-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Glock 36 vs. P220 Compact
- Thread starter Gitr
- Start date
I wouldn't call a G19 w/ 16 rds 'light.' How does your P229 compare (I've been looking into picking one up)?
Difference in grip thickness between the Glock and Sig pictured is noticeable. The LDA is a single stack and pretty slim, but hold it tight when shooting it.
Glock is the lightest. If you have large hands the Sig will work well for you.
Glock is the lightest. If you have large hands the Sig will work well for you.
Is that an "older" 19? The Glock I have and all the others I've seen dont have the white writing on the sides of the slide. The exact same prints but just etched in, not painted. And all of ours are fairly new. Just curious if they used to come that way before or if its some special version.
32.4 oz loaded for the SIG 229 vs. 29.98 oz for the Glock 19. I carry a .40 SIG 229R in a Don Hume IWB, and if I pay attention to it yes, it does feel a bit heavy. Truth be told, though, I hardly ever notice the weight. If it's summer and I'm wearing shorts and a T-shirt, I usually carry my wife's Glock 26 in a Galco IWB... so long as we're out together and she's not carrying it
Like anything else, it's all about what you want and what suits your needs, and the 229 fits mine. After seeing them, though, I think I'm falling in love with the 220 carry and/or compact...It is an older model but the white writing has nothing to do with it- many people color in the engraved model # and Glock logo just for looks. Note that there are no finger/thumb grooves or a rail...that's how you can tell it's older.
Gitr
New Member
Well after much deliberation and some investigating here's what I found.
For me, a 6'2" guy with large hands, both weapons fit well enough. The SIG fit better, but the difference was negligible. The 36 is lighter, noticeably, but it trades that weight for the solid feel of a steel frame. The 220's beaver-tail does a great job of distributing recoil, where as the 36's suppression system didn't do as much to compensate while double tapping.
As far as concealability, the size is very comparable. Both are easily hidden and with a good holster (read: comfortable for the body type) they can both be easily carried.
Overall, both are great, but I went with the SIG because it felt better shooting quickly and accurately.
For me, a 6'2" guy with large hands, both weapons fit well enough. The SIG fit better, but the difference was negligible. The 36 is lighter, noticeably, but it trades that weight for the solid feel of a steel frame. The 220's beaver-tail does a great job of distributing recoil, where as the 36's suppression system didn't do as much to compensate while double tapping.
As far as concealability, the size is very comparable. Both are easily hidden and with a good holster (read: comfortable for the body type) they can both be easily carried.
Overall, both are great, but I went with the SIG because it felt better shooting quickly and accurately.
Gotcha. Thanks.
It's okay. As a long time Glock shooter, the DA/SA takes some getting used to for me. It's sort of a safe queen now.
The white print on my G19 is just white ink rubbed over the letters to make them stand out. Although it is an older G19. Picked it up in 1990.
I really lean towards my Glocks (19, 23C, 34) for personal defense. Ready at the draw, no safety, switches or anything to flip or push. Point and shoot. Of course, the onus of correct target acquisition and decision to shoot still lies with the nut behind the gun.
My night stand gun:
