Glock 17 VS. Sig P226


November 14, 2007, 03:28 PM
This is just to see who likes which one better and why? Wether it be for duty, for training, off duty, concealed, home defense or plinking. Which one would you rather have and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 17 VS. Sig P226" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
November 14, 2007, 03:32 PM
Have both, shoot the Glock far more. West German 226 sits in the safe, mostly. My CZ's get more love than my Sigs, for that matter....

November 14, 2007, 04:00 PM
I prefer Glocks. The Sig doesn't offer anything more than my G17, except a higher "prestige" value:D

Ok, so I actually want to get a Sig P226 someday myself. But I honestly don't see any advantage it holds over my Glock 17. I don't know why but when I'm at the range I always end up shooting only my Glock and a revolver. Whether I take my BHP or a friend's Sig or Beretta, I prefer the Glock. Maybe it's because it was my first gun and I'm used to it. Or the kool-aid :D I don't know. I just love that thing.

November 14, 2007, 04:11 PM
Sig is much sexier. I prefer that. But ultimately, they both fire bullets and they both do it reliably.

I did just have a warranty experience with Sig and it was smooth as glass. They never even really pressed me at all on my issue. They just said "No problem, we'll handle it", and issued an RMA. They emailed me a shipping label inside of 10 minutes and the pistol was out the door in 30. I got it back in 8 days.

I've heard on more than one occasion that Glock is not so friendly, preferring to blame most issues on "user error". Getting an RMA is like pulling teeth I'm told.


November 14, 2007, 04:55 PM
I've shot both and I only own the P226's. I suspect it will come down to what fits best in your hand. Sigs and Glocks are most different in grip feel.

I love my P226's. They are very accurate and very reliable.

I don't care for Glocks at all.

November 14, 2007, 05:02 PM
Both have their followings, both are well made & both will get the job done. IMO, the Glock is a nicer pistol for carry / duty while the SIG is a much better shooter.

Black Majik
November 14, 2007, 05:12 PM
I own both and prefer the SIG P226. Stock for stock I find the SIG to me a more enjoyable pistol to shoot. The gun feels better, points better for me, and it's not polymer.

Glocks have one huge advantage over the SIG however, and that's the trigger reset. Both are equally accurate, both are tons of fun to shoot, and both will be durable and reliable. Glocks are also way easier to detail strip than SIGs.

I prefer SIGs, but you can hand me a Glock and I'll have just as much fun.

November 14, 2007, 05:24 PM
Don't have a G17 but do have a G34 (as well as a couple P226s). For me, P226. Fits my hand much better and has, IMO, a better trigger.

November 14, 2007, 06:06 PM
Both are outstanding in reliability and accuracy. Pick the one that fits your hand better and the action you prefer - DA/SA vs. Glock's Safe action. I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage with either one.

November 14, 2007, 07:06 PM
I prefer Sig over Glock as I like the ergonomics better.

November 14, 2007, 07:09 PM
I'm the exact opposite of Tecumseh, however my CZ-85 has better ergos and trigger feel than both! :p

November 14, 2007, 11:25 PM

November 15, 2007, 01:05 AM
Have a bunch of Glocks & Sigs. For me it's the G17 over the P226, but i like the P225 over both.

November 15, 2007, 08:32 AM
Mention those two manufactures and many will say Glock is better, no Sig is better, etc. It's kinda like comparing the Toyota Tundra to the Ford F-150. Each gun is reliable, but the obvious is present, one being a lighter weight poly frame and the other a heavier steel framed auto. I've shot both, but own a SigSauer. Just personal regarding the looks and feel of the gun in "my" hand.

November 15, 2007, 08:54 AM
Have both. I appreciate the quality of the Sig, but more often than not, I reach for the Glock when a service size 9mm is needed. Actually like my CZs a little better than the Sigs. Carry and shoot Glocks more than any other platform, including my beloved 1911s! There's just so much to be said for a reliable, rugged, low maintainence pistol. No snob appeal or pride of ownership, just an efficient tool.

November 15, 2007, 10:13 AM
shooter1 hit it on the head. I love the Sigs for their quality, ergonomics, and accuracy. However, when I grab something to carry it's usually a Glock. The Glock is far more rugged regarding rust, corrosion, and hard use.

November 15, 2007, 11:40 AM
It's kinda like comparing the Toyota Tundra to the Ford F-150.

F-150. :neener:


November 15, 2007, 11:56 AM
I've owned both, and now I only own the Sig.

Glocks are a fine weapon, but they have design points that aren't for me.

The Glock lost out due to grip shape and to the fact that I like the extra margin of safety I get with a hammer fired, DA/SA weapon with a de-cocking mechanism.

Like most of us, I've managed to do a few bonehead things in my life, and doing a bonehead thing with a weapon is something I would like to bolster the odds against.

The Sig puts the odds more in my favor.

November 15, 2007, 05:41 PM
Love my SIGs.

November 15, 2007, 08:46 PM
I own both and much prefer the Sig.

November 15, 2007, 09:00 PM
Do you like rust? :)

November 15, 2007, 10:56 PM
First pistol I ever shot was a Glock 17, rented at a range. I liked it okay, it shot well. Unloaded, it felt too light, unbalanced in my hand. Loaded, the feel was better, but still imperfect. If you're gonna lug a gun around on a belt holster for a 12 hour shift though, I can see the advantage of a light, polymer framed gun.

The first pistol I ever bought was a Sig 226 in 9mm. I'd hefted a Glock, a Beretta, and a S&W, and none of them felt right in my hand the way the Sig did. Also, I have wide hands and stubby fingers; my whole hand fits on the Sig's grip, but the controls are easy to manipulate. Mostly, the Sig had a heft to it that I liked. It fit what I was looking for in a gun.

I don't carry the Sig, as I live in a state (and specifically, in a certain county) where only those who know the right people can get a CCW. However, the Sig is the gun that lies beside my bed at night, and it's the first thing I reach for if something wakes me up.

November 16, 2007, 12:30 AM
THe Glock is a great gun but I prefer the Sig because it feels naturally. If I were to ultimately choose a gun, it would be the HK P2000 or perhaps the new HK P30.

November 16, 2007, 09:11 AM
Glock all day every day... Sigs rust are heavy and much more difficult to detail strip...

November 16, 2007, 10:45 AM
My Sig's (and other brands) have lived in Florida's high humidity for some time now, and they can smell the salty breeze coming in off of the Gulf of Mexico.

Rust or other forms of corrosion have never been a consideration.

Steel firearms don't rust if they receive the barest minimum of proper care.

November 16, 2007, 10:46 AM
I prefer the look, feel, and longevity of steel. Sig all the way.

Old Dog
November 16, 2007, 12:18 PM
I live on Puget Sound in Western Washington state. One could say that we experience a fair bit of humidity here. I have never, ever, experienced a rust problem with any of my SIG pistols.

SIGs more difficult to detail strip? One notes that there are obvious reasons Glock sells so many pistols, and Jiffy Lube's business is booming as well.

At any rate, my informal, ongoing survey of new shooters has SIG way ahead in the poll of which pistol feels best in the hand and points more naturally ... And personal experience reflects a decided edge in the accuracy department to SIG as well, particularly in 9mm and .40 S&W.

November 16, 2007, 03:34 PM
Sigs more accurate, especially in 9mm and .40?? That was surprising to read. Are you talking about the P210? I have shot 2 P228's and the accuracy was "service grade." The Glock's I have shot, in both 9mm and .45 have been much better in that department. The P220 in .45 cal, on the other hand, now that's an accurate gun. After forming my opinion, I have discovered that there are many others who will agree that the SIG P220 is more accurate than the 226/28, for the most part.

November 16, 2007, 07:24 PM
I just bought a G19 (my second Glock) because I like the size over the G17. For full size 9mm's I'll stick with my 2 P226's. Sigs seem much more comfortable to shoot in all calibers.

GLOOB's right about the P220. I have 4 and nothing compares with it when we talk about OOTB accuracy of a production gun in any caliber. But "service grade" accuracy for the P228? All I can say is: "You need to shoot mine.":D

BTW, I'm a big time SIG guy, but I also like Glocks. You won't go wrong either way.

November 16, 2007, 08:16 PM
I've owned both, still have P226's. My 17 was not reliable, which turned me off of Glocks. They also dont point naturally for me.

I find the SIG's to be more comfortable to shoot with and for me, point more naturally.

I suppose the older SIG's were more prone to rust, I doubt you'll see the newer ones rust. Then again, I own both, and its never been an issue, even in hot and humid SE PA summers.

As far as detail stripping, the SIG's are about as easy as anything else, once you've done one.

November 16, 2007, 08:28 PM
How is a SIG more apt to rust than a Glock?

Posted bt TOADMAN: Glock all day every day... Sigs rust are heavy and much more difficult to detail strip...

November 16, 2007, 08:35 PM
I prefer the p226, but you'll not see me saying anything negative about glocks or glock quality. The issue for me is simply grip angle. I really started shooting pistols on a P38, then to the 1911, next the beretta, then the p series sigs. Somewhere after I was turned on to sig P series I wound up with a glock 23, and felt it was a fine weapon. My number one consideration (reliability) was absolutely met by the Glock.

My issue is that if you look at my progression of pistols, none of them have such a radical (I know, it's not RADICAL like LUGER radical) grip angle as the glock. When I come out of the holster with a glock, it looks like I'm trying to shoot down satellites. I'm going over the target's head at 7 yards with my natural point. Could I overcome that with training? Yup. Sure could. But why? The P series are wonderful pistols, they've always gone bang for me, and when I draw, it doesn't look like I'm trying to lob one into the next county.

It might be just the opposite for you. A P series might come out of the holster pointed at an attacker's feet if you're used to glocks.

November 16, 2007, 09:34 PM
I'll take a Glock 17 any day of the week. I owned a P226 and it's a fine firearm and I still count a couple SIGs in the stable, but the G17 provides a very high level of performance along with unsurpassed user serviceability and low TCO.

Steve B.
November 16, 2007, 10:45 PM
Only Sig I ever had was a 228 and it was the most innacurate pistol I've shot. The Glock is easy to shoot and easy to maintain. Cheap parts and cheap mags. Go for the Glock!

November 16, 2007, 11:49 PM
Only Sig I ever had was a 228 and it was the most innacurate pistol I've shot.

Wow. I assure you that's an anomaly. I've never seen an inaccurate Sig. I wonder if you had one with a major defect or a shot-out barrel or something. My p226 will make ragged holes @25 from a rest. Every Sig I've ever laid my hands on has been considerably more accurate than I'm capable of shooting.

I really wonder what was wrong with yours.

November 17, 2007, 01:38 AM
Sig P226, but I'd take an HK USPc 9mm over either. ;)

Sigs have nicer triggers, better grip ergonomics, and handle the recoil better. Glocks have a slightly more durable finish and weigh less.

November 17, 2007, 02:52 AM
Howdy Pablo45, and et al.,

Wow, what a loaded question. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few more passionate responses pending. I've had the good fortune to have each. Both are fine pistols and have virtues endearing the owner to those attributes. Let me have a go at what I've found with mine in respect to your inquiry.

Duty: Both are suitable, might be a slight advantage to the G17 due to the lower overall weight. If you are hauling it about all day long those ounces can add up.

Training: Again, both are suitable, with another slight advantage to the G17 in a straightforward manual of arms. There is a consistent trigger manipulation, and no de-cocking requirement for re-holstering.

Off Duty: similar to duty, lighter might be preferable. Point of information, Clint Smith has always advocated that weapons should be comforting not necessarily comfortable... just a thought.

Concealed: Very similar, possibly a slight edge to the SIG in that the grip is not quite the same size but then again my SIG mags are 15 rounds capacity while the Glock is 17 so it is just a bit more pronounced. Arguable but only you can assess the real significance to your lifestyle.

Home defense: My choice is Glock. Capacity is it for me. Even downloading by one the Glock has the advantage. Considering this particular application, I'm probably not going to grab an extra mag so it is going down with what is in the pistol.

Plinking: Both are great. SIG has an advantage in two areas, it is slightly more accurate than the Glock. I would say that at 25 yds, it is not that much of a difference but there is a difference, we are talking a fraction of an inch average deltas. Comfort is the other advantage. Due to the additional weight and grip configuration it is more comfortable to shoot a lot of rounds through. After shooting the Glock at some of the monthly club matches, my hand is a bit fatigued from the pounding of several hundred rounds launched in just a couple of hours of fun. Shooting the SIG in a similar fashion, I've found less fatigue in my hand but it is heavier to haul about on your hip. Also there are sharp edges on the magazine base plates on the SIG mags. Glock mags are all rounded. Yes, thing you notice when you're hauling the equipment about all day long.

In summary, I have both, like both for different reasons. Glock gets shot way more than SIG, about 4 to 1 ratio. Hope this info helps. Your mileage may vary. Get out there rent, borrow, try, and or buy them. They are all good!


November 17, 2007, 03:37 AM
I don't like the DA for the first shot or having to worry about that hammer. Glock for me.

November 17, 2007, 11:26 AM
I've owned both.

Not a fan of MIM, asymmetric grip bulges and having to learn two trigger pulls.

I currently shoot 9mm Glocks and P7M8s.

November 17, 2007, 05:44 PM
Not a fan of MIM, asymmetric grip bulges and having to learn two trigger pulls.

I currently shoot 9mm Glocks and P7M8s.
Hmmm, isnt this a little contradictory? :)

I've owned Glocks and a P7M13. If you learned to shoot them, you spent more time learning between them, than it takes to learn a SIG with a standard SA/DA trigger. The P7's are really a gun unto themselves and you really need to either dedicate yourself to them, or you shoot everything else.

What parts on the SIG's are MIM?

I never noticed the grip bulge was in the way for right or left hand shooting. In fact, you cant even feel it.

The two trigger thing is just lack of training.

November 18, 2007, 11:57 AM
Own both Glocks and Sigs. Tend to grab a Glock when around town. Will start bringing my Sig P220 out in the woods with me.

November 19, 2007, 02:46 PM
sig frames are stamped steel. no more expensive, or fancy than the stamped steel on an ak. Glocks are polymer molded, which is equally inexpensive. The slide and barrel on a sig are machined, as well as the glocks. The reliability reputation goes to the glock, as has been my experiance. The accuracy is supposed to go with the sig, but for my money, dead on bullseye is as good as it gets. Both great pistols, the sig will cost you a few hundred bucks more.

I like Glocks,

November 19, 2007, 03:08 PM
SIG frames are aluminum. The older SIG's slides were stamped steel, the newer ones are SS.

November 19, 2007, 03:11 PM
I have been wanting a Glock lately. Though that will be after I get my next gun, which will probably be a Sig 226 or an HK P30.

November 19, 2007, 04:49 PM
If price is not a concern, I would take a Sig over a Glock. I have a gun by each company, and they are both excellent weapons. The reason I prefer the Sig is because of the trigger system. I don't think the Glock is even close to the quality and smoothness of the Sig trigger. Nonetheless, they are both great guns, so I had to have one of each.

November 19, 2007, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by stevereno1: sig frames are stamped steel. no more expensive, or fancy than the stamped steel on an ak. Glocks are polymer molded, which is equally inexpensive. The slide and barrel on a sig are machined, as well as the glocks. The reliability reputation goes to the glock, as has been my experiance. The accuracy is supposed to go with the sig, but for my money, dead on bullseye is as good as it gets. Both great pistols, the sig will cost you a few hundred bucks more.

I like Glocks,

Based on some of your previous postings I figured you for a Beretta 92 man. ;)

curmudgeon and anarchist
November 19, 2007, 05:35 PM
Glock is cheaper.

But you can't pistol whip somebody with a Glock.:neener:

November 19, 2007, 05:42 PM
and dont leave it where the dog might find it, especially if went shooting right after you ate some fried chicken. ;)

November 19, 2007, 06:58 PM
But you can't pistol whip somebody with a Glock.

Beg to differ with ya there partner! :evil:

November 19, 2007, 07:29 PM
In which way? That you cant pistol whip someone holding a Glock, or you can do it to someone else using one? Or both. :)

November 19, 2007, 07:38 PM
Sig and Glock both launch projectiles fairly well.
Ford pinto and Mustang GT are both cars that will take you from point A to point B. All similarity ends there however. An all metal firearm is a work of machinist art and composite pistols are like some cheap plastic toy. That said, I carry a pistol with a polymer (read plastic) frame and a forged slide. Is it my favorite range gun? No, my all steel Witness Elite Match, and 1911s fill that bill thank you.:D

curmudgeon and anarchist
November 19, 2007, 08:33 PM
Using one to pistol whip. But if the other guy has one, it follows that he will be more difficult to pistol whip.

November 19, 2007, 09:09 PM
This reminds me of a commercial: Tastes Better! Less Filling!

This is an argument over two well designed mechanisms with different materials used in the construction. I have a Glock M27 in 40 and I have a Sig P226 "Blackwater" edition in 9mm.

Glocks are beloved by a great many in the law enforcement communities. Sigs on the other hand are equally revered by both law enforcement (Lots of alphabet soup feds as well as the Texas Rangers) and the military (SEAL Teams and others swear by the P226).

The handling characteristics for each are markedly different. Is one "BETTER" than the other? Of course not. Like any tool some will fit certain folks better than others. No such thing as one size fits all. I certainly do not feel less well armed with either!

I like the solid feel of the Sig but I like the extremely short reset point on the trigger of the Glock. I had a short reset trigger installed on my Sig and it still doesn't match the reset of the Glock! So what?

Tastes better! Less filling!

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 17 VS. Sig P226" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!