Smith & Wesson Sigma SW9VE VS. Glock 17

[Coach588]

Hi, so I'm new to working with pistols. Before the course I took all I have ever dealt with was shotguns and rifles. Now that I have gained a larger interest in pistols I was wondering if a few people could give me some advice along with pro's and con's of both the S&W sigma and the Glock 17. For the course I took we where working with the Glock 22 but I'm looking for a 9mm pistol to practice with along with home defense. Looking to get a solid pistol that first isn't gona cost me to much as it is going to be my first pistol along it being something I can work with for the next few years.
So any advice that you could give would be greatly accepted along with other suggestions on other pistols.

[Kyle Reese]

First, welcome aboard! :cool:

To answer your question, I think that the most prudent choice would be a Glock 17 (Gen 3). It's a proven sidearm with excellent aftermarket and factory support, relatively easy to work on, and parts / magazines / holster options abound for the Glock.

Your basis for choosing a 9mm sidearm is also a sound one. No reason to shoot a more expensive caliber unless you are mandated to (and have practice ammo provided by said agency).

I would not recommend the Sigma unless I had no other option for a sidearm. They are essentially a Glock clone, and a poor one at that. No reason to not get the real thing. :)

Hope this helps!

[VolGrad]

I was wondering if a few people could give me some advice along with pro's and con's of both the S&W sigma and the Glock 17.
S&W Sigma
Pro: very inexpensive
Con: too many to list

G17
Pro: too many too list
Con: none

Hope this helps. :cool:

[John Ralston]

Getting a good Holster for the Sigma may prove difficult as well.

Also, you can get a Police Trade In Glock for about the same $$$.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Odin Bravo One]

The Sigma is one of S&W's worst guns ever.

You (American Taxpayer) have bought several thousand Sigma's for the Afghan MOI organizations (LE at various levels), and they suck as bad as the guys carrying them. More problems than I am willing to type out. I would put the Sigma a very small step above a Hi-Point. It may be inexpensive, but you will pay in the long run, either by relying on it when you shouldn't, or by buying a new gun because the one you thought you were saving money on was so unreliable and broke so often that you got tired of paying a gunsmith $75 a pop to fix it.

Glocks have a proven track record of acceptable performance and reliability by both Foreign and Domestic LE Agencies and Military units at home and around the world. And the price point of a Glock 17/19 is low enough that it is affordable for just about anyone who can afford a Sigma.

[jslaker]

The M&P is much closer to the Glock both in terms of quality and price than the Sigma series, which is two steps down in S&W's product line.

[ranburr]

I was wondering if a few people could give me some advice along with pro's and con's of both the S&W sigma and the Glock 17.

Really, really?:rolleyes:

[JDM]

Really, really?:rolleyes:

This is not helpful, nor called for.


To the OP- avoid the Sigma line like the plague. Many many better options exist starting with the other pistol you mentioned in your post.

If price is of concern, do not be afraid of used Glocks. Lots of people buy guns and never shoot them, or shoot them very little, and create some excellent bargains in the process.

[JM Campbell]

http://www.summitgunbroker.com/Glock_17__369.html

call and check regularly you can get a great deal on a police trade in

[orionz06]

For Glocks and M&P's I find it very hard to wanna buy them new. Generally speaking they are 10 minutes and $10 worth of springs away from being "new" enough for me.

[JDM]

For Glocks and M&P's I find it very hard to wanna buy them new. Generally speaking they are 10 minutes and $10 worth of springs away from being "new" enough for me.

I quite like this line.

[Kyle Reese]

Really, really?:rolleyes:

Yes, really. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to this thread, please refrain from rendering comment. This person asked a valid question, and there's no reason to get snarky with them.

[Super J]

The Glock gets my vote

[ranburr]

Yes, really. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to this thread, please refrain from rendering comment. This person asked a valid question, and there's no reason to get snarky with them.

It is called a joke. There was no snarkiness intended. I actually thought he was trying to pull everyone's leg with a joke.

[JM Campbell]

First line in the OP post

[Kyle Reese]

It is called a joke. There was no snarkiness intended. I actually thought he was trying to pull everyone's leg with a joke.

No one else perceived it as such.

If you have any further issues / comments, PM me. I don't want this thread to be further diluted.

[TCinVA]

The Sigma is one of S&W's worst guns ever.

You (American Taxpayer) have bought several thousand Sigma's for the Afghan MOI organizations (LE at various levels), and they suck as bad as the guys carrying them. More problems than I am willing to type out. I would put the Sigma a very small step above a Hi-Point. It may be inexpensive, but you will pay in the long run, either by relying on it when you shouldn't, or by buying a new gun because the one you thought you were saving money on was so unreliable and broke so often that you got tired of paying a gunsmith $75 a pop to fix it.

Glocks have a proven track record of acceptable performance and reliability by both Foreign and Domestic LE Agencies and Military units at home and around the world. And the price point of a Glock 17/19 is low enough that it is affordable for just about anyone who can afford a Sigma.

I think there's a sage principle here for every potential purchaser out there to consider:

There is a significant step down in the quality and durability of most handguns in the Sigma's price range relative to the Glock price range. The difference of (in the gun shops in my area) of $125 bucks isn't much in money, but it is enormous in terms of the functional utility of what you're buying.

[will_1400]

Easy day: Glock 17. The only good thing I can say about the Sigma is it ain't a Hi Point.

[WDW]

Another vote for the G17. I did some testing on a Sigma once, and it is definitely a waste of money. My Father-in-Law makes really good money, but is super cheap, so he bought a Sigma. I borrowed it and put 3,000rds through it and got alot of immediate action drill practice as a result. The lugs on the barrel looked like a gun with 50,000 rds through it, and the trigger felt like it had sand poured into the housing. A Sigma cost around $350 after Tax+Background Check. A good used Glock runs around $400 and sometimes less if you buy privately. Do yourself a favor and get a Glock. I would recommend the 19 though.

[Chuck Haggard]

Something like 15 years ago my department's rangemaster decided to start issuing 9mm Sigmas instead of the approved 3rd gen S&W 9mms like the 5906. We wanted Glocks, but that was during the whole Clinton/S&W deal, and our mayor was a Democrat.

We have over 100 guns on the street before things got so bad we pulled them as an approved gun. Down the road in KCMO they were issuing the Sigma .40s, with the same results.

Those guns broke or choked so often I can't begin to give you a number of incidents.

[mlk18]

While the Glock 17 and the Sigma 9mm are not in the same class, the new SW9VE product line is NOT the same as the old SW9F line. After hearing so much harping and whining when the word Sigma was spoken I decided to buy one. Picked it up for $225 after the mail in rebate. I did a fluff-n-buff to smooth out the trigger and have put a solid 3,000 rounds down range; no malfunctions, no parts breakages, no issues at all. The SW9VE, SD9 and M&P9 are a good, better, best situation that all comes down to what you are willing or able to spend. I would personally recommend the M&P9 or SD9, but if all you can afford is the SW9VE; it will do the job you need it to do.

[jslaker]

Conversely, I know somebody that bought a new SW9VE within the last couple of years. I was at the range with him within the first few hundred rounds through the gun when he started getting constant FTEs. I looked at the gun for him an immediately spotted a broken extractor. The claw was just broken off entirely.*

Off to S&W it goes.

It gets back and the next range trip is plagued by FTFs with rounds visibly jamming nose dived in the magazine.

Maybe he just got an exceptionally bad copy, but given the reputations those guns already had, it's enough for me to swear them off entirely.

ETA:

* this was brass cased ammo, as well, FWIW. So there's no blaming it on steel cased Wolf or the like.

[mongooseman]

Sigma has a horrible trigger, to be blunt about it. A used Glock would be a much better investment and I think it would take a LOT of abuse to damage one in 9mm. Parts and armorers are everywhere. Go with the Glock.

[Kyle Reese]

I would personally recommend the M&P9 or SD9, but if all you can afford is the SW9VE; it will do the job you need it to do.

You can pick up a used 9mm Glock in the $300s, if you shop around. No reason to go with anything else, IMHO.

[JDM]

You can pick up a used 9mm Glock in the $300s, if you shop around. No reason to go with anything else, IMHO.

This.

A LGS here in Albuquerque has police trade in 2nd Gen 17s with night sites and 2 high-caps for $399. Very lightly used.

[mlk18]

You can pick up a used 9mm Glock in the $300s, if you shop around. No reason to go with anything else, IMHO.

$300 Glocks are few and far between. Well used Glocks are really much closer to $400 (like $399 per BOM). My SW9VE was $225 after rebate with two 16 round magazines. What I said was if all you could afford was the SW9VE it will do the job. When you have very little money and fear for your safety (and/or your family's safety) $225 is a lot easier to come by than $400. Even if the Glock is the superior gun (which I am sure we all agree it is).

[Coach588]

Thanks everyone, right now I've got the money for a glock, just taking some time to see if I like the 17 or 19. Right now I'm 19 so size isn't something I'm worried about as I can not get my CCW yet. So as of now I'm practicing with rented glock 17's and glock 19's. Thanks!

[jslaker]

Thanks everyone, right now I've got the money for a glock, just taking some time to see if I like the 17 or 19. Right now I'm 19 so size isn't something I'm worried about as I can not get my CCW yet. So as of now I'm practicing with rented glock 17's and glock 19's. Thanks!

If it's going to be a range piece for the immediate future, I'd lean toward the 17. I feel the 19 is a better all around choice if carry is a consideration, but by time it will be for you, you'll be better able to evaluate whether the Glock is the right platform in general for you. I wish I'd had the chance to start learning when you are. :)

[WDW]

I would recommend the 19. The hump on the backstrap of the 17 tends to sit in the bottom of the palm, whereas on the 19 it fits right in the cushion of the palm, leading towards better ergos. This may or may not improve your shooting or be your preference. I know I had both a 17 and 19, and after alot of shooting I realized I shot way better with the 19, so the 17 went bye bye.

[gregorydearth]

It seems you are getting no real information here as everyone posting so far seems to be Glock-lovers. Not that the Glock's don't deserve it, but you are asking about a sub-$300 gun and they are talking about a $600 gun (or a used one that a cop has probably wrecked). I will take a consumerist approach to the comparison of the SW9VE to the Glock 17.

I have been using a SW9VE for several months now. I have fired Glocks and other firearms as well and prefer the natural angle of the grip on the sigma and the ugly-but-stabilizing thumb rest that sticks out from it. Using a typical law-enforcement-style thumb-over-thumb grip I can get excellent groupings that tend to just be large holes (where each round overlaps the area of the target creating a larger, ugly hole).

To make an unbiased decision (as I don't personally care either way), I would say fire both if you can, see which one fits your hand better, and ask yourself if you are willing to buy a USED Glock for the cost of a NEW Sigma or simply pay twice as much for the closest equivalent Glock product (or just buy the better Smith and Wesson M&P of the same higher price).

The owner of a new Glock G17 will not have to mess with their front sights. The Sigma's front sight is often shipped off-centered (noticeably) and are cheaply epoxy-ed into the slide. Now, the Sigmas will take a Glock-compliant front sight, which have a nice hex screw to hold the sight in place. $25 fix. Done. Still less than $600.

I have seen people complain that the Sigma is an ugly gun. I am shocked that appearance would play into someone's logic in buying a defense firearm. Is the Glock G17 pretty? No. It has a basic, militant look that I dare say is a small bit uglier than the Sigma (oh no! Now the Glock lovers will hate me). Don't buy a Sigma if you are a gun collector and want to mount it in a glass case on a wall in your man-cave to brag about. It IS ugly. The handle is a weird shade of grey and seems big compared with the proportions of the slide, which is stainless silver. The handle also is flat and straight with bumps only for your thumbs and index webbing to rub against. This makes for an unattractive firearm. Buy a Sigma because it is a safe defense gun that is backed by a strong American company and won't break the bank for those of us that do not want to buy our firearms from pawn shops. The M&P is not much prettier, by the way, but the handle to slide proportion seems more balanced and their finish is superior.

The Sigma is NOT a poorly duplicated G17. Rather the similarity that resulted in the lawsuit between Glock and SW was resolved. A Sigma is still a Smith and Wesson, after all. Mechanical issues will be non-existent, just like with a Glock. They are BOTH high-quality manufacturers, despite Sigma's cheap plastic front sight issue. SW created the Sigma with a vast number of similarities to the G17 because of convergent design (not really that intentional). Two excellent manufacturers of the same specific product will likely eventually develop the exact same product at some point with only minor appearance differences. A Motorola Android Smartphone and a Samsung Android Smartphone are virtually identical on the INSIDE and function identically for the user, and yet Motorola is not suing Samsung because they understand convergent design better than gun manufacturers (evidently).

Fact: The only similarity that Glock actually agreed to be satisfactory for settlement upon correction was for SW to remove the surface located below the sear in the Sigma. All of the other similarities between the two firearms are 'common' and would be like suing another auto manufacturer for including 4 wheels and windshield wipers with their cars. Still, Glock threatened dealers that they would terminate contract agreements if the dealer continued selling Smith and Wesson PRODUCTS, not just focusing on the Sigma series. This caused the the apparent influx of Glocks since most dealers gave in to the threat. It wasn't that the Glocks were better, it was that the Smith and Wessons were pushed out of the market for being similar.

Think about the money aspect and the arguement is pretty academic otherwise. Both are good firearms. One is more popular and costs more. That is it. Smith and Wesson is a US manufacturer that has been making law-enforcement firearms since 1852. Glock was founded in 1963 in Austria and did not get into gun manufacturing until the 1980's. Prior to that they were know for their excellent (and probably over priced) door knobs, hinges and other hardware.

See how that sits with you as well before investing in the Glock brand. If I could afford $600 for a handgun I would have bought SW's MP instead of the Sigma. That is more comparable (reputation-wise) with the popular Glocks. The M&P is a vastly more polished product. For $569 you get a full-size high capacity 9mm that feels more professional. The truth is, Glock does not make an entry-level or economy-class $300 firearm. Sigma is to Acura as Glock is to Saab. You cannot buy a cheap Saab unless it is on its last leg used. And a brand-new Acura is a reliable product.

[ToddG]

It seems you are getting no real information here as everyone posting so far seems to be Glock-lovers.

At least two people (SeanM (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1163-Smith-amp-Wesson-Sigma-SW9VE-VS-Glock-17&p=18845&viewfull=1#post18845) and tpd223 (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1163-Smith-amp-Wesson-Sigma-SW9VE-VS-Glock-17&p=19037&viewfull=1#post19037)) relayed information from substantial numbers of Sigmas.

Furthermore, many of the people in this thread who commented in favor of the Glock over the Sigma don't even carry Glocks themselves. Calling them "fanboys" is uncalled for and not the kind of behavior we expect around here.


I have been using a SW9VE for several months now.

I expect that will generate some comments...

[JConn]

Disclosure: I shoot Glocks and like them. However they are tools and if something did the job just as well and cheaper I would use it. Another disclosure: I am not a really high volume shooter. I shoot 750 to 1000 rounds per month (although that number keeps growing). A used Glock, is very likely more than up to the task of handling my shooting schedule for a long, long time.

I belive in learning from those with much more experience than I have. The SMEs on this forum are incredibly knowledgeable, and when someone like SeanM says Sigmas suck, I take his word for it, period. There is no reason to go out and try to find the bargain bin gun that is "just as good." if that gun was out there, it would be in use everywhere.

A police trade in/used Glock for around 400 is a great choice for any new shooter. I've put a fair amount of rounds through both 17s and 19s, just pick the one you like better. Each has their good and bad points but they are both great carry/duty pistols.

[JConn]

I expect that will generate some comments...

It will, but just as a note to the poster in question. It is pretty standard to use "number of rounds fired" when giving your experience with a firearm, not the amount of time you have owned it. This is not meant to be mean, I'm just providing info.

[JonInWA]

It seems you are getting no real information here as everyone posting so far seems to be Glock-lovers. Not that the Glock's don't deserve it, but you are asking about a sub-$300 gun and they are talking about a $600 gun (or a used one that a cop has probably wrecked). I will take a consumerist approach to the comparison of the SW9VE to the Glock 17.

I have been using a SW9VE for several months now. I have fired Glocks and other firearms as well and prefer the natural angle of the grip on the sigma and the ugly-but-stabilizing thumb rest that sticks out from it. Using a typical law-enforcement-style thumb-over-thumb grip I can get excellent groupings that tend to just be large holes (where each round overlaps the area of the target creating a larger, ugly hole).

To make an unbiased decision (as I don't personally care either way), I would say fire both if you can, see which one fits your hand better, and ask yourself if you are willing to buy a USED Glock for the cost of a NEW Sigma or simply pay twice as much for the closest equivalent Glock product (or just buy the better Smith and Wesson M&P of the same higher price).

The owner of a new Glock G17 will not have to mess with their front sights. The Sigma's front sight is often shipped off-centered (noticeably) and are cheaply epoxy-ed into the slide. Now, the Sigmas will take a Glock-compliant front sight, which have a nice hex screw to hold the sight in place. $25 fix. Done. Still less than $600.

I have seen people complain that the Sigma is an ugly gun. I am shocked that appearance would play into someone's logic in buying a defense firearm. Is the Glock G17 pretty? No. It has a basic, militant look that I dare say is a small bit uglier than the Sigma (oh no! Now the Glock lovers will hate me). Don't buy a Sigma if you are a gun collector and want to mount it in a glass case on a wall in your man-cave to brag about. It IS ugly. The handle is a weird shade of grey and seems big compared with the proportions of the slide, which is stainless silver. The handle also is flat and straight with bumps only for your thumbs and index webbing to rub against. This makes for an unattractive firearm. Buy a Sigma because it is a safe defense gun that is backed by a strong American company and won't break the bank for those of us that do not want to buy our firearms from pawn shops. The M&P is not much prettier, by the way, but the handle to slide proportion seems more balanced and their finish is superior.

The Sigma is NOT a poorly duplicated G17. Rather the similarity that resulted in the lawsuit between Glock and SW was resolved. A Sigma is still a Smith and Wesson, after all. Mechanical issues will be non-existent, just like with a Glock. They are BOTH high-quality manufacturers, despite Sigma's cheap plastic front sight issue. SW created the Sigma with a vast number of similarities to the G17 because of convergent design (not really that intentional). Two excellent manufacturers of the same specific product will likely eventually develop the exact same product at some point with only minor appearance differences. A Motorola Android Smartphone and a Samsung Android Smartphone are virtually identical on the INSIDE and function identically for the user, and yet Motorola is not suing Samsung because they understand convergent design better than gun manufacturers (evidently).

Fact: The only similarity that Glock actually agreed to be satisfactory for settlement upon correction was for SW to remove the surface located below the sear in the Sigma. All of the other similarities between the two firearms are 'common' and would be like suing another auto manufacturer for including 4 wheels and windshield wipers with their cars. Still, Glock threatened dealers that they would terminate contract agreements if the dealer continued selling Smith and Wesson PRODUCTS, not just focusing on the Sigma series. This caused the the apparent influx of Glocks since most dealers gave in to the threat. It wasn't that the Glocks were better, it was that the Smith and Wessons were pushed out of the market for being similar.

Think about the money aspect and the arguement is pretty academic otherwise. Both are good firearms. One is more popular and costs more. That is it. Smith and Wesson is a US manufacturer that has been making law-enforcement firearms since 1852. Glock was founded in 1963 in Austria and did not get into gun manufacturing until the 1980's. Prior to that they were know for their excellent (and probably over priced) door knobs, hinges and other hardware.

See how that sits with you as well before investing in the Glock brand. If I could afford $600 for a handgun I would have bought SW's MP instead of the Sigma. That is more comparable (reputation-wise) with the popular Glocks. The M&P is a vastly more polished product. For $569 you get a full-size high capacity 9mm that feels more professional. The truth is, Glock does not make an entry-level or economy-class $300 firearm. Sigma is to Acura as Glock is to Saab. You cannot buy a cheap Saab unless it is on its last leg used. And a brand-new Acura is a reliable product.

I will respectfully suggest that there is far too much expertise and experience on this forum to run this sort of a posting up the flagpole. It is simply rife with inaccuracies, suppositions, and unestablished and unsubstantiated personal preferences masquerading as knowledge. This is not the group to do it with-especially as an unknown (your profile reveals no information on your background or expertise), especially as a first post on the forum, especially because you're inferentially slamming thread contributing participants of established veracity. You would be well served to establish your background and bona-fides, and then contribute in a more measured, objective fashion. Personal opinions are valued, but you've got some credibility to establish before a posting like this.

Best, Jon

[DanH]

A Motorola Android Smartphone and a Samsung Android Smartphone are virtually identical on the INSIDE and function identically for the user, and yet Motorola is not suing Samsung because they understand convergent design better than gun manufacturers (evidently).



The Glock vs S&W case is completely different from anything involving Motorola and Samsung. A Motorola and Samsung Android phone work the same on the inside because of the "Android" part. They don't sue each other over this because neither company owns that part of the phone, they license it from Google. A more accurate comparison to the Glock vs S&W lawsuit would be Apple iPhone/iPad vs Samsung Galaxy, which is currently being played out in courtrooms all around the world.

[will_1400]

It seems you are getting no real information here as everyone posting so far seems to be Glock-lovers. Not that the Glock's don't deserve it, but you are asking about a sub-$300 gun and they are talking about a $600 gun (or a used one that a cop has probably wrecked). I will take a consumerist approach to the comparison of the SW9VE to the Glock 17.

I have been using a SW9VE for several months now. I have fired Glocks and other firearms as well and prefer the natural angle of the grip on the sigma and the ugly-but-stabilizing thumb rest that sticks out from it. Using a typical law-enforcement-style thumb-over-thumb grip I can get excellent groupings that tend to just be large holes (where each round overlaps the area of the target creating a larger, ugly hole).

To make an unbiased decision (as I don't personally care either way), I would say fire both if you can, see which one fits your hand better, and ask yourself if you are willing to buy a USED Glock for the cost of a NEW Sigma or simply pay twice as much for the closest equivalent Glock product (or just buy the better Smith and Wesson M&P of the same higher price).

The owner of a new Glock G17 will not have to mess with their front sights. The Sigma's front sight is often shipped off-centered (noticeably) and are cheaply epoxy-ed into the slide. Now, the Sigmas will take a Glock-compliant front sight, which have a nice hex screw to hold the sight in place. $25 fix. Done. Still less than $600.

I have seen people complain that the Sigma is an ugly gun. I am shocked that appearance would play into someone's logic in buying a defense firearm. Is the Glock G17 pretty? No. It has a basic, militant look that I dare say is a small bit uglier than the Sigma (oh no! Now the Glock lovers will hate me). Don't buy a Sigma if you are a gun collector and want to mount it in a glass case on a wall in your man-cave to brag about. It IS ugly. The handle is a weird shade of grey and seems big compared with the proportions of the slide, which is stainless silver. The handle also is flat and straight with bumps only for your thumbs and index webbing to rub against. This makes for an unattractive firearm. Buy a Sigma because it is a safe defense gun that is backed by a strong American company and won't break the bank for those of us that do not want to buy our firearms from pawn shops. The M&P is not much prettier, by the way, but the handle to slide proportion seems more balanced and their finish is superior.

The Sigma is NOT a poorly duplicated G17. Rather the similarity that resulted in the lawsuit between Glock and SW was resolved. A Sigma is still a Smith and Wesson, after all. Mechanical issues will be non-existent, just like with a Glock. They are BOTH high-quality manufacturers, despite Sigma's cheap plastic front sight issue. SW created the Sigma with a vast number of similarities to the G17 because of convergent design (not really that intentional). Two excellent manufacturers of the same specific product will likely eventually develop the exact same product at some point with only minor appearance differences. A Motorola Android Smartphone and a Samsung Android Smartphone are virtually identical on the INSIDE and function identically for the user, and yet Motorola is not suing Samsung because they understand convergent design better than gun manufacturers (evidently).

Fact: The only similarity that Glock actually agreed to be satisfactory for settlement upon correction was for SW to remove the surface located below the sear in the Sigma. All of the other similarities between the two firearms are 'common' and would be like suing another auto manufacturer for including 4 wheels and windshield wipers with their cars. Still, Glock threatened dealers that they would terminate contract agreements if the dealer continued selling Smith and Wesson PRODUCTS, not just focusing on the Sigma series. This caused the the apparent influx of Glocks since most dealers gave in to the threat. It wasn't that the Glocks were better, it was that the Smith and Wessons were pushed out of the market for being similar.

Think about the money aspect and the arguement is pretty academic otherwise. Both are good firearms. One is more popular and costs more. That is it. Smith and Wesson is a US manufacturer that has been making law-enforcement firearms since 1852. Glock was founded in 1963 in Austria and did not get into gun manufacturing until the 1980's. Prior to that they were know for their excellent (and probably over priced) door knobs, hinges and other hardware.

See how that sits with you as well before investing in the Glock brand. If I could afford $600 for a handgun I would have bought SW's MP instead of the Sigma. That is more comparable (reputation-wise) with the popular Glocks. The M&P is a vastly more polished product. For $569 you get a full-size high capacity 9mm that feels more professional. The truth is, Glock does not make an entry-level or economy-class $300 firearm. Sigma is to Acura as Glock is to Saab. You cannot buy a cheap Saab unless it is on its last leg used. And a brand-new Acura is a reliable product.


The Glock 17 is/was the gold standard of 9mm service pistols for a reason. Particularly the pre-2010 Gen 3 models. I've seen Glocks going for 350-ish on the police trade-in market and SIG SP2022s NEW for around the same price. If I wanted cheaper than that, I'd look for a trade-in Model 10. Please note I'm much less experienced than most of the members on here and I will say that I've been influenced by them since I'll defer to greater experience in many circumstances. So far, I've yet to be steered wrong by the advice of ToddG and his colleagues. Just some food for thought.

[Kyle Reese]

It seems you are getting no real information here as everyone posting so far seems to be Glock-lovers.

I've got some first hand experience with the Sigma 9mm as well. Afghan police carry them, and the pistols are absolutely execrable. Everyone who can carries a 9mm Glock here of some sort.

[Rappahannock]

I am in no way a Glock fanboy, and in fact recently and happily made my household Glock-free for the first time in some years, seriously disliking the feel of the pistol in my hand.

Nevertheless, I would pick a Glock over the S&W product any day, if only because of its track record in the hands of knowledgable individuals like those on this site. I dislike a Glock but would trust it to perform.

[BWT]

I'd go with a Glock. I've been happy with mine. I'd buy a used one and probably a second one, if I had that kind of expendable income. But I do not.

[Nik the Greek]

I've got some first hand experience with the Sigma 9mm as well. Afghan police carry them, and the pistols are absolutely execrable. Everyone who can carries a 9mm Glock here of some sort.

I uh, don't have anything to contribute, but I really loved the use of the word execrable here.

[BLR]

Is this a design issue, or a quality issue? I've never actually handled a Sigma.

I guess my interest is more academic in this, but I'm still interested. The fact that they sell is indicative of a market demand.

[DanH]

The fact that they sell is indicative of a market demand.

True, but then HiPoint, Taurus and Bersa sell a lot of guns in that price range, too. There is a market at every price point, but you have to keep in mind that, generally, you get what you pay for. This is the real reason why M&P and Glock sell so well, in my opinion. You tend to get much more at the ~$500 price point, at least for the uses which most of the readers of this forum put their handguns. As with many other parts of the firearm market, (and many markets in general) there is a bottom-dwelling segment, a value segment, and a high-end segment in duty handguns. Just as there is a similar stratification in the 1911 market, and the AR-15 market.

[ToddG]

Is this a design issue, or a quality issue?

Yes.


The fact that they sell is indicative of a market demand.

Having discussed this with S&W folks on multiple occasions, their logic is irrefutable. The majority of guns bought in this country are not purchased by serious shooters or people who will read on the internet about guns. They go to a shop and buy something cheap for carry, keeping in the car, and/or home defense. Often, they are more concerned about saving money than quality and they know almost nothing about guns.

They walk into the shop and see a gun that looks, feels, and operates very similar to a Glock, costs $100 less, and has an immediately recognizable and respected "gun name" (Smith & Wesson) on it. SOLD.

[BLR]

Yes.



Having discussed this with S&W folks on multiple occasions, their logic is irrefutable. The majority of guns bought in this country are not purchased by serious shooters or people who will read on the internet about guns. They go to a shop and buy something cheap for carry, keeping in the car, and/or home defense. Often, they are more concerned about saving money than quality and they know almost nothing about guns.

They walk into the shop and see a gun that looks, feels, and operates very similar to a Glock, costs $100 less, and has an immediately recognizable and respected "gun name" (Smith & Wesson) on it. SOLD.

Again, my interest being only academic here (as should be evident by my raging 1911 lust), and leaving out the hyperbole, just how much do they actually suck?

[Chuck Haggard]

Again, my interest being only academic here (as should be evident by my raging 1911 lust), and leaving out the hyperbole, just how much do they actually suck?

Broken firing pins, broken extractors, weird trigger issues where the trigger pull gets longer and longer until you pull the trigger and it is against the grip/frame and the gun still hasn't fired, magazine floorplates that spontaniously break and dump your rounds and mag guts all over the ground (a really exciting event in the middle of a felony car stop after midnight on Prospect, or so I am told).

Normally I can say if you get X malfunction (say a fails-to-eject/AKA stovepipe) then the solution is likely A B or C. That process is all F'ed up with the Sigmas that I have seen, you think you have something fixed and the next thing starts F'ing up.

[abu fitna]

I had looked forward to the introduction of the SIGMA in the 90's, as the relationship with Glock and a particular country I was living in at the time was.... complicated. An S&W import potentially promised to remedy the situation. However, by the time I rotated out the weapons were still not brought in.

I had not had occasion to revisit them until well after the lawsuit, and the price drop / rebranding. I would not voluntarily adopt that trigger if I had any alternative, and I understand in comparison to the older models that there has unbelievably been an improvement over the first introduction.

Disclosure - I do shoot Glock. I have also shot Walther, with a very glock like trigger. I have also shot the M&P, and I am on record as having taken some getting used to with the relatively less distinct - some might even say mushy - reset on the stock M&P trigger (which the VTAC model did seem to improve). I am certainly no fanboy of any one system. A tool is a tool.

When making a decision around a key purchase, one is looking at a comparative market. The answers in this thread have largely centered on the comparative aspects. There are personal experiences that lead folks to those statements, and the observations from the collective experiences of those we train with and serve with. Towards the latter, one of my former associates went through a period after a (second) deployment where cash was just very tight following relocation and other personal expenses associated with coming back to the world after multiple years overseas. This individual needed a weapon for EDC, no longer being able to draw on the old armory. Unfortunately, price sensitivity drove her choice, and it was the SW9 / Sigma rebrand. It was a very short term purchase, and ultimately she disposed of it at a loss after serious challenges with keeping it running, and keeping up qualification standards (trigger again, and lost time on malfunction clearance on more than one reshoot). She is now a Glock owner.

If the price point is all you can afford, there are comparative alternatives that have not had the same issues. I will also mention here the often overlooked Rugers, and second any of the mentions of the SIG SP2022 or used Glocks. One can also find used SIG P225 / P6 models on the market for the classic line, which are generally also highly reliable if one accepts the single stack magazine. But if the Smith is what you want, at least you go into it with your eyes open and know what to train for. The tradeoff of ammo costs in training compared to the higher price point for the weapon itself, to say nothing of the lower cost of aftermarket support for a more common platform (mags, holsters, etc.), may be worth factoring into the decision. The gun is what it is... what you make of the situation is on you. I do wish you luck with whatever you choose, and I certainly don't look down on folks who make a different choice along the way than I might have.

[DanH]

Personally, I am more curious about whether the newer SD9VE is any better than the SW9VE, or is it essentially the same gun with different cosmetics. I would also be more interested in a comparison with other guns of the same price range, than with a gun that sells for $200 more.

[Carraway]

Yes.



Having discussed this with S&W folks on multiple occasions, their logic is irrefutable. The majority of guns bought in this country are not purchased by serious shooters or people who will read on the internet about guns. They go to a shop and buy something cheap for carry, keeping in the car, and/or home defense. Often, they are more concerned about saving money than quality and they know almost nothing about guns.

They walk into the shop and see a gun that looks, feels, and operates very similar to a Glock, costs $100 less, and has an immediately recognizable and respected "gun name" (Smith & Wesson) on it. SOLD.

Of course the problem here is how long can S&W have this as its best selling gun and maintain the respected "gun name?" I have one of these and have had a few issues with it, including a broken extractor. I mainly keep it as a back up as it was a gift. If this had been my only experience with S&W, I doubt I'd consider buying another. As it was, I decided to buy a metal framed semi-auto with a hammer (and wound up with an older Sig P226).

[Kyle Reese]

Of course the problem here is how long can S&W have this as its best selling gun and maintain the respected "gun name?" I have one of these and have had a few issues with it, including a broken extractor. I mainly keep it as a back up as it was a gift. If this had been my only experience with S&W, I doubt I'd consider buying another. As it was, I decided to buy a metal framed semi-auto with a hammer (and wound up with an older Sig P226).

My guess would be that the individuals who buy Sigmas won't shoot them enough to encounter any problems, and if they do they'll purchase something else of equal or lesser quality. Sigma doesn't work? Let's go to the gettin' place and get a Hi Point, Taurus or something along those lines. Proceed to shoot 55 rounds of ball ammo thru it, tell your friends it's "flawless", and throw it in a sock drawer for 7 years until the next range trip.

[TGS]

Personally, I am more curious about whether the newer SD9VE is any better than the SW9VE, or is it essentially the same gun with different cosmetics. I would also be more interested in a comparison with other guns of the same price range, than with a gun that sells for $200 more.

This is something I've wondered as well and still haven't found an answer for.

[DanH]

This is something I've wondered as well and still haven't found an answer for.

I'll tell you what. If someone sends me one of each and about 5k rounds of ammo I'd take up the challenge of wringing them out and finding out exactly what the differences are.

Yeah, I'm a giver. :cool:

[Bto]

Hi, so I'm new to working with pistols. Before the course I took all I have ever dealt with was shotguns and rifles. Now that I have gained a larger interest in pistols I was wondering if a few people could give me some advice along with pro's and con's of both the S&W sigma and the Glock 17. For the course I took we where working with the Glock 22 but I'm looking for a 9mm pistol to practice with along with home defense. Looking to get a solid pistol that first isn't gona cost me to much as it is going to be my first pistol along it being something I can work with for the next few years.
So any advice that you could give would be greatly accepted along with other suggestions on other pistols.

I know this is an old thread but I have to chime in and defend the sigma. I have a sw9ve and did the trigger mod myself and put a few thousand rounds thru it without any problems. I have had glocks so I can give a bias view. I really like the sigma and would feel very well armed against any thug. The ones that are bashing them probably have never held or shot one. Trigger from the factory is long and heavy but nothing to bash it over. It was made to mimic the feel of a revolver but you can lighten it.

[Kyle Reese]

The ones that are bashing them probably have never held or shot one.

If you've been following this discussion from the beginning you'd see that this is not the case.

[Byron]

This thread represents some really odd tears in the time/space continuum. Back in 2011, numerous posters offered their opinion on the Sigma. Two of those posters, featured early in the thread, spoke of direct Military/LE experience with samples of 100+ units.

After 14 uneventful months, a sudden bump to the thread accuses all critics of being Glock "fanboys" with "no real information." :rolleyes:

Thankfully, Todd was polite enough to link back to the two posts with the 100+ unit samples. That should clear things up, right? Even people too lazy to read past the first post could maybe see the more recent ones?

But apparently not, because we're back to this again:

The ones that are bashing them probably have never held or shot one.

So it seems that we've stepped into some black hole, or time loop, or some other phenomenon I can't comprehend. I hope I can find my way back to the present.

[ToddG]

So it seems that we've stepped into some black hole, or time loop, or some other phenomenon I can't comprehend. I hope I can find my way back to the present.

Highly recommended:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Universe/70143831?locale=en-US

I watched every episode in the first season at least twice before I realized there were other seasons...


The ones that are bashing them probably have never held or shot one.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001685405/1115581193_8de09_NotSureIfSerious_answer_101_xlarg e.jpeg

Assuming for the sake of politeness that you're sincere, please follow the advice of the last two posters and read the thread from the beginning. You'll see that quite a few people have been able to offer a very educated and experienced evaluation of the Sigma pistol.

You'll find absolutely no one here at pistol-forum.com who'll argue about whether your gun works. You're not likely to find anyone who will tell you that it sucks and you should get a new one. But you also won't find a lot of support for the contention that as a product line overall it's up to par with the guns that seem more commonly chosen by our membership. Rather than tell us how little we know, shoot your Sigma some more and continue to report on its success. That's certainly the surest way to impress people and change their opinion about the gun.

[LSP972]

Personally, I am more curious about whether the newer SD9VE is any better than the SW9VE, or is it essentially the same gun with different cosmetics. I would also be more interested in a comparison with other guns of the same price range, than with a gun that sells for $200 more.

We shoot numerous (sometimes as many as a dozen) Sigmas every week in the crime lab I work at. It is about to overtake the HiPoint as the thug gun of choice in these parts. So you could say we are somewhat familiar with the "old" SW9VE.

A colleague bought one of the "new" examples the other day, on a whim. He had money burning a hole in his pocket, we stopped into Academy Sports during lunch, and they had some on sale for $299 + tax. He bought an example in .40 S&W.

Imagine an SW40VE with (almost) the ergos of an M&P. The grip is markedly more comfortable than the Sigma, but not quite as nice as the M&P. The slide has been re-contoured, and is more aesthetically pleasing than the squared-off Sigma slide. And the trigger is FAR better; equal, IMO, to an un-tuned M&P.

But it appears to be the same internals as the old Stigma. Same Glock-like take down, etc.

The consensus was that the SD40VE is a definite improvement over the SW40VE, but the former is still nothing to write home about. We would much rather have a beat-up police trade-in G22 or G17.

Our colleague is going to put another 3-400 rounds through it to make sure there are no gremlins, and then throw it in his truck.

.

[Byron]

Highly recommended:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Universe/70143831?locale=en-US

I watched every episode in the first season at least twice before I realized there were other seasons...
Thank you very much for the heads up; looks like something I'll thoroughly enjoy!