Well, I am a "gun nut" and I have to agree with some of the previous posts; its mainly a Chevy vs. Ford argument....but I'll throw my 2 cents in....
For my own part I have found Sigs to be superior firearms, the MSP issues Sig 226's (.40, which I carry), Sig 229's (.40, for troopers with smaller hands), and Sig 239's (.40, for detective/undercover units). I have fired all of these and additionally own a Sig 245 (.45 compact), and have previously owned a Sig 228 (9mm compact). I have also owned 2 Glock pistols previously, a Glock 19 (9mm compact) and Glock 26 (9mm micro-compact) Sigs are reliable, ergonomic and very accurate. Many professionals rate Sigs to be the most accurate out-of-the-box, semi-automatic, double-action pistol, and in my own experiences shooting both, I would have to agree. The sights on a Sig are far better than the sights on a Glock, the Glock sights are poor at best, and made of plastic. I have heard many horror stories of Glock sights simply snapping off or falling off. Also, because of the type of rifling used in Glock barrels (polygonal), they are ammunition sensitive and cannot fire certain types of bullets.
One thing I would agree on is that I dislike the double action/single action transition after the first shot on a Sig. Being a 1911 fan, I prefer a short, crisp trigger and this is only possible on the Sig after the first shot (or if you cock the hammer). Of course, one advantage on a Sig is that if you had to make a highly accurate shot, you CAN cock the hammer, unlike a Glock. The trigger on the Glock is somewhat of a compromise, with a squashy, "safe action" that is neither double action nor single action. Its not a particulary bad trigger pull, at least its consistent with all shots, and isn't too heavy with the 5 1/2 pound standard pull. Unfortunately many departments (including the NYCPD) put heavier springs on the trigger to give it a horrible 12 pound pull (the so-called "New York Trigger"). Also, I would rate the Glock slightly more tolerant of bad maintainence (which many cops are guilty of). The Sig is precision weapon, and requires lubricant at least once every couple of months. A dry Sig will jam, there's no two ways about it....I've seen it at the range. The Glock also requires lubricant, but I believe its a bit more tolerant of "whoops, its been eight months since I even took this thing apart".
Finally, I would rate the Glock's ergonomics as simply terrible. Hefting a Glock at the range is like shooting a plastic brick. I find the plastic magazine release to be squashy and not all that positive (there's often not a "click" when you seat or release magazines). I also dislike the slide release, which I think is too small and a bit too far forward. I find the contours on the Sig to be far more natural and the controls to be in more comfortable places. I also like the fact the Sig has a decocking lever, for safe unloading, whereas you have to pull the trigger on a Glock to put it in a safe position (how many unwanted discharges come out of so-called "unloaded" guns?).
Its pretty apparent that I prefer the Sig pistol, but I still think that Glock makes a good product. My big problems with the Glock are its lack of ergonomics and its mediocre accuracy. The Sig might require a bit more TLC, but you should be taking your pistols down every month and oiling them anyways :roll: . If I were you, Gil, I would be happy about the change over from the Glock, the Sig is an awesome pistol.
By the way Gil, you might want to consider a P239 rather than a P229 for off-duty/court carry, its lot smaller and loses only 4 rounds in carrying capacity (8 + 1 vs 12 + 1)
