Switching from Glock to Sig

[nwgunman]

I am contemplating switching from a Glock 23 to a Sig 229DAK. I'd especially like to hear from someone who has actually owned and worked with both formats. I understand that the DAK set up is relatively new so input concerning that mode may be limited. Let me add that I carried and trained intensively with the S&W 3rd generation traditional DA/SA format for years and this is NOT what I intend the major focus of this thread to be about. Both these weapons have a single trigger mode of action, both are "high capacity (that is not single stack mags), both are chambered for .40S&W, and both are current production items. I guess if someone has worked with Glock 19s and Sig 229 in 9mm, even if DA/SA, you could possibly give me some help with this, but please don't focus on the trigger function aspect. I'm more looking for comparisons about holding up under hard use, overall subjective issues like how it feels in the hand, how it runs in a multiple round engagement situation, single hand firing, etc. The .40S&W caliber will be important in these areas due to recoil, higher pressure wear and tear, etc. Anyway, thanks for any assistance that you can pass along.

 

[10-Ring]

I have not shot the DAK but I have shot the DA/SA P-series SIG pistol & I have a G19 in my collection. IMO, the Glock can be very fast once you've mastered trigger/trigger reset of the Glock. I'm not a SIG fan...I like their ergos, I appreciate their reputation but I'm just not a fan. YMMV

 

[walpur6isknight]

I had a DAK P220 and sold it. I am left handed, so the ergos of the traditional DA/SA SIG platform were hard for me to master. However I don't like DAO pistols, and decided to get out of the P220DAK. The DAK is a nice trigger though.

Hard use. Sorry, I love SIGs, but the Glock is going to win this round.

Reliability. Apples to apples. I have shot way more rounds through Glocks than SIGs, but I have NEVER had a problem with a SIG. I have had problems with Glocks. However, these problems were generally easily diagnosed and remedied, and were a result of too much shooting and not enough care.

 

[dm1333]

I love the229DAK feel and controllability. As a lefty I have no problems at all with the controls. The sights are outstanding, much better than the Glock front dot with that goofy rear outline. Weak hand firing is easy. My concerns about the gun are the finish. The first time I fired the gun I locked it up overnight, the next morning there was rust on all the parts my fingers came into contact with. Not what I was looking for from a $700 dollar weapon.

 

[VA27]

I've shot the Glock and the SIG, in both 40 and 357Sig, over the course of about two years. Both are good guns in good calibers. It's going to be a personal choice, so you're gonna have to shoot both! I personally think that the Glocks lower bore centerline makes recovery time between shots a little quicker and I think that the Glock may be a tougher gun overall. But if you issued me a Sig and said carry it, I'd do it and never worry.

 

[fastbolt]

Well, having also trained with S&W TDA pistols for many years, and being a certified LE armorer for S&W, Glock and Sig Sauer pistols, I can say that the DAK does not have a single action trigger function. It has a couple of enhanced DAO trigger positions.

The primary trigger stroke (longer stroke) requires approx 6.6 lbs of pressure to fire the pistol, although it 'feels' lighter ... and the intermediate (shorter reset position, so to speak) trigger stroke requires a partial reset of the trigger and approx 8.3 lbs of pressure to fire the pistol. When I asked why the shorter, intermediate trigger reset required more pressure to fire (just curious), I was told that Sig Sauer felt it was safer for the shorter trigger reset position to have the heavier weight.

As far as reliability? Well, Sig Sauer pistols are often considered to be over engineered in some senses. They increased the strength of their slides for the .40 S&W cartridge, and the frame insert (think locking block) makes for a strong design.

One thing to remember about Sig Sauer pistols, however, is that they require good lubrication in order to run. As was explained in the armorer's course, and repeatedly emphasized during the course (including being a test question), Sig Sauer pistols must be 'wet' to the eye, and 'wet' to the touch as far as the required lubrication points. Otherwise, function might not be as desired and excessive wear may occur. Of course, they also caution against over-lubrication, as well.

I think Sig has the advantage when it comes to having metal-bodied magazines.

I think Glock's trigger function and feel is more to my liking, but that's totally subjective, and you didn't want to focus on trigger function, right?

I think the Glock recoil spring assemblies should be changed more often in the .40 S&W models (and 357SIG) than many folks apparently think, and even Glock armorers are starting to be told this.

I think the Sig Sauer recoil springs should be checked, as well, for sharp edges on the inside, and especially for the core element to recede and/or the spring elements to start spreading. The .40 S&W cartridge generates a lot of recoil forces which act upon the guns (and the 357SIG generates even more).

I think that with periodic maintenance inspections and proper care both pistols are fine for the common defensive uses ordinarily expected of handguns in this caliber, but I also suspect that it wouldn't be surprising to perhaps see the Sig endure a bit longer.

Then again, I've only fired more than 40,000 rounds through a single pistol, and it was an issued pistol, at that (and a S&W). I really don't plan on ever running that many rounds through any of my personally owned pistols, since I don't compete ... and not to mention the cost factor ... so it's not an issue for me.

If you were to shoot both platforms on a course or two, in different weather conditions, which required strong/weak hand shooting (both 1 & 2-handed), strong & off-side barricade, movement during shooting, multiple target engagement and such, you might be able to better answer your own question regarding the shooter-pistol interface and the practical performance of both designs ...

 

[51Cards]

My 229 will probably still be waiting for its first malf by the time I'm gone. It's a DA/SA, short trigger installed, and the SA is like glass on it. Maybe a little too fine.

... overall subjective issues like how it feels in the hand...

That is pretty subjective. I find the Sig factory grips feel like they're wrapped in 60-grit, and are shaped a bit awkwardly for my hand. Still, the grips are inexpensive, and I've found that some idle time with a file set has made it pretty livable. I mention this because the 229 in .40 is IMHO a little snappy on the the thumb web. Again, that's on my hand. If you have big paws and aren't looking for a teflon-coated concealed, Hogue fingers work great --- but they are a little chubby.

... higher pressure wear and tear...

None, that I can see. About 2,500 rounds in, and the only visible wear is the characteristic patterning on the barrel surface, and some whiting on the outside of the breech. Outside of that, everything looks NIB (even with the Cursed Kydex, and some leather).

Lastly, I've had a LaserMax in mine for a year. I use it at the range sparsely, to stay with it, and to get my personal jiggles out. The combination of the LM and the 229 is as close to a belt-portable radar-guided missile as I've come across.

 

[stephen m]

I went the other way. Use to carry a SIG 220, but switched to a G 22.
I considered reliability the same with both.
Durability went to the Glock, my gun is exposed to the elements, is carried openly and gets banged against things at times. SIG's finish will look like h*ll in a couple of months of this, Glocks thrive on it.
Longevity also goes to the Glock, I've owned three 220's and broke small parts in all but one of them due to heavy use.
Long term cost also went to the Glock, (price a SIG magazine sometime!) Glock armorers are easier to find locally than SIG's (think no shipping costs). Also holsters and such are easier to find.
Overall feel FOR ME goes to the SIG. I like the balance better and it doesn't shift as much as you empty the magazine. SIG's grips also feel better to my hands (I had the front strap stippled on my 220). Factory sights on the SIG are far and away better. On my SIG I wanted to change them. On my Glock I HAD to change them.
As the previous poster said it realy is a matter of personal taste.
Good luck with your decision, you can't go wrong with either.

 

[jaysouth]

A very important factor for me is size. The Glock wins hands down over the Sig. The Sig is a very fine handgun indeed, but the Glock is smaller and lighter, hence easier to carry.

My betters in the field say that the lower bore axis of the Glock is an additional advantage over the higher Sig. I am not sure that MY eyes or hands can tell the difference.

A very subjective factor for me is the appearance of the guns. I tend to baby well finished and fitted Sigs and punish ugly Glocks in handling and storage. I do not lose sleep is a scratch appears on my glock because it rode a day or two in the tool box on the tractor or on the bottom of a boat.

Even if you carry a glock, you still need a couple of Sigs in the safe for fun and bragging rights.

 

[tango3065]

I own a Sig 226 and a Glock 19, even though the Sig cost a chunk of change more than the Glock I would get rid of the Sig before I would Glock if I had to choose. Both have been 9mm instead of 40 but I thought I would give you my first hand experiance with both manufactures. BTW both are outsatnding firearms.

 

[nwgunman]

Thanks to all for the input so far. Keep it coming, it's just what I had in mind. The durability of the finish between the two pistols is of interest. The Sig sounds like it's gonna take a beating for sure, either from sweat, or from nearly always being wet in the nice moist climate up here. I'm guessing it's gonna rust unless it's gets cleaned soon after exposure. The Glock got pretty wet and muddy at the range today. It won't get cleaned tonight, although both it and myself did get nice and dry and toasty warm in front of the wood burner afterwards. Thanks again for the comments.