Glock 17 or Sig P226; the quintessential question with some logic behind it.

[East_TN_Patriot]

OK, so I already own a nice Gen 2 Glock 17 and a Sig P226 in 9mm.  I shoot both equally well.  I have several spare high-cap mags for both. I have decent holsters for both.  Both have night sights.  The Sig has a milled stainless slide so rust is less of an issue than with the stamped steel slides.  In other words, I feel that these basic points are all covered and equal between the two guns.  These are the two platforms I am committed to and I feel confident that these are the two best combat handgun designs out there and the most common so parts/mags will be easier to come by.  This is not a slight to the CZ, H&K, 1911, etc.  I am also sticking with 9mm because of the capacity, its status as a standard NATO cartridge, and a common civilian cartridge.  It is more than sufficient for self-defense as long as the shooter does their part.

 

With all of that out of the way, here is my question and why I ask:

I am of a mindset that I need to focus on training with one of these two handguns and keep the other in the safe for those days when I want to shoot it for enjoyment.  In other words, I'm trying to pick one of these two pistols to be my primary defensive pistol, the one I consistently train with, the one I shoot 3-gun with, the one I consistently carry, and be the one I would have in a SHTF or EOTWAWKI situation.  If you were faced with this conundrum (I appreciate how fortunate I am to have this conundrum), which would you go with and why?  Whichever I go with, I will very likely get the compact variant as well (Sig P225 or Glock 19).  Here is my logic so far:

 

Sig P226:  I carried a P229 when I was in law enforcement and I never had any issues with that pistol and I am already comfortable with the controls, maintenance, etc.  The P226 design has a long track record of durability and reliability, which it is the primary sidearm for many police agencies, military units, and special forces groups across the globe.  It's a beautiful firearm and comfortable in my hand.  There is something to be said about the traditional DA/SA trigger system for use in a defensive situation and training will help anyone overcome the challenges with the initial DA shot.  The biggest negative to this platform (AFAIK) is that the gun is less user-friendly when it comes to maintenance.  It is my understanding that the trigger is much more complex than in a Glock and in an EOTWAWKI situation, I don't know how easily I would be able to keep it running if I had any issues.  Armorers are hard to come by now, much less if the world goes all to crap.
 

Glock 17:  I know all of the benefits of the Glock and it's track record and I know that the majority of people consider it a slightly less accurate design overall, but still more than accurate enough for defensive carry.  The reasons I am thinking about the Glock is because of the simple design (fewer small parts make for a more reliable platform in most cases), and the ability for a minimally knowledgeable person to completely detail strip the pistol with a single handheld punch is a huge benefit.  If I did need an armorer, they seem to be a dime a dozen and getting into an armorer's school is much easier and cheaper than the Sig armorer's school.  It seems that spare parts are much easier to come by, are pretty much interchangeable between Glock pistols, and since they are so darn common, it would be pretty easy to scrounge up parts if I ever needed to.  The function of the pistol is so simple that I feel as if I could hand it to my wife or kids and tell them how to use it with very minimal training.  In short, it seems the Glock 17 is much more in line with the K.I.S.S. philosophy, which is likely to be extremely important in a SHTF scenario.  My overall experience with the Glock is very limited, so I've not shot one enough to fall in love with it like I have the Sig design.  If I settle on this choice, I am strongly considering trading it in towards a Gen 3 to gain the accessory rail in case I ever want to add a tactical light.

 

So with all of that said I am leaning towards the Glock, but I wonder if I am being too critical of the Sig I love so dearly.  I know; go with the one that feels more comfortable to shoot.  Like I said, I am equally comfortable and shoot just as well with either and any deficiencies with either platform would be overcome with the dedicated training I want to commit to the pistol.  What say my fellow TGO members?

Edited May 20, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[JGunner]

I am in a similar situation as you, with a Sig P226 (only had it 2 weeks tho) and a Glock 34 (my first pistol). Glock 26 is my primary carry currently. I have already invested my time towards training with my Glocks.

I think for all the reasons you listed above, in a SHTF situation I would go to the Glock. I love the Sig, and with a little more practice and training I would be as proficient with it as I am with the glock. (Point being that my lack of training on the Sig is not detering me from that choice as my primary weapon - however I would not carry it until I had trained more with it. Its a lack of training issue, not a preference per say).

I can't really add any info on the maintenance aspect for the Sig because I haven't detail stripped it yet. I have detail stripped my glocks, and it is EASY. However, there again, I believe with training you could learn how to fix your sig and be as proficient at that as with the glock.

TLDR: I guess all I really have to add is a Vote for the Glock just based on me agreeing with everything you said in your post. (But maybe I am biased because I haven't spent as much time with the Sig either in training or maintenance).

[tercel89]

I pick the Glock 17 . It's fewer parts , the fact that anyone can detail strip it and parts are everywhere. Also it is very simple , just pull the the trigger and it shoots. NO safety's nor extra gadgets nor levers.  If you have ever used a Glock to defend your life , you will know what I mean. Since I made the decision to go with Glock , it makes the other pistols looks so bad. The others have so many springs and levers and this and that. Too much to go wrong . Plus Glock has a very good rust resistance . Also the GLock 17 Gen 2 is the best Glock in my opinion.

 I can take my Glock 17 Gen 2 and drop it while loaded on assphalt or concrete . It will not malfunction nor discharge unless I pull the trigger. 

Edited May 20, 2013 by tercel89

[East_TN_Patriot]

Also the GLock 17 Gen 2 is the best Glock in my opinion.

Why?  I also got off of the phone with Glock this morning to make sure it was not one of the models that was subject to the recall, um... "upgrade" for the internal parts a few years ago.  I recently picked up this G17 at a gun show for a great price and it's in like new condition.  I am pretty sure it was a LEO firearm, but it sure looks like it was never carried or fired much at all.  Even the night sights are like new.  

[tercel89]

Why?  I also got off of the phone with Glock this morning to make sure it was not one of the models that was subject to the recall, um... "upgrade" for the internal parts a few years ago.  I recently picked up this G17 at a gun show for a great price and it's in like new condition.  I am pretty sure it was a LEO firearm, but it sure looks like it was never carried or fired much at all.  Even the night sights are like new.  

Because Gen 2 Glocks have the Tenifer treatment unlike the ones today. They also have milled parts  that are not MIM parts that Glock is now doing for the extractors and such today. Also I like the Gen 2's because they do not have finger grooves. Also , dependng on what year you have , the Gen 2's have are a " 2 pin" gun instead of a 3 pin gun . This is even less parts. To me it is just an all around better pistol.

Edited May 20, 2013 by tercel89

[trevorst]

Having personally stripped both pistols to the frame I can say with 100% certainty that the glock is easier to work on lol. The inner workings of the sig is like a fine timepiece... That's both good and bad. My sig has had thousands of rounds through it and internally it shows some wear. My glocks are every bit as accurate, much simpler to work on. My gen2 glock 20 had countless very hot 10mm rounds when I sold it, it looked new internally and somewhat externally.


Love the 228 and 226, if I only had to have one to carry around post apocalypse give me the glock.

I am not nearly as big fan of the gen2 as most of the world apparently, prefer gen 3 and 4 and 4 actually over 3.

[Patton]

Flip a coin. For me it would be the Glock, it shares more parts with its sub and compact counterparts. The smaller brothers also feel more familiar than the sig family.

[Patton]

Because Gen 2 Glocks have the Tenifer treatment unlike the ones today.

That's a hot topic, some say it hasn't changed and some say it is an altered process but is still as good. I have not had an issue with any later gen3 or gen4 finishes. The MIM haven't given me issues either, but I suppose one day they may.

[homeagain]

I'd go with the G17 for what amounts to be a different reason than most likely have.  Let's say I was involved in a shoot (good shoot, of course) and it was kept in evidence for a fairly long time period.  Confidence in the firearms being equal for the purpose, I'd rather 'loan' my Glock to a PD to babysit for a few months than a Sig....cheaper to replace if it were 'damaged' in the process.  I carry my G19 24/7 as a tool because I'm not aesthetically attached to it.  My pretty guns are for fun.

[Guest 270win]

I like both guns but I think a Glock has several maintenance advantages over the Sig.

 

I used to have a Glock 9mm and it was a flawless gun, but did not fit my hand well.  I picked up the M&P, which to me is a copycat of the Glock with a grip that fits my hand better.

 

Glocks are very corrosion resistent with the plastic frame and tenifer coated slide.  I never saw any rust on my Glock and I carried it, kept it in my glovebox, and my nightstand.  I have seen range Glocks that do not have any rust.  Some of the black may be rubbed away, but the tennifer is still there.  The Glock with the right tools is fairly easy to take apart all the way.  People can change parts out easy.

 

The Sig is an awesome firearm and shoots like a laser.  It seems to be harder to take a part and could rust a little easier.  It is also heavier.

[bigwakes]

I always choose a Glock if its an option. I have had Rugers, H&Ks, and Sigs in the past. Several years ago I sold all semi autos that are not Glocks. I'm a "dime a dozen" armorer and just don't feel like there is a need for anything else. I did break my Glock only policy and pick up a Sig Scorpion 1911 a few months ago though.

[runco]

There is no wrong answer here.  I have the Sigs and the Glocks (gen2).  To me, the Sigs are just like the best looking girl in school, and are absolutely fun to be with, and will get the job done too if you know what I mean.  However, the Glocks are just Glocks, not the prettiest little thing, but are fun to be with, and will get the job done too.  My Sigs, if they were to accidently fall to the ground, I always inspect them.  My glocks fall, I don't care, and just carry on.  So my answer to your dilemma is Yes, and I will leave it at that.

[Erik88]

Both are fantastic firearms. I'd say go with the one you shoot better.

 

For me, the Glocks are lighter and easier to work on. Also, if we're talking SHTF, it will be much much easier to find spare mags and parts for the Glock.

[tercel89]

Glock :wave:

[~48_South~]

 I say Glock reason being speed, basically the Glock is faster imo and is the easier of the two to become proficient with. Mainly due to the triggers and how each gun would be most likely carried on your person. First shot on the Sig from a fast draw would be in Double Action only and for most people they struggle a lot with that including myself, what I did with my Sigs is I would draw fire from double action decock and reholster and repeat once I finally got to where I felt I was good enough firing from double I started trying double taps and going from double to single was as every bit as difficult to get myself accustomed to than drawing and firing from double in a timely fashion.  The Glock I draw and can put several rounds on target more accurately and twice as fast as I could with the Sig so that ultimately was the deciding factor for me. Not to mention the amount of modifications you can do to a Glock, in less than 10 minutes you can turn a Glock from a stock out the box handgun to a fire breathing full on race pistol and back again.

[RichardR]

I own & shoot both regularly, I like my Sig p226 DAK better than I do my G17 but either one will do the job required of it.

The Sig is easily the more accureate of the two, in fact I don't own a more accurate handgun & I own a lot of accurate handguns, including a Ruger MKII w/10" bull barrel.

I believe that the main reason the Sig is so accurate has a great deal to do with the DAK trigger group, which is the smoothest, most consistant trigger group I've ever owned in any hand gun, let alone a non-target, combat oriented pistol.

Don't get me wrong my G17 is no slouch, it groups consistantly within respectible groupings at 7, 25 & 50 yds but it is not the nice tight target gun "clover-leaf" type groups that the Sig produces.

Both have proven to be extremely reliable with a wide range of both target & defensive rounds, both are realitively easy to break down & clean, both have a multitude of after-market goodies availible, and both have great reputations world wide.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd pick the Sig (no hesitation) for any task, be it SD or competition or end of the world.

Of course the Glock 17 isn't a bad runner up to the Sig at all though.

[tercel89]

I will add this and then quit my Glock rant. The GLock seems to be the most efficient combat weapon as far as pistols go in my opinion. It may  not be the most accurate pistol but it will certainly get the job done woth no complications.

Edited May 20, 2013 by tercel89

[graycrait]

In the last 12 months I have had a Sig X-Five Tactical, 2 Sig 239s, 1 Glock 26, 1 Glock 19 and 1 Glock 17.  I still have Glocks in 26, 19, 17.  I don't have any SIgs.  

[Guest Wildogre]

I do not own either but since I shoot correct handed it would have to be the Glock, I wish it could be the SIG. I just prefer metal over polymer.

 

My actual answer is neither but there was not a third option. 

[Patrick Henry]

A couple of other thoughts:

 

Sig - will safely fire a regular diet of lead, but not +P (at least the older ones)

 

Glock - will not safely fire a regular diet of lead without regular cleaning, and it will fire +P ammo safely. 

[bigwakes]

A couple of other thoughts:
 
Sig - will safely fire a regular diet of lead, but not +P (at least the older ones)
 
Glock - will not safely fire a regular diet of lead without regular cleaning, and it will fire +P ammo safely.

If you gotta shoot lead or reloads just pick up a $100 Lone Wolfe aftermarket barrel. Probably come out close on price. I have shot lots of reloads and even lead in several of my .40 caliber Glocks without issue.

[kwe45919]

I think the choice should be the Sig....

 

 You've already been intimate and relied on the Sig to protect your butt and John Q  publics' butt. You've trained to use it and you've got your instincts tuned to it. The time you've already invested in this Sig is more valuable then choosing the Glock "because". ......

 

I'm down right a Glock guy.....truthfully, a G26 guy. I've put too much time and effort into my carry weapon that all others have become nothing but range queens. I've tried to carry almost everything over the years and I just can't let my G26 be replaced. I have thousands of rounds on this platform and the instinct is natural during use. I'll even choose it over a G19 anyday but with the time invested, I know it's the only choice to protect my ass. Nothing wrong with the G17 or G19 but if you're just as natural with the Glock, it becomes a no brainer. Kinda like AR's......Glocks are everywhere. Alota people have them. When the end comes.....there'll be tons of them around for parts unless Zombies start eating metal or the aliens blow up the planet first.

Edited May 21, 2013 by kwe45919

[East_TN_Patriot]

If you gotta shoot lead or reloads just pick up a $100 Lone Wolfe aftermarket barrel. Probably come out close on price. I have shot lots of reloads and even lead in several of my .40 caliber Glocks without issue.

And I already have the LW barrel for that reason.  When I reload, I typically use lead bullets, so it was one of the first things I ordered after I picked up the pistol.

 

I think the choice should be the Sig....

 

 You've already been intimate and relied on the Sig to protect your butt and John Q  publics' butt. You've trained to use it and you've got your instincts tuned to it. The time you've already invested in this Sig is more valuable then choosing the Glock "because". ......

 

I'm down right a Glock guy.....truthfully, a G26 guy. I've put too much time and effort into my carry weapon that all others have become nothing but range queens. I've tried to carry almost everything over the years and I just can't let my G26 be replaced. I have thousands of rounds on this platform and the instinct is natural during use. I'll even choose it over a G19 anyday but with the time invested, I know it's the only choice to protect my ass. Nothing wrong with the G17 or G19 but if you're just as natural with the Glock, it becomes a no brainer. Kinda like AR's......Glocks are everywhere. Alota people have them. When the end comes.....there'll be tons of them around for parts unless Zombies start eating metal or the aliens blow up the planet first.

And gosh darn you!  Just when people about had me convinced about the Glock.  You are quite right.  I carried a Sig P-229 for 8 of the 10 years I was a LEO and have thousands of rounds behind the Sig platform.  Truth be told, I wouldn't mind having another P-229.

I've thought about this all day long.  I guess that I'll be heading to the range this week with both, shoot them side by side and see which one makes me happier.  

[Byedan]

Love sig, I carry a hk, sold a sig to a good friend of mine 226 in 40 cal for his carry weapon and he loves it. But if we are talking zombies took over the earth type thing I would have to say glock for one very simple reason, sig uses a small spring for trigger reset if it breaks you are out of the fight. The glock uses the slide to reset the trigger and I have never spoke to any one that has had a glock not reset the trigger. Ohh and glocks are like uzi's they pretty much eat what ever you feed them. Even ammo with rust on the cases. Edited May 21, 2013 by Byedan

[trevorst]

Just the fact you have several thousand rounds some years back shouldn't factor in much. You basically have familiarity with the weapon and maybe some muscle memory, it will take continued training as you well know.

Biggest downfall of the Sig (other than the obvious posted already), with the Sig you are going to be training two trigger pulls most likely. A DA then a SA or the DAK trigger which is still two pulls a heavy first followed by a heavier reset, my sigs are converted to DAO and to have a reliable DAO trigger pull on a sig its going to be somewhat heavy ( it certainly won't be a 3.5 lb ghost trigger). The dak trigger takes practice to even determine if you Ike IMO had one in a 220 never could get comfortable with it.

So going forward easier to train on a glock, one trigger pull vs two. This was the reasoning I used to pry the 228 from my wife and convince her to use the glock 19.

Still love my sigs but you have to give the ugly pistols the nod.