Glock vs Sigma--Whats the truth?

Te Anau · September 22, 2004, 01:53 PM

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 · September 22, 2004, 02:20 PM

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 · September 22, 2004, 03:12 PM

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** · September 22, 2004, 03:45 PM

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 · September 22, 2004, 03:58 PM

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 · September 22, 2004, 04:09 PM

"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.

Jim4003 · September 22, 2004, 05:22 PM

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 · September 22, 2004, 07:32 PM

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 · September 22, 2004, 08:37 PM

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

**Tamara** · September 22, 2004, 09:01 PM

Quote:

"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.

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 · September 22, 2004, 09:43 PM

But Tam, Glocks do Rule.

**JohnKSa** · September 22, 2004, 10:26 PM

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** · September 22, 2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

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 · September 22, 2004, 11:20 PM

"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** · September 23, 2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

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 · September 23, 2004, 12:46 PM

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 · September 23, 2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

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!!!!

**Tamara** · September 23, 2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

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

And will be again.

When it comes to guns, you're such a serial monogamist.

denfoote · September 24, 2004, 06:03 AM

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

RKBAadvocate · September 24, 2004, 06:15 AM

Quote:

"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 · September 24, 2004, 01:57 PM

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 · September 24, 2004, 03:13 PM

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

**JohnKSa** · September 24, 2004, 08:33 PM

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 · September 24, 2004, 10:45 PM

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 · September 24, 2004, 11:37 PM

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.

September 22, 2004, 01:53 PM	#1
Te Anau Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2004 Location: Somewhere south of the North pole Posts: 3,142	Glock vs Sigma--Whats the truth? 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?

September 22, 2004, 03:45 PM	#4
Tamara Staff Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 15,527	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. __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

September 22, 2004, 03:58 PM	#5
denfoote Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 1999 Location: Buckeye Arizona Posts: 5,363	The truth. 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!! __________________ Ich bin kein Nationalsozialist!!!!!! Ich bin Republikaner!!!!!!!! Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset. Arizona: Flush the Johns!!!

September 22, 2004, 04:09 PM	#6
CZ75daddy0405 Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2002 Location: WAR EAGLE COUNTRY! Posts: 116	"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. __________________ CZ 75s Rule! icasualties.org

September 22, 2004, 08:37 PM	#9
xrageofangelsx Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2004 Location: Ohio, Indiana and sometimes Kentucky. Posts: 409	What's the difference between the S&W-99 and the Walther P-99 if any? __________________ Caution: Author suffers from foot in mouth disease.

September 22, 2004, 02:20 PM	#2
45 Fu Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Posts: 422	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.

September 22, 2004, 03:12 PM	#3
Handy Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,793	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.

September 22, 2004, 05:22 PM	#7
Jim4003 Member Join Date: September 18, 2004 Location: Virginia Posts: 76	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.

September 22, 2004, 07:32 PM	#8
care-less Senior Member Join Date: June 6, 2004 Posts: 127	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.

September 22, 2004, 09:43 PM	#11
CZ75daddy0405 Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2002 Location: WAR EAGLE COUNTRY! Posts: 116	But Tam, Glocks do Rule. __________________ CZ 75s Rule! icasualties.org

September 22, 2004, 10:26 PM	#12
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 12,202	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.

September 22, 2004, 11:20 PM	#14
maxmanta Member Join Date: August 27, 2004 Posts: 52	"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. __________________ The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

September 23, 2004, 12:46 PM	#16
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,214	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. __________________ NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member

September 24, 2004, 06:03 AM	#19
denfoote Senior Member Join Date: November 12, 1999 Location: Buckeye Arizona Posts: 5,363	Tamara, Quite possibly, you may indeed be correct!! However, I can take the teasing without suffering a catastrophic over pressurization of my cranial cavity!!! __________________ Ich bin kein Nationalsozialist!!!!!! Ich bin Republikaner!!!!!!!! Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset. Arizona: Flush the Johns!!!

September 24, 2004, 01:57 PM	#21
Te Anau Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2004 Location: Somewhere south of the North pole Posts: 3,142	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.

September 24, 2004, 03:13 PM	#22
Handy Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,793	Sig does use a finish that is pretty much like Tennifer.

September 24, 2004, 08:33 PM	#23
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 12,202	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.

September 24, 2004, 10:45 PM	#24
Handy Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,793	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).

September 24, 2004, 11:37 PM	#25
Ranger61 Senior Member Join Date: September 3, 2004 Posts: 213	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.