Glock vs Sig

My many years of buying and selling to try and find the right carry gun have made me realize that weight, length, width and height really do matter and most striker fired guns shoot about the same even though there are slight differences that make one tickle your fancy a bit more. However, in most cases when considering similar same capacity guns, usually better to go with the lighter smaller dimension one (unless that means too small for you). That’s why I say Glock unless you see some big advantage to having the Sig.

bannockburn said:

Between the two I would opt for the SIG P320 XCompact. I like SIG ergonomics as they just seem to fit my hand better than the comparable Glock model.

Click to expand...

Agree, they should have put the 320 compact in the poll. Nice shooting pistol. Like many polls, there are things to consider. The Glock 19 has been around much longer than the 320 so I am guessing more owners of the Glock which would sway the votes. If someone likes Glocks, they really should shoot the Mossberg MC1.Evreyone I have known talks about the accuracy and I noticed it right away. The Bottom line is there are a lot of nice guns out there. I also like the Beretta APX compact and of course anything by Kahr.
There is also the Sig 365 XL which is nice and would make a better concealed carry.

The op did say he was talking about the compact. I only have full size so I measured a full size G22 as well. Widths would be the same though. Weights would be less but would be proportionate. I did take pictures of all the weights and measurements.

I measured the 320 full size 40 with medium grip, the slide stop to slide stop width is 1.312 and 27.16 oz.
For reference my ruger p-97 which everyone calls huge is 1.290
My usp which is another gun called fat by most, weighs 27.5 oz

The 320 in my opinion is a better duty gun or owb at least than a concealed gun.

My glock 22 with metal tru-glo sights is 1.180 wide and 23.3 oz. Its only 26.45 with my light mounted.

I've had Glocks for years. Bought one of the M17 Sigs a couple of months ago. I like the shape of the M17 grip MUCH better than the civilian 320. If considering the full size 320 I'd pick the M17 ten times out of 10 over the 320. It is probably familiarity, but I still shoot the Glocks better. But the difference isn't great enough for me to dump the Sig. In fact when the compact M-18 becomes available I may well buy it too.

I think the biggest difference for me is the sight picture. The Sig is much different than the Glock. But the more I shoot the Sig, the better I get with it.

They aren't that expensive, get both.

jmr40 said:

I think the biggest difference for me is the sight picture.

Click to expand...

The sight picture is definitely different although my 320 in .40 came with an 8 rear and a 6 front sight. It doesnt have the extreme drive the dot sight picture that my 226 and 220 guns have. I've heard that some guns shipped with a different front sight and sig made changes because of the complaints (which they corrected free by changing the sight under warranty). For a subcompact I might like drive the dot sights, but I tend to prefer a normal sight picture.

The correct answer is, obviously, the Glock G23.4 .40.


(Now, what was the question again?)






GR

I think this Glock 19 and the Sig 320 compact make for a better compariso.

What does "shot the SIG better" mean? Are you proficient with a handgun? Details on your training, round counts, etc, would be helpful.

I voted for the SIG, but have far more Glocks than SIG pistols.

Neither of the above, I've got a Smith and would look hard at Walther.

The best answer would be to rent both guns and see which one shoots better. Shoot them side by side. I have done this a number of times and has paid off. Especially if you take a lot of ammo with you. I did this with one purchase. I shot each gun with 100 rds, then the other and then repeated the process. I then shot both in Plus p. At first I could feel a difference in Recoil. But at the end, there was a clear difference. One gun, I just did not want to shoot any longer. A little pain in my hand, The other gun, I could have gone on shooting all day long. Plus I notice some gun just do not shoot as well when warmed up.

I've had Glocks. I settled on the 19 as an OK choice. I bought a full size 320 and loved it. Put a compact grip on it, and it was enough of an improvement in hand fit and accuracy to sell off my 19.

Recently bought an FN 509 midsize which is more comparable to the 19 than my 320 with a longer barrel. Personal opinion, the FN is a better built gun. I shoot it better than the SIG as well, and i like the steel sights, flat unbladed trigger, ambi controls, and aesthetics over the 19.

However, I have gone off the rails here. I would get what you shoot better, as others have said. Both are fine guns. I just didn't have room in my stable for similar 9mms. That said, im not kicking the 320 to the curb. As a military sidearm it will be supported for decades with cost effective 3rd party parts and mags as well. The removable chassis means I can pop it into pretty much anything they come up with. I like that. Plus I bought a lot of mags for it.

While i like the FN better, their track record of supporting their firearms in terms of magazine compatibility is spotty at best

Old Dog said:

My question would be, how many of those voting Glock have actually any experience with the SIG P-320.

Click to expand...

Not a bit, but I have experience with much better pistols than SIGs.
Walther pistols just got too many silly buy offers so I sold them P5c and two P88s went and Glock replaced them. Glock 26 holds two more rounds than the P5c I used to carry and the G34 has two more than the P88.
The big plus is the 26 functions with the 34's magazines.

Old Dog said:

My question would be, how many of those voting Glock have actually any experience with the SIG P-320.

I've noted that many Glock guys are not the most adventurous when it comes to experimenting with other platforms, sticking almost exclusively with Glocks. Especially the younger and/or newer shooters.

Whereas, my casual survey of my crew indicates that all of those who've gravitated toward SIGs have quite a bit of experience with Glocks.

I once was issued the Glock 23 for a duty pistol. It was okay, but did nothing for me. We then went to H&K, and from there to another polymer-framed striker-fired pistol, which even a lot of the former Glock fans decided they liked (especially the latest version).

To answer the OP, I'd echo those who say, "get what you shoot best." Frankly, I believe (and this is purely subjective, of course) that the 320 (how about the 320 Carry as an example) has better ergonomics, a much better trigger, and far better factory sights than the Glock 19 (which seems to be all the Glocksters' favorite flavor these days).

At the end of the day though, it's only what you think about the gun, who cares what others prefer?

Click to expand...

I have a Sig M17 and like it very much, but prefer my Glocks. I am also waiting for the Sig M18 to hit the market, and plan to buy one.
I don't think someone should limit themselves to just one type of gun. Variety is the spice of life.

GunnyUSMC said:

I don't think someone should limit themselves to just one type of gun. Variety is the spice of life

Click to expand...

At this point I agree whole heartedly But back many moons ago when I was starting out I had a 50 dollar j-22. It was better than a rock, or so I was told. Honestly I'm not entirely convinced that it was. Student loans (should have just ignored them and let Bernie cancel them out. Lol) and a wife in college made a Glock the equivalent of driving a Ferrari. Two guns, especially decent ones, was a dream. By the time I bought tuna, Mac and Cheese, and Ramen noodles, and gasoline and tires for her vehicle ( her college was 1.5 hour drive away) I just didnt have it. Later I stepped up to a used p-97 for 300 bucks. Then after the loans were gone life was different.
I get why folks are saying buy both, I really do. I have both (and like both very well) and then some. But it's just not possible for some folks and not desired by others. Outside of a gun forum or LGS I doubt that answer would be so prevalent.
There are folks like my Father and my Father in law. Both buy new vehicles with cash but still only own one carry gun, a 22 or two, and a shotgun and rifle. So while buying both is certainly possible, they think it's silly since you can only "carry one at a time". (Odd since they own multiple tractors, Multiple pickups, etc. And can only "drive one at a time)

No idea about the OP but just throwing that out there

crestoncowboy said:

At this point I agree whole heartedly But back many moons ago when I was starting out I had a 50 dollar j-22. It was better than a rock, or so I was told. Honestly I'm not entirely convinced that it was. Student loans (should have just ignored them and let Bernie cancel them out. Lol) and a wife in college made a Glock the equivalent of driving a Ferrari. Two guns, especially decent ones, was a dream. By the time I bought tuna, Mac and Cheese, and Ramen noodles, and gasoline and tires for her vehicle ( her college was 1.5 hour drive away) I just didnt have it. Later I stepped up to a used p-97 for 300 bucks. Then after the loans were gone life was different.
I get why folks are saying buy both, I really do. I have both (and like both very well) and then some. But it's just not possible for some folks and not desired by others. Outside of a gun forum or LGS I doubt that answer would be so prevalent.
There are folks like my Father and my Father in law. Both buy new vehicles with cash but still only own one carry gun, a 22 or two, and a shotgun and rifle. So while buying both is certainly possible, they think it's silly since you can only "carry one at a time". (Odd since they own multiple tractors, Multiple pickups, etc. And can only "drive one at a time)

No idea about the OP but just throwing that out there

Click to expand...

I remember those days, but Ramen Noodles weren't around. I ate a lot of Hamburger Helper and bologna. Could not afford ham. Thank God those days are behind me.

I voted for the Sig. I am not really very partial to "synthetic" guns. I own about 12 handguns but only one is plastic framed: My 9mm Shield. I love my Shield for what it is, but it's weight is not the biggest factor in that. Occasionally I switch and carry a Makarov or my Polish Radom P83 which are more offhandedly accurate than the Shield, tougher, simpler to take down. Generally I prefer steel guns, but the Shield won me over in a number of ways. I have the receiver mounted belt clip installed on it, so even though I usually use a holster, I don't need one. I have a Hi-Power clone which is generally too bulky for CC. I would like to have a higher-capacity handgun for EDC that I currently own, but few plastic guns are on my shopping list. Quite honestly, I would prefer something like a compact CZ75. That would almost be my ideal choice for a gun with ergonomics that fit me, reliability, higher capacity, aftermarket support and parts. And actually, after that Sig is very high on my list.

I've held Glocks but never shot one. All I could ever really say after handling one was "whatever", and handed it back to the clerk. They don't feel good to me. I think they're butt-ugly. There are much safer guns too. I prefer steel DA/SA with a safety, carried with the safety off.

I've shot the P320 but can stay on target easier during recoil with Glock. I think it's the grip angle and lower bore axis.

I own both a SIG P320 9 mm compact and a Gen4 Glock 19. I also own a full size SIG P320 chambered in .45 ACP. I voted for the P320 since that is what you said you shot more accurately. I also shoot the P320 compact more accurately than I do my Glock 19, despite a fair amount of practice with the Glock. The ergonomics of the SIG are just better for me. As far as the bore axis thing is concerned, I believe that the P320 might have slightly more muzzle rise than my Glock 19 does in recoil, but in my hands the P320 comes back on target more reliably and quickly than the Glock does. In rapid fire, I can do significantly better with the SIG P320. I think this is largely because I can simply get a better grip on it, particularly with my support hand.

But to answer your question "Is there any reason to go with the Glock over the SIG?", I can think of a few points.

Although the overall size and weight of the two pistols is very comparable, the Glock is a little sleeker and a little lighter. The difference may or may not be great enough for you to consider significant. Glock magazines are much less expensive and more widely available. If you plan to buy many magazines, the cost differential can be quite significant. Although there is now plenty of aftermarket support in the form of holsters, sights, etc for the P320, the aftermarket support for Glocks is vast and will probably never be rivaled. Depending on just what you feel you need, the aftermarket support issue might be important, or might be of no consequence.

I know you said that you do not plan any modifications, but be aware that Glocks are ridiculously easy to work on and modify. I personally find the trigger on the P320 to be a bit light for concealed carry, but many will disagree. Modifying a P320 trigger can be done, but modifying a Glock trigger is child's play and can be done using all factory parts. I have made the trigger pull on my Glock a bit heavier with more resistance on the pre-travel phase by installing a Glock factory minus connector and a NY-1 trigger spring. Making these changes takes less than 15 minutes.

On the other hand, there are some points in favor of the P320. The P320 is now available with an external manual thumb safety if that is something that appeals to you. I know that the plurality consensus is against having a manual safety on a striker-fired pistol, but some prefer to have that option on a concealed carry piece, especially one to be carried AIWB. The stock sights on the SIG are considerably better than the cheap, polymer sights that come stock on the regularly priced G19. If the stock grip of the SIG P320 does not fit your hand ideally, the three different sized grip modules adapt the gun to your hand size much more effectively than the interchangeable back straps on the Glock, which really do nothing but increase the trigger reach without changing the overall width of the grip. And the compact P320 can very easily and relatively cost-effectively be changed to the "carry" model, if you buy the longer carry grip module and some of the longer 17 round magazines that fit both the carry and full sized grips. The 17 round magazines can also be used in the compact grip module (the same is true for the Glock: Glock 17 magazines will work fine in a Glock 19). Grip modules can be found for $40-45. Of course, the longer (by about 3/8") grip on the carry P320 makes it a bit harder to conceal, but if you have larger hands as I do, the carry grip module might allow you a more comfortable grip on the pistol in addition to a two round greater magazine capacity.

Glock owners go on and on about reliability and the reputation that Glocks have for overall reliability is well-earned. But in point of fact, I have seen Glock 19s malfunction and I have seen SIG P320s malfunction. My Glock 19 had a nasty habit of intermittently but pretty frequently spitting hot, spent cases directly back at my face, a bad habit that it seems now to have happily outgrown.

GunnyUSMC said:

Hamburger Helper

Click to expand...

Oh yeah....I completely forgot all the hamburger helper. We had a cow beefed every few months and grew a few acres of potatoes so hamburger helper and mashed potatoes were my carbs/fat /protein meal.


Another point for the sig 320 is caliber change kits and grip modules. Right now they are utterly useless since I can buy an entire trade in glock or CPO 320 cheaper than just the exchange kit..... But someday in the future it could matter. If one were limited to one serial numbered handgun though, the Sig modularity idea could have merit. Could have a full size 40 and a subcompact 9 all with the same serial. Probably more of a concern to people in tougher states than me. Just another thought.

"Glock vs Sig" should really be "Glock AND Sig"

and just like that, your problems are gone.

You're welcome.

Corpral_Agarn said:

"Glock vs Sig" should really be "Glock AND Sig"

and just like that, your problems are gone.

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

Backwards from what I know alot of people would say, I think I would choose a Sig for my concealed choice and Glock as a car gun or if the S hits the F. Reason being, I don't actually expect to need a combat piece like that but would like to be ready anyway, and since I carry concealed all the time I'd rather have...say...a steel Sig 938 in my pocket with a couple extra mags!

robinkevin said:

. But as I said I shot the P320 best.

Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question especially if this will be your edc ,

I wonder which firearm would be picked if shooters that never shot either gun, never knew or heard about the two guns did a blind type of testing or reviewing. I bet if you had 100 shooters, you would get 100 different answers based personal perceptions, different size hands, and on and on. I find it hard to take any poll and get facts that can actually be compared or certain Bias among voters. Triggers, grip angles, bore axis, different hands, different sensitivity to recoil etc.
Such is the nature of all firearms
One thing I have learned over the years, never buy a gun based on most popular, if the military and police use the gun or even a poll. Lol, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That alone should tell you something.I venture to say, that there are millions out there that would not choose either of the two unless of course there was NO choice. And in some cases folks do not have a choice. They are chosen by others. And who trust "Others".