Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns SIG vs. Glock- SAS picks the SIG

An interesting interview with Andy McNab in the Nov. 2011 issue of the American Rifleman. He was formerly with the SAS. Says they tested both the SIG pistol and the Glock for several years and decided the best choice was the SIG. Said the No.1 consideration is that the gun go "bang" every time even after lots of time and neglect in the jungles of SE Asia.
I've always heard good things about the SIG pistols but never thought or heard they rivaled the Glocks in reliability. So this was an eye opener for me. E

SIGs are popular among SEALS.

In every �test� or comparison that I�ve read, the Sig has been preferred over the Glock. There are some tests where it was reported that reliability was better in the Glock, some where reliability was better in the Sig, but for the most part, most just say that the reliability requirements were �met�. Once that requirement is met, it comes down to personal preference, and I tend to think most would prefer the Sig over the Glock since I�ve never seen a Glock outshoot a Sig; ever. For a small elite unit this is fine. For a very large military force, the Sig just doesn�t make a whole lot of sense in light of the clear advantage the Glock gives a military logistically.

I know I prefer my Sig 1911 over any other I have owned.

That's what I've noticed too Kevin. Never saw a comparison where a Glock won against a SIG. But I've never seen any endurance testing about the SIG. Apparently they can fire 10,000 rds. in one day w/o a hitch.
I've kind of become reinterested in the SIG 220. Which is a he!! of a comment from a die hard 1911 man. But the 220's just feel better in my hand. And shoot well too. For some reason, I don't get that with the lighter, smaller 1911's. The only exception is the Colt Defender. That one at least shoots well in my hands.
Heck, I've handled the "Carry", and "Combat" versions. I've shot the standard 220. While some of the testing done in some articles claims it doesn't recover or handle recoil as well as the steel 1911's, I've not found that so. It seems, if anything, to handle better in my hands. Both in pointing, coming on target and handling recoil. The alloy frame 1911's don't do these things as well for me.
So, I may well wind up buying one for carry purposes. E

Seals and other special forces have the opportunity to carry whatever they want. Seals have carried HK, Sigs, Glocks ect. Look at the HK SOCOM built specifically for Special Operations. They don't carry it every mission but its available if they want it. Personal Preference and needs of a mission dictate what they use. All are great firearms that are capable in a combat enviroment. Lastly, The perk to being in special ops you get whatever you want usually.

Sigs are not the same guns they used to be.
The made in Germany Sigs were/are excellent, sadly they are no more-used is the only way to get them.

The new Sigs have had a lot of problems/fallen from favor by those in the know.

But Glock has had a lot of problems with their 4th gen guns too.

Sigs are wonderful guns. My 226 tacops has never had a failure yet. A few of my friends that have them have reported the same ultra reliability. I also like the fact that other than their poly version, they are actually metal. Nice to feel that in your hands. To me you cant buy a better pistol! Accurate as heck too.

Not true. There are occasional runs that are imported into the States. The latest that I've seen were a run of 226's a few months ago. They had carbon steel instead of stainless slides.

I doubt that was the Sig being tested here, since it's not a Sig design. More likely, it was a P-226, or some such.

I think there's some truth to that. However, mostly due to the 'budget' models Sig has introduced in recent years and the Sig 250 is an answer in search of a question, IMO. The upper crust Sigs are as good as ever.

totally agree!

Sigs have been around in the Army since the early mid 90's. CID had them, my former SOCOM Avn. unit had them. I've carried the 229 & other models in civilian LE. They're very good weapons.

As far as US Army SF is concerned, that is simply not true. You will use what the rest of the Army uses, a damned Baretta 92, even the CIF company guys, use Baretta 92's. I don't think that has changed since I retired in 2003.

Now, "behind the fence" they do get to play, but they ain't talkin' about what they use.

Also, that damned SOCOM pistol was NEVER issued to any Army unit.

Yes, CID, certain intel positions, and, I've been told, certain females whose job required a handgun and couldn't grip a 92 were issued Sig 229's. I even saw a crack troop in the mess hall on Victory with an M16A2 with an M4 stock one time.

The 228 was procured and issued as the M11. I don't believe the 229 was ever purchased as part of the general military procurement.

Just because one unit chose a certain gun doesn't make that the best gun. It just means that they got the best "deal" on it.

AWG issued the Glock 19.
ACE/CAG/Delta, Glock 19 and 22. With FDE magazines and a red dot for some of the 22s.

At that level some units have particular favorites. The Glock has a longer service life than the Sig BTW.

Don't know much about the army? I have heard rumors that certain SF units in the Army do carry 45's? Don't know just a rumor, as for the rest of the Special Operations yes dependent on mission and preference they get what they want. A pistol is the least concern as it is a defensive weapon and not the primary weapon! I knew of one army ranger that while in Africa one of his troops carried two 357 magnums while being deployed, this was during the vietnam era. I tend to believe this to be true.

Based on this thread I just negotiated with an old friend of mine to trade me his Sig P220 SAO for my S&W Scandium Commander. He assures me his P220 has been 100% reliable for him, and I assured him my S&W Scandium Commander has likewise been 100% reliable for me. That leaves me without a lightweight commander (I sold my Colt Lightweight Commander over the summer), but I gave up carrying lightweight commanders years ago. My view is that if I want to drop down in weight from an all steel Commander or an all steel Government Model, I'll go with my Kahr P9, which is an awesome little gun. The lightweight commanders kick a bit much for my liking in a "self-defense against humans" sidearm. The felt recoil of the Kahr P9 and of the all steel 1911s are about the same. I guess I'll discover now how the Sig feels for me in the recoil department.



PS I had three Sigs (including a German-made P228) in the 1980s before I developed my position against traditional double action autos. Since developing that position, I sold all three, but otherwise liked them very much. Wanted one of the Single Action Only P220s since they first came out.