Difference Between Glocks and Sigmas - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Semi-Auto Handguns > Difference Between Glocks and Sigmas

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-28-2009, 06:05 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Liked 33 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 45

Default

Glock frames flex where they were designed to flex. This acts as a bit of a shock absorber. You can squeeze the mag well together, or flex the dustcover by twisting to test it for yourself. Polymer gives.

The Sigma was a poor knockoff attempt. Take a Sigma, unload it, and set the trigger. Then look at the right side of the frame, from above, and squeeze the trigger. You will see the side of the frame bulge outward. This happens where the trigger bar rides over the firing pin safety. Most Sigmas bulge and allow the trigger to only partially depress the safety. Too flimsy.

S&W copied the Glock, and did not do a good job of it. Sigmas are inexpensive because they have proven to be unreliable, and problematic. I have not seen any lately, but PD trade ins used to be common for around $200. Nobody wants them.

There will always be the rare "good example", but my advice is to stay away from the Sigma. You will be disappointed with it.

__________________
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2009, 11:56 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SGT-MILLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,354
Liked 6 Times on 5 Posts

Default

That's weird. My Sigma doesn't do that. In fact, the polymer frame on my Sigma seems bulkier/stronger than a Glocks.

How are the Sigma's unreliable? I know they aren't enjoying the popularity that the Glock is, but they seem to be working fine and the testimonials out there seem to say that the pistol is very reliable.

S&W claims that the sales on the Sigma are doing well (makes sense because if the pistols didn't sell, S&W wouldn't offer it anymore).

Opinions on reliability aside, I'm just curious if there is a difference in the materials used in construction that can account for the price difference. From what I understand the polymer is pretty much the same, the protective finish that Glock and S&W uses are roughly the same, etc..., etc...

I'm just curious if there is a reason that the Sigma's are retailing for about 340 dollars (average) and Glocks are retailing between 550-600 dollars.

__________________
"TRAIN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE, NOT WITH WHAT YOU WISH YOU HAVE."
SGT-MILLER is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2009, 02:42 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
M14sRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,539
Liked 33 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 45

Default

I have not looked at one of the current Sigmas, due my disappointments with the early ones. They got off to a terrible start, and a bad rap is tough to recover from.

If your Sigma doesn't bulge as the trigger is squeezed, you have a good one. Every one that I have ever played with bulged.

The price variation could simply be due to supply and demand. Glock has been behind on production of all of their pistols for almost 20 years. They are always in limited supply, so there is no incentive to lower prices. In the late 80's nothing was cheaper than a G17. A large retailer near me ran sales on them at $259, routinely. This is when they could get $1,000 for Sig/Sauer P226's.

I'm not bagging on S&W at all. I only use S&W revolvers (have a bout 12 currently), and love the 5903/5906 series of pistols (though I don't own any of them anymore). Great triggers, reliable and accurate. Haven't had much trigger time on the M&P pistols yet (less than 1000rds), but love them so far.

Maybe a better question is this; Why are Sigmas $340, and M&P's closer to $600? Both are polymer and both are made by S&W. But S&W also sells the new M&P's like crazy, just like Glock. Maybe that is the only reason?

__________________
M14sRock is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2009, 06:03 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT-MILLER View Post
Where at the frame does a Glock flex?

Wouldn't the flexing of a polymer material cause it to be brittle/prone to cracking over time?

I'm just curious because this is new to me. I haven't heard of a pistol design incorporating a flexing frame. Maybe I'm less educated than I thought on pistols...lol.
The polymer was designed to flex, and some elasticity was built into it. To this point, I have never heard of the flexing issue.

They flex at the dust cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M14sRock View Post
Glock frames flex where they were designed to flex. This acts as a bit of a shock absorber. You can squeeze the mag well together, or flex the dustcover by twisting to test it for yourself. Polymer gives.

The Sigma was a poor knockoff attempt. Take a Sigma, unload it, and set the trigger. Then look at the right side of the frame, from above, and squeeze the trigger. You will see the side of the frame bulge outward. This happens where the trigger bar rides over the firing pin safety. Most Sigmas bulge and allow the trigger to only partially depress the safety. Too flimsy.

S&W copied the Glock, and did not do a good job of it. Sigmas are inexpensive because they have proven to be unreliable, and problematic. I have not seen any lately, but PD trade ins used to be common for around $200. Nobody wants them.

There will always be the rare "good example", but my advice is to stay away from the Sigma. You will be disappointed with it.
That was the older models. The newer models (SW9VE and the like) are less prone to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT-MILLER View Post
That's weird. My Sigma doesn't do that. In fact, the polymer frame on my Sigma seems bulkier/stronger than a Glocks.

How are the Sigma's unreliable? I know they aren't enjoying the popularity that the Glock is, but they seem to be working fine and the testimonials out there seem to say that the pistol is very reliable.

S&W claims that the sales on the Sigma are doing well (makes sense because if the pistols didn't sell, S&W wouldn't offer it anymore).

Opinions on reliability aside, I'm just curious if there is a difference in the materials used in construction that can account for the price difference. From what I understand the polymer is pretty much the same, the protective finish that Glock and S&W uses are roughly the same, etc..., etc...

I'm just curious if there is a reason that the Sigma's are retailing for about 340 dollars (average) and Glocks are retailing between 550-600 dollars.
They are popular because of the price. For many people $500 dollars is a lot to spend on a pistol. $340 is much more reasonable.

The reliability reports that most people are reading (and I assume that you are referencing) come not from a lengthy workout with the pistol, but rather a casual range session, shooting maybe 200 rounds. When people start using them for longer sessions, 500-1000 rounds in a day, and learning to fight with the pistol, the reliability issues become apparent.

GLOCK's increased price tag comes from the vastly superior finish that is used on the barrel and slide (Tennifer). Smith and Wesson cannot copy that, as OSHA and the EPA have determined that it is unsafe to use in an American Factory.

It also comes from the higher standards in manufacturing. Since many, many LEAs are issuing GLOCKs, there is a need to weed out the lemons. Since Smith is only marketing the Sigmas to the general public, that need does not exist. The same issue arises with the M&P...
__________________
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2009, 09:07 PM   #15
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,169
Liked 2831 Times on 1480 Posts
Likes Given: 251

Default

For me, the Sigma "feels" better. The grip angle is similar to most other "non-Glock" pistols. The slide finish is fine by me. My 40C has been carried almost daily for many years and shows no wear. The slide is VERY hard. I do not think you can engrave it with traditional tools.

I think Sigma magazines are superior. I never liked the plastic mags on the Glocks even if they have metal liners like the drop frees.

Trigger - different. Not necessarily worse. I don't see the low left tendancies like some Glock shooters have. Getting a 3.5# trigger pull on a Sigma is pretty much impossible.

Better case support on the Sigma. I do not see the bulged cases from Sigmas that I do from Glocks.

Newer Glocks with their finger grooves simply will not do for me. My oversize fingers sit on the ridges.

Why are Glocks more expensive? Glock has two different pricing schemes for their guns. LEO's pay one price and Civi's pay another. LE dealers cannot sell to civi's and civilian dealers cannot charge LE price, even to LE's.

Sigmas are to be the new sidearm for the Afgan military. They would only purchase the very best for their soldiers....right?

__________________
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2009, 12:30 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SGT-MILLER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,354
Liked 6 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Well, hopefully I'll be at the range somewhat soon to give my Sigma a decent workout.

I just bought some 180 grain Mag-Tech .40 S&W as a starting point. I plan on buying a few different kinds of .40 ammo to see which will print the best at around 20-25 yards.

Once I can get to the range again, I'll be typing up alot of range reports, complete with pictures and such.

__________________
"TRAIN WITH WHAT YOU HAVE, NOT WITH WHAT YOU WISH YOU HAVE."
SGT-MILLER is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
How many Glocks do you have? Salazar Glock Forum 379 08-13-2014 02:43 PM
XDs or Glocks XDGirl General Handgun Discussion 137 08-15-2011 04:18 PM
Glocks and AKs dglockster Glock Forum 1 10-04-2007 02:41 AM
AKs and Glocks dglockster AK & SKS Discussion 0 09-28-2007 12:09 PM