Page 6 of 7
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:28 pm
by A-R
glbedd53 wrote:If that's directed at me you got the wrong gun. I'll take a Sig over anything else. Not just for safety but especially reliability. And their reputation backs it up. None of my Sigs have ever had any kind of malfunction and they're the only auto's I ever had that I can say that about.. Can't say it about my 1911's and sure can't say it about the Glocks. The one I still have had to go to Smyrna Ga. twice before it would work. I'll base my opinions on my own experiences and those of my friends. Our Glocks all jammed and our Sigs never have. What would you do? A firearm only has to do one thing. It doesn't have to send text msg's or open garage doors or play mp3's, just shoot when you want it to. If it can't do that I have no use for it. Especially the one you might be trusting your life to. If someone sells you bad products do you just keep on buying more from them? That's the definition of stupid. No, I go buy something that's proven, and it worked. I'm not saying you should go on my experiences because I have no doubt yours are different from mine, but I'm going to.
Different experiences is correct, glbedd. I know plenty of people who trust their life to Kahr. I'll never own another (at least not the polymer framed versions) after the troubles I had with a PM40. Never owned a Sig, but their reputation precedes. In a general unscientific sample of "gun people" I talk to, I find a few more "issues" with Sig than Glock, but they are minor and neither are considered "troubled guns" by any stretch. I'd bet my life on either. That said, Sig is usually 50% more expensive than Glock for similar size/caliber of weapon. Other than some early trouble with Blazer aluminum cased ammo (which I've never used again) and some user error when I changed my grip a bit (and was inadvertantly activated the slide release), I've never had a single problem with any Glock I've ever owned - from brand-spanking new to some very ragged out old LEO trade ins. Glocks just go bang. Sigs apparently do too (I've just never owned one).
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 4:14 pm
by driver8
If you have never owned a Sig you are missing out. I have a P-229, .40 I bought about 5 years ago and it has been perfect. If I could only keep one handgun it would be that one. I want some of the other ones but, you know, the budget.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 5:12 pm
by glbedd53
The Sig I've been drooling over for a while now is the P-239 in .40. It's my idea of the perfect concealment gun. I think I see one in my near future. My Officer is really the only reasonable one I can use for that now, except for my P-230 but I'm a little underwhelmed by .380's.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 8:27 pm
by alamo5000
I bought my first hand gun not too long ago.
I have found its kind of like that old potato chip commercial... "I betcha can't have just one"
Lets just say I now have more than one handgun. I plan to buy others too.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 8:40 am
by bdickens
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 3:02 pm
by glbedd53
Oh, we must be on the wrong forum, for talkin bout guns.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 6:58 pm
by mctowalot
Mind if I take a wack at that horse?
My 2 cents: None of my Glocks have ever discharged while holstered.
While I don't know much, I know how a Glock works, and IMHO it's hard to imagine one "going off" without the trigger being pulled, unless supernatural forces were involved - Glock Gremlins perhaps?
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 9:51 pm
by driver8
I don't think it has to do with going off without the trigger being pulled, it's more to do with the lack of an external safety or decocker.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 10:35 pm
by boomerang
driver8 wrote:I don't think it has to do with going off without the trigger being pulled, it's more to do with the lack of an external safety or decocker.
Same as most double action revolvers.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 7:12 am
by driver8
Major difference between the trigger pull and travel between a Glock and a double action revolver. Apples and oranges.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 7:16 am
by glbedd53
For sure, not a good comparison, double action revolver hasn't been cocked yet.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 12:55 pm
by The Annoyed Man
bdickens wrote: 
Here, let me take a whack that thing.
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 7:20 pm
by stevie_d_64
MikeM wrote:Waiting on my CHL but just received my PIN. I have been looking at the Taurus Millenium Pro 45ACP versus the Glock 36 (over $200 premium for the Glock). I like the idea of the separate safety on the Taurus, versus the safety in the trigger on the Glock, but have never owned either gun. I was set on the Glock but am having second thoughts. Is it worth the extra money and is the "trigger safety" a real issue? Any guidance?
In the current economy, I would go with a reliable firearm that shoots good for me, and spend what extra money I would have spent on a more expensive delivery system to buy more ammo...
But that is just me...
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:10 pm
by surprise_i'm_armed
driver8 wrote:I don't think it has to do with going off without the trigger being pulled, it's more to do with the lack of an external safety or decocker.
Glocks are a problem if you like to Mexican carry
them in sweat pants without a holster. :-)
SIA
Re: Is it worth the additional money?
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:13 pm
by driver8
Careful, you're fixin to stir em up again.