After bathing my new/used police trade-in Sig in Gun-Kote, then finally deciding why it wouldn't assemble,fixed it, and took it to the range with 200 rounds of CCI 124 gr. FMJ to compare to my also older (July of 1988) Glock 19. Here's the result: The Sig, for me, was more accurate. Although I was not used to the high bore-axis, I could call my shots fairly well. The crisp SA trigger was certainly better than the Glock 19, but the DA was a bit more daunting. In self-defense, I suspect the DA pull of the Sig would not be of much concern. Since I have small hands, the weight of the Sig gave me a more stable sight picture than that of the Glock, which more comfortable with the lower bore-axis. Rapid fire for me was easier with the Glock just because my arms were extended a bit more due to the bore axis. Mag capacity was equal, of course, however I imagine carrying 16 rounds in the Sig would test the suspenders on my dress slacks! Both are carried in Blackhawk CQC Serpa retention holsters (the best there is, in my opinion), but I think the Sig would tend to print a bit more than the Glock in CCW. The Sig is built like a tank! (Kinda reminds me of shooting the Swiss Lahti a few years ago). The Glock is a paragon of reliability....can probably take as much (or more) punishment and abuse as the Sig. I would have to label the Sig as the standard for which service sidearms should be....hey, it's hard not to say that about the Glock either! German and Austrian craftsmanship and engineering at its best. No, I ain't going to declare a winner other than to say that for CCW I would probably pick up the Glock more than the Sig. A feller could do worse than have a room full of both of these gems!