P220 vs. G21: Reliability and Durability

Status
Not open for further replies.

jmfwsu

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
27
Hi,

I'm mostly familiar with Glocks and have never had any experience with aluminum framed handguns. I'm considering a P220. How does it hold up against the Glock in terms of reliability and durability? What about higher pressure rounds? I'm assuming the P220 has the edge as far as accuracy is concerned.

Thanks,
Jason
 
Own a bunch of SIGs (P220) and CZs... NO Glocks, but have shot both their G19 and G21 many times. Regarding reliability and durability they are BOTH top-of-the-line pistols made by top-of-the-line Companies!!! But that's where similarities end!
First, I have to start by saying I'm NOT a Glock fan. I'm not into 'plastic' striker-fired guns, hate their trigger-pull, grip-angle and hate their looks. When shooting, I feel like I have a kids plastic toy in my hand. That said, GLOCKS have a fantastic reputation for being DURABLE and very, very RELIABLE. Many LE agencies around the country (and world) use them and swear by them (several of my LE friends LOVE 'EM).. they are very light for carry and are still VERY REASONABLY PRICED for a .45 (a G21 is about $200+ less than a P220)... that may be reason enough for some!
The P220 is SIGs 'flagship' gun. When Swiss Industries merged with JP Sauer & Son in the '70s (SIG-SAUER), this was their FIRST GUN (a 45acp) offered to the market. It's an all-metal, flawless shoot that has little recoil, eats everything and is EXTREMELY ACCURATE!!
Honestly, don't think you'd go wrong with either. Can all boil down to looks, feel/grip, $$price, metal vs plastic, and which one YOU shoot best. Try 'em both and don't buy the hype. Both guns/companies have a very large and loyal following... shoot 'em BOTH and see which one is for you!
ENJOY... you've selected two great guns.
P220004.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sigs passed the US Army testing requirements with flying colors, the only reason why it didn't get selected was because of their costs v. other pistols like Beretta.

Many years ago, one of the gun rags ran a 10K round testing of the Sig P220 with no problems. One of the amazing things noticed after 10K rounds was that the P220 became more accurate after firing all those rounds!
 
Every day another police department drops the Sig and goes to Glock or M&P.

One department where I was a reserve officer had sig 220s. In ten years they had a couple of dozen failure of every kind with the Sig. They went to Glock 22s about five years ago and have not had a single failure.

Go to www.summitgunbroker.com and see how many used department tradein sigs there are compared to used Glocks.
 
I'd say that durability and reliability are both going to be a non-issue for either of these guns, unless you are trying to beat a record of some kind.

Glock more reliable when subject to a lot of crud, maybe.

High pressure rounds? I'd say Glock. With a heavier recoil spring, you can shoot .45 Super in them, if you don't mind voiding your warranty.
 
Own both, have carried both as a duty weapon, both are harder to break than an anvil and as reliable as it gets. I understand you may not have any experience with metal framed pistols or Sigs, but the Sig is "overbuilt" to take any kind of load you can put in it. If anything can possibly be overbuilt, which I don't think anything can ever be too strong. The Sig is much more accurate than the glock. Both guns will eat any kind of ammo and neither is prone to any type of stoppage or failure. Sigs are built like tanks yet shoot groups like match grade 1911's. Taking the human element out of the equation by using a machine rest my 226 and 220 will shoot 1/2 to 3/4 inch groups at 25 yards with winchester white box, glocks just don't do that.
 
I have all three of the Glock 45s (21, 30, & 36). I prefer them over the SIGs but I don't know that I'd consider them superior to the SIGs. However, I also don't know that I'd consider the SIG to be more accurate. The Glock 45s are unusually accurate as I understand it.
 
I have a Sig 220 elite stainless and a 226 elite stainless. Flawless and accurate. Not to mention BEEFY. Glocks are good too. But they have no soul.
 
I "had" two G21's, they where just fine.... If you like Combat tupperware... They did the job, never had a FTF or FTE with either one. I could depend on them to go bang each time.

I have shot the P220 a few times, not enough to know how it would stand up in the long run. The sample I fired was more accurate than the Glocks and I much preferred the way the SIG handled.

Truly they are both great guns. I just do not care for the way a Glock points.

I also owned a G17 and a G19, both long gone. I recently picked up a Sig P226 and have decided I really do like that much better than Glocks 9mm. So, if I was choosing I would take the P220.

But, they are both still great guns.
 
I own both a Glock 21 and a Sig P220.

The Glock gets you a higher capacity magazine, and a gun that will probably survive "true combat" conditions better (meaning, submerged in sandy mud and then urinated on to clean it).

The Sig gets you more accuracy, and a grip that fits a human hand better.

That said, I haven't taken my Glock 21 to the range in years. My Sig 220 is one of my every-day carry pistols.
 
While my suggestion is normally Glock whenever anyone asks these questions, I would say Sig in this case. The Glock is just to big for my hands, and I have fairly big hands. Then again the only Double stack .45 I have ever found that is comfortable is the XD.
 
My Glock 21s are both reliable and accurate - I highly recommend the Glock 21.
 
P220 & g21

I own both and enjoy shooting them. I've put several hundred rounds downrage in each without a single failure. Shoot both and choose the pistol which performs best for you. Either is a great sidearm. Good luck and good shooting.
 
I always get a smile when someone says they don't like the way a gun points. In the 43 years I have been packing and shooting handguns, it seems to me that getting a gun to "point" is a matter of getting to know the gun. A DA S&W is different than a SA Ruger is different than a Colt 1911 is different than a Glock. Despite all that, if I spend enough time with any one of those guns, and don't screw with myself by jumping back and forth with different guns, I get pretty good with whatever gun I am learning/using. Beware the man with one gun, so the saying goes, as he probably knows how to use it. I believe that is the "answer" to guns that don't feel just right, most of the time. We get used to something else, and then another gun doesn't "fit" our hand, etc. Baloney! Once you find where the bullets impact, you adjust your stance/grip/angle, and learn. Keep doing it with whatever gun you have, and all of a sudden, the bullets start finding their home. True, some guns just fit, but most quality guns with sensible grips are made to fit most anyone, and are not out of whack enough to demand dumping them. I have a feeling that the BEST shooters have just ADOPTED a gun, and learned to handle it. Cooper, Munden, Miculek, Leatham, etc. And many of those guys can just pick up another type of gun, and STILL be good. That is what we all should be working on. Being good, or GREAT, with everything we handle. Not fussing about the way it "points".
 
Yet, there is something to be said for not having to fight your own gun to make it "point right."

Can you overocome it? Of course, but that requires time and ammo. Time and ammo that could've been used to become a better, faster shot with it.
 
I've shot both and both are great. I'd try them both first and get which everone you like better. At the end of the day, you really want to like and be happy with what you are shooting. You will look forward to shooting it.

Skip most of the tacticool crap except a light and consider night sights. Then, I'd spend my money on training and bullets to practice.

FWIW, the XD in 45 ACP is a great pistol as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top