Are Sigs really "better" than Glocks or

[Texshooter]

is it the other way around? I really enjoyed cleaning a buds Glock. Very easy to clean after he loaned it to me to shoot. But grip felt weird for my hands. Rented a Sig (both pistols .40 by the way) and shot it much better. Liked the sights much better (bar/dot) but have heard Glock might last longer.

Considered opinios appreciated.

 

[liliysdad]

It is totally personal taste..neither has any substantial pros or cons above the other...

I carry a Sig 220 every day as a duty gun, amidst a sea of Glocks, they call me weird. However, I trust a Glock with unerring certainty..if I had to carry one, I would have no problems with it, they just arent my cup of tea.

 

[bad_dad_brad]

Both are great pistols.

I personally prefer the Glock because I like and am used to the unique trigger, and it is not top heavy like the Sig can be.

However you can not go wrong with either.

 

[ddj8052]

While I do not now own either I have owned both Glocks and a Sig 229. At the risk of getting flamed here are my thoughts.

Sig 229:
Pros-
-Well built gun.
-Extremely reliable.
-Very accurate

Cons-
-Terrible trigger, I know that the Sig fans will call me crazy, but the trigger sucks. Very very heavy DA pull, overly long reset, and an OK SA pull.
-Feels totaly top heavy, with the grip being thinner at the bottom but wider at the top. Not a good feeling grip by any gague. The top heavy feeling was the thing that bothers me the most about it.
-Erganomics are bad if you shoot any other guns. If you shoot nothing but Sigs you would be fine, but if you shoot anything else it will foul you up. i.e. slide release is where the decocker should be and vice a versa.


All in all Sigs are overratted im my humble opinion Flame suit on.

Glocks:
Pros-
-Extremely reliable
-Nice simple design.
-Easy to disassemble and field strip for cleaning.
-Accurate for most jobs.
-Trigger is good once mastered short reset is great.
-simple manual of arms.
-Do not have to worry about hurting it.
-Grip fits me like a Glove

Cons:
-Ugly. Although you do not have to worry about its looks.
-not as accurate as other designs. at least for me.
-Ugly
-Cannot change grip of you do not like it.

I may get another one. I kind of miss my G23 although I do not miss my 36 or 27. If I get one it will be a 10mm for field use. I wish they would make a single stack.

All in all I prefer the 1911 to both of these designs. I will never own another Sig, unless it is that trailside .22, I really want one of those.

 

[antsi]

The "top heavy" beef with SIGs applies to some models more than others. Some models have stainless steel slides - these are much heavier than the carbon steel slides. General rule - if the pistol is new, and is a model available in .40 SW or .357 SIG, it probably has the stainless slide. The older models, and the ones that are only available in 9mm or .45acp are usually carbon steel slides.

Personally I don't mind the heavy slide especially in the calibers with more brisk recoil. But if top-heavy does bother you, you might like the carbon-slide models.

 

[cratz2]

Well, I've owned a 226, a 229 and a SIG Pro. On the Glock end, I've only owned two G23s.

To hold them, examine them and look at them, I dramatically prefer SIGs, esp blued sigs. By 226 had a very respectable trigger, but it was a police trade in. And the 229 was well used and had about 5% of the black finish left on the slide. I would recommend either to anyone looking for a quality piece and that found the SIG grip comfortable.

The SIG Pro didn't really do anything for me. I bought 40 cal SIG and my first Glock 23. I shot both to the tune of 200-300 rounds. Preferred the Glock in most respects, esp the lower bore axis. These were my first two 40s and to my hands, the Glock absolutely felt like it had less recoil and less muzzle flip. The SIGs all felt quite clunky to my hands... The Glock grip seems much slimmer though it's not quite what I'd call ergonomic. My wife and another adult male also shot both and though the Glock had less recoil. The other man preferred shooting the Glock in general though my wife preferred the SIG. Of course, I think some of that had to do with the fack that Scully from X-Files carries a similar gun.

To the grip angle... I prefer the SIG to the Glock, being a 1911/BHP/CZ guy, but unless I'm drawing and shooting out to 25 yards or so, it isn't really a big issue.

Relaibility wise, I've never had a single failure with either Glock or any of the SIGs... all five were 100%. I don't shoot reloaded 40 though. Really, if I had to carry a Glock or a SIG everyday, I could do so happily. I'd probably stick with a G19 or a G23, but a 228 or 229 would be fine as well.

 

[9mmepiphany]

i've owned and shot both the sig 226 and glock 17/19 extensively and for many years the 226 rode in my duty rig while the 19 was my constant off-duty companion. they have since been subplanted by a beretta 96 and a sig 220.

the greatest thing about the sigs are their accuracy and "feel"...they don't look quite as nice as a beretta

the greatest thing about a glock is the low bore line (less muzzle flip) and the ease of care...i hardly ever clean it beyond a quick wipe down.

a good pistol smith can really do wonders with a sig trigger, but there isn't much that can be done to a glock

the only pistol that is more workmanlike than the glock is the ruger 90 series

 

[torpid]

I can't say which is "better", but all of the best shooting that I've done is consistently either in Sig p226 in 9mm or Glock 21 in .45 ACP - go figure.

I really do prefer the in-hand feel of Sigs over Glocks (once you replace the hideous stock grips with better ones- jeez), but I actually like the utilitarian "tool" aesthetic of the Glock too.

That being said, I own a Sig P229 in .40 (but am recently eyeing a new glock).

So, um... yeah.


"I really enjoyed cleaning a buds Glock. Very easy to clean after he loaned it to me to shoot. But grip felt weird for my hands... Rented a Sig... and shot it much better. Liked the sights much better..."

So get a Sig, then always go shooting with your Glock buddy, and swap guns when it comes cleaning time- the best of both worlds for you!

 

[outofbattery]

As someone here said , " not better , different " . Sigs and Glocks are both exceptionally good guns , I have never had a problem with any of either than I have owned or shot and each line has it's relative +/- traits . I have never had a Glock "kaboom" and IMO the mantra of " but Sigs have a high bore axis * that gets spouted so much recently is rubbish , unless myself and everyone else that shoots Sigs better than anything else are just mutants or have bought into Sig marketing . Something that gets me is how people pick up a gun in a shop , wave it around and talk about the balance - geez , a loaded mag. doesn't change that a bit now does it ? There isn't a service piece out there that I can shoot better than my Pro in .357 but YMMV ; you might be able to shoot a Haskell better than an STI , you won't know until you try . I don't have any reservations at all about carrying any pistol I own , it depends more upon my mood as to what I'm carrying than the gun's function but to me Sig=Glock for my intents and purposes . It's been said a million times : try em all out and get the one you like best . If God didn't want us to own more than 1 pistol he wouldn't have made em so small anyway .

 

[Grunt]

Well, I own both a Sig 220 and 226 and a Glock 21, 19, 23 and 27. Personally, I like the Sigs a lot better but the Glocks are cheaper so that's why I have more of them. You're not going to go wrong with either Glock or Sig so it boils down to personal preference and what you can afford.

 

[Berg01]

You have to try one out next to the other with the same type(s) of ammo to determine which one you like. My Sig P228 is my favorite firearm. I like the Glock 17 and 19. I also like my CZ 75B in .40 very much, so you might also consider a CZ 75B in 9mm or .40 or the CZ P-01 / P-04 before you make your final decision. In addition, I consider a good .357 Mag revolver and a 1911-pattern pistol to be a must have at some point in anyone's gun battery. Folks can agree or disagree with my opinions, and that is their prerogative, which is fine by me. And regardless of what anyone tells you otherwise, there really is no bad choice to be made here.

 

[Heraclitus]

I own and love both. But if I were told to pick only one or die, I would have to go with the SIG -- if for no other reason than it's the classier (and costlier) of the two.

I also shoot SIGs a tad better than I do Glocks. But functionally you'll get the same reliability and bang for your buck.

By the way: the SIG P229 might be a little top heavy, but not because

the grip [is] thinner at the bottom but wider at the top

If you look closely, you'll notice that the grip is actually the same width all the way through. It's just that little hump (decocker housing) on the left side that makes it look like a buxom wench. What makes it feel like one is the slide's weight. Not that this affects performance in any way.

Tip: If you work your upper body you won't give a hoot.

 

[YodaVader]

I have owned 2 Sigs - a P220 in 45 ACP and my current P239 in 9mm. I found the P220 to be the most accurate out of the box centerfire semi-auto pistol that I have ever fired. For a service pistol the triggers on both were/are excellent. Totally reliable - no toy-like plastic. The grips fit me fairly well after a switch to Hougue aftermarket. Even with the stock plastic grips they felt better than any Glock pistol I ever handled or fired.

Have fired two Glocks one in 9mm and the other in 40S&W - neither fit my hand well at all. Picked up many Glocks at shows and was never able to find one that fit my hand. I thought both Glocks that I fired had quite a bit of muzzle flip. Maybe because the grip design fit me so poorly. I thought the triggers were very marginal. The trigger on one (the 40 cal) even pinched my finger when firing. For me - I will never have any desire to own any Glock. Apparently for a large number of shooters thay have great appeal. Which to me which is one of the great mysteries of our time?

 

[YodaVader]

Some of the targets with the Sig P220 @ 50 ft using a standing 2 hand hold. The 2nd target has 22 holes in it as well. Both ten shot groups.

 

[NoScreenName]

My Sig 228 is pure perfection...when I picked it up for the first time I swear it felt like heaven...I had to buy it right then and there...

not top heavy, instictive pointablility, grip feels like it was molded for me personally, more accurate than i am capable of shooting, both DA & SA are so unbelievably smooth...I've never actually tried the pull on a 229, are they really that bad? My 228 has such a nice trigger...It's what I judge other tiggers by...and I have yet to find so ething I like better... I have a hunch that it might have been tweaked before I took over ownership... or it could just have something to do with it being a 100% German made weapon...

It is the one gun I will never ever sell...everything else is negotiable except for my 228...

My one and only current complaint is that the slide is not the most corrosion resistant...but that will be cured with some sort of coating/finish soon... and a former comlaint was that the regular trigger was just a bit too long in the reach dept. for my medium sized hands but that was cured with a short trigger...


I have handled a Glock 23 and I had no real complaints about it... it was just simple and plastic...very corrosion resistant... a study weapon...no real heart or mystique to it...just a simple purpose built tool...


So my opinion is that the Sig is more of an elegant old skool pistol that is a joy to shoot... and the Glock is more of a tool that you can beat the crap out of and it will go bang everytime...

it's 100% personal preference...

But despite my love for Sigs I am currently wrestling with the issue of a Sig 245 vs. a Glock 36 for my next CCW piece...I might just say screw it and buy a Para Ordnance P12 instead...

 

[jc2]

FWIW, SIGs as a whole tend to fare better in any competitive pistol trials (for procurement purposes). I would suggest that particularly in 357 SIG, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, SIGs have a qualitative advantage over competing Glock designs. It would be interesting have access to any sort of official Mean Rounds Between Failure (MRBF) data for the two designs. I am guessing the SIG's would be higher than the Glock--especially for the 357 SIG and .40 S&W calibre when comparing like models.

 

[yucaipa]

I have a Sig 220 an think it's great, I have shot Glocks but don't own one. For me, to give up my Sig and go with a glock would be a down grade, but that is just me.
The gun you can shoot better/safer that's the best gun there is.

 

[45R]

Sigs are better than Glocks for me but a Glock might be better for you. To each his own and when you get done reading this ....read my Sig.

 

[SiG Lady]

Except for the trigger...

I refuse to shoot a plastic gun.

That being said, the Sig P-229 in my safe is wonderful but I agree that the trigger sucks maximumly. I'd give just about ANYthing to have a better trigger in that thing.

ddj8052 described the trigger problem perfectly. I thought for a while that I might be the only human on the planet who felt that way. It affects my accuracy with it so negatively I struggle to make myself go give it a workout from time to time. But I love the Sigs (I also had a P-239 in 9mm for a while, but sold it to help finance the 1911)(sinful, I know). There's GOT to be a way to alter those triggers....... :banghead:

 

[cratz2]

There are plenty of smiths out there that work on SIG triggers.

$100 - $200 and you might be smiling even bigger.

 

[nitesite]

Some models have stainless steel slides - these are much heavier than the carbon steel slides.

Really? I had never actually heard this before. If what you say is factual, I may need to investigate any future purchases more closely. Example -

S&W Model 10 - 36 oz.
S&W Model 64 - 36 oz.

What makes the Sig 226, for example, heavier in the stainless mode?

Me, I like the heavier versions for range shooting ,and the lighter for hiking (heck, I'll even add mowing the back field..... )

nitesite

 

[jc2]

The stainless steel slides are heavier because of the way they are built, for example, a P228 is lighter than a P229 and the older style P220s are lighter than the P220STs. The P228 feels far better than the P229 even though they are the same size--and the P225 may have the best feel of them all--both have the old-style carbon steel slide.

 

[jeff-10]

"Better" is a very subjective word. Both are at the top of the heap among service pistols. The Sig seems to be more popular among avid shooters, it also runs around $200 more, and the Glock is more of an everyman's pistol. Both are fine weapons, personally I prefer the Sig.

 

[PJR]

AFter years of shooting revolvers, I set out to buy an auto and having tried just about everything ended up with a SIG P226. I think it's better than a Glock as far as accuracy, workmanship and quality are concerned.

The SIG's triggers pale in comparison with a 60's vintage S&W K-frame but they are smooth enough and the single action was crisp enough for me to shoot groups almost as good as a revolver that I've shot to the point where it feels like it's part of me.

What soured me on the Glock was the finger grooves. They didn't feel good in my hand. Early generations without the grooves were much better. The trigger can be gotten used to and was much better than the Walther P99 that I tried or the HK USP.

So in short, the answer to the question is yes the SIG is better than the Glock for me. Whether that's the case for you is up to you.

 

[Jeepin' Lawyer]

"but have heard Glock might last longer."


Don't worry about wearing out the Sig. Get the Sig. Or checkout the XD's I think they out-Glock the Glock.