Why are Glocks so much cheaper than SIG's? Gen 4 Glock parts interchange?

[His lordship.]

Thinking of adding another pistol, strongly looking at a Glock 17, but I also like the looks of the SIG.  The price difference is profound, I think it is because the SIG has more machined angles.  Is there really a significant difference in quality?

Been reading On Target magazine, they have reviews of the new 4th generation Glock, they say that "Gen 4 recoil spring assemblies and barrel/slide assemblies won't work with earlier generation Glock frames, and vice versa".  I plan to buy a Glock and add after market parts, but I don't see any mention of Generation 4 items in the Midway catalog, or on Glock's website.  Is the Gen 4 too new or experimental?   

[Dee]

less moving parts, and cheaper to build. The Glock is a very dependable and rugged pistol. Used to be an armorer, carried them some on duty, and would bet my life on a 40 or 45 cal. one.

[teddy12b]

I didn't realize the new gen 4 glocks didn't share most of the same parts as the earlier models.  That's not such a good thing since the even the first generation of glock 17's in 9mm were considered as good as it gets.

SIG's have always been expensive.  They try to promote their pistols as the premium guns, but the glocks are the ones that all other guns are compared to for reliability.

[LocnLod]

It's significantly less expensive to injection mold a plastic grip frame on a Glock than to make the alloy frame on a SIG. 
You've pointed out the major differences in slides - more angles on the SIGs.  The Gen3s fit my hand fine so I see no need to go with the Gen4 which is less proven at this time.  If you want to pimp your pistol, stick with the Gen3s.

[Glockfan]

From my personal experience... a Glock is a lot more "user-friendly". Very reliable and customizable. I carry a G27 and will never get rid of it as I have never had a single problem with it. There is nothing wrong with a Sig, but to me its not as durable.. and I would argue not as reliable. (people have insulted my **plastic gun** and then I watched their more expensive gun jam up... while mine keeps shooting) But both are very good guns.. I know a lot of people that love theirs and swear by their Sig. For me... my little plastic gun does what I need every time and a lot cheaper. I don't think you will be disappointed with either purchase... I personally like to buy good quality at a lower price. Even if they operated equally.. is it worth the extra $$? 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Having owned a couple Sigs---I'll take a Glock over a Sig every time----simply a better gun with the added benefit of costing less.

[40plus]

Glocks are cheaper because of the manufacturing process and materials. Bottom line
Many of the Gen 4 parts are not interchangeable with the other generations.

Glock is a fine pistol and so is the SIG. I dont think the SIG is worth what they cost brand new. I was lucky enough to find a Gen 2 P220 for around 500.00 a lonnng time ago. They are very reliable and simple to use as well. The DAO and de-cocker ones are as simple as the Glock to use.

As far as reliability goes...i have never had one failure of any kind with my SIG. Probably over 5000 rounds through it with some new magazines and a new recoil spring. Thats about it. For a little remark about reliability...Gun Tests magazine used to give lifetime subscribers a Sig P220 with the purchase of the lifetime subscription. If you have ever read this magazine they are very straightforward with their results of gun testing. They dont sugar coat anything.

[joeinwv]

Glock has numerous LEO and military contracts which drives market share and keeps overall costs lower. In the 90's you could get a sig for close to Glock money, now they cost double.

I still want a 226.

[His lordship.]

I purchased/traded for 3 new Glocks this year, and have been very happy with them.  I regret not getting one sooner.  The SIGS are just too expensive and doubtful that they are worth it compared to Glock.

[Swampman]

Wouldn't stake my life on any automatic but a Glock.

[muffindrvr]

i have owned 3 sigs and i would bet my life on eiether one of them .yes sigs are expensive but they are a german company anything german made is expensive.they are very high quality.now i own 6 glocks and i would bet my life on any one of them at any time .i now carry a glock 30 .10 rounds of 45 acp is the way for me .its all personal preference.just my opinion......

[demented]

 Were prices the same, I'd still prefer Glocks.  The lower bore axis the Glock has is a big plus for me, Glocks have less muzzle flip for me.  SIGS are great handguns, they just aren't superior to Glock, certainly not when prices are compared or when triggers are pulled.

[Mohawk]

Glock has a much larger market overall. Larger market, cheaper parts.

[His lordship.]

While taking a break at my handgun carry class, I went to look at the rental guns under the counter at the gun range a month ago.  The SIG guns had the finish worn on the chamber area of the outside of the barrel, and the Glocks did not.  Not that this affects function, but it sure looks unsightly.  Must be some kind of contact issue.