I need a carry gun. I just traded my Beretta 96 vertec in for a Beretta 96g which is not on the approved roster list in my gun loving state of Massachusetts. I needed the 96g because I have joined my twns Aux. police force. That said I was looking at a couple of guns to be used as a carry gun. THe gun shop down the street has a nice Smith and wesson sw40ve with a tridjicon night front sight and a compensated barrel, used for 259. And thjey always have their share of Glock model 22's factory refurbished for 439. now I'm looking not to spend a ton of money. I've heard mixed reviews on the smith but i,ve heard that they fixed the problems Are the glocks worth the extra money? any advice comments etc
If you enjoyed reading about "sw40ve vs glock 19 or 22" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 1, 2007, 02:47 PM
Welcome to THR.
I've owned a sw40ve and like you have heard that they have worked out the bugs. My biggest complaint was the trigger followed by the lack of reliability. I could not recommend one based on my limited experience. Glocks, on the other hand, while not my thing, are good guns. If I were you I'd spend the extra cash. Besides, I don't think that a compensated gun makes a good carry gun anyway. Those night sights would be good for only your first shot because you'll be temporarily blinded after shooting the compensated gun at night.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
January 1, 2007, 02:49 PM
Gun prices, like water, always seek their own level.
In other words, they sell for what they are worth.
Yes, I know money is an object . . . it is for me too. However, my gun collector brother gave me great advice just before I bought my first auto:
"What is your life worth? Spend a little more to get a gun that will be accurate and totally dependable." He added, "Great guns do nothing but APPRECIATE in value if you take care of them through the years, but cheaper, 2nd tier guns do not."
I can only add this . . . if you buy the S&W, later on that small extra difference in money with be wearing a hole in your pocket . . . and you'll be saying, "DARN, I WISH I'D BOUGHT THE GLOCK!"
Yeah, my "name" on this forum is S&Wfan, but that refers to their great revolvers that I love so much.
Glocks may be butt ugly, and make you feel like you are kissin' your sister, but they will go down as one of the great guns of all times, along side of the Colt Single Action Army, the marvelous S&W revolvers, and the incomparable 1911 autos.
January 1, 2007, 02:52 PM
The trigger pull is the main complaint against the sigma. Try to dry fire it several times first. If you can live with the trigger pull as is (with no spring kits available or anything else to make it a decent trigger pull) then it might be a possibility. If you can't live with the stock trigger pull as is, don't give it a second look. Also don't buy the line that it'll get much better after 1000 dry fires; there isn't that much improvement but your trigger finger will be much, much stronger after the exercise and it'll still be a sigma trigger.
I'd take an extra job to pay for the used glock and I'm not a big glock fan.
January 2, 2007, 08:57 PM
If you like the GLOCK 22 (.40) ,and you like the GLOCK 19 then get a GLOCK 23 (.40) instead of the GLOCK 19 (9mm)....best of both worlds & a great gun. you wont be sorry !
January 2, 2007, 10:07 PM
I've shot the Sigma & just didn't like it...if you can get a Glock for $439, get it! ;)
January 2, 2007, 10:18 PM
I would take the Sigma any day above the Glock, if it was not compensated. Compensators have no use for defensive purposes. The Sigma has the best grip of any handgun I have ever shot, and while the trigger pull is a little long, it is a very natural consistent motion and it breaks clean. The Sigma would probably outshoot the Glock 9mm or 40 as well, My Sigma 40VE will run rings around my Glock 19, and the 40S&W is not known as an accurate caliber. My Sigma 357 is so accurate it is scary, but it stays in the safe mostly as an investment, they only made a few of those.
December 16, 2008, 03:54 PM
i personally own both the s&w40ve and glock 22 .40 and i personally carry the sigma over the glock, this being said i must ad that i am only 5' 9" and not a very large man so the sigma's smaller more rounded grip is much more manageable for me
both guns have great accuracy and reliability, both carry 14 rounds of .40 with the stock magazine and are almost identical but the sigmas slide and mag release are slightly larger and easier for me to use also the smaller grip give me a better hold and i find that i shoot more precisely because of it
my best advise would be to find a range were you can rent both of them and shoot off a couple boxes and make up your mind that way
when it come to your carry its something that you want to know and allways be able to rely on so the one that simply melds best with your hand can often be the best choice
December 16, 2008, 04:01 PM
December 16, 2008, 04:15 PM
each person that responds will have different experiences & respond based upon their likes & dislikes; I'll do my best to remain objective in my response; after not owning any semiautos for a time, I recently did some horse trading and acquired a Glock 17 in 9mm and a S&W Sigma in .40 S&W after handling a friend's Sigma in 9mm;
I have handled a Glock 19 in the past and liked the overall feel; the Glock 17 seems to have a slightly beefier grip (aka: the Glock 19 grip felt smaller); I like the overall feel of my 17 and the lower felt recoil that it has vs the Sigma in .40 S&W; I am not fond of the Glock's grip angle and must 'think' more about sight alignment or my front sight comes up higher than the rear sight (I am used to the 'more upright' grip angle of revolvers and other semiautos)
I bought my Sigma based upon a limited shooting session with a friend's 9mm Sigma; there is a noticable difference in recoil between 9mm & 40 S&W in the same framed gun; I am still on the fence about my Sigma in .40 S&W since I compare it to the Glock in 9mm I own;
Glock: lighter & shorter trigger, more recognized in the shooting world, more accessories available for them (sights, lights, lasers, holsters, mag carriers, etc), universal rail design (accepts more lights & lasers), awkward grip angle, very reliable, rear portion of cartridge brass not supported due to feeding ramp design, good fit-n-finish
S&W: heavier and longer trigger, less recognized in the shooting world, less accessories available for them, not a univeral rail (need adapter or specific light or laser to fit rail), more traditional grip angle (a bit more ergonomic for smaller hands), better support of cartridge brass, rougher fit-n-finish, more affordable at time of purchase
which one would I keep & which one would I part with: Glock: keep; S&W: go by-bye
December 16, 2008, 05:09 PM
December 16, 2008, 07:58 PM
Ya know, since he started this thread on Jan 1 of 07...I kinda think he's probably already made up his mind....:what: .... SO, what'cha been using the last couple of years jay43??
December 17, 2008, 04:44 PM
Somebody was using search and forgot they were looking at old posts......... Snicker, Snicker...
December 17, 2008, 04:49 PM
another voyage courtesy of the wayback machine
December 17, 2008, 07:48 PM
What about an XD vs a glock?
December 17, 2008, 07:51 PM
I am looking at a G26 and will load up with Federal HST 134 gr.