Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on September 08, 2006, 10:56:51 PM
-
This could be any kind of x pistol vs. y pistol thread, but I'm currently intrigued with the Sig and Glock semiautomatic pistols because one or the other has been selected by so many federal and state law enforcement agencies.
Google provides many threads on the subject, and there seem to be many advocates for either as well as for both. Looks like can't lose choosing either.
At our excellent local commercial indoor firing range, last week I fired a Glock .45 caliber Model 21, and today I fired a Sig .40 caliber P229. I enjoyed both. Here are my main impressions (I'm an older occasional shooter with revived interest in shooting after a couple years of dormancy):
The Glock 21 .45 felt very safe and predictable. I can see why so many police and military issue it -- users generally know exactly what its status is and what it will do in a lot of different circumstances.
The consistent double action trigger pull (5.5 lbs) might be its greatest safety feature. The tradeoff is okay accuracy but not as easy as with a lighter trigger pull. The Glock generally felt safer than any semiauto I've ever seen or read about, and most reports contend it can take more abuse than most any other semiauto.
The Glock 21 could hold 13 .45 bullets, and that is a ton of firepower. Unfortunately, I've never been very accurate with a .45. The Glock was easier for me than the old military 1911s, but I still couldn't hit a quarter coin-sized bullseye even at 7 yards.
The Sig P229 with its 12 .40 caliber bullets is an absolute joy to shoot with its single action (4.5 lbs) after the first trigger pull (12 lbs), which isn't that stiff either. I obliterated the quarter coin-sized bullseye at 7 yards and hit it at 15 yards too.
But the Sig never felt safe to me. It had some kind of trigger decocking which I finally got used to, but the trigger is so sensitive I wouldn't feel safe with a Sig unless there was no shell in the chamber.
That of course slows up self defense considerably, though it is not a problem on the firing range.
It doesn't seem to bother most shooters judging from Internet postings, so that problem may apply only to ultra safety freaks like me (e.g., my home situation fortunately is safe enough that I have never kept a loaded gun in the house).
The magazines in both the Sig and the Glock had springs so stiff that I could never load a full capacity in either. I quit trying after what seemed to me to be enough prudent pressure to avoid crimping a shell case.
Magazine spring reliability is a separate issue. Some threads insist fully loaded magazines should be alternated as often as every month, while other posters insist they can remain loaded for years. (This is one reason why for home defense over the years I just go with a double-action revolver -- the simpler the better.)
The Sig needs better care than the Glock according to many reports on the Internet, and that seems to be simply because the Glock is considered so rugged and reliable it is almost in a class by itself.
The Sig also is the first gun I've fired that several times hit me in the head with ejected shells. Duh, talk about feeling stupid. I was afraid I was doing something dumb, or at least the shells were bouncing off the concrete firing position walls, but they were more direct. The ejection port seems to be more centered on the top instead of biased as much toward one side as most guns are. I think it's a gun idiosyncrasy and not any idiosicme.
Sigs are hundreds of dollars more than Glocks. Other brands can cost even more, but for value Glock seems to have a major edge.
Next week I'm going to fire a Glock .40 caliber and a Glock 357 Sig. As you probably know, it's the same shell necked down in the 357 for higher velocity with the lighter 9mm bullet.
For home defense and all-around use I'm still sticking with my Ruger .357/.38 double action Security-Six, and for plinking with my Browning Buck Master .22 semiauto. But the big caliber semiautos are so prevalent it's fun getting acquainted with some of the more widely used ones.
I've considered Kimbers and Rugers too, but probably will have enough after the Glock .40 and 357 Sig.
This thread is similar to many other gun threads here, but I'm wondering how you might feel about Sig vs. Glock since these seem to be the main handguns selected by so many military and law enforcement agencies (this is considering the Beretta 9mm as essentially a fading one-time quasi political choice).
-
Both are fine firearms.
I have owned and love my Sig220 .45. It is a great pistol, feels right in the hand and has never failed.
I am not fond of Glocks due to the trigger, but they are also great pistols, and lots of people swear by them.
I really don’t think one has an edge over the other for safety.
Sig customer service has always been fantastic as well.
-
If concealed carry isn't a consideration, try the beretta in .40. I have one and I like it a lot.
As for ejected shells landing on your head (or down your collar), I had that problem with multiple guns until I realized that I just wasn't gripping the guns hard enough. A little tighter grip kept the shells flying off to the side as intended instead of landing inside my shirt collar (ouch!).
-
i have a glock 22 40cal that i use at work. i like it. glocks are the best bang for the buck. my next piece is a sig 229DAK .357. nice piece also. costs a bit more $$ though.
-
I had the opportunity to choose between a Sig 226 and a Glock 17 while in the police academy. Our instructors taught us on .38 revolvers, then we had a day of glocks, then a day of sigs, and from then on we could use whatever we chose (including berettas and SW's).
8 out of the 11 people in my class chose the Sig. I had no experience with pistols before the police academy, but I just liked the feel of the Sig better. The Glock grip felt angled too steeply. All the weight was in the rear of the gun, and the weight seemed to change a lot more as the weapon emptied. I liked having the mass distributed farther forward, as on the Sig. Completely personal preference though.
I understand where you're coming from on the Sig trigger pull and decocking lever. We put thousands of rounds through our pistols, and did countless dry-fire drills to teach us the mechanism of the weapon. Now, every time I take the weapon off target it is instinct to hit the decocking lever. I love the Double-single action trigger, as it allowed extremely fast and accurate following shots, yet still gave the safety of a long, smooth trigger pull for the first shot. I've never tried the Sig DAK trigger, but I'd give it consideration if I were in the market for a new one.
I only own Sigs right now, but sometimes when I take my firearm noob friends out I wish I had a simpler weapon like a glock. I can tell that they're intimidated by all the switches and levers and things to remember. But once you're trained in its operation, everything else seems crude by comparison.
ed: I've never had a problem with brass being thrown, either, unless it was from the shooter standing to my left. Maybe it was a weird gun, or maybe it just doesn't mesh with your shooting style.
-
I'm not a Glock fan. They are a fine weapon, but they just do not have the feel that I like. I'm a 1911 guy at heart, but I also dearly love a Sig P220 in 45 ACP. With the Sig, until I pull the trigger the first time, I treat it like a double action revolver, after the first shot, I treat it the same as I would a 1911 if it were cocked, whether before or after the first shot. So it feels as safe as a 1911, which I feel fine with.
-
I have a P220 and a Beretta .40 (94 commander). Both are excellent handguns and you wouldn't be giving up anything with either. I've fired the Glock in 9mm, .40 and .45 and have found it to be an excellent handgun also.
Basically, you're going to be fine with either. So pay attention to the little things on both and go with what you like better, not what you're told is better.
-
I shot GTO's sig and it was a really fine weapon.
I have shot glocks and... besides hating the way they looked and felt in my hand.... I instantly realized that it was Harley against jap bike all over again...
If the glock is a pistol then the sig is something else or vice versa. I realized that if you like the glock and want to get good with it you have change everything about how you shoot and what you expect of a firearm.
I simply don't like the feel of em or how they shoot. I really like a good crisp single action trigger pull but have spent a lot of time with double action work on revolvers. despured my 44 redhawk and other revolvers but... the double action on a revolver is way different than the neither fish nor foul trigger on a glock.
Too set in my ways... even tho I shot the gun better than it's owner... I didn't like the thing.
lazs
-
Had a glock for a few years and it "served" me well... Never jammed and hit were it was supposed to (somewere over there).
-
can't argue with you nelson.. the glock is a very good tool...
it's just that it has no soul.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Halo
But the Sig never felt safe to me. It had some kind of trigger decocking which I finally got used to, but the trigger is so sensitive I wouldn't feel safe with a Sig unless there was no shell in the chamber.
That of course slows up self defense considerably, though it is not a problem on the firing range.
Halo,
Both are double action (SIG can be ordered single) and both will fire if you pull the trigger with a round in the chamber. I routinely carry a SIG P239 .40 S&W in battery and don't feel a bit unsafe with it. Of course, I don't let it out of my hands loaded nor do I leave it unattended unless secured. As the saying goes, no safety mechanism is a replacement for proper gun handling.
Before buying the SIG, I tried several Glocks, Barettas, and the HK P2000SK. I just liked the way the SIG felt and shot. The others were acceptable weapons, and I especially liked the ambidexterous magazine release on the HK, but still chose the SIG in Nitron finish with tritium sights.
-
<------ has a Tauras .40 PT-100 I love it the only thing is that if some one gets too close to you and slams there hand into the muzzle it wont fire but I make it a point not to let them get that close. It modeld on the older Berreta presse's so it looks just like a Berreta but it hasnt failed me yet went to through CLEAT in Okla. and it fired with out a problem. And that Jakey Chan stuff were he pulls the wepon apart in your hand. Thats not likely going to happen I have tried and tried to do it but its hard enough to get it apart just cleaning it LOL. Well this is My own opp. so yall can call me a tard if ya want to.
-
I'll stick with my USP 45. I'd never a own a Beretta or it's clones if they were the last pistols on earth.
-
.45 great wepon but there round is just to slow if you get into a shoot out they dont like going through a car door. I do relize the likley hood of getting into a shoot out wile near a car but the .40 with go through the door. But the good old 1911 .45 is still the best wepon around
-
Go with what YOU are most comfortable and shoot the best with. Pistols are far more like girls and motorcycles than long arms are - EVERYONE has a different favorite, everyone has their reasons, and nobody is wrong. :)
I learned to shoot pistols with a SIG (226/9x19mm). I had to train on a couple of different pistols later, one of which is supposedly the 'best made combat pistol in the world'. I hated the 'best' one. Some of the guys I was working with were 1911 fanatics. They were also phenominal shots with their 1911s (most were using Kimber Tacticals).
So I bought a Kimber Tactical. It is a truly awesome weapon. I honestly believe it is a superior weapon to the SIG - in the hands of almost everyone but me. :)
And at the end of the day, I was still better with the SIG. So I sold the Kimber to a coworker, losing a lot of $ in the process. Because one of the senior guys in my unit blessed me with some words of wisdom - "I don't care what you carry, as long as when you have to use it you are the best with that weapon above all others. Your Kimber is great. If you shoot better with the SIG and my bellybutton is on the line and being protected by your shooting I want you with the damn SIG in your hands."
Make sure you get good initial training (mistakes take a long, long time to unlearn). Then go try a bunch of different weapons. Whichever one feels the 'best' to you when you are shooting, whichever one gives you the best results - take that one and screw what almost everyone else says.
Every guy thinks they are a gun expert. 1% actually are, because they put in the time (lazs is a good example in my opinion).
Carry what you are smooth and accurate with. Because if you ever need it, you don't want any snags before you even draw the weapon. In a shooting situation little problems can get magnified really fast.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
glock cuz it looks bettah when ah smoke peeps firing it on its side, now ya know thats right. ya'll is mad stupid.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/Gun001.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I don't seem to be having those problems with Sigs.
Up until your attitude in this thread, I really enjoyed your posts.
-
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...)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.tdsa.net) for some great training. They have a sister organisation in The Defensive Shooting Academy of Missouri (http://www.fastshooting.com). 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
-
Um i still like my Taurs .40 only cost me $300 with 400 rounds for the C.L.E.A.T. Tranning
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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? :)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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
Agree. This is a post Terror.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
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.
Not for sure where the HK USP 45 came in? I've never shot a HK except for the MP5. And where did I say that a revolver is less accurate? I said a revolver is faster in the right persons hands but never said it's less accurate. I said give the average cop a revolver and a Glock at 7 yrds and give them 12 rounds. The Glock should come out on top for the simple reason you don't have to reload at 6 rounds and at 7 yrds, even cops can hit an 6 inch pie plate. (I guess I would have to point out that time is also a factor as well as accuracy...)
Don't see where I'm "SEVERELY" misinforming anyone. Just been putting my experiences/observations down, which have been interpreted by my mind to form an opinion. Glocks are a proven reliable, accurate, fast, and durable firearm. There are other firearms out there that are faster, more accurate, maybe even more reliable, but a buyer can feel very safe investing their money in a Glock firearm. And personally, I am one that will take the extra step and even stake not only my money but possibly my life on a Glock firearm, as I carry a Glock.
I am not trying piss anyone off. Merely passing on information as I see it. (as we all are)..
BTW, Don't have the $100 to put on the line... But I would be ecstatic to have some of the folks reading my "Pro-Gun" mis-information threads stop by to do some shooting!! As even with our disagreements on the type of firearm we choose to hurl bullets down range with, we are still all firearm enthusiasts that stand on the same side of the firing line. I will even setup some IDPA stages for us to run through.
Terror
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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
Though one thing I find a bit contrdictory is the Kimber is ~$1000 firearm, but you might save a dime per bullet by putting lead down it. (Hopefully, not semi-wad cutters. Seen many many stoppages due to semi-wad cutters. 1911's are very choosy when shooting semi-wad cutters. Here are some good words from Kimber (http://www.kimberamerica.com/knowledgebase/index.php?ToDo=view&questId=20&catId=9) about semi-wad cutters. <--- way off topic... sorry) Why put lead down such a premium weapon?
You are right. This is a SIG v. Glock thread. My bad for getting on the revolver v. auto kick. Apologies.
Terror
PS. Edit because I hit submit when I meant to hit preview....
-
Terror = Glock uber alles.
:p
-
I love my Glock but I got to be honest here, I have yet to meet a gun I didnt like,
I just love em all!
Sigs are cool. Give me one :cool:
-
It costs me $3.50 a box to shoot my hard cast reloads in my Kimber... they shoot just as accurately or more so than cheap ball or even the best defensive loads. How is that not a great thing? I shoot 230 grain hard cast round nose.
The Kimber is more fun to shoot than a glock and more accurate and I can shoot it a lot cheaper. Now..... unless I want to be in the top 2 or three games players on specialized courses....
Why would I want to shoot a glock that is clunky and dumb looking and shoots lead bullets sideways and is inaccurate?
why would I care if I could put 12 or 6 rounds into someone as close as 7 yards? wouldn't the last 1o bullets or so be just shooting a dead man? wouldn't 2 .367 or 44 mag be a lot better than 12 .40 short and weaks?
Another thing about all autos... dirty little secret... if anything is touching the slide and moves it even a fraction of an inch out of battery.... the gun won't fire.
you can fire the 340 pd from a pocket or jammed into someones gut.
So... if you wear a hostered gun or your whole gun experiance is playing a couple of gun games (or reading about em) and...you don't plan on shooting a lot ...you will be fine with a glock.
If you like guns... you might want a revolver or a 1911 or a sig or HK or anything else.
The glock will work for most things but it really isn't the best choice for most people as an all around gun...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It costs me $3.50 a box to shoot my hard cast reloads in my Kimber... they shoot just as accurately or more so than cheap ball or even the best defensive loads. How is that not a great thing? I shoot 230 grain hard cast round nose.
The Kimber is more fun to shoot than a glock and more accurate and I can shoot it a lot cheaper. Now..... unless I want to be in the top 2 or three games players on specialized courses....
Why would I want to shoot a glock that is clunky and dumb looking and shoots lead bullets sideways and is inaccurate?
why would I care if I could put 12 or 6 rounds into someone as close as 7 yards? wouldn't the last 1o bullets or so be just shooting a dead man? wouldn't 2 .367 or 44 mag be a lot better than 12 .40 short and weaks?
Another thing about all autos... dirty little secret... if anything is touching the slide and moves it even a fraction of an inch out of battery.... the gun won't fire.
you can fire the 340 pd from a pocket or jammed into someones gut.
So... if you wear a hostered gun or your whole gun experiance is playing a couple of gun games (or reading about em) and...you don't plan on shooting a lot ...you will be fine with a glock.
If you like guns... you might want a revolver or a 1911 or a sig or HK or anything else.
The glock will work for most things but it really isn't the best choice for most people as an all around gun...
You make it sound like the honda civic of handguns lol. I have to say, I agree that fits the glock well.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It costs me $3.50 a box to shoot my hard cast reloads in my Kimber... they shoot just as accurately or more so than cheap ball or even the best defensive loads. How is that not a great thing? I shoot 230 grain hard cast round nose.
The Kimber is more fun to shoot than a glock and more accurate and I can shoot it a lot cheaper. Now..... unless I want to be in the top 2 or three games players on specialized courses....
Why would I want to shoot a glock that is clunky and dumb looking and shoots lead bullets sideways and is inaccurate?
why would I care if I could put 12 or 6 rounds into someone as close as 7 yards? wouldn't the last 1o bullets or so be just shooting a dead man? wouldn't 2 .367 or 44 mag be a lot better than 12 .40 short and weaks?
Another thing about all autos... dirty little secret... if anything is touching the slide and moves it even a fraction of an inch out of battery.... the gun won't fire.
you can fire the 340 pd from a pocket or jammed into someones gut.
So... if you wear a hostered gun or your whole gun experiance is playing a couple of gun games (or reading about em) and...you don't plan on shooting a lot ...you will be fine with a glock.
If you like guns... you might want a revolver or a 1911 or a sig or HK or anything else.
The glock will work for most things but it really isn't the best choice for most people as an all around gun...
Yep, you are right, auto's need room to function. Not a "dirty little" secret. Just a fact. (the dirty little secret is the "limp wrist" failure of an auto. A poor grip or lack of control can cause a auto to stop.)
BTW, a fraction of an inch out of battery does not always keep an auto from firing. I have seen several different types of auto's fire while out of battery. Glocks and 1911s included.
2 rounds center mass of just about any .38 caliber hollow point or larger to an un-armored human body is going to put the hurt on anyone. 12 rounds because in those situations, 2 rounds center mass is harder to muster than most people think. Plus bad guys always seem to have their buddies close behind.
I choose not to reload, but I know quite a few folks that do reload for their Glocks. Works fine if you check each brass for bulging or any irregularities. (Which you should be doing no matter what firearm you are reloading for.)
I am of the 100% opposite opinion as I feel the Glock is an ideal choice as an all around gun. It may not be perfect in every situation, but it will perform well in just about any situation. (Even jammed into someones gut. As round #1 cannot miss, then slingshot the slide and line up the next shot.)
Terror
-
Originally posted by Terror
2 rounds center mass of just about any .38 caliber hollow point or larger to an un-armored human body is going to put the hurt on anyone. 12 rounds because in those situations, 2 rounds center mass is harder to muster than most people think. Plus bad guys always seem to have their buddies close behind.
Imagine what the CorBon 230gr. +P ammo in my USP could do. That being 1 in the center of mass.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Imagine what the CorBon 230gr. +P ammo in my USP could do. That being 1 in the center of mass.
Pretty freaking damaging. (I sure as heck wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it!!) But a 9mm Winchester Ranger 127gr +P+ HP would screw somebodies day just as much. A center mass shot just screws too much stuff up inside. Getting the shots center mass is key, and the reasoning behind having a multitude of followup shots available to you if needed.
Terror