Glock vs. XD vs. Sig in Reliability

[Zero One]

Glocks are renowned for their reliability. There's no questioning it, either... a good amount of experience has shown it to be true.

Do you think that Glocks are more reliable than, say, a Sig P226 or an XD?

Seems like most people do. And there's a lot of evidence for the reliability of a Glock. Less so for a Sig or XD. On the other hand, there's really no evidence against the reliability of a Sig or XD.

So, what I wanna know... outside of personal experience and anecdotal evidence (which is indeed valid in some cases), is there any fairly scientific information on the reliability of these? Anything to suggest that one particular gun is more reliable than others?

I'm always surprised at the seeming lack of such scientific testing.

Looking forward to hearing.

[cslinger]

Ok so here is the anecdotal evidence that means nothing.

I have shot and owned ALOT of guns, including XDS, SIGs and Glocks.

Of all three SIGs are the only ones that have NEVER malfunctioned in any way shape or form for me and I have shot a buttload of SIGs.

Now that being said I am talking about SIGs before the current ones, the current mgmt. (read Kimber guy) is putting out a great deal of crap. They are really cutting corners based on the current guns I have handled. If you go SIG go older.

Now on the the XD and Glocks neither have shown to be unreliable. Actually both have shown to be extremely reliable as I have had only 2 (two) malfunctions with a single Glock 30 shooting Blazer aluminum crap and 1 malfunction with an XD45 compact shooting reloaded crap. My G17 and G26 have never missed a beat nor have the other XDs I have shot.

So basically at the end of the day if you handed me a Glock, XD, SIG, Ruger, HK etc. I would be reasonably confident it would be a good gun after a good cleaning and barring any lemons.

Chris

[ranburr]

Most any decent quality pistol today will be reliable. 99.9% of all malfunctions can be traced back to operator error.

[cslinger]

The reason for the lack of scientific testing is the amount of variables involved......ammo shape, manufacturer, powder type, powder charger etc. etc. etc.

The fact is I have shot a great deal of guns and I feel confident enough to say that ANY good quality brand will treat you very well. I have seen and heard of lemons with all.

Today at this moment I would go with a Glock for sheer reliability out of the box....well that or a Ruger GP100 revolver but I digress.

[IanS]

I consider the Glock 17 9mm, SIG P226 9mm, and Beretta 92FS 9mm the most reliable pistols in the world today. Top of the heap. Not to say other pistols (other Glocks,SIGs,and Beretta's included) and calibers aren't reliable. But I couldn't say the same about other pistols with the same level of conviction.

There are lots of very reliable to acceptably reliable pistols out there. As a general rule look to how far the designers are trying to push the parameters of the original design. For instance a double stack 1911 with a 3" barrel or a single stack Glock in .45 ACP (G36) would in general be potentially more problematic than a full size single stack 1911 or full size Glock .45 (G21) respectively. The further the engineers try to push their luck just to meet consumer demand the more likely they're making compromises.

Not all Glocks are created. Not all SIG's are created equal. Not all 1911's are created equal...........

[David the Gnome]

The number of guns I have owned that actually failed in some way are actually pretty slim. I don't really stick to any one manufacturer as you can tell if you take a look at my collection. I have never noticed any one brand to be more accident prone than any other, the only exception (from my own collection) has been Taurus which has given me some problems both times I purchased one.

I have never had a failure from any of my Glocks or XD and the only problem I've ever had out of one of my SIG's was caused by my tinkering with spring weights on my P6.

[therealtwitch]

Glock got famous with there torture test years ago in which the froze a gun in a block of ice, drug it through the mug and many other horrible things to do to a gun. Just to prove how reliable it is. the results...its a tank. when the XD came out some one (i can't remember who of the top of my head) put it through the glock torture test. the results...it to is a tank. not in my opinion the XD has some things over the glock and the glock has some things over the XD to the point of I couldn't decide which is better and I own both.

as for the sig. I don't have a lot of fist hand experience with them but I have heard they too are really reliable. I think they are are great shooting guns and great alternative to the striker gun if you are just a plain old hammer gun gun. the only problem I have with sig is I know it will be my next gun, i just don't know which sig I want yet.

[swk314]

I own a G26, G23, an XD40 and 5 Sigs. None of them have ever failed to go bang, even when using some questionable ammo. I have tried to make them fail (ie. limpwristing, reloads) and they never malfunctioned. I doubt you will find any scientific data about the reliability of certain firearms.

[therealtwitch]

exactly so there can be only one answer. buy all 3

[Shane Tuttle]

There's been the infamous torture tests that most guns have gone through and have passed without much of an issue. If you look at the reality of it, people/engineers/critics, etc. have pushed the definition of reliability FAR beyond any of my guns will experience as well as 99.99% of the everyday individual. It's really ridiculous to assume there's actually discernable difference.

When the number of rounds fired from any comparison of firearms reach into the billions or trillions and they have close numbers, does it really matter at this point?

[hdawson228]

For those that "might" be interested, here is the writeup on the SA XD torture test.

http://springfield-armory.primediaoutdoors.com/SPstory11.php

[MosinM38]

Any modern handgun is reliable.


I'd say of those mentioned, each might have a handful of jams their entire life.

For what it's worth, my Sig 226 (One of the DREADED new ones!!!! Plastic guide rod. Oh my god), has over 1500 rounds and the only jam I had was magazine related.

[N.H. Yankee]

I have found the XD series to be every bit reliable and rugged as the Glock and as good as or better than other makes. Every company has had its share of malfunctions, what makes a difference is percentage of problems per model or company as a whole. As said there are many variables, but quality control and component quality are the 2 most crucial. CZ also has a good track record as well as H&K.

[QBall45]

Of the gun you listed, none are bad or unreliable.

All are in service in LE duty holsters.

Pick the one that fits your hand the best.

Could be as simple a choice as you like the looks of one better than the rest. And that's valid enough reason to pick one over the others.

Bottom line: pick 1. Break it in properly. Keep it clean & lubed. Take someone shooting. Enjoy.

[rsxr22]

i agree with many other of the posters. All are very equal in reliability. But when you start talking about other related options, that is where things get a little different.

[tjhands]

I own all three in 9mm and, if I had to grab one of them to have and to hold, till death do us part, I would indeed grab either the G17 or the G19. They're all good guns and I like something especially about each.

I could type more but it would only end up at the same finishing statement: the GLOCK will always shoot reliably and accurately with a minimum of fuss. If a must-shoot semi-auto is needed, I'm looking for my GLOCK 9mm.

[RNB65]

I own all three in 9mm and I've never had a malfunction from any of them. The G17 is my bedside, bump-in-the-night gun.

[predecessor]

...outside of personal experience and anecdotal evidence (which is indeed valid in some cases), is there any fairly scientific information on the reliability of these? Anything to suggest that one particular gun is more reliable than others?

NO.

Moving on...

[Boats]

In my experience, Glocks are not exceptionally reliable. "Musta limp wristed it" was something I had never heard before it was first used by some guy on the line to excuse his Glock FTE.

There are two interesting "1000 round challenges"on youtube. One features some good ol boy with a G19 that malfs about five times over the course of the challenge. He blames it on S&B ammo. It fired, so I don't believe him. There is no way that he found only five widely spaced underpowered rounds across 1k the way he did.

Then there is Para-Ord doing one with one of their base models. Para-Ord is not even remotely known for producing reliable 1911s. yet there they are, 1000 rounds in under eleven minutes with no malfs to speak of.

So, Glocks aren't exceptionally reliable. What they really are is exceptionally hyped.

The Glock "torture test" is a circus act that any quality duty pistol could pass.

[therealtwitch]

i think your missing one simple point. the glock "circus act" torture test was only designed to prove one thing. that it is a quality duty pistol. it was never a test designed to be one that only glock could pass. merely a measuring point for all pistols. hence many pistols since have also passed the test. Glock never made any outrageous claim about being a super indestructible pistol; that crap came from internet nerds.

that being said I keep a couple glocks in my safe because they are quality duty pistols, and because should they ever break every one make parts for them. This is much the same reason I keep an xd as well. Just don't ask me to decide which I like better.

[Boats]

Yes, I realize that Glock never advertised their torture test as something only they could pass. The unreal hype came from idjits who would continually say, "You don't see any other pistol makers doing that."

Total tools. Beretta and SIG passed several rounds of the most rigorous pistol trials ever held. They didn't need any dog and pony shows to prove their mettle, but were still getting slammed by the kool-aid crowd throughout the 90s for not putting up like advertising.

Glocks are what they are: Cheap, reliable, misshapen, and low maintenance. S&W is in the process of drinking their milkshake.

[got_the_itch]

Now that being said I am talking about SIGs before the current ones, the current mgmt. (read Kimber guy) is putting out a great deal of crap. They are really cutting corners based on the current guns I have handled. If you go SIG go older.

Comments like these are what I assume the OP was trying to avoid. Before you go out labeling a specific brand of weapon "crap", I really do think you should supply some pretty darn good evidence to back such a statement. If your angry that SIG hasn't operated their market according your standards, thats not a basis to make such a biased remark. Other than that, it's all you've proven thus far. One shouldn't be influenced by your opinion of "crap".

I have 7 siblings and 5 of which own SIG's (pre NH and post), and Glocks. And the off 2 sisters both have XD's. And my SIG Pro 2022, (yeah, the German made Kimber dude management one) and my P229's shoot just as well or better than any SIG weapon.

I personally don't like various things that different manufacturers have done over the years. But to say they are "crap" is another story.


If you look at the reality of it, people/engineers/critics, etc. have pushed the definition of reliability FAR beyond any of my guns will experience as well as 99.99% of the everyday individual. It's really ridiculous to assume there's actually discernable difference.

I couldn't agree more! All three mentioned are well respected, reliable, and accurate. With no complaints about any on a personal level. Other than the Glocks arent the prettiest of my collection. hehe But, it's also one of my favorites and it goes to the range with me every trip, just in case I get the urge to shoot it. Anything else that varies for my likes and dislikes are all of personal preference.

Scientific evidence can't tell how it feels in your hand, that's just how the rundown should go. Science shouldn't matter.

[therealtwitch]

now that I will agree with. except for the misshapen. I rather like the shape, but I do agree that is subjective. as for beretta you are very right, there is a reason the u.s. military went with beretta. However I do hate the m9 but again my opinion for my own reasons and not at all a bad gun.

some guns just get the unreal hype. its the Kentucky fried mouse syndrome. one person tells a story and it just keeps on getting better and better until you have the best gun on the planet with out any question and there can be no argument.

[Hard Ball]

"Do you think that Glocks are more reliable than, say, a Sig P226 or an XD?"

No, the SIG is more reliable.

[Micropterus]

Flip a three sided coin.

[hickok45]

I've owned all three and have found all of them to be equally and incredibly reliable. If they were all priced exactly the same, or if Glocks were $200.00 more than the others, I'd still be a Glock guy, but that's just me.

They are all three fine guns.

[Sarge]

They're all good enough. Next question?

[gc70]

Glock vs. XD vs. Sig in Reliability

It is incredibly childish to play "mine is better than yours" beyond grade school.

[TailGator]

In my experience, ammo fails more often than firearms, especially the cheap stuff that we buy to run through at the range. Can't say that I have hard data to support that contention, though.

No reason to berate the OP - s/he just asked if there were controlled studies out there to support all the jawboning that some people do. So far, no one has cited such a publication, I notice. That in itself would seem to support the idea that all are pretty well-made and reliable pieces of hardware, in that if there was a notable difference someone would have probably made a big deal out of it by now.

[greensteelforge]

Take a look at the guys who REALLY put their live on these things. Cops carry what they are told to in most districts (usually glocks, and usually with few complaints). When you talk about superiority, though, you should look to organizations that have no price limit on their weapons, and use them ALLOT. In those circles (SOF, SEALS, DELTA) you rarely see anything but SIGs, custom 1911s, and HKs. The P226 was designed with the input of SF operator's wish lists. I couldn't find any real competition for SIG or HK except each other. I went with the P226 in .357 and .40, and have yet to experience anything but perfection. Basically, you either like plastic, or you don't. I like stainless steel and alloy.

[azredhawk44]

Given the fact that Glock and XD products have plastic frames and Sig is available in either steel or aluminum alloy (as well as plastic) I'd suggest the Sig.

No real scientific reason... I'd expect an average gun store specimen of each brand to be roughly equal in reliability. But I just favor the feel of a metal frame in hand over a plastic one.

That being said, I've had a Sig lemon. And I've had a perfect XD. And I've had a pretty good (but not quite perfect) Glock.

What's on my hip right now? A Colt. And it's perfect.

Make yer gamble, roll yer dice.

[scottaschultz]

I did not make this video (some guy here named BanditSRT8 made it), but it should answer, "The Eternal Debate"!

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch?e=20090309020311823
(You have to be over 13 to watch it)

Scott

[IanS]

Take a look at the guys who REALLY put their live on these things. Cops carry what they are told to in most districts (usually glocks, and usually with few complaints). When you talk about superiority, though, you should look to organizations that have no price limit on their weapons, and use them ALLOT. In those circles (SOF, SEALS, DELTA) you rarely see anything but SIGs, custom 1911s, and HKs. I couldn't find any real competition for SIG or HK except each other.

I'm not responding to this to disparage SIG or HK which I am a fan of or to say Glocks are "better". But your conclusions are based on assumptions and probably personal bias. Just because some agency or organization uses a certain gun doesn't mean people should come up with reasons why they do. SEAL's do use P226's but they are issued to them just like Glocks are to LE's or Beretta M9's to Green Berets. Delta BTW, have been using Glocks along with 1911's since the early part of this decade. Notice I didn't say why but only stating what they use. I wouldn't presume to say what these individual operators like or prefer.

Take a look at threads like this
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001105#000001
"Frogman" is an active duty SEAL and his taste and preferences for firearms are as individual as anyone else in the SOF community. They all have their preferences. SIGs, Berettas, 1911's, Glocks, HK's etc etc.

The P226 was designed with the input of SF operator's wish lists.
Where did you hear or read this?

The P226 was simply a redesign of the P220 9mm by SIG Sauer in order to compete in the XM9 trial, which they eventually lost to Beretta. SEAL's were issued Beretta M9's initially but they didn't quite pan out, so they started using P226's, and they've worked quite well for them. See the thread link I provided above.

[mathman]

I really do believe that it comes down to personal preference...they all make very reliable firearms (almost 100%)...but each of them has had lemons as well.

I agree with the sentiment in another post...you either like plastic or you don't...you either like the feel of a pistol or you don't...pick the one you like and then shoot the hell out of it...software is far more important than hardware (and caliber).

I like Glock.

YMMV

[SA1911A1/45]

I have only owned the XD 45 that I presently have. Never owned a Glock. No problems with the XD. My cousins Glocks front sight flew off. Never found it.

Glocks work, so do XDs.

[scorpiusdeus]

So, Glocks aren't exceptionally reliable. What they really are is exceptionally hyped.

The Glock "torture test" is a circus act that any quality duty pistol could pass.

Great points.

[DWARREN123]

Only ones I can comment on are in 40 S&W. I would say Glock, SIG then XD.

[Claven71]

I have owned all three. I still own a XD-45. I believe the are all just about equal, so whichever you shoot the best with, let that be it.

[domininance]

they are all great guns. you should be practicing your Tap, Rack, and Bang on the regular because any gun could malfuntion at anytime and you should be ready to deal with it quickly and instinctivly.

that being said, have you considered the difference in magazines? i happen to favor the glock over the XD almost solely on the fact that the glock magazine is also polymer and thereby resists dings from being dropped. they are both awesome guns. I happen to have less experience with sigs, and find it harder to accurately weigh in on that. never had a problem with the couple sigs i've shot though.

i happen to be of the mindset that the gun is but a tool and it is up to the shooter. no tool is perfect and to be a prepared for that crappy situation you better be able to fix most any failure to fire damn fast when your life depends on it. dont rely on your gun solely, rely on your abbilities and skills.

[sandeman]

I think they are all reliable. XD and Sig are almost %100,Glock is %100 :)

[dgludwig]

It's hard to discuss ultra-reliable semi-autos without me nominating the vastly under-rated Smith & Wesson series of third generation pistols as being at the very top of the heap. Get one while you still can. They've been discontinued for all the wrong reasons (or the one right reason: they just weren't selling for whatever reason!).

[Glockeroo]

The Glock is the most sold handgun in the world. That is for a reason. It's the only gun I trust my life to.

The End!