The Rohrbaugh Forum
Miscellaneous => The Water Cooler -- General Discussions => Topic started by: Ratzo on August 15, 2006, 11:40:53 PM
-
Need opinion: And I know most on this site know about Guns.
If you had a choice which one would you go with:
Sig sauer 229 SAS, 40 Cal or Glock 27, 40 cal.
This is for CCW and a Gun that can be trusted.
Thanks
-
I would go with the Glock because of the size; they are both
excellent guns and very reliable. I own a 229[not SAS] and
three Glocks.
-
Get the SIG 229 SAS ...
(http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/guns/f167.jpg)
-
I have two Sig 229 SAS's. The absolute best handgun I have every owned. Slikly smooth trigger pull. Very little recoil. Fires everything I put into it. I thought my previous experience with Sigs had been good (P220 and P230), but then I met the 229 SAS, and it was like the first time all over again.
-
I would go with it too except for the concealed carry
consideration; it is not a small or light weapon. The other
plus for the Sig is magazine capacity.
-
I don't think you can go wrong either way.
I am very much a Glock/1911 guy when it comes to medium to large size handguns. The Glock has unsurpassed durability and reliability. I would also have to give a Glock, whether it is the 27 or even the 23, an edge in concealability over the P229.
I really like designs that offer a light trigger pull for all shots, and as much as I like Glocks for this feature, I think Sig has a winner with their DAK trigger system.
-
I am a confessed SIG guy and like the manual of arms.
My 226 EDC is just what I want and the 228 and 220 are also emminently carry-worthy if required.
I am not at all anti Glock but still - depite enjoying shooting with 17 and 19 - favor the extra safety aspects of the SIG's. A Glock in good hands is not of course unsafe per se and heck - they run and run - but so do SIG's :)
-
I have both and have carried both. I like both very much. I now carry the Sig primarily. The reason for me was that with my grip I ride the slide of the Glock a little too hard and have had a strange failure where the spent round is ejected, but the slide didn't travel back far enough to chamber a fresh round. This resulted in a click instead of a bang, hence the change.
The Glock is slightly smaller and definitely lighter. It also holds one more round in the magazine. The Glock points better for me with its lower bore axis.
The Glock also has more felt recoil and with high volume shooting in hot and humid conditions the checkering on the back of the grip started to irritate my hand.
The Sig has less felt recoil. Due to the frame size I don't ride the slide with my thumbs, so no click when I expected bang. With the proper belt and holster I don't notice the size or weight difference from the glock. One round less does not cause me distress. It has repeat strike capability and the trigger is very nice.
You really can't go wrong with either gun. They are both reliable weapons and can be easily carried and concealed. I would go and hold them both and see which one feels better. Of course price might be a factor as well. You can probably find a Glock for about $500 where the SAS will run you $800 - $900.
Good luck with whatever you choose. You won't be disappointed with either.
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/Rocnerd/guns/DSC00146.jpg)
-
I know you guys have no problem doing it but I simply can not get away with conceiled carry of these large "hand cannons" you guys talk about. In some ways I envy you in that you can carry some of these guns conceiled. My options are limited but now that I have the Rohrbaugh I guess I really have no reason to envy anyone at all. Thanks Rohrbaugh!!
Mike
-
Mike,
I think the secret is having the freedom to keep your shirt out, rather than tucked in.
I can use a belt holster, and get away with it.
Bill
-
I knew I would get the right info here, so I did it this way: If you have two Diamonds of the same quality one may have a little more carbon spot then the other but does the same thing for you, I guess you should buy the best price one. So I am buying the Glock 27.
Thanks for your time and input.
-
Carrying a gun that big is definitely not a 16/7 thing for me. Depending on my circumstances, it might be a North American Arms .380 (soon to be Rohrbaugh) in a pocket, or a Glock 26 either IWB or in a pocket. Once the new front sight for my Glock 19 comes in, that will be carried with some frequency IWB, but that is starting to approach my limit.
I can hide a full-size 1911 under an untucked shirt, but the holster and shirt both have to be carefully selected, and I have to watch when I bend at the waist.
I have found that a full-size 1911 in a really good holster can hide better than a .38 snub nose in a poor holster.
-
Comparing a Sig and a Glock is a little like comparing a Mercedes with a Volkswagen. Either one will get you there but, one is an elegant design and pure quality while the other is a tool. You're carrying concealed so you're betting your life on the gun. My life is worth the extra cost. I don't know about yours, but I suspect you would agree.
-
I personally have come to love Glocks and their ability to go bang everytime you pull the trigger. I have yet to shoot a Sig, so I cannot tell you which is better between the Glock and the Sig.
The only thing I might question is your choice of Glocks for this comparison. I personally don't understand why anyone would go with the Glock 27 when the Glock 30 is around:
Glock 30
http://www.glock.com/g30.htm
Caliber: .45 Auto
Length (slide): 6.77 in.
Height: 4.76 in. (4.45 in.)
Width: 1.27 in
Length between sights 3): 5.95 in.
Barrel length: 3.78 in.
Magazine capacity: 10 (9)
Empty weight without magazine: 23.99 oz.
Glock 27
http://www.glock.com/g27.htm
Caliber: .40
Length (slide): 6.29 in.
Height: 4.17 in.
Width: 1.18 in.
Length between sights: 5.67 in.
Barrel length: 3.46 in.
Magazine capacity: 9 / 11
Empty weight without magazine: 19.75 oz.
The Glock 30 is only ~0.5" longer and taller and only ~0.1" wider. It only weighs ~4 more ounces than the 27. it has the same or 1 less round than the .40 and for those small differences you get to carry the proven stopping power of .45 ACP instead of watered down .40 rounds. Just my humble opinion.
-
I love my Glock 30. It is an excellent sidearm that can take a ton of punishment. Some can not get used to the Glock trigger though.
I believe guns are like insurance companies or banks. What is good for one person may not be the best choice for another.
-
See if you can arrange to fire them both at a prolonged range session. If you still can't decide after that, go with the one you find to be better looking gun. 8) (For me that would be the Sig.)
-
If you still can't decide after that, go with the one you find to be better looking gun. 8) (For me that would be the Sig.)
I really hope that's a joke. i really do...
-
I really hope that's a joke. i really do...
It would appear that like so many others the gentleman strongly prefers "the Black Guns." Vive la difference! :D
-
XD SC -- I love mine -- just keeps going bang, and quite accurately. With that bit said, another vote for the sig, unless you just want a gun that you really won't form an attachment to, then the Glock -- it's why I have a couple XDs -- didn't like beating up my nice guns.
-
From the different opinion(s) on this subjest it seems that people are more concerened about how pretty a gun looks then what it is made for, myself I want a Firearm that when needed will be ready and reliable, it is Not like a car that you want people to look at? I just cannot see paying for a Firearm that is No More Reliable then the other (Just because it is pretty). If I was on a Jury I would have some concern about a Person that admires a Gun if he or she was involved in a Shooting. I am sure there is a reason more Glocks then Sigs are sold in this country and used by Police depts.
Just my 2cents. :)
-
I am sure there is a reason more Glocks then Sigs are sold in this country and used by Police depts.
This is an invalid argument. There are several causes including better advertising and marketing schemes, the popularity of Glocks in the Hip-hop community, or even the amount of authorized Glock dealers. It could be any of a multitude of reasons.
However, that being said, I am pro-Glock (having just recently bought a Glock 30) and definately don't understand why a gun that is supposed to save your life needs to look pretty. Although, Glocks do have a bit of their own charm. :)
(http://static.flickr.com/82/233400397_13961b78a9.jpg)
-
As far as weapon functionality. They are both excellent.
Why not confuse yourself alittle more and throw the XD into the equation.
Who cares what people think ?
Put them in your hands, feel them, shoot them. Then you'll know.
If Aesthetics is what you care about:
The Sig says, "Leave me out for people to see. I am a practical work of art and engineering."
The Glock says, " I really want to shoot the hell out of you." Make no mistake, yes Glock has a charm of its own.
Good Luck
Salute
-
If you buy a Glock 30 please consider the "extended slide release lever" and the "pinky grip mag extension". Both are very cheap and easy to do modifications. I bought both on www.ebay.com .
Also visit:
http://www.glockmeister.com/
-
On the how a gun looks topic. I want both reliability and good looks. I don't care how decent a gun is supposed to be if it looks bad I won't spend my money on it. A good example of this are the Kel-Tec's. They may be good guns but they are butt ugly and I won't own one. I demand both, Form AND Function. I guess I am just picky. Is anyone else out there as demanding as I am?
Mike
-
On the how a gun looks topic. I want both reliability and good looks. I don't care how decent a gun is supposed to be if it looks bad I won't spend my money on it. * * * Is anyone else out there as demanding as I am?
You called? 8)
However, the old maxim from the study of aesthetics still governs:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
And thank Heaven for that! Otherwise, all of the men in the world would be in pursuit of a very few women of the same appearance and mentality; all of the women in the world would be in pursuit of a very few men of the same appearance and mentality; every man and woman in the world would want the same few material goods; and what we know as human civilization would soon descend by its own weight and avarice into a state of totallly descructive anarchy.
The French say it best: "VIVE LA DIFFÉRENCE."
Diversity has its problems, though, as demonstrated by a lament once expressed by then French President Charles de Gaulle: “How can you be expected to govern a country that has 246 kinds of cheese?”
;)
-
On the how a gun looks topic. I want both reliability and good looks. I don't care how decent a gun is supposed to be if it looks bad I won't spend my money on it.
Mike
So, you're telling me that because a gun "has to look good" for you to own it, you wouldn't own a functionally flawless gun just because it didn't have a certain look?
Let's go hypothetical here...
Let's say Kel-tec created a P-x45. Same size as the P-3AT but with 7+1 of .45 ACP that would never malfunction, FTF, etc... and had minimal recoil (ala a .22). You wouldn't purchase one of these "magic guns" because it was ugly? I know I could give a damn about what it looks like, just give me my Cricket (from the movie MIB).
I don't know, maybe its just my opinion, but it doesn't freaking matter what a concealed carry gun looks like! It's concealed! If you're worried about the looks of a gun that no one is supposed to see unless you're about to shoot said person, then you're not really concerned about self-protection. Instead, you're just playing a grown up version of Cowboys and Indians and want a pretty six-shooter.
(Rant off)
-
Emotive stuff some of this ;D
I am a man for functionality and reliability above all else.
My choices have been on manual of arms, what feels good and what shoots well for me. Aesthetics are a bonus.
I have shot Glocks and found them more than effective, as well as tolerant of conditions. That however just does not suit my preferences like the SIG. The fact that IMO my 226 is ''prettier'' than the Glock is just a nice extra!
My first semi carry was a P95DC - and that fella is plain ''fugly'' in some ways! It is however dead on accurate and reliable and of course anyways - not many folks got to even see it :)
-
dfsutton,
Yes, that was a rant and you seem to be forming opinions about myself and maybe others that could not be founded on firm ground because you do not know me.
We are human beings and as such "looks" means something. Do you pick a vehicle solely on it's safety rateing, reliability rateing, resale value?
As I stated already and I will expand on it, I want Form AND Function. I like things that work AND look good. I have other 9mm's that function perfectly but they are to big to carry conceiled(for me). My 2 R9's also function PERFECTLY although as of now they will only do this with one perticular type of ammo. I am working on that issue.
But to directly answer your question, correct I don't care how functionally perfect anything is if it is butt ugly I won't buy it. I will spend my money on something that functions AND looks good.
Mike
-
May I say, to each his own.
-
Agree, Give The People What They Want !
-
thats why there are Fords and Chevys.
Tom
-
It certainly is - ''to each his own'' ;) - and being able to agree to differ too, even tho sometimes we feel quite passionately about our viewpoints.
Life is apples for some - oranges for others ;D