The Ford versus Chevy and Coke versus Pepsi rivalries have nothing on the Glock 19 versus Sig P320. Within the firearms and tactical community, this debate is intense. This is the battle of two of the best guns in the modern, semi-auto polymer pistol category.

Some of the most heated debates I have ever witnessed or been a part of involve enthusiasts trying to convince someone of why their pick for the best gun is the right answer. It can get quite amusing to watch. The debate between the Glock 19 versus the Sig P320 is one of the most common debates I see. It’s even a debate in my own house.

As a civilian firearms instructor, I get asked all the time “what is the best pistol, and what should I buy?” Let me set the record straight right now and lay some ground rules. If anyone proclaims that their pick is the best, and the one and only “best,” feel free to tune them out from that point forward. In this community, if anyone ever proclaims their way is “the only way,” duck and run for cover. Low crawl out of there just as fast as you can. Or pop smoke and vacate your current location with extreme haste. Just some friendly, professional advice.

The US Army Pistol Contract Competition

Several years ago, when the U.S. Army announced that it was finally opening up the competition to award a new sidearm replacement for the aging Beretta M92, the stage for the epic battle was set. Fast-forwarding to the two finalists and big contenders: Glock and Sig were the clear options. By all accounts, it was a close competition and probably not an easy choice for the Army (except for the cost).

Long story short, Sig won. They were chosen as the overall “best value” to the Army and fulfilled the requirements of a truly modular or adaptable firearm system. Sig Sauer won the $580 million contract and will field 300,000 units over 10 years. Glock, also a workhorse and the tried and true standard in the tactical community, offered the Glock 19x — an update to the venerable Glock 19. It offered a new barrel and essentially became a Glock 19 on a Glock 17 frame adding room for two more bullets. In the end, perhaps, what hurt Glock was the fact that they tried to simply upgrade the Glock 19, while Sig offered the new P320. Glock challenged the results of the competition and Sig’s win. The government upheld the award and threw out Glock’s challenge.

Glock’s strategy was to allow their reputation to carry them, but in so doing, did not satisfy the modular requirements of the competition. Sig, however, has created something truly unique in the firearms space. The fact that the grips/frames are modular and interchangeable in size, makes the gun very attractive to the Army (and Marines) since so many different people with different hands could be accommodated. For some, the shape of the Glock and its feel in one’s hand is enough of a reason to not like them.

Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS. (Courtesy of the author)

Form, Fit, and Function Matter

I have never understood why some people in the firearms community are so adamantly opposed to Glocks or even hate them. I once had a Special Forces 18B (the gun guy of the ODA teams) tell me that he would not have chosen a Glock if it was the only gun available. (Insert the little shrug emoji here.) With a Glock, there is really nothing to hate. Very little to dislike, in fact. Their simplicity and functionality are their beauty, and they just work. All the time. Over and over. They set the standard many years ago, proving what a polymer semi-auto pistol could be.

Yet, a Glock’s boxy nature and angle of the grip are what bother many people. All other complaints or arguments aside, this matters as the grip and the angle of the grip can affect some shooters. However, some argue that the slightly odd angle of the Glock makes it naturally easy to shoot and that the angle helps one point the gun more effectively. Still, for others, it’s uncomfortable and does not ergonomically work.