New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Which do you prefer on a general basis?

Is it true that the Sigs have taken a hit with build quality over the last few years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,239 Posts
Which do you prefer on a general basis?

Is it true that the Sigs have taken a hit with build quality over the last few years?
Sure , i you want to believe everything a Glock fan boy will tell you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
I prefer glocks but Loves Sigs, Im saying that as a southpaw that likes as little extra stuff on my gun as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
I have both Sigs and Glocks. I like the Sigs because they seem to be well constructed, smooth actions, exceelent ergonomics, accurate. My favorite Sig is my Level one X-five. I have a super match, 228 and a 229 as well.
I carry a Glock. I have or have had most all of them. They are EASY to work on (I am also a Glock armorer) Parts are plentiful and super cheap comparatively. Mine function flawlessly. They are not too expensive. Basically they are the AK47 of the pistols. I trust my life with one. The Sigs are too heavy for me to carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
I know the car analogies are played out, but I think of it as the Glock being a pickup truck and the Sig being a manual transmission Porsche. The fit and finish, design, and joy of running the Sig is a big sell. The trigger is great, the decocker is smooth, everything about it is impressive. The Glock is simple, straight forward, and will get the job done, probably more efficiently, every time. I don't see any reason why you can't drive a manual transmission Porsche to get your groceries, but there will be a bit more to it. You have the TDA trigger to learn and be effective with, and cost of ownership is (slightly) higher. It is heavier as well.

I have heard some quality issues with Sigs lately, but I would not let that stop me from buying one. They will take care of it if something is wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
To me, you just asked about apples and oranges. In my opinion, a Glock 17 would be an old Ford Taurus; reliable, built like a tank, will get the job done 99.99% of the time, but may not be the most enjoyable thing to look at or drive. SIG would be a Mustang; heavy as all get out, but well-crafted, both inside and out, more expensive than getting the Ford, and you'll probably only drive it on weekends. But they're in two separate classes, and appealing to two different kinds of shooters. Though SIG has made much more of an effort to get into CCW-friendly pistols over the last few decades, rather than just trot out variations of the 228. Many shooters won't venture into the SIGs for the price, but I'd take a 239 over a G19; the ergos agree with my hand better, the all-steel construction, and general visual appeal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
I know the car analogies are played out, but I think of it as the Glock being a pickup truck and the Sig being a manual transmission Porsche. The fit and finish, design, and joy of running the Sig is a big sell. The trigger is great, the decocker is smooth, everything about it is impressive. The Glock is simple, straight forward, and will get the job done, probably more efficiently, every time. I don't see any reason why you can't drive a manual transmission Porsche to get your groceries, but there will be a bit more to it. You have the TDA trigger to learn and be effective with, and cost of ownership is (slightly) higher. It is heavier as well.

I have heard some quality issues with Sigs lately, but I would not let that stop me from buying one. They will take care of it if something is wrong.
Aw, you beat me to car analogies :wacko:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,970 Posts
Have owned both, Sigs have better triggers if you like da/sa, they are heavy and well built. They are waaaay over priced. The car anology is like thus, they are both brand X, one has metallic paint, the other doesn't. Done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
You hear the analogy of the glock being the skinny, flat chested , plain looking girlfriend who puts out every time and anytime and other fancier guns being the ones with the big boobs and butts but are more temperamental- ha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
I like both.

I used to carry a Sig. I now carry a Glock. Thats not a knock on Sig at all, I just couldn't afford to feed a 45 at the time and a 9mm was better for me. I will own and maybe carry a Sig again in the future someday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,953 Posts
Glocks are better but Sigs are sexier. Of course by better I mean for self defense carry...

Note, didn't read anything past the first post and I have a few of each....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
558 Posts
Traded my sig in for a glock
and what i paid and what the dealer could get it for when I went to trade it in was redicoulus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Ive only sold one gun in my life. My Sig P220. I paid $1187 for it. The same store i bought it from would only give me half that to sell it back used about two months later.
Sigs arent good on resale. And B&j didnt get a used gun that day.

Friends dont let friends sell guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
YOU really cant compare them, they are 2 totally different weapons, glock is striker fired, plastic framed, unsupported chamber, not the most accurate gun but works well in all conditions, dirty etc due to very generous I will say build tolerances. Sigs are built better, metal or aluminum frame, stronger, more accurate and supports round much better. You will not get case bulge shooting a sig like a stock Glock barrel will give you. For a re loader and target shooter, the Sig is a better choice, for a cop, someone who doesn't shoot as much who needs a more rugged weapon, the glock is probably a better choice. again,2 totally different weapons. I have twisted Glock frames a few times with lots of heavy reloads, whereas the Sig will eat and digest the same loads all day. For the average guy who buys ammo thats not a problem. I can tell you from personal experience and someone who has experience with Sigs and Glocks, the Sigs are stronger, but can be finicky as the tolerances are tighter, that's a big reason why the Sig usually shoots better groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,735 Posts
You hear the analogy of the glock being the skinny, flat chested , plain looking girlfriend who puts out every time and anytime and other fancier guns being the ones with the big boobs and butts but are more temperamental- ha
Wow that was the best post of the month ! You couldn't get any better than that analogy !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
It's cute for sure, but I don't think its fair to say that a Sig is going to be more temperamental than a Glock. If 1% of Glocks have problems, 2% of Sigs have problems. Is it a 100% increase, sure. Is a good Sig going to be just as reliable as a good Glock? Yes.

I also think that, over the very long term, hammer-fired guns have a durability edge over strikers. But I am talking 100k plus rounds, end of the world type stuff. Most of the striker guns I have owned have needed the striker channel cleaned out at some point, but hammer-fired guns seem to have a little more tolerance for crap getting into places you don't want it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Just an observation on my part as I own neither of these pistols. My son has a small co. That dose a lot of work in Africa the near east and in the ukrain. Not one of his operators will carry a glock. The most used is the beretta m9 followed very closley buy sigs. All chambered in 9 mm. These men depend on ere weapons for there very lives. So between the 2 it would be a sig for m. eckout
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top