Sig vs. Glock

[lazs2]

thanks wulfie.. great advise but I am no expert..

I am a hobbyist... I have shot for decades and reloaded and formed my own prejudices and... some are just based on the size of my mitts.  some are based on my hobby of reloading...  and some...  from carrying and some from plinking at all distances.  for what you do.... My advice would be fairly useless.

red... the .40 is pretty weak... it may go through a modern car door but only if it hits nothing but the skin and some upholstery.... I am used to my 44 mag hitting the door handle and throwing it off the car while taking out the power window motor and still being able to make it allmost though the other side door...  

I like my Kimber.   I am prejudiced and old fasioned and carry/leave it with a round in the chamber and the hammer down.   I can thumb back the hammer with no problem...  I have seen 1911's that were holstered with the manual safety on but it was off when the  guy went to take it out.

I like revolvers for fun.   and the Kimber and some 22's  I don't have the need that wulfie and some others have other than simple defense and I have learned that...  situation and deliberation are 99.99999999% of every confrontation... firearm choice is second and speed is last.   Some can be very good and very fast but situation and deliberation will allways rule.

If the ability to draw and fire the first shot were all that mattered.... we would all have 1873 colt peacemakers in fast draw rigs.   If getting 5-8 shots off fast were all that mattered.. we would all have tuned SW revolvers.

You can't fire an autoloader as fast as a revolver.   You can't force the slide to move faster... you just have to wait for it to (hopefully) do it's thing.

lazs

[red26]

I just like the .40 but you got to admit lazs if you hit someone with the .40 it will take them down. I was tould by my instuctor that the .40 hit with a little less power than a .45 Is that true?

[Maverick]

Red it depends on the load used. A heavy 40 and a light .45 can be pretty close in projectile weight, then you have to factor in the velocity.


As to the topic of the thread, Wulfie has it pretty right. Whatever pistol lets you get solid hits is far far better than the flashiest and fastest one you miss with.

If you hit consistantly and you like it, that's the gun for you.

[Furball]

glock cuz it looks bettah when ah smoke peeps firing it on its side, now ya know thats right. ya'll is mad stupid.

[lazs2]

marshal has a good book on stopping power... it analyzes thousands of real life shootings and the guns and ammo used.

For some reason the 45 does better that equal 40 caliber rounds and the 125 grain HP .357 does about the best of all.

It was interesting to see that the 44 mag did not instantly stop in every case but...  I noted that no person who shot someone with a 44 mag was every injured by the guy who was shot.

many guys shot with fatal or near fatal.....all kinds of rounds were able to return fire or otherwise attack the shooter.  even if they ended up dieing from the wound.   Even those not killed or incapacitated by a 44 mag seemed to at best... wander around dazed.

45 ball is not a particularly leathal round as are none of the ball rounds from handguns...  

lazs

[Terror]

First of all I am not saying a Glock is better then a Sig except in just a few situations.

If you don't to shoot fast. A Sig is fine.
If you don't want to shoot fast and accurate, a Sig is fine.
So please understand there are plenty of folks out there for which a Sig as a perfectly acceptable gun. Generally speaking, the ones that don't shoot, and for sure the ones that don't want to shoot fast and accurately.
The folks that seem to really like their sigs are the ones that talk about owning a Sig alot.

Sigs sit too high in your hand, causing alot of "flip", which pulls the gun up off target much more then other guns.
Second, the trigger pull is LONGGGGGG, and the reset is much LONGERRRRRR. Which makes shooting fast and accurate MUCH harder. And it also causes alot of failures to reset the trigger.
Next, on alot of guns their is a "bump" on the left side of the grip which forces your hands to hold the gun even lower on the grip, which just makes the flip even that much larger.
The "OLD" mags actually use to come apart if you get in a hurry and loaded them into the gun to hard. Gee, and do you think in a gunfight, that MIGHT happen?
And if that weren't enough, they don't even make good paper weights, since they don't lay flat on the paper, but instead rock a bit. See, I was trying to find a good use for them.

And for the privilage of carrying this "sled" you get to pay a HIGH Price Tag.

You see, there is a reason most of the top shooter use a 1911 or a Glock. The egronomics are similar. If a Sig had them, then they would be using them.

And PLEASE don't make the same mistake the gun manufacters are counting on you making. And that is to think because a Law Enforcement Agency carries them, they are good.
I PERSONALLY know Sig almost GIVES them away to the LE Agencies just to bait the civilians into thinking they are good. NOPE SUCKERS. But I guess there enough born to keep it going.

And please before anyone jumps online to brag about how there Sig is awsome. Please ask yourself if you fall into the catagory of shooters I described. If you don't shoot in competition agains others, then you probably don't see how other guns do in the hands of other good shooters. And think this, if you want to win, and can shoot any gun you want to. Wouldn't you shoot the fastest and best?  And then go look at what those shooters are shooting to win?

 Terror

[Horn]

Originally posted by Terror
First of all I am not saying a Glock is better then a Sig except in just a few situations.

If you don't to shoot fast. A Sig is fine.
If you don't want to shoot fast and accurate, a Sig is fine.
So please understand there are plenty of folks out there for which a Sig as a perfectly acceptable gun. Generally speaking, the ones that don't shoot, and for sure the ones that don't want to shoot fast and accurately.
The folks that seem to really like their sigs are the ones that talk about owning a Sig alot.

Heh, gotta love the glock fanbois. Statements from ignorance are sure to change folks minds, lemme tell you. Crappy triggers and poor handling rocks!

h

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Terror
First of all I am not saying a Glock is better then a Sig except in just a few situations.

If you don't to shoot fast. A Sig is fine.
If you don't want to shoot fast and accurate, a Sig is fine.
So please understand there are plenty of folks out there for which a Sig as a perfectly acceptable gun. Generally speaking, the ones that don't shoot, and for sure the ones that don't want to shoot fast and accurately.
The folks that seem to really like their sigs are the ones that talk about owning a Sig alot.

Sigs sit too high in your hand, causing alot of "flip", which pulls the gun up off target much more then other guns.
Second, the trigger pull is LONGGGGGG, and the reset is much LONGERRRRRR. Which makes shooting fast and accurate MUCH harder. And it also causes alot of failures to reset the trigger.
Next, on alot of guns their is a "bump" on the left side of the grip which forces your hands to hold the gun even lower on the grip, which just makes the flip even that much larger.
The "OLD" mags actually use to come apart if you get in a hurry and loaded them into the gun to hard. Gee, and do you think in a gunfight, that MIGHT happen?
And if that weren't enough, they don't even make good paper weights, since they don't lay flat on the paper, but instead rock a bit. See, I was trying to find a good use for them.

And for the privilage of carrying this "sled" you get to pay a HIGH Price Tag.

You see, there is a reason most of the top shooter use a 1911 or a Glock. The egronomics are similar. If a Sig had them, then they would be using them.

And PLEASE don't make the same mistake the gun manufacters are counting on you making. And that is to think because a Law Enforcement Agency carries them, they are good.
I PERSONALLY know Sig almost GIVES them away to the LE Agencies just to bait the civilians into thinking they are good. NOPE SUCKERS. But I guess there enough born to keep it going.

And please before anyone jumps online to brag about how there Sig is awsome. Please ask yourself if you fall into the catagory of shooters I described. If you don't shoot in competition agains others, then you probably don't see how other guns do in the hands of other good shooters. And think this, if you want to win, and can shoot any gun you want to. Wouldn't you shoot the fastest and best?  And then go look at what those shooters are shooting to win?

 Terror

I really hope to God you do NOT tell this drivel to others.   This is WITHOUT A DOUBT the most garbage filled post I have EVER READ!!  

What I find funny is someone who "competes in a competition" is somehow, the MASTER SHOOTER.

[Terror]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I really hope to God you do NOT tell this drivel to others.   This is WITHOUT A DOUBT the most garbage filled post I have EVER READ!!  

What I find funny is someone who "competes in a competition" is somehow, the MASTER SHOOTER.

Hehe,  I knew the truth would bring out the SIG fanboi's!  Essentially, shooting fast and accurately is hard enough, why make it harder by shooting a SIG?



Terror

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Terror
Hehe,  I knew the truth would bring out the SIG fanboi's!  Essentially, shooting fast and accurately is hard enough, why make it harder by shooting a SIG?



Terror

Just for the Record I own an HK USP 45.



BTW, if you think you can unload a Glock faster than I could unload a SIG (which I don't even own) and NOT be just as accurate, I'll wager $25,000 that I could easily do this.   I have been M.C.O.L.E.S. certified and shoot every weekend whether I want to or not.

[Terror]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
BTW, if you think you can unload a Glock faster than I could unload a SIG (which I don't even own) and NOT be just as accurate, I'll wager $25,000 that I could easily do this.   I have been M.C.O.L.E.S. certified and shoot every weekend whether I want to or not.

Never claimed I was the Master Shooter...Just that alot of the top shooters competing out there are shooting Glocks.  Though, I would be glad to go head to head against a SIG with my Glock.  (Don't have the $25,000 to wager either.  Another important point about SIGs is the extra $$$.) SIG's are just harder to handle than Glocks with everything else being equal.  They just have poor ergonomics when it comes to properly handling the firearm.

Terror

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Sorry Terror, I'm not buying the line about Glocks being superior to Sigs. I've shot both, and the Glock is NOT the superior weapon. And for the record, while I like Sigs, I'm a 1911 fan. The Glock is a fine weapon, but what you're saying about it being superior just is not true. And comparing competition shooting to personal defense just doesn't cut it.

By the way, care to be honest about who gets paid to shoot what? Because the truth is, those that shoot on a local level shoot what the "hot dogs" shoot, and we all know the "hot dogs" get paid to shoot what they shoot. And I'm not aware of Sig paying anyone to shoot a Sig in competition, but more than a few of the other companies pay people to shoot their guns. Last I heard, Glock was paying people to shoot Glocks in competition.

And having shot both, I'll take a Sig P220 over any 45 Glock has ever made.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
By the way, care to be honest about who gets paid to shoot what? Because the truth is, those that shoot on a local level shoot what the "hot dogs" shoot, and we all know the "hot dogs" get paid to shoot what they shoot. And I'm not aware of Sig paying anyone to shoot a Sig in competition, but more than a few of the other companies pay people to shoot their guns. Last I heard, Glock was paying people to shoot Glocks in competition.

And having shot both, I'll take a Sig P220 over any 45 Glock has ever made.

Amen Virg.   Also, I'll have to make it a point to fire a P220.  From what I have heard about it via mags and frineds, it is a masterpiece.

[Terror]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Sorry Terror, I'm not buying the line about Glocks being superior to Sigs. I've shot both, and the Glock is NOT the superior weapon. And for the record, while I like Sigs, I'm a 1911 fan. The Glock is a fine weapon, but what you're saying about it being superior just is not true. And comparing competition shooting to personal defense just doesn't cut it.

By the way, care to be honest about who gets paid to shoot what? Because the truth is, those that shoot on a local level shoot what the "hot dogs" shoot, and we all know the "hot dogs" get paid to shoot what they shoot. And I'm not aware of Sig paying anyone to shoot a Sig in competition, but more than a few of the other companies pay people to shoot their guns. Last I heard, Glock was paying people to shoot Glocks in competition.

And having shot both, I'll take a Sig P220 over any 45 Glock has ever made.

Not for sure how Glock paying someone to shoot their firearms means anything....  But their are two shooters that are sponsored by Glock.  So you are right, Glock pays two great competitors to shoot Glocks.  I will have to put out there that there are ALOT of unsponsored Glock shooters out there.  1911's and Glock dominate the numbers.  1911's in the MAJOR divisions and Glocks in the MINOR.

SIGs just have ergonomics that prevent a grip high enough on the firearm to properly control the flip of the firearm.  By forcing the grip lower, it gives the firearm's recoil more leverage against the users grip.  Which in the end makes it more difficult bring the firearm back on target for followup shots.  That means slower times and higher penalties for misplaced shots...

Terror

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I don't seem to be having those problems with Sigs.

Up until your attitude in this thread, I really enjoyed your posts.