[SGT-MILLER]

Ok, I have a question. I have looked over the internals of both the Glock and S&W Sigma pistols. Since they are pretty much the same internally, and in function (i.e. slide stop operation, trigger safety, take-down, etc...), why are people dogging on the Sigma so much?

Keep in mind that I know the trigger pull is heavy on the Sigma. That can be easily fixed by a gunsmith for a minimal amount of money. Some may argue that the Glock beats the Sigma just because you have to have a gunsmith work on the trigger to lighten the pull. On the flip side, in order to shoot lead rounds through the Glock safely, you have to change out the barrels (which is not exactly cheap).

Both pistols are rated to SAAMI pressures, so I don't think there is any issues with that.

I just want to know why the Sigma is dogged so much when compared to a Glock when they both look about 98% the same internally. Like I said, I already know about the trigger issue, and I also know about the fact that Glocks use a polygonal barrel, versus the more traditional 5 in 1 twist barrel of the Sigma.

P.S. I do NOT want this thread to turn into an argument or flame war about how the Glock rulz just because it's the uber-leet pistol, and you are a noob if you don't have a Glock, and the Glock just pwns all, etc, etc, etc.......

If the pistols are virtually the same, why is the Sigma only about 350 dollars and the Glock around 550-600 dollars? I'm not the expert in any way, but it does seem like you may be paying for a brand name when buying the Glock.

Seriously, I want to be educated on this, because I'm trying to find REAL reasons why the Glock costs more. You would think that the Sigma would run as reliably as the Glock with pretty much the same internals/operation, and would be the better value because of how much less the Sigma's cost.

 

[iloveguns]

Well I own a couple of Glocks but my Bro in law has a sigma and I agree with you. MY next 9mm I get is going to be a Sigma. Other then the trigger pull there is nothing wrong with the pistol at all. +1 for the sigma

 

[ranger_sxt]

The trigger system of the Sigma is indeed nearly identical to the GLOCK, so much so that they were sued for the similarities.

The differences however are two-fold. First, the GLOCK has less recoil. I don't know if it is because of the heavier weight of the GLOCK, or the fact that the Sigma doesn't flex at the frame.

Second, the Sigma's ejector and extractor are much different. During a Tactical Response Fighting Pistol class, which uses about 400 rounds on the first day, the instructors invented 5 new malfunctions specific to a student's Sigma. A number 6 is ejecting the round, hitting something on the slide, and reinserting the brass backwards into the chamber. GLOCKs used that day had no non-user-induced malfunctions.

 

[SGT-MILLER]

....the Glock flexes at the frame? Ok, I didn't know that.

Now those problems you said about the Sigma. Is that just one pistol being problematic or is that something to look out for in all of the Sigma pistols?

The recoil systems are pretty much the same, and the weight is within about 2 ounces of each other (I thought). The Sigma does have a slightly bulkier side than the Glock.

 

[Dillinger]

A number 6 is ejecting the round, hitting something on the slide, and reinserting the brass backwards into the chamber.

I'm curious as to why? It would seem that if you re-inserted empty brass, backwards, into just about any modern firearm it wouldn't eject since most every ejector relies on the rim of the cartridge to perform.

I am sure they actually did this and am not insinuating otherwise, I just don't understand why.

JD

 

[canebrake]

Ok, I have a question. I have looked over the internals of both the Glock and S&W Sigma pistols. Since they are pretty much the same internally, and in function (i.e. slide stop operation, trigger safety, take-down, etc...), why are people dogging on the Sigma so much?

Keep in mind that I know the trigger pull is heavy on the Sigma. That can be easily fixed by a gunsmith for a minimal amount of money. Some may argue that the Glock beats the Sigma just because you have to have a gunsmith work on the trigger to lighten the pull. On the flip side, in order to shoot lead rounds through the Glock safely, you have to change out the barrels (which is not exactly cheap).

Both pistols are rated to SAAMI pressures, so I don't think there is any issues with that.

I just want to know why the Sigma is dogged so much when compared to a Glock when they both look about 98% the same internally. Like I said, I already know about the trigger issue, and I also know about the fact that Glocks use a polygonal barrel, versus the more traditional 5 in 1 twist barrel of the Sigma.

P.S. I do NOT want this thread to turn into an argument or flame war about how the Glock rulz just because it's the uber-leet pistol, and you are a noob if you don't have a Glock, and the Glock just pwns all, etc, etc, etc.......

If the pistols are virtually the same, why is the Sigma only about 350 dollars and the Glock around 550-600 dollars? I'm not the expert in any way, but it does seem like you may be paying for a brand name when buying the Glock.

Seriously, I want to be educated on this, because I'm trying to find REAL reasons why the Glock costs more. You would think that the Sigma would run as reliably as the Glock with pretty much the same internals/operation, and would be the better value because of how much less the Sigma's cost.

Glock has a better PR Department.

 

[SGT-MILLER]

Dillinger, I think he meant that during the cycling operation of the Sigma, the round extracted after firing but did not clear the chamber area, which caused it to be re-cycled into the weapon azz end first. Pretty much a weird double-feed of sorts is what I guessing.

I'm going to go out on a limb and possibly say that those problems might be specific to that particular Sigma.

Both pistols will have their fair share of jamming up during operation. There's testimonials of Sigma's running thousands of rounds through with no problem.

I can see that there is about 3 differences between the pistols so far.

1. The looks. The slide on the Sigma is slightly bulkier than the Glock, and the grip isn't as blocky. Also the trigger guard is rounded on the Sigma, versus the more "combat" stylings of the Glock's trigger guard.

2. The barrels. The Glock uses polygonal rifling, and the Sigma uses traditional (I call it traditional because I do not know the other term for it).

3. The extractor. They look slightly different and the Sigma extractor seems to be a little bulkier.

Is there a difference in materials/coatings used to explain the big cost difference between the two?

 

[Dillinger]

Sgt - I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is what was written:

A number 6 is ejecting the round, hitting something on the slide, and reinserting the brass backwards into the chamber.

Now is the "hitting the slide" supposed to simulate hitting a doorjam going through as you are firing the weapon, in which case how would you go about actually hitting the exact chamber extraction at the moment of the round coming out?

In any event, it strikes me as odd, because if you have ever fired a weapon with a brass catcher you know full well sooner or later one of those shells is going to mess up your cycle - but that doesn't make the weapon unreliable.

JD

 

[ranger_sxt]

....the Glock flexes at the frame? Ok, I didn't know that.

Now those problems you said about the Sigma. Is that just one pistol being problematic or is that something to look out for in all of the Sigma pistols?

The recoil systems are pretty much the same, and the weight is within about 2 ounces of each other (I thought). The Sigma does have a slightly bulkier side than the Glock.

Yes, the GLOCK flexes at the frame, according to the GLOCK Armorer's course. This was supposed to be a deliberate thing to reduce felt recoil.

And this was just one problematic gun, but it is indicative of the Sigma's that have gone through a serious workout.

I'm curious as to why? It would seem that if you re-inserted empty brass, backwards, into just about any modern firearm it wouldn't eject since most every ejector relies on the rim of the cartridge to perform.

I am sure they actually did this and am not insinuating otherwise, I just don't understand why.

JD

I don't know why, and no one else could figure it out either. The shooter took his pistol and traded it for a used GLOCK 17 that evening, and never even bothered to look more into the issue.

Sgt - I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is what was written:



Now is the "hitting the slide" supposed to simulate hitting a doorjam going through as you are firing the weapon, in which case how would you go about actually hitting the exact chamber extraction at the moment of the round coming out?

In any event, it strikes me as odd, because if you have ever fired a weapon with a brass catcher you know full well sooner or later one of those shells is going to mess up your cycle - but that doesn't make the weapon unreliable.

JD

No, the brass hit the slide somehow, and returned into the chamber. This was with factory ammo (Winchester, I believe).

 

[SGT-MILLER]

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.

 

[M14sRock]

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.

 

[SGT-MILLER]

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.

 

[M14sRock]

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?

 

[ranger_sxt]

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.

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.

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...

 

[robocop10mm]

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?

 

[SGT-MILLER]

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.