I have been thinking of doing a side by side comparison between the Glock 17 and the SIG 226 for some time now, in so far as doing something using the same ammo, at the same distance, shooting from the same stances, etc...
So I got a wild hair today and decided to do just that.
I took my Glock 17 and the newer of of the SIG 226s I have to the range today and had a shoot off, and here are the results.
I used 4 different types of ammo today.
I shot out of EACH gun... 200 rounds of WOLF, 20 rounds of Corbon 115 gr +P JHP, and 100 rounds of Remington green box JHP (from Wal-Mart). So each weapon has a total of 320 rounds fired. (640 rounds shot in all).
The weather today was absolutely BEAUTIFUL. In the high 60s, sunny and clear. There was a slight breeze, but it did not seem to effect the accuracy of either weapon.
First let me go on record and say that there were no malfunctions of any kind from either weapon. Both weapons were recently cleaned and lubed properly. Both weapons were using factory mags, and outside of the Chrome finish done on the Glock, both weapons are factory stock.
The Glock 17 has stock Glock adjustable sights, and the SIG has SIG factory night sights.
Both weapons proved to be accurate at the distance I was shooting (15 yards), although the SIG seemed to keep slightly tigher groups over all.
However, the Glock factory sights were much easier to pick up in my eyes during some of the speed drills I ran.
During the speed drills, the Glock showed its strengths while the SIG showed its weakness.... the first shot.
The Glock is considered (inaccurately) a DAO pistol by most, and this means that the first shot is the same as the second shot. While the SIG is a traditional DA first shot, and SA second shot.
During the course of my test, I did a few speed drills at the 7 yard distance which consided of going from a low-ready position, bringing the weapon up on target and firing one shot as quickly as possible.
The longer harder DA trigger pull on the SIG caused me to pull the weapon slightly off target during these drills, and most of my shots ended up in the 7 ring area, while the Glock's shot stayed in the 9/10 ring area.
Perhaps this was a product of the easier to see sights on the Glock, the DA trigger pull on the SIG, or simply the fact that the shooter has spend many more years shooting Glocks than SIGs. I will leave it up to you do decide, but if asked I would express MHO that it was the longer trigger pull.
Next I did some point shooting drills. Similar to the above speed drills, the main difference was the fact that sights were not used at all. The weapon was brought up and one shot fired very quickly going simply on point-instinct. Both weapons were very accurate in these drulls, but the natural feel of the SIG edged out the Glock, but only slightly.
Over all I would have no problems at all trusting my life to either weapon, but there are a couple more observations I would like to make.
1. The SIG feels more natural in my hand. I find the grips easier to handle, and the angle of the weapon to be more natural for me. In fact after shooting the SIG a while the Glock feels down right uncomfortable in comparison. This is a bit issue for me because in a high stress defensive sitation, how natural the weapon fits you will play heavily on your accuracy in combat.
2. Fully loaded the Glock is noticeably lighter than the SIG. This may or may not mean much to you, but I imagine that for someone who carries all day, this means quite a bit.
3. Recoil - the Glock has more. While neither 9mm's recoil could be cinsidered harsh, or even stout, the SIG has noticeably less muzzle flip in my hands. IMHO this is due to the differences in weight between the two pistols.
4. The SIG's factory night sights are no where near as easy to pick up as the stark white Glock factory sights are. Of course sights are changeable, and this can be remedied. But for those who do not plan on changing sights this may be something you want to consider.
5. The glock has more ammo. Most of my GLock 17 mags are 17 rounders with +2 grip extenders for a total of 19 rounds in the mag, and one in the chamber. 20 rounds compared to the SIG's 15. This is 33% more ammo during carry.
6. Glocks are cheaper. I bought the SIG for around 650 used, with 5 mags, and two holsters. The Glock I bought for 450 with 2 mags, and no holsters. I have since added half a dozen mags to the Glock 17 for around 19 bucks each. SIG mags are nearly twice as much.
7, The SIG carries easier. Now of course this depends a LOT on the carrier, but I find that he rounded edges and curves of the SIG hide better under cloting than the Glock does for me.
In my estimation, the SIG 226 edges out the Glock 17 as an over all carry gun. Its more comfortable grips, and more natural point-ability and slightly better accuracy make the difference.
The SIG has won its spot on my side in a holster as the tool I will depend upon to perform if, and when, (God forbid) needed.
interesting read, thanks.
I much prefer the GLOCK, myself. Sigs are well made guns, but they just never felt right to me. I had a P228 and the only functional complaint I had was that it would rust very easily. The trigger reach and the high bore axis just always felt awkward. I shot both well with a two handed grip, but I found that I shot the GLOCK much faster. The GLOCK also one hands down when firing one handed.
Mecgar is the oem manufacturer of the SIG mags.
Mecgar mags hold 17 rounds of 9mm.
Food for thought.
And you can get +2 mag bottoms for those 17 round MecGar's. So that would total 19 in the mag and 1 in the chamber. Takes the Glock's edge away.
oh, and 33rnd glock mags
Yea, nice review. I just took my 226 in 9mm and glock 19 to the range for comparison. I love them both, but I'm more accurate w/ my sig.
Point of order on your carry criteria - weapon weight is an issue with most people, and the Glock would have the edge. I know that the additional belt tension required for a heavier weapon is can get uncomfortable throughout the day.
Actually, I should have mentioned this in my review above, but I recently acquired a Galco "matrix" holster. They go for around 20 bucks, and I was utterly amazed at how well this inexpensive holster distributes the weight, and holds the weapon in tight.
It easily does as well a job as my more expensive Galco leather holsters.
I am still marveling over it, and Ive been using this little holster for a month or so now.