Sig Sauer P365 v Glock..?

[Alllen Bundy]

Maybe we should call the Glock trigger dongle an "inertial Trigger Safety", because it's intent is to keep the trigger from moving when the pistol is dropped.

 

[JohnKSa]

That is one of the two functions it is intended to perform.

https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-pistols/safe-action-system

"The trigger safety is designed to prevent the pistol from firing if it’s dropped or if the trigger is subjected to any pressure that isn’t a direct firing pull."

 

[Alllen Bundy]

"The trigger safety is designed to prevent the pistol from firing......... if the trigger is subjected to any pressure that isn’t a direct firing pull."

That part is marketing BS. True, the trigger dongle is designed to help make the pistol drop safe. But the rest of it is just marketing people trying to hype the trigger dongle to make it sound more important than it really is. If you squeeze the Glock trigger the pistol fires it is is loaded. And THAT is hardly what most people think of as a trigger safety. To call it a "trigger safety" is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst.

 

[JohnKSa]

That part is marketing BS.

So where they agree with you, they are correct, anywhere they don't, it's BS.

If the safety covered the entire trigger face, you might have a reasonable argument. But it doesn't--in fact, the trigger safety only covers a relatively small percentage of the trigger face. Anything that catches on the edges of the trigger won't disengage the trigger safety and the gun won't fire. Anything that hits the trigger with initially light pressure will tend to ride up the trigger bow to the top of the trigger and the trigger safety only extends about halfway up the trigger bow. It's clearly possible for pressure to be applied to the trigger without disengaging the trigger safety.

And THAT is hardly what most people think of as a trigger safety.

Given that trigger safeties were pretty rare before Glock came along, your argument borders on the ridiculous. Since they popularized the concept of a trigger safety, what people think of when they think of a trigger safety is almost certainly something that operates like a Glock trigger safety.

To call it a "trigger safety" is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst.

Glock popularizes the concept of a trigger safety and tells us what they designed it to do and here you are, decades after the fact saying that you know better than they do why they designed it and that because they disagree with you and your terminology, they're misleading people and maybe even defrauding them. I know you don't intend to be humorous, but can't you see how laughable this is?

Sig NEGLECTED to mention the word "trigger".

I see that at least you apply the "Alllen Bundy Standard" uniformly. Any terminology you disagree with is wrong, even if its the terminology assigned by the entity who designed and manufactured the part it refers to.

By the way, I assume you realize that the P365 designation is a misnomer. It should, of course, be the SIG P365.2425 to conform to the Gregorian Calendar year length. You might want to get SIG to correct that when you contact them about the other terminology issues you have with their documentation.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

If the safety covered the entire trigger face, you might have a reasonable argument. But it doesn't--in fact, the trigger safety only covers a relatively small percentage of the trigger face. Anything that catches on the edges of the trigger won't disengage the trigger safety and the gun won't fire. Anything that hits the trigger with initially light pressure will tend to ride up the trigger bow to the top of the trigger and the trigger safety only extends about halfway up the trigger bow. It's clearly possible for pressure to be applied to the trigger without disengaging the trigger safety.

So what you are saying is that the trigger dongle kinda sorta works as a trigger safety. Sometimes. If you are lucky. Maybe. If you aren't? Glock Leg.

It is highly likely that the engineers never intended the trigger dongle to do anything except help make the pistol drop safe. The rest is marketing hype. I'm surprised that their liability lawyers let Glock suggest that their trigger dongle was there for any other purpose than to make it drop safe. If you pull the trigger on a loaded Glock the gun goes BANG! Not a very effective trigger safety. To call that a "trigger safety" is laughable. A drop safety dongle located on a trigger does NOT make it a trigger safety.

When the trigger safety on my P365 is engaged it does NOT go bang when you pull the trigger. A VERY effective trigger safety. NOT laughable.

Given that trigger safeties were pretty rare before Glock came along,......

Rare? My Model of 1917 rifle had a trigger safety over 100 years ago. So did my first .22 rifle in the middle 1960's

Model of 1911 pistol. Interesting that when you engage the trigger safety the pistol does NOT go BANG when you try to pull the trigger. But I suppose that is a rather rare and obscure pistol that hardly anyone has ever heard of.

Any terminology you disagree with is wrong, even if its the terminology assigned by the entity who designed and manufactured the part it refers to.

Manufacturers get it wrong often enough. Case in point. Fender incorrectly calls the "Tremelo" circuit in their guitar amplifiers "Vibrato" and calls the wang bar on their guitars a "vibrato". Tremelo only refers to the wavering of volume. Vibrato refers to the wavering of pitch. The circuit in their amplifiers only varies the volume, and NOT the pitch. The wang bar on their guitars varies the pitch, but NOT the volume Completely backwards and incorrect terminology used by Fender. Every other manufacturer of that era correctly referred to the tremolo circuit in their amplifiers as a "Tremelo" circuit and referred to the wang bar on a guitar as a "Vibrato. Case in point the famous "Bigsby Vibrato".

2nd case. Manufacturers often incorrectly label a "Volume" or "Level" control as a "Gain" control when it does NOT in fact alter the gain of the circuit. Whereas there are actual controls that affect the "gain" of the circuit and some manufacturers incorrectly label that as a "Volume" or "Level "control. The most correct term for most "Volume" or "Level" controls is an "attenuator", as these control can never make the signal louder. They can only make the signal softer.

ALWAYS question authority!

 

[JohnKSa]

So what you are saying is that the trigger dongle kinda sorta works as a trigger safety.

I'm saying that it works like Glock says it was intended to work. You know, because it does...

If you pull the trigger on a loaded Glock the gun goes BANG!

By design.

Not a very effective trigger safety.

Since it does exactly what Glock says it was intended to do, it's as precisely as effective as it was intended to be.

A drop safety dongle located on a trigger does NOT make it a trigger safety.

You know, Alllen, it's clear that you feel like you are privileged to redefine any terminology that you disagree with, but that's just not true. I don't know why you think it would be, but just so it's clear, I'll say it again. You don't have any authority to redefine terms in common usage. You just don't. You can keep trying, but all you are doing is demonstrating your disconnection from reality and the more often you do it, the wider the disconnection appears to be.

When the trigger safety on my P365 is engaged it does NOT go bang when you pull the trigger.

Like this, for example. There is no 'trigger safety' on your P365.2425.

Rare? My Model of 1917 rifle had a trigger safety over 100 years ago. So did my first .22 rifle in the middle 1960's

For one thing, I didn't say they didn't exist, I said they were rare. For another, since you have made up and are using your own definition for the term 'trigger safety', the meaning of your assertion is not clear which makes your assertion mostly meaningless until you put out the Alllen Bundy Glossary of Firearm Terms so that people, if they care to, can interpret your statements.

Model of 1911 pistol. Interesting that when you engage the trigger safety...

The 1911 does not have a trigger safety.

Manufacturers get it wrong often enough.

So, that entitles you to get it wrong too? Because manufacturers are not infallible, you are now free to redefine any terms that they use any time you feel like it? How does a person arrive at a conclusion like that?

ALWAYS question authority!

The fact that one shouldn't blindly accept everything said by someone in authority doesn't imply:

That the person doing the questioning is always right.
That the person doing the questioning has more knowledge than the authority they are questioning.
That the person doing the questioning can redefine terms at will based on their own opinions.
That the authority is always wrong when their opinion conflicts with the person doing the questioning, or always right when they agree.

Case in point. Fender incorrectly... Every other manufacturer of that era correctly...

Alllen, Alllen, surely you can see that Fender was just questioning authority. They self-appointed themselves to be the final authority on the usage of those two terms and therefore what they said goes regardless of what anyone else says. Just like you have self-appointed yourself to be the final authority on an apparently ever-increasing number of firearm terms and what you say goes, regardless of what anyone else says. I don't see how you can indict them for what they did when you're using exactly the same modus operandi.

You are setting yourself up as an authority on firearm safety terminology. You also say that we should ALWAYS question authority and have made it clear that we can discard anything authority says if we disagree with it because sometimes authorities make mistakes.

I will follow your lead.

1. I question your authority to redefine firearm safety terminology.

2. Because I disagree with your definition of 'trigger safety', I reject it on the basis that sometimes authorities make mistakes.

Case closed.

As a consequence, it is now incontrovertibly true that the Glock trigger safety does what they say it was intended to do and is as effective as they intended it to be. Your P365 doesn't have a trigger safety, neither does the 1911.

Sorry all that didn't work out for you, but I followed your example to the letter so it's clear that I'm now right and you are wrong.

Can you now see how absolutely pointless and antithetical to the meaningful exchange of information such an approach is?

If you want to have meaningful discussions, then you need to start by learning the terminology and using it properly. You can't jump into a new area of learning and start by telling everyone that you know more than they do, that you know more than the manufacturers of the products you are just learning about do, that everyone is wrong when they disagree with you and that you can prove it by making up and using non-standard definitions and by repeated appeals to your own self-appointed authority.

 

[drobs]

I bought a Sig P365 right before the pandemic kicked off. I liked everything about it - nice night sights, high cap mags, small package, and the price was right. I immediately bought a holster and spare mag for it. My other carry guns at the time were a Glock 19, Glock 26, and Ruger LC9s Pro. The goal of the P365 for me was to replace the Ruger LC9s Pro.

Problem was I couldn't hit anything with the P365. Shooting at my backyard 25yd 10 inch gongs, all my shots were going into the dirt in front of the gongs. Getting closer to my gongs I was still hitting dirt. I'm 47 years old and have been shooting pistols since I was 12. If I'm not close to hitting my target in the 1st couple magazines or cylinders, that gun is getting sold. Plenty of folks shoot just fine with their P365's. I am not one of them nor will I waste ammo and practice on trying to learn a new trigger / sights, etc. Especially when I have other handguns I can hit a 25yd gong with.

I'm so glad I didn't sell or trade in my Ruger LC9s Pro!!! I pocket carry the Ruger in shorts in the summertime. It is significantly lighter weight in the pocket compared to the Sig P365.

I easily sold the P365 on consignment during the plandemic at a local gun shop for what I had into the gun. Being I'm left handed, I lost out on the holster.

Another friend of mine brought his P365XL with red dot sight over to my house to shoot. I shot decently well with that pistol. However, the sun was at just the right position to wash out the red dot sight, effectively making it useless.

I have since picked up a Glock 43X and added the metal Shield Arms mag release, 4 x 15rd Shield Arms magazines, and 3 dot Tritium Night Sights. The 43X is bigger than my Ruger and the P365. However I can hit my gongs at 25yds with it.

 

[Brubz]

I bought a Sig P365 right before the pandemic kicked off. I liked everything about it - nice night sights, high cap mags, small package, and the price was right. I immediately bought a holster and spare mag for it. My other carry guns at the time were a Glock 19, Glock 26, and Ruger LC9s Pro. The goal of the P365 for me was to replace the Ruger LC9s Pro.

Problem was I couldn't hit anything with the P365. Shooting at my backyard 25yd 10 inch gongs, all my shots were going into the dirt in front of the gongs. Getting closer to my gongs I was still hitting dirt. I'm 47 years old and have been shooting pistols since I was 12. If I'm not close to hitting my target in the 1st couple magazines or cylinders, that gun is getting sold. Plenty of folks shoot just fine with their P365's. I am not one of them nor will I waste ammo and practice on trying to learn a new trigger / sights, etc. Especially when I have other handguns I can hit a 25yd gong with.

I'm so glad I didn't sell or trade in my Ruger LC9s Pro!!! I pocket carry the Ruger in shorts in the summertime. It is significantly lighter weight in the pocket compared to the Sig P365.

I easily sold the P365 on consignment during the plandemic at a local gun shop for what I had into the gun. Being I'm left handed, I lost out on the holster.

Another friend of mine brought his P365XL with red dot sight over to my house to shoot. I shot decently well with that pistol. However, the sun was at just the right position to wash out the red dot sight, effectively making it useless.

I have since picked up a Glock 43X and added the metal Shield Arms mag release, 4 x 15rd Shield Arms magazines, and 3 dot Tritium Night Sights. The 43X is bigger than my Ruger and the P365. However I can hit my gongs at 25yds with it.

View attachment 1139525

I'm the Op , thanks for getting us back on topic!

 

[Balrog]

I have a Glock 43, 43X, Sig P365, and 365XL.

Of those 4, my preference is the 365 XL, even though I have many more years carrying Glocks than anything else. I think Glocks are great guns. My bedside gun is a Glock. But for carry, I like the 365 better, and the XL even more. I like the XL better than the regular 365 better because the grip is a little easier to get hold of, and more comfortable. I think the XL grip is still a little shorter than the 43X grip, which makes it a little easier to conceal, and more comfortable when sitting down. The grip doesnt hit the back of the chair or car seat as much.

My Sigs don't have the thumb safety, and I don't consider there to be a safety difference between the Sig and Glocks.

 

[Brubz]

I have a Glock 43, 43X, Sig P365, and 365XL.

Of those 4, my preference is the 365 XL, even though I have many more years carrying Glocks than anything else. I think Glocks are great guns. My bedside gun is a Glock. But for carry, I like the 365 better, and the XL even more. I like the XL better than the regular 365 better because the grip is a little easier to get hold of, and more comfortable. I think the XL grip is still a little shorter than the 43X grip, which makes it a little easier to conceal, and more comfortable when sitting down. The grip doesnt hit the back of the chair or car seat as much.

My Sigs don't have the thumb safety, and I don't consider there to be a safety difference between the Sig and Glocks.

I have small hands for a man so the grip size is generally not an issue for me.I think I'm leaning towards the p365 instead of the XL

 

[drobs]

That reminds me of the other thing I disliked about the P365 - the frame stippling. It was really rough on the skin. It was instantly noticeable carrying it under an un-tucked t-shirt against the skin.

 

[drobs]

I have small hands for a man so the grip size is generally not an issue for me.I think I'm leaning towards the p365 instead of the XL

You might find an indoor range with both for rent. Try before you buy. That would've save me some $$$. I live in the sticks but could've gone to the big city of Springfield, Mo and rented them.

 

[JR24]

Given that trigger safeties were pretty rare before Glock came along, your argument borders on the ridiculous. Since they popularized the concept of a trigger safety, what people think of when they think of a trigger safety is almost certainly something that operates like a Glock trigger safety.

That is certainly my experience, and everyone I’ve talked to about safeties think of a trigger safety as a Glock like dongle. Thumb safety is something you use your thumb for (both 1911 style and on some shotguns), slide safety is on the slide, etc.

I have a Glock 43, 43X, Sig P365, and 365XL.

Of those 4, my preference is the 365 XL, even though I have many more years carrying Glocks than anything else. I think Glocks are great guns. My bedside gun is a Glock. But for carry, I like the 365 better, and the XL even more. I like the XL better than the regular 365 better because the grip is a little easier to get hold of, and more comfortable. I think the XL grip is still a little shorter than the 43X grip, which makes it a little easier to conceal, and more comfortable when sitting down. The grip doesnt hit the back of the chair or car seat as much.

My Sigs don't have the thumb safety, and I don't consider there to be a safety difference between the Sig and Glocks.

Are you… me? Because you sound like me

That reminds me of the other thing I disliked about the P365 - the frame stippling. It was really rough on the skin. It was instantly noticeable carrying it under an un-tucked t-shirt against the skin.

I’ve always had that conundrum. Don’t like aggressive grips on my soft belly, but I really like aggressive grips in my hands (which are calloused all to heck). My solution is always wearing an a-shirt between my skin and gun.

One reason I do like the Wilson frame though, while grippy the sides of the frame aren’t quite as rough. Front and back straps are a different story though, they are aggressive.

 

[Brubz]

You might find an indoor range with both for rent. Try before you buy. That would've save me some $$$. I live in the sticks but could've gone to the big city of Springfield, Mo and rented them.

It's not just the grip. The size overall of the P365XL is close to my Kimber Micro9 which is a fine gun but not a pocket pistol in my opinion.

 

[drobs]

It's not just the grip. The size overall of the P365XL is close to my Kimber Micro9 which is a fine gun but not a pocket pistol in my opinion.

I concur, another friend of mine shot the 1st friend's P365XL and bought a matching one. I'm now the odd man out. However, the P365XL doesn't do anything better than my current G43X.

 

[InTheSwamp]

Glock popularizes the concept of a trigger safety and tells us what they designed it to do and here you are, decades after the fact

Somehow, Sig missed it too, decades after Glock came up with it.

 

[JR24]

I'm so glad I didn't sell or trade in my Ruger LC9s Pro!!! I pocket carry the Ruger in shorts in the summertime. It is significantly lighter weight in the pocket compared to the Sig P365.

Interesting since the Ruger is taller and longer and 0.5 oz lighter (unloaded). Guess those couple less 9mm make the difference in the pocket.

I do wonder if a 365xl grip module and some dry fire would have got you there a lot cheaper than the Glock plus shield mags and mag catch, but as long as you’re content who cares. Plus, with that setup, the Glock is real nice!

I’ve occasionally looked at the standard 365 or lc9s and similar for occasional pocket carry in the summer but with my build (muscular legs) anything bigger than an LCP prints real bad.

 

[Tcruse]

Sig has become the Disney of the Gun Industry...Lots of glitter to cover the flaws.

Probably need to start a new conversation based on your claim. Sig is certainly not perfect and has some growing pains with their very popular models, but they also have advanced the technology of firearms more than any other company in the last few years. I have only a few Sig firearms (P-320, P-322, P-365X) but compared to my other firearms (Glock, Ruger, IWI, Dan Wesson) they perform very well.

 

[Rodfac]

I have zero experience with a Glock of similar size to my Sig P365, but I will say that the Sig is the best, all purpose CC gun I've come across. Mine is at or over 2000 rounds now, and I honestly can't recall a malfunction with any ammunition, to include aggressive JHP's and even my own home cast LSWC's.

It shoots like a big, duty size pistol, has great sights, and produces accuracy that's outstanding for it's size. The pic below is of an early 10 shot group from 10 yds...and from a Weaver Combat unsupported position. It's an outstanding choice for a one gun CC shooter IMHO. Rod Hell, here's the pic again...

​

 

[CNobbe]

I still think the Hellcat is worth a look. There's a lot of micro sized 9s now, each is different enough that it's worth exploring.

 

[Targa]

I'm considering an Sig P365 as my next 9mm purchase. My question is what model Glock is the closest in size to the 365 and of the two which would you recommend?

In the high capacity micro 9 world the Sig P365 is going to be tough to beat in my opinion. I don’t have a 365 but I do have a Hellcat that is very good and the Hellcat is as good as it is because of the 365. Sig set the bar pretty high with the 365.

 

[Rexster]

I'm considering a Sig P365 as my next 9mm purchase. My question is what model Glock is the closest in size to the 365 and of the two which would you recommend?

The Glock G43 is going to be the closest in size, as it uses a single-column magazine, but, I actually choose to use the Glock G26. The G26 uses a more-reliable recoil spring assembly, which, alone, makes all of the difference, to me, regarding the G26-vs.-G43. A Glock’s striker is not fully-cocked, which, alone, makes all of the difference, versus the SIG 365, in my opinion. In my personal use case, I do not see a meaningful difference in conceal-ability, between a G26, and any of slim nines, and, enjoy the advantage that the G26 mag well will accept G19 and G17 magazines.

Regarding the fully-cocked striker, I am simply, but absolutely, more comfortable with a thumb safety, if carrying a fully-cocked pistol. The SIG 365 safety just does not fit me. So, of the two brand choices, Glock wins this one. (I am comfortable carrying a cocked 1911 pistol, because everything fits me, and works well in my hands.)

 

[tarosean]

Somehow, Sig missed it too, decades after Glock came up with it.

Iver Johnson had a trigger safety before ol Gaston was born.

 

[InTheSwamp]

Iver Johnson had a trigger safety before ol Gaston was born.
View attachment 1139699

Didn't know that, but Sig should have. Thanks for the info.

 

[JohnKSa]

Iver Johnson had a trigger safety before ol Gaston was born.

Yup, they were pretty innovative.

Here's a video showing the Iver Johnson trigger safety.



I believe they also pioneered the transfer bar safety (shown in the advertisement you posted) that later was popularized by Ruger in their revolvers.

...Sig should have.

I'm sure SIG was well aware of the value of a trigger safety, but wanted to avoid using one given how much flak Glock has taken over the years about it. I suspect Ruger had a similar idea that they were going to avoid using a Glock-type trigger safety when they originally released the SR9 with their own trigger safety design using a trigger shoe approach. Unfortunately that backfired as they later were forced to do a recall to retrofit the pistol with a very "Glockish" trigger safety.