Your Plastic Pal That's Fun To Be With.....

I'm speaking of the Glock, of course. That little marvel of Austrian engineering.

I made it to the range again this week. I thought I'd compare the relative merits of the Glock 19 against a Sig 229r. Both are chambered in 9mm. Both have high-capacity magazines. Both are Teutonic marvels.

The similarities pretty much end there. The Glock is polymer-framed, and is double-action only. The Sig is metal framed, and double-action/single action with a decocker. The grip angles are a bit different, with the Sig closer to a 1911 .45, and the Glock closer to....a Glock.

This is just me, of course. I shot the Sig much better. It didn't beat up my hand quite as much. I know the 9mm doesn't recoil very bad to begin with, but what recoil was there was almost unnoticeable in the Sig. The Glock was a bit jumpy by comparison. The Sig is heavier, which is an advantage recoil-wise, and a liability in terms of a carry pistol.

I placed tighter groups with the Sig, by far. The trigger felt better, even shooting double-action. Single-action was really nice. Rapid-fire groups were easier to keep on target, and the trigger reset felt smoother with the Sig.

I still have that weird problem with everything ending up left. The problem was really magnified with the Glock. The Sig wasn't as bad, or as often, but it was still there for quite a few shots. This is starting to bother me, truth be told. I don't seem to do it with a 1911, but these fancy new pistols really seem to bring out the problem.

After shooting the two guns side by side, I'd have to say that I'd pick the Sig over the Glock any day for a pure shooter. The Glock might have the edge as far as reliability under harsh conditions, but the Sig flat out-shoots it. At least, it does in my admittedly inexpert hands.

I might be tempted to try one of the Sig Pro polymer jobs. They have the frame of a Glock with the set-up I know and love with the Sig.

More practice is needed, either way.