I have owned many of both including the MK25 and a 229 and even a Norinco clone. All the Sigs were excellent right out of the box. The grip was a bit wide for my liking, but the E2 grip solves that very nicely.
I have owned several Glock 17s and even the Glock 22. Similar to the Sigs, the grips are a bit wide for me, but the Gen4 fixed that.
What I liked about the Sigs:
Reliable
Nice fit (with the E2)
Accurate
Excellent single stage trigger
What I disliked about the Sigs:
2nd stage trigger
More muzzle flip (high bore height)
Higher price
Heavier (not all will agree. Some like the heft of metal)
What I liked about the Glock:
Reliable
Light weight
Accurate
Nice fit (gen4)
Very little muzzle flip (low bore height)
Price
What I disliked about the Glock 17:
Trigger (mushy garbage)
Don't have any Sigs left. They are excellent guns, but for what they are designed for, they lag behind the Glock. During slow bullseye shooting, the Sig is slightly more effective using only the single action trigger. But let's be honest, neither of these guns are bullseye guns. These are combat guns where you need combat accuracy, quickly. And this is where Glock understands. It's low bore height and uniform trigger action let you shoot faster.
While I understand that training can negate the deficiencies in each of these guns, Glock just makes it easier. The long, heavy, dumb arsed double action trigger was obviously designed by lawyers on the Sigs is obsolete. Glock's lawyers simply make a better trigger.
I've owned more Sig 22x pistols than Glocks. I currently have two G17s and no Sigs.
