Author Topic: Sig vs. Glock  (Read 1287 times)

Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2006, 04:02:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 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.


Attitude?  No attitude intended.  Just passing on my experiences and observations on SIGs.  I never said that SIGs are a bad firearm.  I'm just saying they are a tougher firearm to be fast and accurate.  If someone takes the extra time to practice and master the SIG, I'm sure it can be an extrememly effective firearm.  My point was "why make a tough task even harder?"  But if a SIG fits your style, budget, and you have the time to practice then by all means get a SIG.  And if you will be competing, be prepared to face ALOT of Glocks and 1911s.

Terror

PS.  and some was light heartedness that may have been misinterpreted (ie. the paper weight joke...)

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2006, 04:11:33 PM »
Without a lot of practice, I shoot the Sig far better than the Glock. I'm actually a regular 1911 shooter. Were I to carry one, I'd carry the Sig, specifically because of the way it operates, in particular preference over the Glock, and over the 1911 because of the DA first shot. Of course I'd shoot the 1911 in competition, few designs, if any, are better than the 1911 for speed and accuracy. The only real problem with the 1911 is that it is really designed to kill a large number of the enemy quickly and efficiently, but the design that makes it a great killing machine makes it a little less suitable for non combat (ie. civilian) personal carry use. I'd carry the Sig before the 1911, and the 1911 before the Glock. I do not like the way the Glock feels, I despise the trigger (either version, original Glock or "New York" conversion) and I hate the way it shoots. I find the "flip" far worse in the Glock than the Sig.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2006, 04:24:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Without a lot of practice .... [DELETED] .... I hate the way it shoots. I find the "flip" far worse in the Glock than the Sig.


Do not take this the wrong way.  I am NOT trying to be facetious or condescending.  Just trying to pass on some great info:  Check out the Texas Defensive Shooting Academy for some great training.  They have a sister organisation in The Defensive Shooting Academy of Missouri.  And they are opening in Kentucky and Canada soon.  The AP1 course is GREAT for ANY level shooter.  AP2 is targetted to the Competition/Concealed carry folks.  And AP3 is directly competition oriented.

Terror

Offline red26

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1030
      • http://www.red25s.zoomshare.com
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2006, 04:41:18 PM »
Um i still like my Taurs .40 only cost me $300 with 400 rounds for the C.L.E.A.T. Tranning
US ARMY LEAD THE WAY

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2006, 04:42:39 PM »
I'd like to have more time and more money to devote to more training. But I don't have a lot of either.

However, the point of the statement you quoted (with editing) was that I picked up both the Glock and the Sig, and without a great deal of practice, my experience was completely opposite yours. And I do shoot the 1911 somewhat often and usually well. So your position that you need a great deal more practice with a Sig in order to shoot it well is not necessarily applicable to everyone. It was your experience, which is fine. It was not the same as my experience, and my experience was no less real and no less valid than yours.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2006, 10:36:55 PM »
Today I fired the Glock  22 .40-caliber and the Glock 31 357 Sig after three days ago firing the Glock 21 .45-caliber and the Sig P229 .40-caliber -- 50 rounds in each.

I did slightly better with the Glock 357 Sig than the Glock .40-caliber, although for some reason I like the .40-caliber better.  I fired .38 and .357 Magnum in my Ruger Security-Six for comparison, and did better than either Glock.

I think that's undoubtedly due to firing single action in my revolver, with DA revolver looking more like DA Glock although still more accurate.  

It was interesting that although supposedly the same size magazine loads both shells (both magazines were marked 40), the magazine in the 357 Sig was slightly shorter, and the longer magazine for the .40-caliber would not operate in the 357 Sig.

I didn't force the issue, so there might have been a nuance I missed.  

As in most things, practice and familiarity would naturally increase competence and confidence.  Double action triggers can be learned to where they can approach single action sensitivity.  

Nevertheless, today's experience confirms and slightly expands my opinions after firing the Glock 21 .45-caliber and the Sig P229 .40-caliber three days ago.  

If I had to go into a security or combat situation, at least initially I would feel safer handling any of the Glocks.  I felt I knew what the gun would or would not do.  Their triggers, while adequate, were not anything special to pull.  

The Sig still seems less safe to handle but its trigger was an absolute joy.  I shot much more accurately with the Sig .40-caliber than any of the three Glocks (.45, .40, 357 Sig).  In fact, Sig P229 accuracy was about the same as my Ruger Single-Six .357 and .38 rounds.  For me, that's saying a lot for a large caliber pistol.

For my plinking and home security needs, I still feel most comfortable with my Ruger Security-Six and the ability to load either .38 or .357 Magnum.  For me it is the safest to handle, what I think is and hear to be the most reliable, and the most accurate although the Sig might match it.  

However, I must mention that today after firing about 20 .38 rounds in my Ruger Security-Six, I fired five .357 Magnum, and two of them stuck in the cylinder when I tried to eject them.  Dunno what happened.  I fired fewer rounds in the revolver than I did in either pistol.  

Eventually pried them out after they cooled.  Not good.  Would sure hamper any reload in a home defense situation.  So much for revolver reliability, huh?  Guess it's a good thing I still have a Marine Ka-Bar knife for ultimate backup.

For the truest comparison with Glock, I found in further research that the Coast Guard and Homeland Security apparently bought a special Sig P229R DAK that has only a double-action 6.5-pound trigger pull -- one pound heavier than the usual Glock DA 5.5-lb pull and two pounds heavier than the usual Sig 4.5-lb SA pull after its initial 10-lb DA pull.

That might negate the single-action accuracy bonus I experienced in the Sig P229 .40-caliber DA/SA (10/4.5 pull) I fired.  It seems to speak to the persistent need military and law enforcement agencies have to discourage light trigger pulls as in the much more sensitive single-action.  

Unfortunately, the Sig P229R DAK was not available at the range where I shoot, so I could not compare it with the Glock DAs.    

The Sig site also mentioned an SP2022 polymer frame with a convertible DA/SA trigger (which might mean can do either or both, but I'm not sure), and the Army buying 5,000 9mms apparently for tank crews.  

The poor military -- many still stuck with what apparently appears to be a too light 9mm while law enforcements are going to .45, .40, or 357 Sig.  

Thus concludes my initial phase of trying some large caliber pistols after years away from them.  I might try some more occasionally, particularly a Kimber .45, but the next project is to find the optimum .22 rifle and handgun plinkers, which is another thread.  

Thanks again for the many incisive and thoughtful inputs, once again demonstrating the immense reservoir of talent and experience across the board by Aces High participants.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 10:46:17 PM by Halo »
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #36 on: September 12, 2006, 09:12:06 AM »
soooo terror... you really have no idea about these guns except what you have read?  If I beat you in speed and accuracy with a revolver you would say a revolver was king?


the revolver is the current champ of speed and accuracy... not of games but of actual scientific timed fire.  Jerry miculek (butchered his name) is king of the 5 shot and 50 shot accurate speed fire with a Smith 686 revolver.

The old clunky glock can't operate fast enough to compete.... the slow, plodding action of the slide is simply too ponderous and wasteful to compete.  

You should shoot a variety of firearms and tell us what you think about them personaly..   But, for pure scientific measured speed and accuracy.... your glock is way down on the list.    I don't know what all the shooting games teach anyone...  I see the cops shoot allmost every day... they shoot at 7 feet.    I have proved that at that distance I can unload 6 rounds from my revolver into the target (44 mag) faster than they can with a semi auto...

The difference in the things you mention are pissy little meaningless things that have nothing to do with real world.   A 1911 style gun is allways going to be more accurate than the most accurate glock.

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2006, 11:09:32 AM »
ROFL.

I Knew terror would show his true fanboi colors in this thread given time.


You really should not go after "fanboys" when you are so clearly one yourself. :cry


I bet you oil your glock by oiling yourself all up and then rubbing "your precious" all over yourself.


:rofl

Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2006, 11:29:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2

the revolver is the current champ of speed and accuracy... not of games but of actual scientific timed fire.  Jerry miculek (butchered his name) is king of the 5 shot and 50 shot accurate speed fire with a Smith 686 revolver.

The old clunky glock can't operate fast enough to compete.... the slow, plodding action of the slide is simply too ponderous and wasteful to compete.  

You should shoot a variety of firearms and tell us what you think about them personaly..   But, for pure scientific measured speed and accuracy.... your glock is way down on the list.    I don't know what all the shooting games teach anyone...  I see the cops shoot allmost every day... they shoot at 7 feet.    I have proved that at that distance I can unload 6 rounds from my revolver into the target (44 mag) faster than they can with a semi auto...

The difference in the things you mention are pissy little meaningless things that have nothing to do with real world.   A 1911 style gun is allways going to be more accurate than the most accurate glock.


Nope, I will agree that a revolver is absolutely faster than an auto when put into the right mans hands.  Less action movement = faster, but very few people are as masterful at reloading a revovler than Jerry.  Give the average cop a revolver and a Glock and ask them to put 12 rounds into a target 7 yards away.  I bet the Glock wins 95+% of the time.  

Accuracy is 98% the shooter, so saying a 1911 style gun is "always" going to be more accurate is bollocks.  Stock 1911s and Stock Glocks tend to have similar accuracy qualities.  The biggest difference is the hexagonal rifling in the Glock over the traditional rifling in a 1911.  But neither gun in Stock layout is a 75yrd bullseye gun.

Terror

Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2006, 11:34:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
ROFL.

I Knew terror would show his true fanboi colors in this thread given time.


You really should not go after "fanboys" when you are so clearly one yourself. :cry


I bet you oil your glock by oiling yourself all up and then rubbing "your precious" all over yourself.


:rofl


My preecccciiioouuussss...   mmmm  

Of course, I recently put over 10,000 rnds through my Glock34 without cleaning it and had no stoppages.  Absolutely reliable.  

Glock Fanboi,
Terror

PS.  Isn't it a FanBoi's job to go after other FanBois?  :)

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2006, 11:50:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Terror
My preecccciiioouuussss...   mmmm  

Of course, I recently put over 10,000 rnds through my Glock34 without cleaning it and had no stoppages.  Absolutely reliable.  

Glock Fanboi,
Terror

PS.  Isn't it a FanBoi's job to go after other FanBois?  :)


Only person you fooled was yourself.  Let me know when you wanna throw some money out there for "that bet".   :aok
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Terror

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 637
      • http://walden.mo.net/~aedwards
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2006, 01:11:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Only person you fooled was yourself.  Let me know when you wanna throw some money out there for "that bet".   :aok


You mean the "Give the average cop a revolver and a Glock and ask them to put 12 rounds into a target 7 yards away. I bet the Glock wins 95+% of the time."?  I will put $10 on it.  (About all I can afford with ammo prices the way they have been recently.)

Terror

Offline FX1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2006, 01:46:38 PM »
I shoot ipsc production and limited. My first gun was a sig that i justed in comp. The sig is a great gun when i first bought it i thought it was by far the best pistol i have ever shot. I see cops at the range all the time and see more sigs then anything else. After lots of time at the range and learning more about the sport i sold the sig bought a glock 35 and a sti edge. Their are more parts for the glock and i can purchase mags for about 1/2 the cost. the glock does have a faster return to target then the sig. For me its all about time and not so much about putting bullets into paper for groups. If your going to be shooting every week then the glock is for you because it allows you to build on the gun. Also with the 3.5 connector the trigger pull becomes better not a 1911 but it works every time. Also you can convert almost any glock from 9mm to 40 thats always nice to have. A glock 19 is a great carry weapon if you like to pack heat all day long. I for one have no reason to have a weapon on me and feel no need for one.

The STI is world above any other 1911 sig bla bla. Its heavy shoots 1 inch groups at 25 yrds and holds 19 rounds of 40. Its also three times the cost of a sig but you get what you pay for. I am getting really good with my glock and it has become my work horse. Sigs are a good gun and if you purchase one you cant really go wrong they hold their value (:



Laz is correct about wheel guns.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2006, 01:56:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Terror
You mean the "Give the average cop a revolver and a Glock and ask them to put 12 rounds into a target 7 yards away. I bet the Glock wins 95+% of the time."?  I will put $10 on it.  (About all I can afford with ammo prices the way they have been recently.)

Terror


I'm not a cop.  However, I'm pissed off because you lead your "Pro-Gun" campaign in front of other's by SEVERELY misinforming them.    Your posts in this thread PROVE it.

Next time I'm in MO.  I'll bring the HK USP 45 and fire 13 rounds (12+1)and you shoot 11(10+1).   I'll put $100 on it.   It'll pay for my gas on the way home.

BTW, the revolver is more ACCURATE weapon by design.   I'd wager "double or nothing" on the bet you also have just proposed.   That'll put a nice chunk away for a Sig P220.
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Sig vs. Glock
« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2006, 02:14:48 PM »
guys... we are getting off here... I just brought up revolvers to show that terror is thinking in a very narrow range.

If a billionth of a sec at very short ranges at very specific types of shooting contests with very specific ammo and some extremely minor issues of reliability are the only concerns...

The glock may be best... If you use the gun for all sorts of things including plinking and target and hunting and defense... you will be better off with a revolver... then a 1911 type.

Overall... save the capacity.... my Kimber does everything better than the glock... it shoots a lead slug too which is important to me.  good cheap reloads mean lots of shooting fun.  It is flatter and has night sights... it is inherantly safer to leave on the nightstand with one in the chamber and hammer down.  The trigger is a pleasure to use and there is an intangible pride of ownership that goes with a finely machined and fitted firearm.

lazs