SigSauer vs. Glock


PDA






deALPHAmale
April 27, 2009, 06:25 AM
For my first hand gun purchase when I turn 21, I've been looking into the Sig P239 (which is still likely my first choice for size and concealability once I have my permit). The thing shoots like a dream, period, any firing mode.

However, I've recently also been introduced to the Glock and its overall amazing durability. The gun just seems to never stop shooting, no matter what. Sigs are pretty reliable, but the Glock seems to be like the pricey handgun version of the AK-47 in that regard.

So I'm just curious, your thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "SigSauer vs. Glock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
memphisjim
April 27, 2009, 06:33 AM
you already know it seems
sig more accurate
glock with its looser tolerances = more reliable

deALPHAmale
April 27, 2009, 06:34 AM
I was asking more for opinions as to which would be a better first choice and why...

memphisjim
April 27, 2009, 06:37 AM
im a glock man ask somebody who is neutral

lvcat2004
April 27, 2009, 06:43 AM
I'm a Springfiled XD guy, so I'm neutral:D

oh wait, I do own a couple of sig's too.

My opinion is it doesn't matter really....both are good reliable weapons.

I personally like DA/SA all metal construction for a first handgun...will last you forever and good to get used to DA/SA design rather than striker design as it is so fundamental, but again I see plenty of people start out with plastic guns and do fine.

WHATEVER you feel comfortable with and can shoot accurately.

Don't let me start suggesting a CZ or Springfield XD because you'd want them instead of a sig or a Block:evil:

CDW4ME
April 27, 2009, 08:08 AM
Sig is okay. I prefer the lower bore axis of the Glock, which reduces felt recoil. I also like the Glocks / Kahr consistent trigger pull. If I ever got another Sig (I owned a 220 and a 226 in the past) it would be the DAO model, whatever Sig calls it.

Lone_Gunman
April 27, 2009, 09:08 AM
I have noticed no difference in reliablity or accuracy between Glocks and Sigs.

What I would tell you is that the Glock 19 is only slightly larger than the Sig 239, and has twice the mag capacity.

GForceLizard
April 27, 2009, 09:46 AM
You should also consider the Ruger SR9 and the Smith & Wesson M&P. There are so many excellent guns you kinda hafta try to go wrong. If the price of the Sig isn't a problem I'd think it's the one.

fineredmist
April 27, 2009, 09:47 AM
I cannot understand the logic of a DA/SA action, if you like the long pull of the DA then use a DA only auto. The transition from DA to SA, in my opinion is distracting and time consuming as you need to slightly alter your grip when the change is made. To really shine some light on the subject, competive shooters (IPSIC and IDPA) perfer two types of actions, single (1911 ) and striker fired (Glock, M&P etc) over DA/SA types as they are faster and the trigger feel is the same from start to finish. I have owned and shot both and I prefer the striker fired for it's consistent action.

FN5.7shooter
April 27, 2009, 09:47 AM
Either Glock or Sig will be plenty reliable enough. That is the only place they compare. Glock compact 9mm is high cap plastic the Sig is metal single stack low round count. Sig is bigger money Glock is popcorn. Get both. :D

Zerodefect
April 27, 2009, 10:07 AM
Both are good guns. I'd go with the Glock, especially the compact models:G19,23,32,38.

The Sigs Da/sa trigger is obsolete. The Glocks trigger can be upgraded into an excellent trigger very easy.

The Glock draws faster, is lighter, and smoother. The Glock can be repaired cheaply and quickly. Its about as tuneable as an AR15. Every single part for it is out there.....the best part is none are needed if you want to go that route.

Both are reliable. Seen some bad news from both camps lately, but thats just the net being the net.


All the bigger gun stores have tons of Sigs and are sold out on most Glocks. I don't think people want a fancy version of a Ruger p95 or M9 for the price of a 1911. Then again, you have to buy a ton of Sig pistols to get a chance to sell the Sig 556 and p556. One shop claimed he had to buy $10,000 dollars worth of Sig pistols before he could buy a 556. Thats only 12 pistols. But that might be why I'm seeing piles of Sigs everywhere.

I'm still biased, Glock or 1911, everything else falls short on performance. Sig deos make 1911's though..........


Glock>Sig
Sig>HK
1911s>/=Glock

Mainsail
April 27, 2009, 10:19 AM
You should try both out and decide for yourself. I bought a G17 in 1987 and could never shoot it well. I chalked it up to the trigger and the grip angle. I bought a P239 and was amazed at how well I was able to shoot it.

harmon rabb
April 27, 2009, 10:31 AM
You really can't go wrong with either. The best thing you probably can do is play with both at a gun store and see if one fits your hand more comfortably, etc.

For me, my sig 226 just fits my hand perfectly. I can also hit the mag release and slide release easily and quickly with my thumb, making quick reloads (should i actually be in a shtf situation) possible.

One advantage of sig over glock, i think, is that you can buy a .40 sig and all you need to do to shoot .357 sig out of it is change the barrel. Sig sells the replacement barrels, and once you learn to field strip and reassemble the gun, you could swap barrels in under a minute (so it's very feasible to do at the range). I'm not sure if you can do this with a glock.

I think Glock mags are a lot cheaper, by the way. That may be something to consider as well.

Jimfern
April 27, 2009, 10:35 AM
I have a G35 which I love, but if I had to do it over again I would get a pistol with a barrel that was OK with lead bullets. If you reload, you I would give the nod to the Sig. I know you can get an aftermarket barrel, but that's just one more thing.

BushyGuy
April 27, 2009, 11:48 AM
Buy a Taurus PT92, i think they are better then both a SIG and Glock in overall performance and reliability.

skeeter_08
April 27, 2009, 12:06 PM
Your own words;

"I've been looking into the Sig P239 (which is still likely my first choice for size and concealability once I have my permit). The thing shoots like a dream, period, any firing mode."

Sounds like you almost have your mind made up and I can't fault your logic. Once you get out to the range and get your hand behind one of these firearms, you will have your own informed opinions, and those are the opinions that count.

Personally, I like the P225 I have now and I'd like to have my old P228 back. I think the G17 and G19 are also very good. But "IMHO" the P225 and P228 are two of the very best 9mm just plain fun shooters to be had.

I agree with King Ghidora, since I also own a Sig P220 and I also like mine. Agree 100% that its very accurate and ergonomic. But I know a guy who shoots the 10mm Glock 20 like its a tackdriver; most of the time its the skill of shooter and not the pistol itself that makes the difference, and that's the fact! - skeeter_08

skeeter_08
April 27, 2009, 12:17 PM
Your own words;

"I've been looking into the Sig P239 (which is still likely my first choice for size and concealability once I have my permit). The thing shoots like a dream, period, any firing mode."

Sounds like you almost have your mind made up and I can't fault your logic. Once you get out to the range and get your hand behind one of these firearms, you will have your own informed opinions, and those are the opinions that count.

Personally, I like the P225 I have now and I'd like to have my old P228 back. I think the G17 and G19 are very good also. But "IMHO" the P225 and P228 are two of the very best 9mm just plain fun shooters to be had. - skeeter_08

midiwall
April 27, 2009, 12:21 PM
I have a Sig P239 and a Glock 34. I prefer (and am a better shot with) the Glock, but it's not a reasonable carry.

I've shot a lot of the shorter Glocks (17 (4.5"). 19 (4"). 26 (3.5)) with the 26 being closest to the size of the P239 in terms of barrel length.

So, comparing the 26 with the P239 I'd give the nod to the P239. They're both awesome guns, but in a short barrel (not a "micro" barrel) I'd prefer to have the weight to keep things smoother. That will increase your carry weight - but it may help if you need to use that carry arm.

The other side of this of course is if you prefer a "lively fire". I think the shorter Glocks are a lot of fun to shoot - I think the Sig is easier to shoot accurately.

Given that this is your first, it won't be your last... I'd think past this being your carry weapon, and approach it more from the angle of "this is my carry weapon for now". :) For me, I've found it makes more sense to carry a Kel-Tec PF-9, my other carriers a Kahr PM9. For us, those became the most reasonable weapons to cart around.

Baneblade
April 27, 2009, 01:02 PM
If you are serious about concealed carry the Sig would be a great choice. However, the Glock will be more reliable. I can make most Sigs fail just by getting them dirty. If you are good about maintaining the Sig and clean it after each shoot you won't have that problem.

You can't go wrong either way.

PPGMD
April 27, 2009, 01:28 PM
Sounds like you want concealed carry, my first choice would be the Sig 239 as the ONE gun. 9mm Single stack, with a ton of options so you can suit the gun to you.

Anyways concealed carry is a very personal thing. What may work for one person may not work for another. Try them both, try the holsters available for both.

Personally I carry a Sig P228R and a Ruger LCP. The 228R is my primary, the Ruger is my BUG, or my deep concealment gun.

Anyways various responses to outrageous claims.

I cannot understand the logic of a DA/SA action, if you like the long pull of the DA then use a DA only auto. The transition from DA to SA, in my opinion is distracting and time consuming as you need to slightly alter your grip when the change is made. To really shine some light on the subject, competive shooters (IPSIC and IDPA) perfer two types of actions, single (1911 ) and striker fired (Glock, M&P etc) over DA/SA types as they are faster and the trigger feel is the same from start to finish. I have owned and shot both and I prefer the striker fired for it's consistent action.

You don't need to move your hand to transition from one to the other. You only need to do that if you are trained improperly.

As far as USPSA, again incorrect for quite a while the CZ 75 SP-01 was dominating Production. Until Team Glock redoubled it's efforts to win production. It's the shooter not the gun, the DA/SA transition is only on the first shot.

The Sigs Da/sa trigger is obsolete. The Glocks trigger can be upgraded into an excellent trigger very easy.

The Glock draws faster, is lighter, and smoother. The Glock can be repaired cheaply and quickly. Its about as tuneable as an AR15. Every single part for it is out there.....the best part is none are needed if you want to go that route.

DA/SA triggers are far from obsolete, they are probably one of the more common triggers.

Draws faster, never heard about one compare draw times. Unless there is some magical fairy dust on the Glock, the draw times should be equal give the same holster, and shooters of similar skill levels.

Smoother, I would beg to differ, Sigs are very smooth when properly lubed, and so are Glocks.

As far as tuneabillity, there are replacement parts for Sigs, they are concentrated mostly around the competition communities. In my Sigs I have aftermarket grips and grip screws, after market sears, and safety levers, after market guide rod, after market firing pin block, after market springs, and after market sights. The only reason why there aren't more parts replaced is because I didn't deem the parts necessary.

You may not see the parts in cheaper than dirt, but the parts are out there.

I can make most Sigs fail just by getting them dirty. If you are good about maintaining the Sig and clean it after each shoot you won't have that problem.

Eh? I've shot 1,500 rounds of CCI Blazer Alminum (dirty dirty ammo) at a range that was recently constructed with dust blowing everywhere getting into everything, zero failures, and I never cleaned the gun, or the magazines.

cloudedice
April 27, 2009, 02:09 PM
Out of the few Sigs/Glocks I've tried I prefer the Sigs.


I've had a few malfunctions while using Glocks, but not a single one while firing a Sig.
The Sigs fit my hand better.
Glocks are DAO. I'm a fan of DA/SA triggers.
The Glock trigger safety eats into my finger.
Glocks are also a bit boxy (aesthetically) for my taste.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 27, 2009, 02:44 PM
Sig. No-brainer.

GLOOB
April 27, 2009, 04:13 PM
Sig Saeur = awesome
Sigarms = ???

benzuncle
April 27, 2009, 04:29 PM
deALPH, Glocks and Sigs are just 2 brands of great firearms; both have their "fans" with good reason. What feels good/right in your hand is huge. As for reliablity, anyone that says either is unreliable is probably just malnourished. It was mentioned that this probably won't be your last purchase. Oh, how true that is. If looks matters (which being your first firearm it very well may), the Sig gets the nod. Most Sig owners take a moment after cleaning their firearms and admire it. Glock owners just throw theirs in the safe. As mentioned, if you plan on shooting lead or reloading lead, it is recommended that you not shoot lead through Glocks.

I own 2 Sigs: a P220 Compact and a P239/357sig. I love'em. I have purposely not cleaned them after several trips to the range so I know I can count on them. Never a hitch or glitch.

I have rented a Glock so I could "feel" it. It shot great. I did not particularly care for the grip angle, but I shot very well with it.

If $$ is a big consideration, you better go with the Glock.

Concerning the DA/SA: ask Plaxico if he still likes a Glock's trigger. :D

You will do well with either firearm. Good luck with your decision. Let us know...

matai
April 27, 2009, 04:29 PM
Navy SEALs use Sigs so you should too, unless you hate SEALs!!!


JK, I have a Glock and a Sig, the Sig is smoother, higher quality, fits like a glove and racks like butter.

Glocks are definately more utilitarian, I sanded my frame a little and carry the G20 out in the woods a lot were it gets beat up, but I don't mind. Whereas I pamper my P226, even though it doesn't need it.

Omaha-BeenGlockin
April 27, 2009, 04:59 PM
Have had both--prefer Glock --obviously.

The Ruger SR9 is an excellent lower cost option---feels great in the hand.

The P239 is about the worst Sig out there--way too top heavy--and the overall size and weight is out of line with its limited capacity.

Grey Morel
April 27, 2009, 05:36 PM
Hello sir! Welcome to the world of handguns. :)

I currently own both a Sig P6 and Glock 17. I have owned other Glocks and Sigs in the past as well.

Keep in mind that accuracy has more to do with how you shoot than how the gun shoots.

I shoot equaly well with either platform, but they are very different. The DA/SA action of the standard Sig takes more getting used to than the DAO of the Glock, but neither one is bad in that regard.

As for reliability concerns, I've never had any failures in any of the Glocks, or any of the Sig that i have owned that were not clearly ammunition malfunctions, so it is my opinion that the reliability is virtualy the same for both platforms.

I can make most Sigs fail just by getting them dirty

Yes I'm sure you can. Any hammer fired weapon can be dissabled when debris blocks the firing pin. This happens frequently when they are dropped in mud or loose sand. It only takes a second to clear, but most poeple don't think to look. Its a weakness thats inherant to the design. On the other hand, Glocks are notoriously vulnerable to limp wristing: especialy the larger caliber variations; its a flaw inherant to their design as well. :)

From a mechanical standpoint, the service life of both pistols is probably very similar as well.

In the end, you need to descide which platform is more agreeable to you, and make note of which platform shoots better for you. With this in mind, i would advise you to get more trigger time with both platforms, and factor that into your descision far more heavily than the preference of internet forumites. :)

CPshooter
April 28, 2009, 04:23 AM
you already know it seems
sig more accurate
glock with its looser tolerances = more reliableNot always..

My H&Ks have tighter tolerances than any of my Glocks did, and I've never experienced a single malfunction with my H&Ks. Can't say the same for my Glocks.

IMHO, after owning 4 Glocks I think they are kind of overrated. If the grip angle was more natural and I shot them better my opinion might be different.

I own 2 Sigs: a P220 Compact and a P239/357sig. I love'em. I have purposely not cleaned them after several trips to the range so I know I can count on them. Never a hitch or glitch.I do that with my H&K P2000sk and USP.40c and get the same results: flawless performance. Tried it with one of my two Glock 19s and wasn't so lucky.

That said, Glocks are still great guns for the money and many will argue they do the same thing as an H&K or Sig for less $$. I happen to think that usually when you pay more, you get more. One thing about Glocks that you simply can't argue is that they give you a lot of rounds in the smallest/lightest package.

Sigs are nice too! Can't go wrong with either.

mormandy1
April 28, 2009, 05:36 AM
I've owned and fired plenty of each, so here goes.

First of all let's qualify this.

How about Old School German-made SIGs vs Glocks.

No contest. The SIG is a superior weapon in every area but "toughness". The glock is the better choice for those who might have their pistol run over by a tank. The SIG is more of a high end weapon with better accuracy, and sterling reliability (not that glocks are not reliable as well to be fair). Glocks feel like you are holding a brick, and the SIGs have a "sweet" "ergonomic" grip feel.

Now, when it comes to the new "American made" SIGs, who knows. Reviews are mixed, and I might just advise you to take a Glock over one of the new SIGs made in America. They have been making some real lemons, while Glock continues to crank out reliable solid handguns.

Up until now, HK was also far above Glocks, but I see they too will now be made in America, which will no doubt lower their quality control level as well.

A Glock is a good, solid, reliable, cheap gun. The best gun on earth per dollar, no doubt. Classic German SIGs are just more refined weapons.

Remember, every rookie cops carries a glock.

SIGs are carried by people like the Secret Service, Special Forces, etc.

These things don't happen by coincidence.

legion3
April 28, 2009, 05:43 AM
Both are great guns, both are European designed and made ;) (And as Normandy1 said -yes some sigs have the "problem" of being made here) ;)
however, for whatever reason sigs just don't do it for me. I have always wanted to like them but...

So I would choose Glock the model 19 specifically but a Glock is a Glock.

If you like sig a Old School German-made SIGs would be my choice.

HippieMagic
April 28, 2009, 06:15 AM
Cops here generally have a S&W revlover as a backup... not sure of the model but their main gun is generally a Glock(sheriff) or P226(State) but it is a HUGE mix... I swear I see them go through guns left and right... you never know what they carry next but out of all the states I have seen or spoken to they are carrying a sig 226.

I just bought a glock 19 because I got it insanely cheap... cheaper than LEO discount cheap and it is NIB current gen. I like the feel of the sig guns and eventually I will end up getting a P226 but quite frankly I have better things to spend $1000 on at the moment...

This glock is my first gun... I have shot others but this is my first personally owned handgun and I went cheaper gun(cheap but reliable) and I am using the other cash for school stuff, ammo, and CCW permit...

6x6pinz
April 28, 2009, 03:22 PM
lvcat2004 has pretty much said all that needs to be said. Get the most comfortable. There are lots to choose from, the glock line would not be my first choice ( I don't even own a glock by choice) I know there are lots of people who bought into the glock propaganda and that is fine, they are after all a decent pistol, just not the best for me IMHO.

get the one YOU can shoot accuratly and carry comfortably.

legion3
April 28, 2009, 03:53 PM
I know there are lots of people who bought into the glock propaganda and that is fine, they are after all a decent pistol


A Glock compliment ??? :confused: ;)

KBintheSLC
April 28, 2009, 03:59 PM
I have some of both. I have a P239 and P226 both in 9mm. I also have 3 Glocks in 9mm and 10mm. I love all of my children equally, the all have their place in my family. Pick the one you like and go with it. Its like choosing between a BMW or a Mercedes. They are both good cars, and its just a matter of taste really.

radoson
April 28, 2009, 04:02 PM
mormandy1
Remember, every rookie cops carries a glock.
SIGs are carried by people like the Secret Service, Special Forces, etc.
These things don't happen by coincidence.

Help me understand this mormandy1?
So what you are saying is only rookie cops carry glocks, what about the non-rookie cops?
Also Secret Service, Special Forces, etc are trained so well that they are never rookies? :confused::confused::confused:

I would say make sure you have Both Sigs and Glocks in your collection. Glocks are your beaters and the Sigs are going to be passed onto your kids...

Zerodefect
April 28, 2009, 05:12 PM
Plenty of experts choose Glock. Its a fast gun to draw, with no safeties, and a low bore for light recoil. Not just for rookies. They really aren't as cheap as they're made out to be. I've got no problem carrying a $2000 dollar Wilson and banging it up like my Kimber, but I prefere to have a Glock on my belt usually.

Why do the Glocks allways get hit up for being utilitarian? They seem to have a nice finish? Any carry gun is going to look utilitarian after some holster wear anyway?

I don't get the comfortable grip argument anymore either. The combat grip most (if not all, now) advanced shooters are using is completely uncomfortable with any gun I've tried?

76shuvlinoff
April 28, 2009, 09:57 PM
Did the Farnum course with a Sig. Shot well no hiccups but I'm a lefty and I learned to hate that decocker. Not a Glock fan but I'm not a hater either so I'd carry one if I had one... just not in my pocket. :evil:
Bought a Kimber 45, carry an XD40 and shopping for a Kahr 9mm.

1911shooter
April 28, 2009, 10:17 PM
SIGs are as reliable as glocks, it all depends on if you want a fearri or chevy, the sig will take a bit more mantainence then a glock but in my oppinion you will be better served by the SIG, more accurate to boot.

loneviking
April 29, 2009, 03:03 AM
Glocks are reliable? Some say yes, some no. Here's an interesting video on deliberately limp wristing while shooting various semi-autos's. Glocks didn't fare too well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsewsolPyBU&feature=related

I also don't like the feel of the Glock grip. Good value for the money, but I think I'll hold out for a Sig 229.

LancerMW
April 29, 2009, 03:32 AM
both firearms are very reliable i think the glock edges out the sig, the sig(mainly the 220) probably edges out the glock accuracy wise, but not by much. I personally shoot the glock a little better and think the Glock 19 is one of the best handguns made. both are solid choices and i would suggest trying both out a few times before you buy one. I personally have an obvious bias to glocks over sigs which has a lot to do with shooting IDPA/IPSC

lastly dont listen to the guy pushing the taurus:D

SrDedosRapidos
April 29, 2009, 03:42 AM
I have a Sig 225 (no longer produced)

It has fed everything i have put through it. Not a SINGLE issue. I feed the heavy +P+ stuff too and it takes the beating well.

Also, Sigs feel better in my hand and IMHO are a taaaad more accurate than Glocks.

And the takedown is just as easy as a Glock.

But you should get a 1911 :D

krs
April 29, 2009, 10:12 AM
I wasn't big on DA/SA type pistols but I fell into a $350. Sig P226.

My whole 1911/Glock/SAXD world came to a stop and I was in love!

That old 226 makes me smile every time I pick it up and if it weren't so big and heavy it'd be my go to carry gun as well, but instead I'll usually be found carrying one of my downsized 1911's or my Glock 19.

jonboynumba1
April 29, 2009, 10:25 AM
Generally speaking Glock's are a bit lighter and less bulky than the average comparable sig...the mags are cheaper to. The finish on the glock is very resistant to abuse and sweat...they are also cheaper. I'd say the GLOCK is a better buy for those reasons...

That being said the SIG line has some nice guns in it...they are very well made...the company are dicks to deal with especially on parts...so unless you have a full blown sig dealer in your area that might also color my decision...if you do than it wouldn't...I love the way the sigs feel in hand (I have big hands and that bump on the left side fits my hands perfectly...so I shoot sigs well...I dislike the newer fingergroove glock frames...there are ups and downs to both...what matters most is seeing what fits and doesn't fit YOU...see if you can find someone or a range where you can rent and shoot both models in question...buy the one that points and shoots most naturally for you....learn to shoot it safely and well...buy a good holster that allows you to carry it in relative comfort...and you are good to go!

The hardest decision you'll ever love! -LOL ;)

10-Ring
April 29, 2009, 04:05 PM
From what I've seen - new guns tend to be pampered - especially as new 1st firearms go. IMO, I would go w/ the ugly, new, less expensive Glock & shoot the snot out of it. I've been really happy w/ my G19 and 1000's and 1000's of rounds later, she looks like she did when I bought her ;)

CWL
April 29, 2009, 04:08 PM
There is no right answer, just like there is no such thing as a "best" pistol.

It really just depends on your personal preference. That's it.

Wedge
April 29, 2009, 04:11 PM
buy the black one

jocko
April 29, 2009, 04:37 PM
for me any day, every day I never did like a sig, not because they didn't work, just never liked um..

I've never known any person to ever wear out either brand and as far as passingit on to ur kids. lay ur sig in the yard for a year and ur glock and see which one looks like a gun yet.

And I personally don't buy guns with the intent to pass it on to my son either as a criteria for buying a sig or a glock.... That statement to me makes zero sense..

donato
April 29, 2009, 04:55 PM
I like the trigger on the SIG better.

lay ur sig in the yard for a year and ur glock and see which one looks like a gun yet.


What does this have to do with anything? Does anyone really store their guns outdoors in the back yard?? Hahaha. :)

jos2f
April 29, 2009, 05:00 PM
I find the ergonomics of the Sig to be more desireable than that of a Glock.
I'm an XD fan myself, but every once in a while I think to myself "I wish this XD was DA/SA like the Sig".

I love the SA follow up shots on a Sig.

Girodin
April 29, 2009, 10:32 PM
They are both good guns. Both are perfectly adequate for a CCW. Do you like SA/DA? Do you prefer it to the striker fired glock? Is there one you find notably more comfortable?

I like the G19. Why?

It is lighter which when you carry a gun all day makes a difference. Yes you want something you are confident in and proficient with but all other things equal I'll take the lighter gun. Most people's CCWs are carried a lot and never used.

It has a higher capacity. This may or may not really matter but again I'd prefer to have the extra rounds than not.

Cost, if I can shoot a G19 as well as a sig and it is as reliable and has all the accuracy I can make use of or need for a ccw then why pay more? Also sig mags are much more expensive than glock mags. The cost of and availability of mags (including 33 rounders) is one thing I like a lot about glocks vis a vis many other pistols. I could afford the sig but there was nothing to compel me to spend the extra money.

I wouldn't deride your choice if you went with the sig, its a great gun. I at times carry a G19 if that tells you the confidence I have in that gun. I am also in the market for another glock.

In short there is not a bad choice. Go with the one you like more. I wouldn't put much stock in the haters or fan boys either.

exiledrebel
April 29, 2009, 11:25 PM
I started off with the Sig 239 in .40 cal, largely because of the DA/SA feature. For my first carry pistol, I figured having a hammer-fired pistol with magazine disconnect safety was the right choice for me. But I was just never quite thrilled with the 239 due to its relatively higher weight, size and my ability to shoot accurately with it. It was certainly accurate enough, but I found I could shoot other pistols more accurately. These impressions are all based on my experiences and your mileage is likely to vary.

I replaced the 239 with an M&P 45c and Glock 27. Neither of them is necessarily "better" than the 239, but they work better for me in terms of being lighter, somewhat smaller in every dimension, more easily concealed and carried, and more accurate in my hands. For me, that's what made the decision. Whatever you choose, I don't think you will go wrong.

PPGMD
April 30, 2009, 01:09 AM
Also sig mags are much more expensive than glock mags. The cost of and availability of mags (including 33 rounders) is one thing I like a lot about glocks vis a vis many other pistols.

Sig mags are only more expensive then Glock magazines only if you are dumb enough to buy Sig branded magazines. All Sig magazines are made by third party companies. I can get Sig magazines for $21 all day long. They cheapest price I've ever seen for Glock magazines is $25.

And they are very readily available if you know where to buy them. Sig doesn't make a 30+ round magazine, but that magazine is not practical.

sarduy
April 30, 2009, 01:15 AM
I'm a Glock/1911 fan :evil:

lvcat2004
April 30, 2009, 01:42 AM
You opend a can of worms....

I'm going back to what I said in my 5th post....just get WHAT YOU feel comfortable with. Given that about equal number of people recommended Glocks and Sigs, they are both good, have their pros/cons, and really comes down to preferences.

Having said that, I'd recommend an XD or CZ75 :neener:

Rexster
April 30, 2009, 02:08 AM
Due to the Glock's slide extending so far to the rear, in order to enclose the striker mechanism, plus its width and blockiness, I believe the SIG to be easier to conceal.

I derive this belief from actual experience, plus simply doing the math. I used Glocks for duty and carry from 2002 to 2004, and have used SIG P229s since then. I would rather hide a P229 in a typical concealment holster, IWB or OWB, on the hip, than a G27 or G22. (All Glocks in a given frame size share the same dimensions at the rear of the slide.) The P239 is, of course, narrower and easier to hide than my P229s.

Moreover, I like the SIG trigger better than the Glock trigger. My main duty/carry P229s have the DAK trigger system, and some of my other P229s have DA/SA. It is laughable to assert that the Glock trigger system makes the SIG's DA/SA trigger system obsolete, but even if it does, what about the DAK trigger system, designed more recently than the Glock trigger? Really, a trigger system never becomes obsolete, if it still works in the real world. The 1911 and S&W revolver triggers, for example, are as relevant as ever.

Reliability? Overall, Glocks and SIGs are both reliable weapon systems. Individuals of both makes can be problematic. I had one P229 that worked fine with 180-grain ammo, but occasionally malfed with lighter bullet weights. My other SIGs, P229 and P220, work fine. I had one problematic G22, that worked well enough after I replaced the stock mag springs with heavier ones, a remedy recommended by a Glock armorer. Another G22 did not like 180-grain ammo, a problem that went undetected for several years, because I tended to use 165- and 155-grain ammo, but for a shooting class, I needed to buy several hundred rounds, and the local gun shop only had 180-grain ammo in quantity. I never tried to troubleshoot this problem, as by then, the G22 was just a spare pistol, as I had switched to SIG for duty and carry. A co-worker wanted to buy the G22, to use as a range toy, so I sold it to him with full disclosure that it was problematic with 180-grain ammo.

I shoot SIGs more accurately than Glocks. This is mostly a matter of fit, and my preference for the longer-stroke SIG trigger pull, but SIGs' excellent reputation for accuracy does come from somewhere.

Either SIG or Glock will be fine. I recommend shooting an example of each before buying. SIG would be MY choice, by far, but they are both good weapons.

mormandy1
April 30, 2009, 04:57 AM
Ok, I have owned and fired both brands a good deal, and am a heavy SIG user.

First, let's talk about the SIGs I own, the "classic" German made pistols with folded sheet metal slides. They are the guns the SIG name was made on, and are deadly accurate, totally reliable, and for sure, a step or two above a Glock. The newer ones have been known to have issues (made in America now), and I stay away from them. So a classic SIG vs. Glock is SIG hands down. The newer ones, I would probably just say stick with a Glock (saddens me to say that).

To put it bluntly, Glocks are loved by rookie cops, SIGs are used by the Secret Service, tactical teams, etc. They are different levels of weapon.

Now everything I just said assumes that we are leaving the trigger design out of the equation. But of course to most it matters, a lot. The Glock is a simplified trigger for those who lack training in DA/SA or SAO and need "a trigger for dummies" (no offense intended - but most rookie cops aren't gun guys - and this is mostly a cop gun). Many like myself who are long time hangunners comfortable with any and all triggers, don't care for the stupid little dangler on the Glock trigger, and I find it pinches my finger a bit. I have no use for it and find it obnoxious. I also have NO problem pulling out my P220 DA/SA and centering a head shot at 50 feet with both the first DA and the following SA shot. It's just a matter of training and practice. But for many shooters, especially women and younger guys, or men with less extensive shooting backgrounds, having a consistent pull is an aid to accuracy, and I understand this. So first you have to be OK with the trigger design of whichever gun you choose.

All being equal though, I will say this. The Glock is better if your gun might be run over by a tank or left in salt water for a month, it's tougher. But for normal users the SIG is more of an accurate, precision weapon. Everything that makes the Glock reliable (and it is very reliable), comes from the lockup patents they copied from SIG Sauer when the patents ran out, so they work great.

Don't let anyone give the BS line about weight savings either. For instance, my folded slide P220 weighs LESS unloaded than a Glock 21, and quite a bit less loaded. Other models vary up or down a bit, but in general when comparing loaded guns (we do keep them loaded right?), the Glock is HEAVIER, not lighter than a SIG in most cases, and in any case weight is a silly issue since both are easy to carry.

My own experience:
Old school SIGs are rock solid, totally reliable, and sometimes display accuracy that is "rifle-like". My old West German P220 in 38 super could print groups around 1" at 25 yards and could outshoot any other pistol of any price point, and did so on a regular basis, heel magazine release and all.

My glocks have worked well, except for the model 20 I owned. After less than 1000 rounds the plastic began to peel off of the steel part of the magazines and the gun started jamming a great deal. It was sold. 10mm literally tore the thing apart in less than a year. SIG and HK don't make guns in this caliber, and are probably wise not to, but at any rate, there is my one Glock horror story.

For most new shooters, the Glock will probably work better for you right off the bat to be honest though, due to trigger pull consistency. However, there is nothing wrong with developing some skills and learning to shoot a traditional handgun properly.

legion3
April 30, 2009, 08:07 AM
To put it bluntly, Glocks are loved by rookie cops, SIGs are used by the Secret Service, tactical teams, etc. They are different levels of weapon.

Now everything I just said assumes that we are leaving the trigger design out of the equation. But of course to most it matters, a lot. The Glock is a simplified trigger for those who lack training in DA/SA or SAO and need "a trigger for dummies" (no offense intended - but most rookie cops aren't gun guys - and this is mostly a cop gun). Many like myself who are long time hangunners comfortable with any and all triggers, don't care for the stupid little dangler on the Glock trigger, and I find it pinches my finger a bit. I have no use for it and find it obnoxious. I also have NO problem pulling out my P220 DA/SA and centering a head shot at 50 feet with both the first DA and the following SA shot. It's just a matter of training and practice. But for many shooters, especially women and younger guys, or men with less extensive shooting backgrounds, having a consistent pull is an aid to accuracy, and I understand this. So first you have to be OK with the trigger design of whichever gun you choose.

All being equal though, I will say this. The Glock is better if your gun might be run over by a tank or left in salt water for a month, it's tougher. But for normal users the SIG is more of an accurate, precision weapon. Everything that makes the Glock reliable (and it is very reliable), comes from the lockup patents they copied from SIG Sauer when the patents ran out, so they work great.

Don't let anyone give the BS line about weight savings either. For instance, my folded slide P220 weighs LESS unloaded than a Glock 21, and quite a bit less loaded. Other models vary up or down a bit, but in general when comparing loaded guns (we do keep them loaded right?), the Glock is HEAVIER, not lighter than a SIG in most cases, and in any case weight is a silly issue since both are easy to carry.

My own experience:
Old school SIGs are rock solid, totally reliable, and sometimes display accuracy that is "rifle-like". My old West German P220 in 38 super could print groups around 1" at 25 yards and could outshoot any other pistol of any price point, and did so on a regular basis, heel magazine release and all.

My glocks have worked well, except for the model 20 I owned. After less than 1000 rounds the plastic began to peel off of the steel part of the magazines and the gun started jamming a great deal. It was sold. 10mm literally tore the thing apart in less than a year. SIG and HK don't make guns in this caliber, and are probably wise not to, but at any rate, there is my one Glock horror story.

For most new shooters, the Glock will probably work better for you right off the bat to be honest though, due to trigger pull consistency. However, there is nothing wrong with developing some skills and learning to shoot a traditional handgun properly.

blech :barf:

TurboFC3S
April 30, 2009, 04:21 PM
It's all about what YOU are looking for ...

Me personally I own 14 Sig's right now, and honestly the 239 is my least favorite ... because of the DAK trigger it has, hate that trigger. But I do still shoot it well, and love carrying it. It's a Gen1 SAS two tone with wood grips, so it's damn sexy too. I only own 3 Glocks, they all would do the job just fine. But the only one I feel any affinity toward is the G29, because it's a firebreather! My G19 and G33 just don't get shot much, and fondled even less.

I never feel myself wanting more Glocks, but I'm always wanting more Sigs. The reason is simple for me, you can take pride in a Sig but the Glock is just a tool. If you're only looking to own a handgun or two each with their intended purpose, than I can certainly see looking for a Glock. They're tools, and they do their job very well. If you're wanting to buy guns because you love guns, then you'll likely end up gravitating more toward the Sig end of the spectrum becuase they're tools ... but in addition they're also beautiful pieces of art.

As far as one 'working' better than the other, that's a rabbit-hole with no answer. Just buy whatever floats your boat and go from there.

cash2006
April 30, 2009, 05:20 PM
I've the 229, 226, and 232 in Sig.
I've the 27, 19, and 26 in glock. The last bought post november as a replacement for the 27 if stolen. I perfer the glocks but would recommend the sig for a first timer as they are more fun to dry fire around the house.

Good luck!

Deanimator
April 30, 2009, 05:38 PM
I'd choose the Glock. I don't like double action or double action only autos (which the Glock isn't). The reach to the trigger is almost always too long for me. The pulls are usually pretty gruesome too. You can get an excellent trigger pull from a Glock with just a box of Q-Tips and some Flitz.

Fishman777
April 30, 2009, 11:01 PM
They are both very good guns. Neither is better, in my opinion. There is no such thing as the an ultimate hand gun. If I had to pick an ultimate gun, I'd pick a .357 magnum revolver.

The sig will probably be more accurate, but not by much. They are also much nicer to look at. They have a reputation for high quality. Some might argue that the quality is getting worse, but I can't comment on that. Ithink that they are great guns.

The glock is going to be more reliable, more durable, easy to work on, it'll have more after-market parts. I think that the guns are pretty much equal.

If you are having a tough time deciding between the Glock and the Sig, pick up an HK. Seriously. If you crossed a Glock with a Sig, you'd get an HK.

HKs are the highest quality polymer guns on the market. They are more durable than the Sig, and slightly less than the Glock. I think that they are more reliable than the Sig, but slightly less than a Glock. They are on par with the Sig in terms of quality. They are on par with Sigs in terms of accuracy. I shoot HKs better than Sigs.

If it were me, I'd get the glock and save the $$$$. If the guns are that similiar, why pay the extra $$$$?

RippinSVT
May 1, 2009, 06:01 AM
Sig. No comparison.

Don't get me wrong, the Glock has its place as a fine duty weapon, but a Sig is a Ferrari and a Glock is a Miata. I've owned both, kept the Sig.

simple_rule
May 1, 2009, 12:14 PM
i owned a sig 226, took it to the range a couple times and never liked it so i traded it for a couple guitars.

my glock 17 however, stays in the night stand.

my vote is towards glock BECAUSE the damn thing will never let you down, is easy to clean, and works well even if you choose to treat it like ****. i will admit the sig is way better looking and the feeling but in function i was just never satisfied. like women, the ugly wants do it the best.

Dan Crocker
May 1, 2009, 01:33 PM
I like both of the guns and I've carried the P228 overseas. But really, what can it do that my Glock 19 can't? There's not that much difference between the two in terms of performance. That being said, I'm completely comfortable taking either one anywhere in the world.

thorazine
May 1, 2009, 07:29 PM
Sig is okay. I prefer the lower bore axis of the Glock, which reduces felt recoil.

I've held many sigs and glocks and have yet to see hardly any difference in bore axis.

Girodin
May 8, 2009, 08:53 PM
I posted above that I would take the G19. I recently purchased a sig P229. I took it to the range along with the G19, K9, and an EMP.

I will share my thoughts of the sig vis a vis the G19 now that I own both and have hand a little time to handle, carry and shoot both.

Let me start by saying that the sig is a fine weapon and I was well pleased with my purchase. I will stand by everything I said above. All the guns performed flawlessly. My experience with the 229 matched what I expect from sigs, a reliable weapon.

Accuracy, there was not an appreciable difference in one over the other (in fact there wasn't a noticable difference in any of the pistols on hand). We were shooting at a max of 15 yards and mostly at 3 and 7 yards. Both pistols were more than adequate for self defense and left ragged fist sized holes with rapid fire.

Someone above mentioned sights. I have factory night sights on both pistols. Here I might give the edge to the glock. There was nothing wrong with the sights on the sig however and my edge to the glock could be from familiarity. In short I dont really believe on pistol is a slam dunk winner here.

Weight, above someone mentioned weight is not a issue. I will repeat that having carried both the G19 is noticeably lighter. The glock is a bit more compact and is IMO the easier of the two guns to carry. The Khar and the EMP beat them both when it comes to carry IMO.

It was interesting to survey people on which felt better in their hand. Some said the glock and some said the sig. I would suggest that they were of course all right this one depends on the shooter. I actually prefer the Khar and the EMP to them both.

Take down. Both guns were pretty easy to take down. I think the glock is a little more simple and slightly easier but really neither is hard. I think the glock and the sig beat the Khar and the EMP in this department.

Shooting impressions of each. I think the sig felt slightly better to shoot than the glock. This might be because of the extra weight I also think the shape of the and surface of the trigger felt better to me than the glocks. Again the difference was slight both guns are comfortable to shoot a lot of rounds through and shoot well. The differences here were small and subjective.

In the end I still feel what I did before. Both are good guns that are more than adequate for the OPs needs. One only pulls ahead of the other on subjective elements when it comes to feel and preferences. The sig cost me $150 more than the glock. It doesn't do anything for me that the glock doesn't. If I were selecting a carry gun I would probably go with the G19 but would be very happy with the sig. I would be inclined to select the Khar or the EMP over both and between those two the Khar does what the EMP does for half the money. It really comes down to how each feels when for the shooter and feelings about DA/SA vs striker. I will second the comment above that the sig is better/more fun for dry fire practice.

In the end I am all the more convinced that anyone that thinks one is hands down the better choice for everyone is wearing blinders and sadly mistaken. I would put very little stock in such an opinion. Two great pistols, one is cheaper.


One more note about mags. Above one stated that the 33 round glock mags are "impractical". I would ask what is meant buy that. I wouldn't carry one in the gun for concealed carry but I often slip one in my pocket as a spar mag for CC. They are easily kept in a desk drawer of the car as well. For me they have a practical aplication The 33 rounders feed perfectly. If it were a house gun I would go with the 33 rounders. They are great at the range as well. They also work great for the kel tec sub 2k. In short they maybe too large for one specific task, but I wouldn't make a blanket dismissal of them. If they were available for the sig I would buy them.

NG VI
May 9, 2009, 02:47 PM
One advantage of sig over glock, i think, is that you can buy a .40 sig and all you need to do to shoot .357 sig out of it is change the barrel. Sig sells the replacement barrels, and once you learn to field strip and reassemble the gun, you could swap barrels in under a minute (so it's very feasible to do at the range). I'm not sure if you can do this with a glock.

Glocks can do the same exact thing. And there are a ton of aftermarket companies making barrels for Glocks.


Glocks are also a bit boxy (aesthetically) for my taste.


Something I have done with my two Glocks, a compact and a subcompact model, is replace the serrated trigger with a smooth trigger for the fullsize models, and then I filed the face of the safety bar in the trigger so that it matches the contours of the trigger itself more closely. It makes a world of difference, the bar doesn't bother me anymore and it makes absolutely no difference in performance.

valor1
May 10, 2009, 02:59 AM
I want a tool that's cheap. I don't want to spend too much time caring for my gun. I don't like to visit my gunsmith for simple parts change. I want it simple. I won't sell it again and just bang em till they drop. I'll take the Glock.

nyresq
August 28, 2009, 07:33 PM
I'll start by saying I carry a sig 229 in 357 sig for duty, I also own a standard 229 in 40, an all stainless framed 229 in 40 and a 229 elite in 357 sig. And I have a 239 with both 40 and 357 sig barrels.

On the glock side I own a 27, a 29 and a 35. I have 357 sig barrels for the 27 and 35.

The sig is far more accurate, period. for under the $1000 mark, you would be hard pressed to find any factory pistol that is more accurate.
As to reliability, both are top notch if properly cared for. I have had the opertunity while working on the range, to fire upwards of 5,000 rounds through a 229 without cleaning and only putting a couple drops of oil on the barrel hood every thousand or so rounds. The sig ran flawlessly. I have also done the same with the glock, and it too ran like a champ. If properly cared for, either one will be reliable, and either one is acceptable for combat accuracy to 25 yards. The short barreled glocks are not match guns.... However, the long slide glocks are very accurate but not much for CCW guns.

If you can, try before you buy, and see which one fits your hand better. Try the 229 and the 239 and also try the 17 and 19 size frames in a glock. Maybe even the 26 size if you are looking for a CCW gun. The mini glocks get a little snappy for a new shooter, but far from difficult to shoot by anyones standards.

And both sig and glock have turned out lemons, so dont believe that "american sigs" are garbage. You can get good sigs and you can get bad sigs... just like one of my friends who had to send his G23 back to Glock three times before it would feed a full mag without jamming...

I can honestly say I would carry a sig 229 even if given a choice for duty, but if I was going to war, I would take a glock. Only because I think combat accuracy is good enough for a war zone and the less moving parts and pieces to a glock would simplify maintenance in a far off land...

Either one would be a good choice and a reliable pistol when properly cared for.

okespe04
August 28, 2009, 07:36 PM
Whichever you shoot better. I like glocks cause I shoot them well.

jon_in_wv
January 3, 2010, 06:15 AM
+1. Both are excellent weapons and would serve you well. You need to shoot both and find out which one suits you better. Only you can find that out. No one here can tell you which one is better for YOU.

bluto
January 4, 2010, 12:59 AM
I have both a Glock G19 and a SIG P239 in 9mm. Both are excellent weapons and you won't go wrong with either. I don't conceal carry so I can't give an opinion there. The P239 is softer shooting and a bit more accurate in my hands. If capacity is an issue, go with the Glock. But the magazines for the P239 are downright tiny if you want to carry an extra or two. Many P239 owners will tell you that changing the factory grips for Hogue rubber fingergroove grips is a must. It makes the P239 a much better feeling pistol.

If I had to keep only one it would be the P239.

scoutsabout
January 4, 2010, 02:08 AM
I would put 1000 rounds through a gun from any first-rate manufacturer and take it up against a Glock.

Yeah, Glock has that whole "out of the box" thing going for it... but 1000 rds makes it disappear.

gglass
January 4, 2010, 08:56 AM
Go with the Sig... Leave the Glocks for the lemmings who buy what the lock-step, group-think crowd tells them to buy.

As a previous owner of two Glocks, I would say that the Glock legend is a construct in the minds of Glock owners.

easyg
January 4, 2010, 11:23 AM
For my first hand gun purchase when I turn 21, I've been looking into the Sig P239 (which is still likely my first choice for size and concealability once I have my permit). The thing shoots like a dream, period, any firing mode.

However, I've recently also been introduced to the Glock and its overall amazing durability. The gun just seems to never stop shooting, no matter what. Sigs are pretty reliable, but the Glock seems to be like the pricey handgun version of the AK-47 in that regard.

So I'm just curious, your thoughts?

Just a quick specs comparison of the Sig 239 9mm and the Glock G19 9mm:

Trigger pull:
239 = 10 lbs. / 4.4 lbs. (DA/SA).
G19 = 5.5 lbs. (every time).

Overall Length:
239 = 6.6"
G19 = 6.85"

Overall height:
239 = 5.1"
G19 = 5.0"

Width:
239 = 1.2"
G19 = 1.18"

Barrel length:
239 = 3.6"
G19 = 4.02"

Sight length:
239 = 5.2"
G19 = 6.02"

Weight empty:
239 = 29.5 oz.
G19 = 20.99 oz.

Magazine capacity:
239 = 8 rounds
G19 = 15 rounds



I recommend the Glock G19.
Here's why:

Trigger:
I prefer the consistent Glock trigger over the DA/SA trigger.
The first shot is often the most important shot, and I wouldn't want my first shot to be a long DA one with a 10 pound pull.

Magazine capacity:
15 rounds (Glock) compared to only 8 rounds (Sig).

Barrel length:
The Glock has a slightly longer barrel which gives the fired round more velocity.

Cost:
The Glock is usually less expensive in most places.

scoutsabout
January 5, 2010, 03:26 AM
Go with the Sig... Leave the Glocks for the lemmings who buy what the lock-step, group-think crowd tells them to buy.

As a previous owner of two Glocks, I would say that the Glock legend is a construct in the minds of Glock owners.
Amen, brother.

Glock vs. Sig Sauer? No contest, sorry Glock.

There are plenty of excellent guns out there and, though it performs, Glock is near the bottom of my list.

1. Go with a reputable manufacturer.
2. Select a model that impresses you by ergonomics, features, caliber, and shootability.
3. Break it in with 500 rounds and watch how it starts to rock n' roll.
4. Carry with confidence.

Bonus: After break-in, you can usually lay waste to the out-of-the-box Glock jock competition.

Observation: An accurized, trigger-jobbed Glock costs about as much as my smokin' 1911 and still doesn't keep up.

Best rule of thumb ever: Try a bunch of stuff and use what works best for you.

sprocket rocket
January 5, 2010, 04:05 AM
Alot of Glock'ers tout "less parts = less failure" as an advantage. On most accounts, Glocks have around 34-35 parts. But I was looking at the parts diagram for Glocks and noticed that a good amount fudging in the parts listing occur (i.e counting assemblies, and/or pairs as "one part"). A couple examples of this would be: the recoil spring assembly is counted as one part, the trigger, trigger safety, and trigger bar is counted as one part, sights (front and rear) is one part etc. etc...I think the 4 slide rail inserts and the slide count as one part too.

Does anyone know how many parts a Glock really has?

To make this post relevant, the only reading up on this is because I was looking at the Sig P250, which also touts this "less parts = less failure" feature. On the Sig P250 diagram, it shows that the pistol has exactly 40 parts...this number seems clear and verifiable on the diagram.

FWIW, I think Sig actually has Glock beat in this "less parts" department. Not trying to say that the P250 is a better gun though.

TexasBill
January 5, 2010, 05:42 AM
From out of left field...

I tried both and bought a FNP-9. Works great, very reliable, good price and three magazines are included.

Between the choices offered, however, I'd go with the SIG. Glocks just don't sit right in my hand and I don't like fiddly triggers. However, if I wanted a gun to bury in mud, the Glock would be it. But since my days of totin' guns through mud are pretty well over, that's not really a selling point to me.

spaladino
January 5, 2010, 02:38 PM
I would urge you to go to a "rental" range, and try all of them that you are interested in carrying. See what fits best for you.

For a new gun for carry purposes in which you may defend your life, I would urge you to look at HK, Glock, Kahr and Sig. Each has their advantages, and just like most anything else, everybody has an opinion, but it's your life you're defending...

I love my older Sigs, including a 220, 226 and 239 - the new one's, not so much. Glock's are excellent, but don't fit me well, I carry a Kahr daily as my cc weapon, and the HK USP's I have are flawless. You won't be disappointed with any of them, my only advice would be to try and buy.

DERGLOCKINMEISTER
January 5, 2010, 03:45 PM
TOOLS VS. SAFE QUEENS I love a beautiful weapon as much as the next guy ,but when I carry every day , year after year , the Glock is always ready to rock and is light , and simple to use. These 1 vs another threads always boil down to how the weapon will be used , and personal choice. Obviously , my preference for a gun I am willing to trust my family and my own safety to is now and always will be a Glock.

JohnBT
January 5, 2010, 05:00 PM
Always will be? Even when something better comes along; and it always does. You aren't biased are you? Naw, not much.

John

geekWithA.45
January 6, 2010, 01:37 AM
Here's my standard advice to guys in your situation:

The biomechanical shooting machine that is the combination of you and the specific gun in your hand is unique.

Start out with selecting whatever works and feels best to you from a pool of reputable and reliable armaments, as is constrained by the real world consideration of your budget.

That'll mean time at a rental range, borrowing buddy's guns, and getting some competent instruction.

You may be the first person to take this advice: if it's a carry gun, get one smaller and lighter than what you think you want. Nearly everyone starts out with a gun that is bigger and heavier than what they find they really want.

A non exhaustive list of well regarded, carry guns to consider:

Compact Sigs, Glocks, Kahrs, Walther PPS, S&W M&Ps, Kel-tek .380s, S&W J-frames (not really a beginner's gun!) FN, H&K, Springfield Armory XDs, Para-Ordnance

If you enjoyed reading about "SigSauer vs. Glock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!