Glock vs Sigma--Whats the truth?

[Te Anau]

We all know that S&W lost a lawsuit against Glock concerning their Sigma and had to pay Glock royalties.Their triggers are dramatically different and holding a Sigma feels great while holding a Glock brings out the carpenter in me and makes me want to grab a hammer.Just how much of the Glock design was copied in a Sigma? 50%---70%---90%,does anyone know?

[45 Fu]

Not enough to make them good enough to justify the prices asked for them, even used. Now, since the Sigma line is not a "high dollar" firearm...I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.

[Handy]

The entire interior design of the lockwork and such are just about identical. Take the slides off both and they are appallingly similar.

While the original Sigmas got a deserved bad rep pretty quick, most people I know of with later guns don't have any complaints. Might not be such a bad sub-$300 gun. But there are lots of other choices, too.

[Tamara]

In all honesty, newer Sigmas tend to be perfectly functional guns. Pros: Their ergos are better for most folks than the Austrian wunderpistole, and they have conventional rifling to make reloaders happy. Cons: Nowhere near as many holsters, accessories, and aftermarket upgrade bits, and a truly horrific trigger, even when compared to the Glock.

[denfoote]

The truth is that the Sigma is better than the Glock!!
For one, Glocksters like to point out that the difference in price is a reflection on the quality of the firearm. This is patently false, because what they fail to mention is that a substantial part of the price of a Glock is import duties and other taxes that are being passed on to the consumer!! Sigmas are made here and the price reflects that!! I have tried in vain to find out what the import duty is on an individual Glock pistol. Nobody seems to know or want to disclose it!!

BTW, I currently have 5 Glocks and only one Sigma (SW40F).
I was greatly apprehensive about getting it, because I believed the hype put out by the rabid, Glock loving, community!!
What I found pleasantly surprised me.
Over 200 rounds of hardball and mixed hollow points and only one intentionally induced jam!!!

And yes, I know why S&W got sued!!! Field strip a Sigma, then a Glock, and you will know too!! ;)

[CZ75daddy0405]

"A Sigma is better than a Glock"? :confused: :eek: WOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Im still LMAO about that one! Glocks Rule the Handgun World! Maks come in a close second. :p

[Jim4003]

I have had both the sigma and a glock. The sigma was a 40 caliber that I carried on duty for about a year, this was the decision of the dept. I was with at the time and not mine. It replaced the 5906 we carried and almost everyone was disappointed myself included. The gun seemed cheap made and it didnt shoot very well. A couple of years later I purchased a Glock in 357 sig caliber. I got the gun for the caliber and not the gun. While it did seem better made than the sigma it was also a disappointment. Personally I would not care to own either one. My opinion is if you have to have polymer get a p-99 walther or sw-99 Smith.

[care-less]

I have had only one Sigma, and it was a great pistol. I have owned quite a few Glocks, and can see no particular Austrian supremacy. The Sigma was one of the very first run that everyone gripes about. Mine was excellent.

[xrageofangelsx]

What's the difference between the S&W-99 and the Walther P-99 if any?

[Tamara]

"A Sigma is better than a Glock"? :confused: :eek: WOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Im still LMAO about that one! Glocks Rule the Handgun World! Maks come in a close second. :p

Tamara's Rules of Gun Boards #3045: "If a review includes the words 'rule' or 'suck' or any derivative thereof, it is safe to disregard as specious." ;)

[CZ75daddy0405]

But Tam, Glocks do Rule. :p

[JohnKSa]

There are three things wrong with the Sigma.

1. It tries to be a Glock but doesn't quite make it. ;)
2. The trigger is truly awful.
3. The .380 version has a pot-metal slide.

Ok, really only the second item on the list is constructive criticism... :)

If you like the ergonomics and can stand the trigger then go for it. Just not the .380 version.

[Tamara]

3. The .380 version has a pot-metal slide.

The .380 version has, though, been out of production for the better part of a decade, along with its even more wretched self-destructing 9mm spinoff... Thankfully. :)

[maxmanta]

"What's the difference between the S&W-99 and the Walther P-99 if any?"

Just a minor change or two in the shape of the frame. They are, for all practical purposes, the same gun. Smith and Wesson now owns Walther so they can get away from it.

As far as the difference between a Glock and a Smegma,* the slide of one will work on the other, but not the other way around (I don't know which way it works). They're both ugly, but the Glock is a good kind of ugly, and the Smegma is a bad kind of ugly.

*"Smegma" is a derogatory word for a Sigma that somehow worked its way into my gun-vocabulary. I don't know where it came from.

[Tamara]

Smith and Wesson now owns Walther so they can get away from it.

Actually, Walther is owned by Umarex, a German manufacturer of airguns and bicycle luggage, among other things. Walther is Smith & Wesson's European distributor, and Smith & Wesson is Walther's US distributor. The relationship between the companies seemed to start after Umarex requested the rights to make and distribute CO2 replicas of S&W revolvers in Europe. From there came the collaboration on the SW99 (which has some differences with the P99, notably a stainless rather than carbon slide,) the redesign of the PPK/S, the R99 Le Chasse revolver made by S&W for Walther to sell on the European market, and others. It seems to have benefitted both companies greatly.

[Hkmp5sd]

I own two Glocks and two Sigmas and like them both. The ergonomics on the Sigma are better, IMO. On the other hand, my first generation Glock 17 has upwards of 70,000 rounds through it and still functions flawlessly with all original parts.

[denfoote]

Tamara's Rules of Gun Boards #3045: "If a review includes the words 'rule' or 'suck' or any derivative thereof, it is safe to disregard as specious."


Glocksters are hyper to the point of it interfering with their higher brain functions!!!
I should know. I used to be one myself!!

They are fun to tease, though!!! ;)
Mention that X is better than a Glock, then sit back and watch the sparks fly!!!! :D

[Tamara]

I should know. I used to be one myself!!

And will be again. ;) When it comes to guns, you're such a serial monogamist. :p

[denfoote]

Quite possibly, you may indeed be correct!!
However, I can take the teasing without suffering a catastrophic over pressurization of my cranial cavity!!! ;)

[RKBAadvocate]

"A Sigma is better than a Glock"? WOOO HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Im still LMAO about that one! Glocks Rule the Handgun World! Maks come in a close second.

No sir, actually SIGs rule the handgun world, followed closely by HK.

As far as Sigmas, they are fairly decent alternatives to Glocks save the SW380 when you factor their relatively low price. That being said, only about $100 more will get you a SIG Pro or an XD, both of which are FAR superior to the Sigma (and IMVHO better then the Glock).

[Te Anau]

If Sig, the XD and Beretta for that matter would lose their Brunerial (sp?) finish and go with tenifer they would be better guns.I wonder why S&W didnt go with a Glock like trigger if they were going to basically go with the rest of the design.???
Thanks for the replies.

[Handy]

Sig does use a finish that is pretty much like Tennifer.

[JohnKSa]

Handy,

I'll readily admit that I'm not a SIG expert by any means, but I've never heard that SIG is using a melonite/tenifer finish and the ones I've seen certainly don't. In fact, the only real criticism I've heard about the SIG pistols is their tendency to rust. Admittedly that's hearsay, but if they do rust, I think they don't use anything like the Glock/Walther P99 finish. The melonite/tenifer finish is virtually corrosion proof.

The dark finish on the Glock pistols is not the tenifer. The tenifer is actually a metal treatment, not really a finish in the conventional sense. The dark "overfinish" is either parkerizing or a teflon based finish--it's there primarily for cosmetic purposes. The tenifer is underneath and is a dull, gunmetal grey color.

[Handy]

John,

Most every surface treatment currently being used are variations on Nitro-carburizing with a black oxide step towards the end. The black is not integral to the process (observe the silver "Wonderfinish" Witness line), but is done as part of the quench, polish, quench step. Nor is the black rough in appearance, like parkerizing. That's just a bead blasted start to the process. On smooth metal the black is shiny and tough. Observation of a well used Glock barrel will reveal that the black could not possibly be a paint coating or rough parkerizing. It is shiny and incredibly tough.

As for Sigs, here's their blurb:
"What is Nitron?
Nitron is the proprietary name for our QPQ (quench purge quench) process that molecularly bonds the finish to the surface."
This the process that makes all their stainless steel slides black, and all of their current production has machined stainless slides except for the 220, 245, 225 and 228.

It is only under these extremes that you can get stainless steel to take a black oxide. And the process also resulted in some very hard steel. Sig has had a rash of extremely worn barrels due to the hardness of the Nitron slides rubbing on their non-Nitroned German barrels. Check out Sigforum.com for several threads on the subject.

As to the "melonite/tenifer finish is virtually corrosion proof" claim, check out HKPRO.com for threads about rust spots on HE'd USP slides (HE is almost identical to Glock's Tennifer).

I believe that Melonite is probably identical to Sig's process as both are done in the US, and on stainless slides (the SW99 slide is stainless).

[Ranger61]

I've got a Sigma SW40VE. I don't own a Glock at the moment but have fired several and I own 3 Steyrs an M9, M40, M357. My Sigma has about 1000 rds through and it has worked flawless with Gold dot, Golden Saber, Win Clean and my 175 lead SWC handloads. It has excellent feel, and pointability. Mine has the stainless slide and the fixed sights were right on. The trigger is not as good as the Glocks or my Steyrs but its been the best $260 handgun I've ever bought. :)

[JohnKSa]

Handy,

qpq is quench-polish-quench

Clearly the H&K and SIG process isn't "virtually identical" to the Glock tenifer if folks are having rusting problems with the H&Ks and SIGs. I've never heard of a single rust problem with any Glock--not on any forum or anywhere else. Not even after the black finish wears off leaving only the tenifer for protection. Not even after the owner dumps it in saltwater and comes back for it a few months later.

Perhaps some of the Glock parts (barrels?) are finished with a black oxide, but the slides up thru the second gen guns were parkerized. It's a pretty distinctive finish--hard to mistake for anything else. The 3rd gen guns have slides that appear to have a teflon based finish over the tenifer--just guessing there, but it's clearly NOT parkerizing and definitely looks and feels like some kind of teflon. In both cases, however, the slide finish isn't the same finish that is on the barrels.

As for the SIG finish, SIG on their website says that the process was developed exclusively for SIGARMS which, to my mind, implies it's not the same thing as tenifer.

It is also possible to control the depth that the nitriding treatments penetrate into the metal--it could be that the more corrosion resistant guns are given a deeper treatment. Dunno...

[Handy]

John,

I don't know why you're telling me about QPQ, I already stated it was quench, polish, quench in my second line.

I also have to wonder how familiar you are with the various finishes. I have an HK P9S with a parkerized slide, and it bares little resemblance to the deep black tone of a 2nd gen Glock slide (which looks identical to matte black oxide or matte blue). Phosphating does not come out black, but in metallic tones of grey. I think you are confusing Glock USA's method of re-finishing Glocks via phosphate with how the factory does it. It would be a bit strange if Glock used two seperate methods for the same result, and get identical corrosion resistance from both parts as a bonus. Even more strange, the breechface of a Glock slide is smooth and glossy black like the barrel - quite a feat for parkerizing.

The relative difference in effectiveness between Glock's and other line's finish has been often been a topic of debate. It is likely an issue of time and nitron penetration, as you say. Glocks, along with being very corrosion proof, are also a little more prone to brittleness, as evidenced by the occasional cracked breechface and chipped extractors, which would bear this out. Or it might be the base metal. Either way, the same process run for different periods is still the same process. A point you emphatically and recently made about anodizing, you might recall.

The point is simple: Nitriding with a forced black oxide in the QPQ is a proven and simple method which Glock introduced to the gun industry (it had been in use in other industry). With some variations, it is now being used by virtually everyone else because Steyr, HK, Sig, S&W, Walther and Tanfoglio aren't run by complete idiots. Sig, in particular, is into their second "exclusive" version of Nitron - now offering it on carbon steel as well. This exclusive service is performed off-site by a contractor.


Just because Ragu, Bertolli, and Five Brothers all offer their "exclusive" version of marinara, there is no reason to assume that they aren't all tomato sauce. Nitron is just the new Barilla on the block.

[JohnKSa]

Looking back, I see that it was the SIG quote in your post that defined QPQ as Quench-Purge-Quench. If that's really true and not just a typo on their part, that's the second bit of data from SIG implying that their process is different.

Glock may have introduced the nitro-carburizing process to the gun industry, but their initial guns had no black finish at all--they were left the gunmetal-grey color of unfinished tenifer.

Parkerizing varies from black to green according to various sources on the web. That goes along with my experience--I've actually seen a few parkerized finish guns--I even have a few in my safe. ;)It would be a bit strange if Glock used two seperate methods for the same result, and get identical corrosion resistance from both parts as a bonus. Even more strange, the breechface of a Glock slide is smooth and glossy black like the barrel - quite a feat for parkerizing.Well, I always figured the corrosion resistance was primarily a function of the underlying metal treatment, not the black finish. Especially since the black wearing off has no apparent effect on the corrosion resistance. The breechfaces on my 2nd Gen glocks are not smooth and glossy black. They are primarily metal-colored with traces of a black finish that appears to have been mostly polished off at the factory. The idea that a finish must be uniform over an entire part is kind of surprising to me--clearly barrels aren't typically finished on the inside--I assume that's not a tremendous technological feat. :) In this case though, it looks like they simply polished the breechface after the finish was applied.

The concept that the glock is parkerized over tenifer is not at all MY idea. A little time with google will turn up references such as finishing shops offering parkerizing to "match the original glock finish", gssf techdata mentioning the phosphate/parkerized finish in passing (in the context of polishing it off--interestingly enough) and innumerable references by other gun afficionados and experts who, apparently like me, must not be very "familiar with the various finishes." ;)

[Handy]

John,

You know:

1. That black oxide can be applied as part of this finish (like on the barrels, which are black on the inside, btw :) ).

2. That matte blue or matte black oxide produces a finish identical to that of old Glocks (look at a blued Baby Eagle, for instance) and of the new Sigs, which must have matte black oxide, as you can't phosphate stainless.

3. That the internet is full of BS websites.

And yet you're clinging to the unsubstantiated theory that Glock, the kings of low production cost, use two, seperate, processes for finishing their black parts, increasing the number of production steps and unit cost. And you also seem to believe that every other company reinvents the wheel with their "exclusive" finishes. Why are you fighting the simplest explanation on the word non-factory enthusiasts?

Everytime this topic comes up, everyone insists that the slide is parked, and then invents 20 different explanations for the barrel finish, the polished black finish on portions of the slide and how Glock seems to go out of it's way to put an unnecessary phosphate coating on a corrosion proof steel slide. My favorite was the guy who insisted that the barrel is black because the heat treated it, then somehow traditionally blued the corrosion proof barrel! I guess people just hate simple explanations.

[Handy]

You can do the same research, but this common finishing method is generally know under the trade name "Tufftride".

http://www.chalivothermiki.gr/nea_methodos_eng.htm

"TUFFTRIDE - Q + P + Q - is the finish for obtaining
greatest corrosion resistance
a decorative black surface
extremely low light reflection
high quality surface cosmetics"

a decorative black surface
All done as part of the QPQ, specifically called oxidation cooling.

[Te Anau]

Whatever SIG uses its inadequate and the same could be said for XD's.A friend of mine literally rubbed the finish right off of his new XD shortly after getting it.He promptly sold the gun.

[JohnKSa]

Handy,

As you, yourself pointed out, the black oxide is not a mandatory part of the tenifer process. I've seen the Tufftride description in the research that I've done--you seem to be retracing my steps to some extent, so I think it's safe to say that you've also come across the description of the TWO tenifer processes--one that leaves a black finish and one that does not.

My comments about not finishing the inside of barrels was general--not directed toward Glocks (thus the word "typically"). You're right that the barrel seems to have a different finish than the slide. I have no evidence to support this from any source, but it seems reasonable to me that Glock uses the black-oxide finish on the barrel. I'll even go so far as to speculate (again without any supporting evidence) that perhaps that's what they've gone to on the newer slides--although it looks more like teflon to me.

I've seen enough parkerizing that I'm not going to confuse it with any other finish-it has some very distinctive properties that are pretty unmistakable. Besides, we have the reference by a glock affiliate (gssf) to the parkerizing/phosphate finish over the tenifer and we also see shops specializing in gun finishing who are advertising that they can match the black finish with parkerizing.

And lastly, the fact that Glock will re-apply the black coating if it becomes worn should be decisive. I've never seen anything that suggests that a metal part can be re-treated with the tenifer process--in fact, I've seen it specifically stated that Glock will reapply the black overcoating but can not retreat a part with the tenifer process. (That it DOES become worn is also telling as the black-oxide from the QPQ process should be nearly as tough--if not tougher--than the underlying nitrocarburized steel.)

So, what have we got?

SIG claims their process is exclusive and the black coloring is integral to the process.

Glock affiliates claim that the tenifer process does not impart a black coloring--borne out by the earliest imports which did not have a black finish.

Glock will reapply the black overcoating as a separate process.

Complaints about SIGs rusting are easy to find.

Complaints about Glocks rusting are non-existant.

..and the explanation is that the two finishes are "basically the same"? Simple? Perhaps. Consistent with the evidence? Not a chance.

It may be that SIG and others are ATTEMPTING to duplicate the properties of the Glock finish. If that's the case, I'd have to say (and I feel very confident saying) that they're not getting it right. ;)

[RKBAadvocate]

I'm a diehard, unapologetic SIG fan that maintains the SIG P226 is the finest combat handgun ever made, but even I'll admit the SIG finish sucks (not so much the Nitron).

After about 9 months of carry, the 226 I had looked as though it was stainless.

The rest of the gun more then makes up for this.

[JohnKSa]

I'm sorry if I've given the impression that this finish debate is a Glock vs SIG thing.

It's true that I like Glocks and it's also true that SIGs just don't do anything for me but that is primarily a personal preference, not an assessment of relative superiority.

The SIGs are fine weapons, as are the Glocks--both have a lot of strong points and both have a few "Achilles Heels". That really ought to go without saying--I don't own any perfect handguns--and that's because I've never seen one for sale!

[Handy]

John,

I'll call Glock monday and try and find someone who knows what they're talking about. Every phosphate reference I found today is almost a word for word reprint of the last. Disinformation breeds. I did find plenty of people on Glocktalk that state "black oxide" as fact, but we all know what that's worth.

I wonder if you might comment why you think Glock takes their apparently in-the-white slides out of the salt bath and puts them in a low temp phosphate tank, followed by coloring (instead of running them through the same step they did their barrels with)?

[JohnKSa]

I wonder if you might comment why you think Glock takes their apparently in-the-white slides out of the salt bath and puts them in a low temp phosphate tank, followed by coloring (instead of running them through the same step they did their barrels with)?Some guesses--pure speculation here:

1. It gives them the ability to recoat the slides if the black wears off. My understanding is that it's not possible to simply re-treat the item to renew the black-oxide color if it wears off. Of course that's kind of circular because whatever they're coating the barrels with seems far more durable than the over-coating on the slide... (more evidence that the slides are finished differently.)

2. Perhaps the polish and additional treatment for the black-oxide is more expensive than the parkerizing. I don't believe the non-black tenifer requires a polishing step and skips the second quench.

3. Perhaps the outside cosmetic finish was specified by the Austrian military contract they were competing for.

Your guess is as good as mine.

[Handy]

Well, the Glock USA rep, after first having me tell her that the black stuff isn't "tenifer", did some consulting with her collegues. They decided that both the slide AND barrel are covered in phosphate.

I'll eat my hat if that shiny black barrel (inside and out) has phosphate on it. So I don't think I got an answer worth anything.

[JohnKSa]

Handy,

I had a lull today and called them as well.

The tech I got also said that the black coating was not tenifer. He added to that by saying that the tenifer was "colorless and odorless" (no kidding he really said odorless :rolleyes: ) and that the black was a "poly-phosphate" which he described as a "super-parkerizing"--whatever the heck THAT means...

He confirmed that there was a change between the 2nd and 3rd Gen black overcoatings but said that the 3rd gen finish was still a "poly-phosphate" finish "with a different chemical makeup" (???!).

He also said that the barrel had the same finish as the slide--"they go in the same vat" were his exact words, and thought that the difference in appearance was due to the barrels being polished/being smoother than the slides.

He confirmed that Glock will reapply the black coating if it wears off.

There you go--for what it's worth--and frankly I'm not sure how much that is. I must admit that I'm very skeptical about the idea that the slide and barrel have the same finish. I also have this funny feeling that if I called back tomorrow and got a different tech, I'd also get a different story.

[Tommy Vercetti]

I'd go for the Glock everytime :D

[Dpswan]

I used to work for a police department that issues Sigmas. I was scared to death!!!! Our police force was 105 officers, and 90% of us had problems. Mine malfunctioned every time I qualified with it, as did most people's. Then, it started locking open in mid magazine. They started replacing them with the "newer" Sigma version, but those went into three round bursts with a single trigger pull. I would stay clear of S&W Sigma's if you are looking for a self defense weapon. I won't touch anything with S&W on it anymore.