite 2.2"
Ruger KP97DC 2.2"
Springfield Ultra Compact 2.2"
S&W 4553TSW 2.5"
Beretta 8045F 2.6"
Glock 36 2.8"
S&W 4566TSW 2.7"
Springfield Champion 3.0"

Was it a static environment or where these results from people shooting the guns? If so they're meaningless as each person has their own shooting flaws.

Most european police forces, including their versions of swat, use sigs and not glocks. Our own special forces use a combination of 1911's HK's and Sigs, not glocks. Homeland security has recently dropped the glock in favor of the sig. Other agencies are following suit.

Now who's a fanboy, "Special Forces carry them so that's what I want. Cause I'm a seal in my back yard". Anyway, I really don't have time to waste on you anymore. Glock is a more shootable gun than sig period. In a high stress situation they are more shootable and therefore deliver more combat performance. Go ask a Seal which gun he prefers... he'll tell ya "The one in my hand" those guys see them as tools. They don't really care what they got as long as it works. You keep bringing up the Sig 210. No one is gonna carry that thing in a US LEA. It it NOTHING like the 226 AT ALL. It may be a fine weapon but it's less refined sisters are not the same. I know some European firms carry or did carry them. But it ain't gonna happen in the states on any large scale. Sig 226 has about a 8 or 9 poiund DA pull and about .5" reset. That's crap when it comes to a defense weapon. For about $40.00 you can get a Glock down to 3lbs with around 1/8th of reset. It's a fast shooting gun. Carry what you like. Hope it works out for you. In the end I want a gun in the hands of every law abiding citizen in this country. If it's gotta be a sig... go large. Just practice practice practice.

I think this speaks to a larger issue. Specifically, competition is swell for competition, but it doesn't directly translate to defense. Targets dont shoot back and the stress is very very different.

Then you are ignorant of what some competitions are all about. IDPA is really the best training for real world situations. It's not guys shooting paper standing still from 10 yards or from a bench. If you're a member of a good circut you face endless scenarios with multiple obstacles. And of course the targets don't shoot back. unless you can afford simunitions then you can't pull this off other than paintball or airsoft which isn't quite the same. But it's one of the best training options for real world practical self defense with a handgun. I've shot from cover, concealment, a car, a table, a bed, under a bed, up stairs, down stairs, on my side, on my back, between my legs, while walking, while running, while jumping, while kneeling, in the dark, in the light, with a flashlight, without a flashlight, forced jams, transition to BUG, and even retreat due to catesttophic failure and lots more. Doesn't cover everything but I'm far better prepared than your average thug with a hi-point. Doesn't mean he won't get me either. Just means I got a fighting chance. And the better you do at competition, the better that fighting chance is. But you gotta take it in the right spirit. Some guys load bullets down for lighter recoil and do all kinds of sneaky stuff because they just want to win. But the guys that actually get something out of competition go with the mindset of bettering their skills with what they carry. This can NEVER be a bad thing for one's self defense training.

A perfect example of this is Todd Jarrett. He's wicked fast with a pistol, and his qualifications as a competition shooter are beyond question. He was giving a lesson to some recon marines and looking at their shooting course and said something to the effect of "this doesn't look difficult at all". Well, they gave Jarrett a ruck, did a couple miles of hills and then had him shoot the course. It didn't turn out that well.

That's got nothing to do with a real world civilian defense scenario. Almost always a real world scenario is goning to involve two people, out of the blue, in a short but high stress conflict. There will be no rucks or hill humping. That's a mall ninja or zombie scenario for civies. I can defeintately see why it matters for Joes... they'll have to face that kind of stuff. But it does not enter into the equation when you're being robbed at a gas station or ATM. Doesn't equate when you are stopping an attack on the streets or in your home. The ONLY way I can see that being even remotely useful is say you're coming from the gym and you just ran 5 miles on the eliptical and your tired. Going to your car someone tries to attack you. That's it. Otherwise humping rucks and marching for miles has no meaning for a civilian defense scenario. Self defesne for a civilian is a sprinters game. Combat for joes is a marathon. If one of those recon marines tried to rob Todd Jarrett at an ATM he'd eat their lunch. Much like they would eat his in a dense jungle requiring miles of pack humping to reach an engagement. And no matter what, the more trigger time a shooter has, the better their chance of handling a weapon under stress. Otherwise those Recon Marines wouldn't shoot 100,000 rounds a year. They'd qualify with 25 rounds every six months and just do a lot of cardio. Competition gives you trigger time. Trigger time is EXTREMELY important.

Just because someone can win a trophy doesn't mean that they are going to be equally adept at shooting an attacker.

Depends on the trophy doesn't it. A target shooting trophy... maybe not. A Speed shooting trophy... who knows. A Defensive Pistol Trophy, they got a much better shot of handling themselves with a firearm than your average mouth breather on the street. I can promise you that. You can't train for every situation, you can't always be ready, and an attacker is gonna try and get you when you aren't looking. If they see you seeing them, the attack isn't gonna happen usually. But competitve shooting with a SD focus is some of the best training for a real world defense situation you're going to find. And there is a reason why such scenes are dominated by Glocks and 1911s. Because they work the best for such a chore.

Carry what you like.

 

[Infi-del]

A lower bore axis lessens felt recoil. This has nothing to do with the speed at which a weapon can be shot. Bore axis is only one in series of factors that affect felt recoil.

That's not true. Higher bore axis translates into more muzzle flip which slows follow up shots. This is a FACT. the higher the bore the more leverage the back strap area has against the shooters hand. If you had a gun that could have it's bore axis raised in .25" notches... as it got higher, the muzzle flip (Or whip if you like) would worsen. Making follow up sight aquisition slower. It's something that can be overcome. But it requires all the more practice. Couple that with a long trigger reset and a poor trigger to begin with and you got a gun that will be more difficult to control in a stressful environment opening its groups drastically.

 

[Infi-del]

those of us in favor of authorizing the 1911 had some opposition, but not from where one would think.

management really didn't care. oddly, it came from one of the firearms instructors, who ironically, was the third person to carry one on duty.

some people are just natural shooters. regardless of the weapon, they can self-correct and adjust to any differences.

with some shooters, it takes finding the right combination of grip size, weight, and recoil, and they are able to overcome most defficiencies. while this is largely a psychological problem, i think the physical differences amongst varying firearms also plays a significant role.

if someone is uncomfortable with their weapon, regardless of the reason(s), it is very difficult to overcome. if they believe another weapon, caliber, whatever, is the answer to their prayers, then it is.

Agreed, the mindset has a lot to do with it. Much like when you had someone a 44mag. They think it's gonna be this giant cannon that is gonna break their arm, and because of this they flinch and jerk all over the place making accuracy impossible even if the gun is a tack driver.

 

[Infi-del]

Depends on what you define by simple. Glocks and new/inexperienced shooters have led to many accidental discharges. If the differences in the pistols are minimal, but one is less accident prone, that seems like a legitimate reason for a switch does it not?

It isn't more prone to accident. untrained people are more apt to shoot themselves or others. The Glock is simpler. A more complex weapon would present an even larger learning curve.

 

[STAGE 2]

Was it a static environment or where these results from people shooting the guns? If so they're meaningless as each person has their own shooting flaws.

Yes it was a static environment. Thats the whole point.

Now who's a fanboy, "Special Forces carry them so that's what I want. Cause I'm a seal in my back yard". Anyway, I really don't have time to waste on you anymore. Glock is a more shootable gun than sig period. In a high stress situation they are more shootable and therefore deliver more combat performance. Go ask a Seal which gun he prefers... he'll tell ya "The one in my hand" those guys see them as tools. They don't really care what they got as long as it works.

Again with stating things I havent said. SF has the widest array of latitude in regards to what they carry. They aren't carrying glocks. If SIGs were so dismal, then they wouldn't carry those either. They do. If it was the case that glocks deliver more "combat performance" whatever that may be, then why dont we see it in the hands of our elite military forces? Why dont we see more european police forces using the glock. It is after all a european pistol.

The bottom line, which you continually have failed to admit, is that the glock is like any other pistol with advantages and flaws. If it were as magical as you suggest, it would have seen use in our military. It it were the perfect pistol, then agencies wouldn't be dropping it.

However its neither perfect nor magical, just one of many quality pistols that people can choose from.