Sig or Glock?

Status
Not open for further replies.

carpenter

member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
78
I went window shopping for a Glock 26. In another forum I asked if $470 was an ok price. The response was that it is a good price.

Now I'm trying to decide whether to buy the Glock 26 with pinky extension or the Sig SAS 239 in 9mm. The Sig is $689, if I move fairly quickly.

Do you think there's a $200 difference in the Sig?
 
I'm personally a fan of Sigs over Glocks, but you can probably guess that judging from my username. The Glock is a great, reliable gun with higher capacity than the P239, but it just doesn't feel right in my hands. The P239 SAS for $689 is a great bargain and is a really soft shooting pistol, regardless of caliber. You have to figure out which feels better to you.
 
If it were me, I'd go for the Sig. Why: all steel. Just an aesthetics thing. If weight really mattered... probably still go for the Sig. :)
Good luck.
 
If it were me, I'd go for the Sig. Why: all steel
The frame is aluminum.

Glock's are excellent carry guns. Nobody can touch their capacity to weight ratio.
 
Glocks and Sigs seem to share one thing in common. Folks either love them or hate them. To me Sigs are over priced.
 
Wanna look cool... get a Sig (and pay the bucks). Wanna gun that you can shoot everyday for years? Get a Glock and have money left over for plenty of ammo.
 
Have you shot either one before? I would see if you can rent them or try them before you buy.

I am betting that you will like the Sig better. :cool:
 
If you're looking for a gun in 9mm Glock is the way to go. I love my 26. In a .40 caliber I'd get the Sig, or HK.
I'd rahter spend $200 less for a great gun and save the money for my next or accessories and ammo. JMHO.
 
I have several Sig's, but only one Glock, a model 34. I've bought about every kind of modification known to man for the Glock, and still don't shoot it well.

On the other hand, my cousin, a Federal Agent, only got slightly more than 50,000 rounds through his Sig before the frame cracked. He now carries a Glock, and likes it.

I have two other polymers that I've equally fond of and shoot much better than the Glock: the S&W M&P and the Beretta PX4 Storm. I also have a Springfield XD, but it falls in between the Glock and the other two polymers i.e. I shoot it better than the Glock, but not as good as the other two.

My Glock trigger is now around 2lbs (target gun only - I never carry it) and it has fiber optic sights so the problem isn't the trigger pull weight nor the sights and my old eyes.
 
The 239 is the only Sig I have shot that I really like so this one took me a bit to reconcile....save the $$ and get the Glock. The 26 is surprisingly easy to shoot well, easy to conceal if you need to and for $470, a nice little deal too!
 
only got slightly more than 50,000 rounds through his Sig before the frame cracked

"Only" got.....?

You know how long it would take me to put 50,000 rounds through any single gun?

I've got a 1911 I bought in 1978 for $234. To date I've logged right at 2000 rounds through it.

I need to go to the range.
 
"Only" got.....?

It makes a difference when the taxpayers are buying your ammo. Of course if I had to qualify 4 times a year, I guess I'd shoot a lot more too, especially if I didn't have to buy ammo.
 
Another "shoot them both and pick the one you like/shoot best" regardless of how much money it costs. You can't put a dollar value on self defense (within reason, of course)
For me, I shoot Sigs better. I don't shoot Glocks well at all. I hate the grip angle. That being said, Glocks are well made guns and I wouldn't bad mouth them.
FWIW - I carry a Sig P239 SAS 9mm and love it.
 
The center-line of the bore in relation to the grip is higher on a Sig than on a GLOCK. So, with a GLOCK, the bore runs closer to the center-line of the shooter's out-stretched arm. As a result, the recoil is more rearward (push) than upward (muzzle flip). I have NO CONFIRMING DOCUMENTATION... but to me, follow-up shots are faster with my GLOCK G19 than with my Sig 239.
 
I find the Glock shoots better in my hand, as far as accurate goes they are about the same, but it does not jamb the web of my palm like the Sig does.

My hands are good sized. I have an early Glock 9mm and a 2nd edition in 40.
They shoot very good.

My son has a Sig and I have shot it, a lot, never bought one for the reason I have mentioned. Just shot a mdl 21 Glock, was impressed with it, heavy though. Good shooter.

Others have mentioned rent and shoot, good idea.
 
I shot both in 357 sig and bought the Glock 32. Hardly any upward flip to the glock means greater onsight retention for 2nd shot.
 
This question is easy. Get the Sig and don't look back!

Actually you need to just buy the one that feels best in your hand. Both are great guns and you can't really go wrong, it just comes down to what you like in a pistol. The Sig feels more "significant" in my hands and I love the feel of it, plus they look and shoot great, so that's what I like.

Glocks are great guns, but I just don't like the feel of them in my hands for whatever reason. I went to the store intent on buying a Glock21 or a USP, but once I held a P220, I knew it was the gun for me and I couldn't be happier with my purchase.

That being said, I'd still like to own a G17 someday, but will buy one only after I complete my Sig collection (and some CZs).
 
I own both Glocks and Sigs and like both... but I only carry a Glock. Sigs are nice, but it doesn't offer anything over the Glock EXCEPT for fit. Sigs just feel nice. Is the fit worth $200? It isn't to me, but it might be to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top