Sig M17 or Glock 17/19x?

C

chip54321

Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Vancouver
Hey everyone, apologies if this post has been done already.

Long story short, I'm thinking of getting a new handgun. I've narrowed it down to either a Sig Sauer M17 with no manual safety or a Glock 17 (maybe a 19x).

I've done research into the options, but most of the info I've found has said that the US military's testing returned similar results between both platforms, the Sig bid was just cheaper. Ergonomic wise most sources said they're similar, although the Glock has more aftermarket parts available on the market right now.

After my research, I'm still torn, so I wanted to get the community's thoughts.

Looking forward to hearing it!
 
They feel different in the hand to hold them Sig feels nicer
Functionality wise they are equal
Aftermarket support goes to Glock but that is because its been around way longer, Military going with Sig will drive the aftermarket just take some time
The Sig has modularity so you can swap out frames and slides and even calibers which is not something with the Glock
Gun price is pretty much the same but magazine price goes to Glock because you have Magpul which is 1/2 price of a Sig or Glock brand mag. Time will tell if Magpul comes out with a PMAG for the Sig since the military is using them
Looks wise well that is pretty much the deciding factor which one do you think looks better because that is probably the deciding factor

Both are used extensively by people who's lives actually depend on them, so there is no bad choice just personal preference. I have a FX-9 so I bought a Glock because they share the same mags. I have shot a P320 it feels way nicer in my hand then my Glock. I own a P226 with multiple caliber changes which is something the Sig can do that Glock cannot so between my Glock and my Sig I have no real interest to get the P320 all my bases are already covered but for me the only factor for the Glock was the shared magazines with my FX-9
 
Ravage said:
They feel different in the hand to hold them Sig feels nicer
Functionality wise they are equal
Aftermarket support goes to Glock but that is because its been around way longer, Military going with Sig will drive the aftermarket just take some time
The Sig has modularity so you can swap out frames and slides and even calibers which is not something with the Glock
Gun price is pretty much the same but magazine price goes to Glock because you have Magpul which is 1/2 price of a Sig or Glock brand mag. Time will tell if Magpul comes out with a PMAG for the Sig since the military is using them
Looks wise well that is pretty much the deciding factor which one do you think looks better because that is probably the deciding factor

Both are used extensively by people who's lives actually depend on them, so there is no bad choice just personal preference. I have a FX-9 so I bought a Glock because they share the same mags. I have shot a P320 it feels way nicer in my hand then my Glock. I own a P226 with multiple caliber changes which is something the Sig can do that Glock cannot so between my Glock and my Sig I have no real interest to get the P320 all my bases are already covered but for me the only factor for the Glock was the shared magazines with my FX-9
Click to expand...

Thanks! I thought as much. I have an fx9, and a glock 34, so they share mag compatibility. That and the mag prices/access to after market parts/support is the one thing holding me back from getting the m17.
 
The glock 19X lost because the company thought that they knew better than the DoD what the DoD wanted. They just might, but you try telling the procurement guys that.

I'm partial to the M17/18 over the G19X for the most part. But that's simply because the Sig offering is better suited to the whole concept of Modular Handgun System, whereas Glock was offering them a Take It Or Leave It, We're F*****g Glock Handgun System...

-S.

Note: not a fanboy of any system. Wouldn't mind owning a glock.
 
Maple Leaf Pilgrim said:
The glock 19X lost because the company thought that they knew better than the DoD what the DoD wanted. They just might, but you try telling the procurement guys that.

I'm partial to the M17/18 over the G19X for the most part. But that's simply because the Sig offering is better suited to the whole concept of Modular Handgun System, whereas Glock was offering them a Take It Or Leave It, We're F*****g Glock Handgun System...

-S.

Note: not a fanboy of any system. Wouldn't mind owning a glock.
Click to expand...

LOL to be honest, isn't that glock's mentality to just about everything?
 
I would try to shoot both of them if you can get the chance. I found the m17 recoil quite a bit snappier than the Glock. Also the trigger was superior on the glock compared to the m17 I had, especially comparing to the gen5 glock. The trigger on the sig felt very mushy to me. The standard sights on the glock leave alot to be desired .. another thing to consider is if you want to run a red dot I'm not sure if there is an option to use a rear iron sight with the m17.
 
tobin said:
I can shoot .357 SIG or 9mm in my .40 Glock 22 with conversion barrels, the Glock can do some caliber conversions.
Click to expand...

I cannot find any Glock caliber change kits, I do find 3rd party barrels that were milled to fit into a Glock slide which is not a Glock caliber conversion. You can custom build a barrel to fit into any handgun slide but that is not the same thing as the gun company selling caliber change kits for their own firearms. Sig sold caliber kits for their P226 and now they sell them for the P320. Glock does not do this.

I know what you mean though but Glock does not support or cover their firearms with a 3rd party barrel in it.

Also shooting 9mm from a 40 without changing out the extractor is going to give you issues at some point and so is not really a conversion.

I have 3 different uppers for my P226 one is for 22lr one is for 9mm and one is for 40sw / 357sig so I have one handgun that shoots 4 different calibers and fully supported to shoot that way by the manufacturer
 
The Sig likes to go bang all by itself. The professionals have shelved it until it is brought up to par. Go with the Glock, if you're eager.
 
Ravage said:
I cannot find any Glock caliber change kits, I do find 3rd party barrels that were milled to fit into a Glock slide which is not a Glock caliber conversion. You can custom build a barrel to fit into any handgun slide but that is not the same thing as the gun company selling caliber change kits for their own firearms. Sig sold caliber kits for their P226 and now they sell them for the P320. Glock does not do this.

I know what you mean though but Glock does not support or cover their firearms with a 3rd party barrel in it.

Also shooting 9mm from a 40 without changing out the extractor is going to give you issues at some point and so is not really a conversion.

I have 3 different uppers for my P226 one is for 22lr one is for 9mm and one is for 40sw / 357sig so I have one handgun that shoots 4 different calibers and fully supported to shoot that way by the manufacturer
Click to expand...

I agree with the point on Glock not offering conversion kits, but I just want to point out to everyone that, if OEM if what you're after, you can swap a complete G17 slide onto G22 frame and use G17 mags, then all parts are Glock OEM that way, which is essentially similar to what a Sig conversion kit does. At this point, the only thing left that's different is the ejector, which can be replaced but not necessary for the function of 9mm ejection. If you do replace the ejector, then at this point you basically have a stock G17 as all other parts are the same.

Also note in the above scenario, you save money on the frame minus the ejector.

On the other hand, like the other fellow mentioned, there are aftermarket conversion barrels available to keep the cost down for converting .40 to 9mm (or to .357). At this point, you have the option to further the conversion to make it more reliable by replacing the following (to OEM): Mags, Extractor, Ejector. Usually in that sequence with respect to their roles on reliability improvement. Assuming all of them are replaced, then you essentially have an stock G17 with aftermarket barrel, which is what a lot of people already do to their G17's anyway as a customization.

In the above scenario, you save money on the frame minus the ejector and the slide assembly minus the barrel.


In my opinion, in terms of versatility and flexibility, both P320 and Glock got that covered. The P320's modular design is more innovative and likely to be a trend for future pistol designs, but to work on the P320 trigger group is much more complicated than working with the Glock. The Glock has much less parts and it's very easy to work on.
 
Glock fan boy here, up until last week I would have told you the G17 gen 5.
I took an M17 out to the range last week. It is worlds better. I had been brushing off all the articles/videos coming up saying that Glocks are obsolete; I can no longer do that. I had assumed that the M17 won the US trials simply because of the price undercut; I also have done a 180 on that. Having used all the guns in the trial now, the M17 is the best choice.
The SIG is thoroughly modern, the Glock is at best 90s tech. Not to say they're not good, the M17 handling, and functionality is just superior.
In the long run, the SIG design is a little more complex but practically, no less reliable.
 
chip54321 said:
Hey everyone, apologies if this post has been done already.

Long story short, I'm thinking of getting a new handgun. I've narrowed it down to either a Sig Sauer M17 with no manual safety or a Glock 17 (maybe a 19x).

I've done research into the options, but most of the info I've found has said that the US military's testing returned similar results between both platforms, the Sig bid was just cheaper. Ergonomic wise most sources said they're similar, although the Glock has more aftermarket parts available on the market right now.

After my research, I'm still torn, so I wanted to get the community's thoughts.

Looking forward to hearing it!
Click to expand...

Get one or another, enjoy shooting (while you can).
 
thespen said:
Glock fan boy here, up until last week I would have told you the G17 gen 5.
I took an M17 out to the range last week. It is worlds better. I had been brushing off all the articles/videos coming up saying that Glocks are obsolete; I can no longer do that. I had assumed that the M17 won the US trials simply because of the price undercut; I also have done a 180 on that. Having used all the guns in the trial now, the M17 is the best choice.
The SIG is thoroughly modern, the Glock is at best 90s tech. Not to say they're not good, the M17 handling, and functionality is just superior.
In the long run, the SIG design is a little more complex but practically, no less reliable.
Click to expand...

thanks! Really appreciate this. My dad and brothers are big Glock guys as well, and they're trying to convince me to get the 17 gen 5, but I'm starting to think the m17 is better
 
thespen said:
Glock fan boy here, up until last week I would have told you the G17 gen 5.
I took an M17 out to the range last week. It is worlds better. I had been brushing off all the articles/videos coming up saying that Glocks are obsolete; I can no longer do that. I had assumed that the M17 won the US trials simply because of the price undercut; I also have done a 180 on that. Having used all the guns in the trial now, the M17 is the best choice.
The SIG is thoroughly modern, the Glock is at best 90s tech. Not to say they're not good, the M17 handling, and functionality is just superior.
In the long run, the SIG design is a little more complex but practically, no less reliable.
Click to expand...

up to the time accidents happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom