Glock vs Sig
- Thread starter locnload
- Start date
Tactical Jackalope
New member
lol wut?
Cost..ok.
Reliability..ok, both have that.
Quality? Knock it off. lol... SIG Sauer's quality exceeds Glock's.
Glock and SIG are me two favorite manufacturers.
Smith and Wesson's M&P line next, then HK.
What qualifies as "quality"?
All my SIG's worked out of the box. All my Glocks did the same. Most of my SIG's seem to have held up to use. Same goes for my Glocks.
Just curious, but what makes one better than the other? The fact that one costs more than another? If you flipped the cost of them, would it be any different?
All my SIG's worked out of the box. All my Glocks did the same. Most of my SIG's seem to have held up to use. Same goes for my Glocks.
Just curious, but what makes one better than the other? The fact that one costs more than another? If you flipped the cost of them, would it be any different?
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
For a CCW gun I want a gun I feel is safe in my holster and ready to go when I draw it.
I started with Glocks for this purpose.
I haven't spent much money on trials, but I haven't found a pistol that is significantly better than the Glocks I have owned without a significant jump in price. The improvement I have found has all been aesthetic.
I tried a SIG P250 during the recent blow-out of that model thinking the controls, trigger, etc, etc would all be marginally smoother/better. I didn't find that to be true, and it quickly found a new home.
Many of the more expensive pistols have better finishes, more aesthetic machining, and possibly some finish work that will make the first few hundred rounds run a it smoother than from the less expensive pistols. After a few hundred rounds most of that smooths out anyways.
The only significant thing separating any of these pistols at a similar price point is how they fit ones hand. That isn't going to something that can be advised on a forum. I'm not sure it is even all that important in a CCW. My Kahr fits my hand MUCH MUCH better than my Glock. That difference really shows up in one handed slow fire competition type shooting. Not so much in rapid fire. With the difference in barrel and all it would be impossible for me to attribute the difference to the grip lone though. Even with all the accuracies of the Kahr a mountain dew or coffee a few hours before slow fire is probably going to have a greater effect on my score.
Also, my three closest CCWers also carry glock 9mms. The people I am most likely to be with in case of a shooting. There is a benefit to knowing their guns and being able to use their accessories.
I started with Glocks for this purpose.
I haven't spent much money on trials, but I haven't found a pistol that is significantly better than the Glocks I have owned without a significant jump in price. The improvement I have found has all been aesthetic.
I tried a SIG P250 during the recent blow-out of that model thinking the controls, trigger, etc, etc would all be marginally smoother/better. I didn't find that to be true, and it quickly found a new home.
Many of the more expensive pistols have better finishes, more aesthetic machining, and possibly some finish work that will make the first few hundred rounds run a it smoother than from the less expensive pistols. After a few hundred rounds most of that smooths out anyways.
The only significant thing separating any of these pistols at a similar price point is how they fit ones hand. That isn't going to something that can be advised on a forum. I'm not sure it is even all that important in a CCW. My Kahr fits my hand MUCH MUCH better than my Glock. That difference really shows up in one handed slow fire competition type shooting. Not so much in rapid fire. With the difference in barrel and all it would be impossible for me to attribute the difference to the grip lone though. Even with all the accuracies of the Kahr a mountain dew or coffee a few hours before slow fire is probably going to have a greater effect on my score.
Also, my three closest CCWers also carry glock 9mms. The people I am most likely to be with in case of a shooting. There is a benefit to knowing their guns and being able to use their accessories.
Last edited:
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Someone else answered it already...but one example would be this answer
Either that or the world is so foolish it pays higher prices for the same quality. Sig Trigger is better out of the box too. I mean we are talking about people that own or have owned GLock's not someone who is just biased. Glock's are a great value with reliability and good value. Bang for the buck. Who wouldn't like that? You can even argue best in class. But for some of the finer things in life there is no substitute for quality craftsmanship and attention to detail like Sig and H&K.
Give me a choice between the two for any reason and I take a sig 9 out of ten and the 1 reason I take the Glock would be because I couldn't afford a Sig and that very thing has happened to me. Ended up with a GLock! Still cost efficiency does not equate to overall Quality. Quality and craftsmanship demand the value. not the other way around.
To be fair the 250 is like the SD in the S&W line. That's like saying Glock is better than S&W because the SD stinks! Not a good analogy.
I see that all the time in the firearms world, especially when you consider some of the various brand's of 1911 in relative quality vs price.
Subjective, and also apples to oranges. If you like DA/SA then probably yeah. I don't and shoot Glock triggers better than even SA Sig triggers. Don't know why but I do.
Everyone else's mileage will ultimately vary.
jaytothekizzay
New member
Apple vs. Orange
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
No it is more expensive because it has better craftsmanship. People that shoot as many rounds as me and more spend more money on ammo in just a few month's than what the gun cost. Heck I reload and pay about $6 for a box of 9mm. Still 8-10 thousand rounds of 9mm at that price I spend $960 a year on that caliber alone. I bought the Glock so I can shoot more, but I am rethinking my decision. Been better off with the Cadillac I think! In the end people who shoot a lot spend more money on ammo than guns by far. Heck just think if I was paying the average price per box at $15 that would be $2400 a year on 9mm alone! So what is a few more hundred?
Apples to oranges is what this was to start with. Yes you can say I meant the SA but it carry's cocked and locked. The SA trigger on a Sig is better than a Glock trigger. Better?lol
? Think you missed a word there?
Very often not true in the firearms world, and not true with Sig Sauer pistols ever since Ron Cohen's Kimber playbook has been fully implemented. Sigs are a pretty far cry from what they were a decade or more ago. Sourcing the cheapest, low-quality MIM from the likes of Indo-MIM for pistols' internal components to increase profit margins while trading on the company's formerly hard-earned good reputation is not "attention to detail."
Gen4 Glocks have had plenty of issues as well, so I won't be defending Glock -- though I don't think there's any doubt that a Glock is a far better value than a current-production Sig.
Then buy one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying other handguns to shoot and carry.
I really like the SIG P220 and P229. I like the P220 for the single stack 45 ACP. It's very accurate. I really like the P229 in 357 SIG. It's insanely accurate and you get good capacity. I'm sure the P229 is great in 9mm too.
I keep hearing good things about the SIG SP2022. Look into them.
However, the DA/SA takes quite a bit of work to master for both slow and rapid fire. You will need to be able to handle the transition from DA to SA without slapping the trigger when you are in a hurry. You will need to dry fire frequently. Keep working on it.
HK P2000, P30 and USP pistols are high quality guns. I'd give the P30 a serious look. I don't own an HK pistol, but I'm considering getting a P30.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/p30-thursday
Last edited:
I always have to laugh at the whole "Ron Cohen" is the reason Sigs suck thing. Even though it has been regurgitated on the errornet for the last 10years means very little, other than you have read it on some forum.
Most steel prices have more than doubled in the last ten years, and in some cases tripled. Just about all pistols made today suck compared to what the same manufacturer was putting out 10 years ago.
Believe whatever you makes you feel good. It's a pretty uncontroversial contention for people who have been fans and consumers of SIG Sauer pistols for a lot longer than just the last decade or less. Corner-cutting is as obvious at Sig under Cohen as it was under Kimber during (and after) his time there. You're welcome to find another common denominator. Or to pretend it's not an issue at all. I don't care.
Not really accurate. True for some, sure, but not all -- and much more true for some than others.
Not really accurate. True for some, sure, but not all -- and much more true for some than others.
I still dont see that the craftsmanship between them is really any different. Must be an "eye of the beholder" thing.
I had a lot of rounds through a couple of my SIG's that I shot all the time. I have a lot more through a couple of my Glocks that I now shoot in their place. I havent seen that the extra money I spent on the SIG's made any difference.
"All" of my SIG's that were shot a good bit, showed rail wear (loss of finish and metal wear) at some point, and the "smileys" on the barrels were pretty heavy. My Glocks really only show wear on the barrel. The rail tabs have grown "sharper", but thats about it.
I shoot a lot too, about double the 9mm you shoot each year. My one 17 has a little over 75,000 rounds through it now, my one 26, a little over 30,000. Both are still going strong, and with only normal RSA replacements. Im sure if Id stuck with SIG, I would have had similar results.
For the most part, I have to agree. I had a number of SIG's of both eras, and never had a problem with either.
I think a lot of the complaints came from people who had the earlier W. German guns with the folded slides, which I admit, were "sexier". Still, it was just a "feeling" thing, and my US guns were just as reliable, and shootable, and generally held up better wear and finish wise. No rust with them.
What I thought was really noticeable under Cohen, was the way they took off with all the various, and sometimes questionable models. But then again, thats really just big business, and trying to keep up with the Jones. Would they have been better off staying where they were? Maybe. Im sure youll get an argument for that from the purists, but it is what it is. I always liked the "stock" P series SIG's the best when I was buying them, then again, I always liked my "Colt" 1911's the best of all the 1911's Ive owned and used.
Sigh, grammar failed me there a bit. Read in context with the sentence prior and you should be able to deduce what I was going for.
I don't know if you are nitpicking "for argument's sake" or if my sentence was really unclear, regardless this topic has been covered and I'm done with this thread.