SigSauer vs. Glock

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

blech

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.

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!

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.

my take...

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 $$$$. If the guns are that similiar, why pay the extra $$$$?

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.

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.

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.

Sig is okay. I prefer the lower bore axis of the Glock, which reduces felt recoil.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Whichever you shoot better. I like glocks cause I shoot them well.

+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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.