Sig 320 vs Glock

[KCBRUIN]

In regards to your comparison to the M&P line, Sig Sauer had a much larger foothold in the LE market then S&W. I have zero doubt that the 320 series will catch on and begin replacing the classic P series in Agencies across the country. My agency was die hard P220, and as soon as Safariland can unf@$k the 320 .45 holster we will make the switch. As a larger agency the smaller Sig carrying agencies will follow suit.

[voiceofreason]

Shoot both for groups slow fire, shoot both for aimed timed fire, then ignore the groups and decide which you like best.

Then compare the groupings and see if that changes your opinion.

Most people "prefer" a gun based on subjective feel over effective results. If you don't like shooting it, you're not likely to practice with it.

[atomic41]

I have always been a Glock fan and carried one daily. I bought the Sig320 when it came out and now my Glock sits in the safe. I still like the old gal but she doesn't get shot anymore. For me there is no question, the 320 is a far superior gun in every way. My highly unscientific research shows that everyone who has fired my 320 agrees. Just last weekend a buddy shot it and is now wanting to buy one for his wife. (I think it's an excuse for him to get one into the house but who am I to judge )

As other's have said, you can't go wrong with either of those choices, but since you are asking for opinions that is my two cents. Pick what you like the most.

[naloxone]

Pros: Love the trigger on the 320, and it generally feels like a well put together gun.

Cons: the take down lever is unnecessarily obtrusive, the grip angle is drastically different from every other handgun I own (damn near 90*), and the magazines are expensive

I'll be sticking with the Glock, but maybe if they un**** the grip angle I would be willing to reconsider.

[SCSU74]

The sig is better in every way except parts availability. I carried a 17 and 21 on duty and a 19/30 off for several years at my first department. I am also an armored for Glock to add some background. My biggest gripes with the Glock were the weird grip angle (somewhat solved with a grip force), blocky grip and personally always grouping left.

The 320 fixes all of those issues for me in addition to allowing me to change my duty gun into my carry gun when needed which is nice. The biggest bonus for me is my left groupings disappeared with the large frame on the 320. Some of the affection may be due to learning on a 226, but after being forced into an m&p the 320 is even more awesome. When it comes to strikers the 320 is it for me. Feel free to ask any questions! Fwiw I'm up to around 4K through my full size with 0 issues of any kind.

[SCSU74]

After 40 or so years of shooting 1911s, I've been trying to switch over to glock over the last several years. I truly think the g17 is one of the finest combat handguns on the planet. My EDC is a g26.
Having said that, I must also say that shooting a glock has always been a battle. No other pistol or revolver has ever been as difficult to shoot as my damn glocks. I can - with a lot of effort - shoot POA=POI, but those SOBs truly do want to shoot low & left
I've been wanting to explore sigs with the hope of dropping my glocks. I want 9mm, and I'm 6'5" and 280#, so I can EDC the "carry" version of the 320 with no problem. (I carry my g26 with a g19 mag with no problem.). So - I, too, am interested in 320 feedback.
To complicate matters, I could even see going the 229/Legion route. For a variety of reasons, I am also interested in 229 vs 320 accuracy out to +/- 75m.
Looking forward to the comments and dicussions.
john

The 320 should clean up those low/left issues. I'm 6'5 300# and use the large frame, it's a tack driver no matter how hard you crank on the grip. I was told it's because the FCU isn't actually connected to the frame like a Glock/m&p.

I'm not much help as far as the 229 vs 320 as I split time between my 228 and 320c

[SCSU74]

Shoot both for groups slow fire, shoot both for aimed timed fire, then ignore the groups and decide which you like best.

Then compare the groupings and see if that changes your opinion.

Most people "prefer" a gun based on subjective feel over effective results. If you don't like shooting it, you're not likely to practice with it.

That's exactly what I did with mine. I can keep 10 rounds in a single hole out to 7 yds with the 320, not so with the Glock. That and the hole is dead center not a few inches left haha.

Here are some targets as fast as I can shoot (10 yds):

Glock 17 (duty gun with around 7K through it) on the left and 320 (new to me at the time) on the right


And a funny photo comparing the two:

[Evel Baldgui]

I've carried a glock 19 for years, I shoot it well. I tried a p320 about 2-3 months ago, I shoot it better. After approx 900-1000 trouble free rds, my EDC is the p320. I was VERY hesitant about buying a SIG, given alleged history of QC issues, but the p320 is just right!

[MStarmer]

I've been a long time Glock fan boy, carrying a G23/G22 for work and taking the armorer's class back in 2004 I think. Loved the older ones, love the Gen 3's. Uprgraded to the Gen4 and hate em. Bought a P320 out of desperation for a medium size 9mm that was accurate, reliable and easy to shoot. Add in the versatility of the P320 and it's a winner.

Talking about easy to shoot. For me, my wife and daughter it's been one of the easiest guns to shoot right out of the box. Not much learning of the trigger, no need for more or less trigger finger, grip pressure etc. Align the sights, press the trigger, shots go where they are supposed to. It's been that way for just about everyone who's shot it. I'd compare it with my PPQ but better. We like them so much we "adopted" the platform and me, wife and daughter are running P320c's.

[rebelsooner]

Thank you all for the insight. I think I'm going to get the sig. In the end, if it's no good, it'll be easy to find the replacement.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk