Sig polymer vs. steel in 9mm

scl516

I've been looking for a high quality 9mm and have narrowed it down to a Sig or Glock, although I found a killer deal on the Ruger P95 which is tempting. I want a pistol to use for plinking as well as home defense, maybe concealed carry later on.
A local gun shop has the Sig in both polymer and steel frame, with the polymer being about $120 less. Is this any indication of durability/problems ahead? I don't have the model #s handy.
Opinions? Warnings? Thanks.

No-Stick

Unlike the early days of polymer handguns, there is no real significant difference between steel and polymer frames (outside of personal preference). Modern polymers (and please don't mistake "polymer" for "plastic") are formulated as tough (if not tougher) than steel (short of custom steel formulas, and even then that's debatable). For comparison, your standard car has a large number of polymer engine parts, such as gears and rings, that not only have to deal with engine stresses and pressures, but also extreme temperature ranges.

Polymers are generally lower in cost as they are molded (and machined if necessary) versus steel (forged then machined, or milled from a blank).

Most internal components will still be steel, plus the receiver and barrel.

Happily shooting both steel and polymers for the past 25 years (or so).

As for the P95, go for it. Fine pistols for the money, and tough as hell.

"Nuke 'em 'til they glow - then shoot 'em in the dark."

scl516

Thanks for the input. Yeah, I've had several Rugers over the years, and have a Mk II pistol and 10/22 rifle now, I've just never known too much about their centerfile autos.
What's your take on the following:

Ruger P95 @ $270
Sig polymer @ $340
Sig steel @ $460
Glocks @ $450-475

Preferences??

No-Stick

If it was just me, the Sig in polymer (it's a 9mm, right? so that would likely make it a 226), then the P95.

Although I've handled Glocks, I've never preferred them for shooting (always felt unnatural in my hand).

Another pistol you may want to look at is the Springfield Armory XD-9. Damn fine pistol, and very shootable.

"Nuke 'em 'til they glow - then shoot 'em in the dark."

CFPython

I wouldn't let price be the lone determining factor. Handle (shoot if possible) all of them. Buy what fits your hand best. While I like Glocks and carry one on duty, I have a SIG P225 that fits my hand almost perfectly. It's a shooting machine, and carries very well off duty.

"One day lad, all this will be yours."
"What, the curtains?"

laisterr

IMHO, the p95 is a nice gun. a little too bulky for concealed carry though. my brother carried one for a wedding while i carried a
FEG SMC-918 (walther clone). guess which one was more noticeable?

scl516

Speaking of Walthers, how's their P99? While $$ is not a major issue here, are they worth the extra bucks over the Sig or Glock? I had a PPK/S many years ago, but in .380, and it was a true work of art. Has Walther kept quality up over the years, especially recently?
Thanks for any info.

Mooseyard

The polymer Sig is the Sig Pro 2340, not a 226. I have not heard good things about it. I have 2 Sig 226's one in 9mm the other in 357. They are both great guns. I have owned everything that you have listed, and the only guns on your list I would take would be the Sig steel frames. If you want to spend more money, try a Wilson or Kimber 45.

bobski

my alloy sig 226 lasted 100,000 rounds and then the slide rails cracked off. go steel.

former air operations officer SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team 2. former navy skeet team, former navy rifle/pistol team member. co-owner skeetmaster tubes inc.. owner/operator professional shooting instruction.

74cuda

Go SIG and then Glock... Rugers are quality guns, but bulky for concealment....

"In God We Trust........All Others Go Thru NCIC"