NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/guns/20215

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 7.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!mimsy!kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
From: [e-mail] (James P. Callison)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Glock vs. Sig!?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:51:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Lines: 157
Approved: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kleanthes Koniaris) writes:
#perhaps a collection of one pistol is too small, and our beloved
#Moderator's mantra is taking its toll (``Buy them all'' :).

Smart man. :-)

#Anyway, given all of the "Sig, Sig, Sig," talk that I hear, I was
#considering a Sig P226 with K-kote and Sig-lights (Sig's tritium
#sights [which are also from Trijicon?]), in 9mm.  But then, in a
#moment of lucid thought, I realized that for the price of a Sig, I
#could almost get two Glocks.

And, with a collection of 3 Glocks, you'd _almost_ have a SIG. ;-)

#The natural question comes to mind, is the Sig better than the Glock?
#If so, why?

SIG is better, because God hisself told me in a dream. :-)

#I don't
#want to hear "my Sig looks so pleasing that I stare at it all day, but
#the Glock is ugly that I recoil in horror, therefore the Sig is
#better."

Well, that's part of it. It's not exactly its looks that are so bad,
IMHO, but its absolutely suck-ass ergonomics are far inferior to the
SIG's. (Note the IMHO. Your mileage may vary.) I still want a Glock
10mm, but I'd choose a SIG 10mm over it in a heartbeat (if SIG made one)
for this very reason. The Glock is downright uncomfortable in my hand.
As a matter of fact, I've found that shooting 1300fps/900ft-lb. .44Magnum
through my S&W Model 29 is more comfortable than shooting a Glock 9mm
(even taking into account the Smith's presentation grips and exposed
backstrap. But then, the pain you get from a .44Mag is _good_ pain. :-).

This, also, is IMHO, and again, you won't know until you shoot 'em.

#In fact, there seem to reasons to suspect that the Glock is *better*
#built: I have heard that the Sig has welding, rivets, etc.; the Glock
#has none.

Rivets? Where? I have yet to see any rivets on my P226. If you mean
that parts are held on by pins which have to de drifted out for complete
disassembly, then, yeah, it's got 'em, just like any other auto.
And as far as welds, so what? it has one weld, but if you don't know
where it is, I'll bet you can't find it. (Hell, I know where it is,
and it's not all that east to tell where it is.)
And so what if it's welded? What's that got to do with it? My dad
and grandfather have been welding farm implements for better than
50 years, and they've _never_ had a weld break. (Things have
broken at other places, but never on or near a weld.) I would
assume that, given the quality of the gun, SIG-Sauer has at least
as good of a quality-control program as my dad and gradndfather.

#I have heard that the Sig slide is cast (almost to shape)
#and then machined, while the Glock slide is cut from a solid piece of
#steel.

The SIG slide is stamped as two pieces, then welded together. Again,
so what? The UZI is stamped, and the Israelis have no problem issuing
it as a standard weapon--and look at their battle record.
Even after the military testing with SEAL 9mm rounds, not only
did the SIG slides not fail, but they didn't even show cracks.
(The cracks, like every gun other than the Beretta, were on the
frame.)

#Of course, the Glock does have sloppy tooling marks, but the
#actual method of construction seems superior.

Not really. The actual metalworking of the SIG is superior--the fit
and finish is a big part of that.

#I have heard that the
#Sig coatings tend to wear, and that the weapon is easily prone to
#rust.  (In a Glock?  Never!)

The SIG K-kote is susceptible to holster-wear, and it is true
that the SIG's slide coating is more susceptible to rust than that of
a Glock--but it's no more susceptible than any other pistol.
If you're really worried about it, pay the $20-50 to get it
Parkerized, or buy the nickel finish SIG. It won't rust or
wear either. (Besides...you can get a SIG with a nickel slide
on a black frame--a truly cool-looking option :-)

#So, Sig owners, please be so kind as to post *why* the Sig is so good,
#and please be so kind, if possible, as to *compare* to the Glock.

Advantages of the SIG:
    Superior Accuracy (hits near point-of-aim at 50m; groups
                of slightly more than 2" are not
                unheard of.)
    Superior fit and finish
    Superior ergonomics (Of course, that's an advantage SIG has over
                all combat autos, IMHO.)
    Superior reliability (After I cleaned the packing grease off
                my P226, I've had a total of three jams,
                and those were on empty cases during a
                feeding test (it fed the other 147
                flawlessly).) The SIG is much less
                less prone to jams due to limp-wristing,
                or other grip-related jams, than the
                Glock. My only experience with Glocks
                have been with range guns, but the SIG
                range guns in similar condition had none
                of the problems of the Glocks.)
    DA/SA trigger. (I personally like the ability to shoot SA, you
                may not.)
Disadvantages of the SIG:
    Price
    Definitely not ambidextrous; requires extra training for lefties.
    Alloy frame. (Not really an issue wrt Glock vs. SIG, IMHO, and not
                necessarily a disadvantage.)
Advantages of the Glock:
    Price
    Rust-resistancy
    Cool, trendy look ;-)
    Mean, evil, intimidating butt-ugly looks :-)
    Widespread usage
    Durability -- the 10mm version beat the FBI life-expectancy using
                full-house 10mm ammo, instead of FBI Lite.
    Pointability (from Glock faithful; I personally don't think so. I
                have yet to find a more pointable gun than
                my P226--except for my S&W Model 29)
Disadvantages:
    Absoultely suck-@$$ ergonomics (see above)
    Butt-ugly looks :-)
    "Safe-Action" trigger (Maybe a pro, maybe a con; depends on your
                point of view. Like the SIG, it only goes
                bang if you pull the trigger.)
    Butt-ugly looks :-)
    Accuracy (suffers due to rifling design)
    Overly tight chamber--can fail to feed reloads and/or rounds which
                are beyond spec.
    God-awful, John-Browning-Spinning-in-His-Grave butt-ugly looks :-)
    More prone to grip-related jams than SIG


My personal opinions: I want a Glock 10mm, maybe even more than a Colt
Delta Elite (and I _really_ want one of those). However, I would never
consider trading my SIG for a Glock; much as I like Glock, IMHO, it just
isn't in the same league as the SIG. (IMHO, the Walther PWhichever-it-is
is the only other pistol in its class, and those two are not too far behind
the SIG P210, which, IMHO, is the ultimate auto pistol. (Lust, lust, drool,
drool, pant, pant :-) I take that back; the Beretta Model 92 is also in
that class--ohhh, momma, what a sexy gun. :-)

These opinions are mine, and not necessarily to be confused with your
own--although, if they are, you have shown yourself to be a person of
exceptional taste. :-)

                James "I like Glocks, really I do"

James P. Callison       Microcomputer Coordinator        OU Law Library
[e-mail]   /\    [e-mail]
    constellation!biglaw![e-mail]
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
    "God didn't make men and women equal. Colonel Colt did."
            --Maggie Zombro, "Reasonable Doubts"