CZ 75b vs Sig 226

[5-SHOTS]

Surely this is a non-native-English-speaker statement. Because, if taken literally, it makes zero sense.

I'll try again: when I listen a IDPA and/or IPSC shooter badmouthing a pistol, the first thing I think is: "Damn, it must be a good pistol!".
Returning serious, I can't care less about what they carry in their holsters, and in my opinion what they use in competition shooting is not a good parameter to judge pistols, especially pistols not made for competitions, like the CZ 75B and the SIG-Sauer P226. I've never seen a HK P30, USP, P2000, SIG P226/229, Walther P99/PPQ in a competitive shooter holster: I still think those are excellent pistols.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

IMO, the Sig-lite night sights are the best on the market. I also find the OEM MecGar mags to be a higher quality than the CZ. topping of a mag on the CZ when new required a hammer and a floor jack.

Ever tried topping off a new Glock mag? All you have to do with any hard-to-load mag is leave the mag fully loaded for a couple of weeks, and the springs will take a set. Leave them fully loaded for a long time and you'll degrade the springs. (If you disagree, check out the FAQ area on the Wolff Spring site for advice on preserving mag springs.)

As noted elsewhere, I have owned a bunch of them - ranging from my current P-228r, to P-239s (with and without the DAK trigger), multiple P-226s (with and without the DAK trigger), a variety of P220s, including several of the standard P220s, as well as a P220 Match and Super Match, a P-226 X-Five Competition, and a P-210-6 (a fundamentally different design). I keep looking for the SIG that really calls my name, but haven't found it yet. The P-228r is close.

I've also owned a bunch of CZs (full-size and compact, SAO and DA/SA) and a variety of other CZ-pattern guns, including Tanfoglio-made guns (like the ASAI One Pro, an AT-84s) to a variety of Witness guns, including Sport Long Slides (but nothing from their current inventory). I've also shot some Baby Eagles. I've owned and shot several Swiss-made Sphinx pistols. I'm speaking from first hand knowledge and use of the guns in question. My only CZs at the moment are a CZ-85 Combat (my second CZ) and a semi-custom AT-84s (not a CZ, but a CZ-pattern gun.); the AT-84s is simply superb.

Several points

1) SIG doesn't make its own night sights. CZ doesn't either. No gun company does. The SIG factory night sights I've seen are made by Meprolight. Older SIGs have Trijicon NSs. CZ, according to CZ, generally doesn't provide FACTORY night sights, but you do see them. If your CZ came with "factory" NS's (and not the standard "luminescent" painted sights), the gun was probably part of a special production run or a specific distributor. Night sights are easily obtained for CZs. The CZ Custom Shop has both Meprolight and Trijicon NSs available, and you can get them from other sources and other sight makers. Cajun Gun Works has them, too. More importantly, if you have a SIG with night sights, you paid EXTRA for those night sights -- as much as $100 extra (it's arguably still a bargain, but it's not a free ride).

2) Mec-Gar makes CZ's factory (OEM) magazines for nearly ALL CZ handguns. Mec-Gar-branded CZ mags are also available for less $ from various venders. The after-market mags and the factory mags are functionally identical, but not always made to the exact same specs. (Over the years I've found that CZ factory 10 and 15 round mags will work in pre-B CZs, while newer 16+ round mags won't, nor will after-market mags made by other vendors.)

3) You talk about CZs being HEAVY and BUTT-HEAVY, but you clearly haven't worked much with an alloy-framed CZ with it's shorter "compact" grip.

• The PCR, an alloy-framed Compact (safety-equipped, rather than decocker) or a P-01 or PCR have a 14-round capacity and weigh, respectively 27 oz. and 28 ozs.
  
• The P-228 has 13-round factory mags and weighs 29 oz. The M11-A1, the current P-228 replacement, hold 15-rounds and weighs 32 ozs.
  
• There are several models of the P-229, and they weigh from 29-32 ounces and hold 15 rounds,

You should note that all of the SIGs are heavier than the CZs and close to the same size.

MSRP for the CZs are roughly $350 - $400 less (around $600) than the SIGs, which have a MSRP of $950 - $1100. Not everybody pays MSRP, but SIGs do cost a good bit more new than functionally similar CZs, and some folks clearly don't consider the SIGs, as nice as they are, worth almost twice as much as a similar CZ.

If accuracy is a great concern, a person could move UP to the next level of CZs, and look at the larger Tactical Sport or other CZ IPSC-style guns and get superb accuracy, reliability, and outstanding fit and finish. But you'll pay bit more for them than you would for the standard SIGs. These guns are more like the SIX X-Fives than the standard SIGs -- but typically cost less than the X-Five line. There is an array of CZ Custom-Shop guns that come with factory warranties that compare very favorably to the SIGs that sell in the same price range.

I've not seen Ransom Rest tests of any of these lower-level SIGs or CZs -- probably because extreme accuracy isn't the primary concern when building them or buying them. If you can show that the SIGs are categorically more accurate than the CZs, please show us. Otherwise, its arguably the Indian and not the arrow that really determine what gets hit on the target.

For the money, I'd rather have a Sphinx SDP -- which competes head on with the SIGs in terms of fit, finish, size, performance, and price. I think they may perform better. The Sphinx, some would argue, is a upgraded CZ.​

In fact, I'm now in the process of buying the SDP that's been on loan to me from the Sphinx importer. When that transaction is complete I will will sell a Gray Guns-tuned German P-228 in the next month or two -- I like the Sphinx better and don't see the need to have both. I'd sell the P-228 now, but the Heinie Straight Eight night sights failed after just 4 years, and have been sent back to Trijicon for replacement. That will take several weeks and the gun is without sights in the meantime.

As I said in an earlier post, people sometimes make up justifications for their choices -- be it SIG or CZ -- and sometimes those justifications are clearly artificial and superficial excuses. Its far more subjective (personal), but folks try to claim say there are OBJECTIVE (impartial) differences when that is less clear. Many of these comparisons, by participants on both sides of the argument, are based on a very limited knowledge of the guns being compared, and simply boil down to rationalizations made to justify their own purchase choices. I suspect that's at play in some of YOUR comments, too.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'll try again: when I listen a IDPA and/or IPSC shooter badmouthing a pistol, the first thing I think is: "Damn, it must be a good pistol!".
Returning serious, I can't care less about what they carry in their holsters, and in my opinion what they use in competition shooting is not a good parameter to judge pistols, especially pistols not made for competitions, like the CZ 75B and the SIG-Sauer P226. I've never seen a HK P30, USP, P2000, SIG P226/229, Walther P99/PPQ in a competitive shooter holster: I still think those are excellent pistols.

So an accurate, reliable weapon used in competition can't be good, and one that isn't used in competition must be better? Isn't that what you're saying? Do you realize how silly that claim, restated, sounds?

In IDPA, the guns are NOT all "made for competition." The IDPA Stock Service Pistol and USPSA Production classes limit enhancements and those guns are, for all intents and purposes, STOCK weapons suitable for carry; many ARE carried when not being used in the gun games. Of the non-pro competitors I know who carry when they're not doing gun games. darned few carry SIGs (mostly P220s), and almost NOBODY carries Walthers or H&Ks. Of the others I know some carry 1911s, several carry Glocks (19s and 23s). Some folks DO have SIGs in their gun safes and beside their bed at night, but don't carry them. I have seen Walther's and H&K USPs used in IDPA, by the way -- just not a lot of them.

In the real world of CARRY, the H&Ks and Walthers you cite, above, seem to be so rare as to be almost invisible -- while Glock 19s and 23s are very common (and are often carried with the same Ghost trigger upgrades found on the "stock-class" competition guns). I've done that with the Glocks I've owned, and if I ever feel the need to carry a .45, it will be my Glock 38 - a 19-size Glock in .45 GAP. A surprising number of folks I know or have talked with carry MOUSE GUNS (.380, etc.) and a few carry revolvers (5-6 shot snubbies -- both .357 Magnum and .38 special.)

H&Ks and Walther ARE great guns, but not widely used or seen. What does THAT tell us about H&Ks and Walthers? it tells us nothing about their quality or effectiveness. So, when I hear someone talking about H&K and Walther used for personal carry or in real-world defense encounters, I am just as skeptical as you are when YOU hear people talking about guns used in competition. It also makes me think you've not spent much time around people who shoot competitively, and that you haven't investigated what these competitors use when they're not competing.

As I've said earlier in this discussion, folks on both side of this debate *RATIONALIZE their choices, using what they think are the best arguments that immediately come to mind. That's a very subjective approach and tells us little about the guns in question. That seems to be what you've done in the cited language above.

*Rationalize: an attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.​

 

[5-SHOTS]

My statement was, obviously, defiant and not very serious. However I note it was taken very seriously by you...
Again, I can't care less what a competitive or a no competitive shooter uses in competition, open or concealed carry, home defense and so on. I choose what I think is better for me using my mind and without looking to someone else's holster or safe.
Glocks? Good pistols, I don't like the no second strike capability.
Beretta 98? The decocker is in a place I don't like. I hate the fat grips.
1911? I don't like SA pistols very much (I have a couple but I consider them as exceptions). Many 1911 don't even have a firing pin safety.
CZ/Tanfoglio? I shoot them very very well but again not my cup of tea for many reasons. And I shoot the SIG better.
And the list goes on...
There's something wrong with that?
If I'll join the IDPA or IPSC club in the future, I'll probably choose my gun considering other things.
I consider my Walther P99 and SIG-Sauer P226 more than adequate for recreational shooting and home defense (I don't have a carry permit). And using those pistols I've put in the dust alot of competitive shooter as far as accuracy goes (and they put me in the dust as far as speed goes ).
Back to the OP question, I still prefere the SIG for the reasons I explained in my previous posts.

 

[AKElroy]

Ever tried topping off a new Glock mag? All you have to do with any hard-to-load mag is leave the mag fully loaded for a couple of weeks, and the springs will take a set. Leave them fully loaded for a long time and you'll degrade the springs. (If you disagree, check out the FAQ area on the Wolff Spring site for advice on preserving mag springs.)

As noted elsewhere, I have owned a bunch of them - ranging from my current P-228r, to P-239s (with and without the DAK trigger), multiple P-226s (with and without the DAK trigger), a variety of P220s, including several of the standard P220s, as well as a P220 Match and Super Match, a P-226 X-Five Competition, and a P-210-6 (a fundamentally different design). I keep looking for the SIG that really calls my name, but haven't found it yet. The P-228r is close.

I've also owned a bunch of CZs (full-size and compact, SAO and DA/SA) and a variety of other CZ-pattern guns, including Tanfoglio-made guns (like the ASAI One Pro, an AT-84s) to a variety of Witness guns, including Sport Long Slides (but nothing from their current inventory). I've also shot some Baby Eagles. I've owned and shot several Swiss-made Sphinx pistols. I'm speaking from first hand knowledge and use of the guns in question. My only CZs at the moment are a CZ-85 Combat (my second CZ) and a semi-custom AT-84s (not a CZ, but a CZ-pattern gun.); the AT-84s is simply superb.

Several points

1) SIG doesn't make its own night sights. CZ doesn't either. No gun company does. The SIG factory night sights I've seen are made by Meprolight. Older SIGs have Trijicon NSs. CZ, according to CZ, generally doesn't provide FACTORY night sights, but you do see them. If your CZ came with "factory" NS's (and not the standard "luminescent" painted sights), the gun was probably part of a special production run or a specific distributor. Night sights are easily obtained for CZs. The CZ Custom Shop has both Meprolight and Trijicon NSs available, and you can get them from other sources and other sight makers. Cajun Gun Works has them, too. More importantly, if you have a SIG with night sights, you paid EXTRA for those night sights -- as much as $100 extra (it's arguably still a bargain, but it's not a free ride).

2) Mec-Gar makes CZ's factory (OEM) magazines for nearly ALL CZ handguns. Mec-Gar-branded CZ mags are also available for less $ from various venders. The after-market mags and the factory mags are functionally identical, but not always made to the exact same specs. (Over the years I've found that CZ factory 10 and 15 round mags will work in pre-B CZs, while newer 16+ round mags won't, nor will after-market mags made by other vendors.)

3) You talk about CZs being HEAVY and BUTT-HEAVY, but you clearly haven't worked much with an alloy-framed CZ with it's shorter "compact" grip.

• The PCR, an alloy-framed Compact (safety-equipped, rather than decocker) or a P-01 or PCR have a 14-round capacity and weigh, respectively 27 oz. and 28 ozs.
  
• The P-228 has 13-round factory mags and weighs 29 oz. The M11-A1, the current P-228 replacement, hold 15-rounds and weighs 32 ozs.
  
• There are several models of the P-229, and they weigh from 29-32 ounces and hold 15 rounds,

You should note that all of the SIGs are heavier than the CZs and close to the same size.

MSRP for the CZs are roughly $350 - $400 less (around $600) than the SIGs, which have a MSRP of $950 - $1100. Not everybody pays MSRP, but SIGs do cost a good bit more new than functionally similar CZs, and some folks clearly don't consider the SIGs, as nice as they are, worth almost twice as much as a similar CZ.

If accuracy is a great concern, a person could move UP to the next level of CZs, and look at the larger Tactical Sport or other CZ IPSC-style guns and get superb accuracy, reliability, and outstanding fit and finish. But you'll pay bit more for them than you would for the standard SIGs. These guns are more like the SIX X-Fives than the standard SIGs -- but typically cost less than the X-Five line. There is an array of CZ Custom-Shop guns that come with factory warranties that compare very favorably to the SIGs that sell in the same price range.

I've not seen Ransom Rest tests of any of these lower-level SIGs or CZs -- probably because extreme accuracy isn't the primary concern when building them or buying them. If you can show that the SIGs are categorically more accurate than the CZs, please show us. Otherwise, its arguably the Indian and not the arrow that really determine what gets hit on the target.

For the money, I'd rather have a Sphinx SDP -- which competes head on with the SIGs in terms of fit, finish, size, performance, and price. I think they may perform better. The Sphinx, some would argue, is a upgraded CZ.​

In fact, I'm now in the process of buying the SDP that's been on loan to me from the Sphinx importer. When that transaction is complete I will will sell a Gray Guns-tuned German P-228 in the next month or two -- I like the Sphinx better and don't see the need to have both. I'd sell the P-228 now, but the Heinie Straight Eight night sights failed after just 4 years, and have been sent back to Trijicon for replacement. That will take several weeks and the gun is without sights in the meantime.

As I said in an earlier post, people sometimes make up justifications for their choices -- be it SIG or CZ -- and sometimes those justifications are clearly artificial and superficial excuses. Its far more subjective (personal), but folks try to claim say there are OBJECTIVE (impartial) differences when that is less clear. Many of these comparisons, by participants on both sides of the argument, are based on a very limited knowledge of the guns being compared, and simply boil down to rationalizations made to justify their own purchase choices. I suspect that's at play in some of YOUR comments, too.

Again, I own both for a reason. The OP solicited opinion regarding which we prefer and why. I offered that, and for some replies it feels as though an attempt is being made to argue why my opinion should be changed. I LIKE BOTH OF THESE GUNS. It is why I bought them both. I also have the opportunity to handle, carry, and shoot them both, and the Sig is simply my subjective choice. Your hands/eyes/experience may vary.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I own both, but the Sig is the only one I carry regularly. I never carry the CZ. First, it is plain heavy, and a bit butt-heavy at that, so it wants to pull-away from the body.

As others have said, the Sig just exudes quality. Racking the slide of both, it becomes immediately apparent that someone spent quality time with the Sig perfecting the slide to frame fit. The CZ is a bit clunky and crunchy when racked, the Sig is so buttery smooth & quiet.

IMO, the Sig-lite night sights are the best on the market. I also find the OEM MecGar mags to be a higher quality than the CZ. topping of a mag on the CZ when new required a hammer and a floor jack.

I do love shooting my CZ though, but I have to say even though both are stone cold reliable, I feel more confident with the Sig on my hip.

I cited your original post, above. My apologies -- my response may have seemed more aggressive than I intended, but I'll explain why I wrote what I did:

And as I said in a response above, some of the reasons offered by participants in this discussion seem to be rationalizations, based on seemingly logical arguments that may nor may not apply. Examples: hard to load mags, night sights, and alloy vs steel frames.

I agree that SIGS do exude quality, and the higher the price tag the higher the seeming quality excuded. Does that "higher quality" justify a much higher price tag? I guess that depends on your budget and your personal tastes. For some, it depends monstly on whether the higher quality means much better (more cost-effective) performance. That question remains unanswered for many observers.

• You spoke of your SIG (226?) versus your CZ (75B). The CZ was apparently a steel-framed full-sized CZ. Nearly all SIGs have an alloy frame, except the more costly, top-end models. Any guns with an alloy frame will feel different and carry differently than a gun with a steel frame. (I carried a full-sized steel-framed CZ only briefly, and then tried the steel-frame Compact -- it was NOT a big improvement.) I would compare size and weight only with guns made in the same basic way intended to be used for the same basic purpose: Alloy to Alloy, carry, etc. A P-01 or PCR would clearly offer a much different subjective experience if the gun was used for CARRY, and would compare favorably to a P-228 or P-229 in most ways. Apples to Oranges
  
  
• You mentioned hard-to-load mags -- common with many guns, and not a sign of build quality, etc. (Mec-Gar makes nearly all CZ OEM mags and has made SIG mags, off and on, for years.) Ever tried to load a NEW Glock mag? I've heard of other mags going soft/failing, but I can't recall of any complaints about Glock mag springs going soft; it may happen, but it seems pretty rare. Apples to Cookies.
  
  
• You mentioned SIG night sights -- not standard equipment (but an extra cost option). And the CZ wasn't Night-Sight equipped. Several varieties of NS (including sights almost identical to the SIG factory sights) can be installed for just a few more dollars than what they cost on the SIG (which are a bargain); night sigts are rarely seen as CZ factory installed options ( and when they are seen are probably in response to a distributor's special run request.) Applies to Coffee
  
  
• You mentioned SIGs great slide to frame fit -- that's nice, but it really doesn't do much to improve a gun's performance. Consistent lockup of the barrel to slide is critical for accurate aimed fire, and that is good in both guns. Slide to frame fit m may be a "bragging rights" topic, but little else. Apples to Asparagus?
  
  
• You can talk about BUILD QUALITY and make an objective claim about a difference. That is very important to some people and is a valid point. But some of the difference may have to do with the basic design and the differences in the bore-axis of the guns. (I notice you didn't mention that difference. It is noticeable.) Apples to Apples. But it may be ROME applies compared to Washington State Delicious apples.

I would argue that if you compare the FUNCTIONALITY of the two guns, you see and experience less difference, and then the BUILD QUALITY differences become little more than "bragging rights" that play little role in the guns' respective abilities to perform. Then focusing on Build Quality seems like a rationalization used to justify all the extra $hundreds needed to buy the SIG when less costly guns were available that perfromed about as well (or maybe as well). (Berettas demonstrate great build quality, and are beautifully finished, maybe even more pretty than SIGs, but that's not why I'd buy a Beretta. Nowadays Berettas can be quite reasonably priced -- maybe as inexpensive as CZs!)

Again, I own both for a reason. The OP solicited opinion regarding which we prefer and why. I offered that, and for some replies it feels as though an attempt is being made to argue why my opinion should be changed. I LIKE BOTH OF THESE GUNS. It is why I bought them both. I also have the opportunity to handle, carry, and shoot them both, and the Sig is simply my subjective choice. Your hands/eyes/experience may vary.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion. You're welcome to your opinions, but when you started writing about features that can't be really compared, things went sideways. (I was almost expecting you to say you liked the SIG better because of the decocker...} It's clear that your reasons for buying both guns weren't the same -- one was a decocker-equipped alloy-framed gun, the other was a safety-equipped steel framed gun. Your points above seemed to suggest that the comparison was for guns bought for the same reason with the same purchase criteria applied. From my perspective, that was tilting the playing field unfairly to justify your preference for the SIG. You may be right to prefer the SIG, in your hands... but not solely for the reasons cited.

I think your point about build quality is valid -- but that may be a design philosophy difference between CZ and SIGSauer: CZ doesn't polish or refine things that, when polished/refined, don't improve performance. Some consider that a sign of lower quality. Perhaps, or perhaps it's just a different design and production philosophy... Some here use it as a rationalization.

And, as both SIG and CZ continue what appears to be a slow migration to poly-framed guns, Build Quality may become one less point of comparison. I'm still waiting to try one of the new striker-fired poly-framed SIGs. I've always disliked the SIG (and the CZ) DA/SA transition -- and that may be the SIG I've always wanted. It's also one of the reasons I like my tuned M&P Pros... Every trigger puill feels same.

 

[Rinspeed]

All the 75s I've shot had a rather rough trigger compared to the 226s I've shot. The older 226s had very high quality control parts that just keep getting better the more you shoot and dry fire them.

 

[AKElroy]

I'm not asking you to change your opinion. You're welcome to your opinions, but when you started writing about features that can't be really compared, things went sideways. (I was almost expecting you to say you liked the SIG better because of the decocker...} It's clear that your reasons for buying both guns weren't the same -- one was a decocker-equipped alloy-framed gun, the other was a safety-equipped steel framed gun. Your points above seemed to suggest that the comparison was for guns bought for the same reason with the same purchase criteria applied. From my perspective, that was tilting the playing field unfairly to justify your preference for the SIG. You may be right to prefer the SIG, in your hands... but not solely for the reasons cited.

Things went sideways? My goodness. I thought we were on track. I do like the de-cocker on my sig, and going back to the OP, he asked for opinions of those that own BOTH GUNS. I do, and my CZ lacks a D/C, so that is the frame of reference for me.

I don't recall giving any reasons for buying either gun, but if you would like them here they are: I actually bought the sig because I sweat like a boxed pig, and the MK 25 Navy has internals that are phosphate coated to limit corrosion, and having been very pleased with my Sig 2022, I was ready to upgrade to the next level Sig. My personal view was, and is, that the MK 25 P226 is very likely the finest duty 9mm available, but that is my purely subjective viewpoint.

I bought the CZ because I picked it up, and it felt good in my hand. No more thought than that went into that purchase, although I have not regretted it. Both are excellent. You refer to "Quality" as being a valid criteria, thanks for that, but I don't recall listing that as a criteria. I suggested with examples that the Sig displays greater craftsmanship, it does, and that does matter to me. Much of the reason I carry is to be comforted with the knowledge of being able to defend myself effectively, and higher levels of craftsmanship speak to that for me. Think of it as a Kimber vs. Ed Brown kind of thing. I guess we could argue about holster choices as well; I could carry comfortably OWB just fine with an $80 no-name pancake, but having a $300 horse-hide high-noon holster custom molded to this gun makes me happier when I carry it.

You may be right to prefer the Sig, but not for the reasons cited....

Actually, I can prefer it for the way it smells if I so choose. My opinions are SUBJECTIVE.

 

[Rinspeed]

You mentioned SIGs great slide to frame fit -- that's nice, but it really doesn't do much to improve a gun's performance. Consistent lockup of the barrel to slide is critical for accurate aimed fire, and that is good in both guns. Slide to frame fit m may be a "bragging rights" topic, but little else. Apples to Asparagus?

I know that has been read, posted and passed around the errornet for the last 20 years but that is only because some twit came up with it 30 years ago. Since then a whole legion of experts think it is true. If all slide to frame fitment was a "little else" topic why would every top smith worth their salt waste all that time welding, machining an re-fitting the two parts.

 

[AKElroy]

You mentioned SIGs great slide to frame fit -- that's nice, but it really doesn't do much to improve a gun's performance. Consistent lockup of the barrel to slide is critical for accurate aimed fire, and that is good in both guns. Slide to frame fit m may be a "bragging rights" topic, but little else. Apples to Asparagus?

I don't think I ever said it improved performance. My CZ "Performs" flawlessly with its gritty-by-comparison slide to frame fit. I believe I simply remarked that a craftsman spent good time making sure the Sig was buttery smooth. And by the way, if it was done for that reason and none other, I would still be happy about it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

you mentioned sigs great slide to frame fit -- that's nice, but it really doesn't do much to improve a gun's performance. Consistent lockup of the barrel to slide is critical for accurate aimed fire, and that is good in both guns. Slide to frame fit m may be a "bragging rights" topic, but little else. Apples to asparagus?

i know that has been read, posted and passed around the errornet for the last 20 years but that is only because some twit came up with it 30 years ago. Since then a whole legion of experts think it is true. If all slide to frame fitment was a "little else" topic why would every top smith worth their salt waste all that time welding, machining an re-fitting the two parts.

It might be because many of the folks who shell out big dollars for custom or highly-tuned guns have come to believe THAT slide to frame fit is a key sign of quality craftsmanship, and the gunsmiths do what they're paid to do. But these guys could arguably have guns that shoot just as well in their hands (but not from a Ransom Rest) for fewer dollars spent. (And one less boat payment for the Gunsmith.)

I would argue that every top 'smith DOESN'T really spend a lot of time welding, machining, and re-fitting that many parts. It's sometimes required to fix things that aren't right. It's sometimes done to build a gun from scratch. But I don't think it's really all that common. Many 1911 gunsmiths would probably say that while a tight slide-to-frame fit is good and desirable, they might also go on to say that the S-F fit probably accounts for less than 10% of a 1911's accuracy potential. (I've seen that said many times by gunsmiths who seem to know their business, and by others who use those guns.)[/U] Some of these same experts and craftsmen might also say that consistent barrel to slide fit (proper lockup, lug fitment, barrel bushings, etc.) is far more critical to accuracy.

Gunsmiths who specialize in other (non-1911) guns and comment on their trade practices seem to focus less on slide-to-frame fit than 1911 gunsmith. Like 1911 gunsmiths, they''ll agree its nice to have good slide-to-frame fit -- and they won't purposely make the slide-to-frame fit LOOSE on the guns they build -- but they also don't agonize over it and make it into some kind of gun world fetish..

With some of the polymer-framed guns, you simply aren't able to do much to change that fit, yet many of the polymer framed guns are very accurate and shoot as well as many of the best metal-framed guns. When you use the sights -- which isn't done with a Ransom Rest test -- the slight variance in slide to frame fit doesn't matter all that much, because the barrel and sights keep a consistent alignment. [With frame-mounted optics, you DO need slide-to-frame tightness to access the slide-to-barrel consistency -- and that's probably why you can buy metal frames for Glock competition pistols.]

I would argue that if a gun's slide to frame fit is tight, but the barrel-to-slide fit IS NOT equally good (i.e., not consistent) you'll have an inaccurate gun. The other way around, with a looser slide to frame fit, but good barrel-to-slide fit, you'll still have an accurate gun-- if you know how to use the sights and use good technique. I've shot 1911s that almost seemed to rattle, but were tack-drivers. You probably have, too.

Show me what's wrong in my comments above and I'll learn from the experience. The errornet maintains many myths and maybe you can help us get rid of one of them...

 

[AKElroy]

I think we are getting off topic. You are giving reason for why slide to frame fit is irrelevant, while the OP was simply looking for a comparison between two guns. Slide to frame fit is better on the Sig, next topic.

As for how that effects shoot ability, well, it doesn't. What it does do is suggest that the same care was exhibited in other areas of manufacture, such as the trigger, controls, barrel lock-up, etc. in all of these areas MY CZ is fine, but the Sig is exceptional. That just is what it is. It comes at a price, so the OP will need to decide for himself whether any of that is worth it.

There are design features on the CZ that I prefer, such as the low bore axis and excellent grip angle and feel, and the solid nature of that robust steel frame.

The Sig is simply executed in a more refined fashion, but not in a way that marginalized the CZ. they are both excellent, so this is a Cadillac /Mercedes comparison.

These long posts breaking down every point of comparison as being irrelevant are really just attempts to say " I know the Sig might be more refined in this area or that, but so what, the CZ is my favorite"

Not much of an argument.

 

[chiltech500]

I must compliment 5-SHOTS on his English. How many of you can even say a few words in another language much less write in an easy to understand manner. He's right. Many US citizens take themselves too seriously and are idiotically righteous about much. Get around the world a bit and you'll discover howw limited many of our horizons are.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I think we are getting off topic. You are giving reason for why slide to frame fit is irrelevant, while the OP was simply looking for a comparison between two guns. Slide to frame fit is better on the Sig, next topic.

As for how that effects shoot ability, well, it doesn't. What it does do is suggest that the same care was exhibited in other areas of manufacture, such as the trigger, controls, barrel lock-up, etc. in all of these areas MY CZ is fine, but the Sig is exceptional. That just is what it is. It comes at a price, so the OP will need to decide for himself whether any of that is worth it.

There are design features on the CZ that I prefer, such as the low bore axis and excellent grip angle and feel, and the solid nature of that robust steel frame.

The Sig is simply executed in a more refined fashion, but not in a way that marginalized the CZ. they are both excellent, so this is a Cadillac /Mercedes comparison.

These long posts breaking down every point of comparison as being irrelevant are really just attempts to say " I know the Sig might be more refined in this area or that, but so what, the CZ is my favorite"

Actually, AKELroy, the CZ is not my favorite. I like both the SIG and CZ, but I actually prefer several other guns over either of those. That doesn't mean I'm rushing to get rid of my current CZ or SIG. (And, if I do sell my P228r, which is being replaced by a Sphinx SDP already on hand, I'll probably try out the new striker-fired SIG...) As I noted in other responses, I don't like the DA/SA transition in the CZ or SIG guns -- and striker-fired guns or SA guns let me avoid that issue. (My CZ-85 Combat lets me start from cocked&locked should I want to. I just need to spring for the larger SA safety levers for that gun -- I think they can be used; I've kept the stock levers in place.) I have had two SA SIGs, but didn't really fall in love with them.

If I misinterpreted your earlier comments, my apologies, but I felt you were making unfair comparisons and judgments where comparison were not appropriate. You've since said you weren't really judging, just talking about features you liked and disliked. That said, I agree with the general focus of your comments cited above.

I don't think slide-to-frame fit is irrelevant, but I do think it's relevance is greatly exaggerated. SIG's barrel to slide lockup is very, very good -- and so is CZ's. Some of the newer model CZs (CZ-40B, CZ-97, P-07/P-09) use a SIG-style lockup, too. My older super-accurate 2000-series Sphinxes (sold) and my new Sphinx SDP, however, use the traditional CZ lockup. Only a SIG P-210-6 I owned years back did better.

Both gun makers focus their attention on the lockup near the chamber, and ignore the front of the assembly; neither uses tightly fit barrel bushings or designs that try to limit front of the barrel's movement (as is the case with 1911s or Third Gen S&W semi-autos). At least one of the new CZ Custom Shop guns, however, incorporate a closely-fit 1911-style barrel bushing. Things can change. Perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier comments, but in the context where I first read it, that didn't seem to be the case.

Slide to frame fit, then, is like the gun's finish: important, but not a game changer. That said, lots of folks dislike the CZ polycoat finish and like the SIG finish -- although in my experience polycoat is easier to touch-up or repair if something harsh, like an "Idiot mark" appears. (Dupli-Color matte black auto-body touch-up paint is a perfect match... Get the spray can rather than the small bottle, and spray some onto aluminum foil and apply it with a fine brush. The spray paint is thinner and applies without quick build-up.)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I must compliment 5-SHOTS on his English. How many of you can even say a few words in another language much less write in an easy to understand manner. He's right. Many US citizens take themselves too seriously and are idiotically righteous about much. Get around the world a bit and you'll discover howw limited many of our horizons are.

I missed the "Italy" in the ID area.

Keep in mind, however, that there are many U.S. GI's stationed in Italy -- and many will be coming home soon as they begin closing down bases in Europe.

If 5-SHOTS isn't writing in his native language then I agree. Many folks do have greater issues with their native language than he does with what may be a second (or third or fourth language.) If that is the case, my compliments, as well.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

All the 75s I've shot had a rather rough trigger compared to the 226s I've shot. The older 226s had very high quality control parts that just keep getting better the more you shoot and dry fire them.

True. But like the SIGs, they do improve greatly with use. It just takes a lot longer to get to relatively the same point.

While it seems to vary a bit from gun to gun, some CZ-75Bs also have an issue with hammer camming in SA mode -- and that won't get better with use. "Camming" is experienced when the hammer moves a bit to the rear before dropping in SA mode. (It's a function of the hammer/sear angles.) It wasn't common (i.e., was seldom seen) in Pre-Bs until they began transitioning to the B style, and has seemingly become more pronounced over time in the "B"s. [I've had a bunch of both of them.]

Some find the camming irritating, and others don't seem to care. The best fix for that issue is an after-market hammer from Cajun Gun Works or the CZ Custom Shop. Guns worked over by the Custom Shop or Cajun Gun Works don't behave like that.

 

[chiltech500]

Walt. do those shops clean up the trigger too?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Yes. Visit the Cajun Gun Works site and see what's available, etc. Great shop.

But, then, so is the CZ Custom Shop. Both really know the CZ line and how to improve them.

 

[chiltech500]

I do appreciate Walt sharing his knowledge. I never considered how the relationship between sight and barrel changed with an optic (sight) when it is frame mounted.

 

[gc70]

At the recent (2014) IDPA Nationals, there were a number 97 Glocks (mostly 34s), 87 S&W Pros, 4 Springfield XDs, 22 STIs (1911-like guns), 21 CZs, and 49 1911s from various makers. Not a single SIG. That should make some folks wonder why, if SIGs are so marvelous in the hands of savvy shooters like you, we don't see them in the gun game that most closely attempts to simulate the real world of self defense?

The 2014 IDPA Nationals had no SIGs -or any other guns with decockers- and half as many SA guns as striker-fired guns. At the national level, the extra time involved in a DA first shot or, to a lesser extent, manipulating a manual safety, is enough to determine the game's winners and losers. That does not define the real-world utility of different gun designs, but reflects the rules of the particular game.

Speaking of IDPA's rules, Ernest Langdon won the 2003 CDP National Championship with a SIG P220ST and the rules were promptly changed to impose a weight limit that conveniently disqualified the P220ST.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I know that Bill Wilson does what he can to keep a 1911 .45 supreme in the IDPA program .

But weight has always been a constraint in IDPA. (And while it's a snotty point for IDPA to focus on, I think it's based upon the idea of a weight limit for these guns was GENERALLY that they should be guns like what most of us might use in CARRY or Home Defense situations than pure competition guns.

When they get so heavy, that seems to be a gun designed PRIMARILY for competition. (I recently sold an P226 X-Five in .40, and it was HEAVY, with a steel rather than alloy frame. I'd never carry that gun -- another participant here mentioned his problems with heavy guns and keeping his pants, and I would have the SAME problem with a P226 X FIVE in my holster.

Are you sure there were no decocker models used? (There could have been some CZ SP-01 Tacticals among the CZs shooting there -- I couldn't tell whether these guns were shooting those CZs in the CSP or ESP.)

I would think that several of the SA P220 would be well below the weight limit for CDP. My P220 Super Match was only 33 ounces, and the weight limit for CDP is, I think, 43 oz. There are several other P220 SA models, too, and they seem to fit the CDP criteria.

Ernie Langdon has built some marvelous P220s... a friend has two guns that he tuned, and they are simply outstanding. That man prefers his 1911s, but he isn't bout to sell his Langdon-tuned P220s. (One of them is nickel-plated, a rarely seen variant, and very nice to look at.)

 

[Rinspeed]

Show me what's wrong in my comments above and I'll learn from the experience. The errornet maintains many myths and maybe you can help us get rid of one of them...

Not a darn thing wrong with your comments, just had a bad day yesterday my friend, sorry about that.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

... I never considered how the relationship between sight and barrel changed with an optic (sight) when it is frame mounted.

I thought I had mentioned it, and reviewed my comments and didn't find it. (I edit what I write, and add and take stuff away before I make it final.) I must have removed the content.

Frame-mounted optics are important with OPEN class shooting -- as those guys (according to a couple I've talked with) do everything they can to speed up the gun's cycling speed. Having something mounted on the slide will slow things down.

In a related discussion, 1911Tuner, who lives nearby and who participates here from time to time, made the following comment in a discussion about shock buffers. Not this topic, but he did address how some of the gun game pros enhance their weapons:

We've got a former Grand Master locally by the name of Larry Brown. He's friends with Brian Enos, and has shot matches against him in the past. To say that the boy can shoot would be the understatement of the century.

His pistol is .40 S&W caliber, built on a Caspian slide and frame set. He loads to 180 pf and uses a 10-pound spring with double shock buffs. He explained this setup to me.

The light spring softens the push from the spring, and the double buffers soften the slide's impact so the gun doesn't torque upward so sharply. The gun runs flatter, and lets him get back on target quicker. The twin buffs shorten the slide travel and brings the cycle time back up to speed with the light spring.

The buffs are not...according to him...to protect the frame.

Cycling speed and reduced recoil along with a frame-mounted optic could make a big difference when competing..

Larry is an exceptional shooter and ran classes for some of our IDPA club a few years back. I think I learned more in one evening than I had in several years... For much of the past 10 years he worked with Special Ops troops at Fort Bragg (NC) as an instructor/trainer. Marvelous instructor.

 

[Blade First]

"I've seen the same claim made about the H&K Mark 23 -- with the same supporting evidence (i.e., none.)"

My comment referred to 9mmP semi-auto pistols. Nevertheless, how is it that you find "no" evidence of primary usage? If your research is that extensive, please share with us what 9mmP pistol(s) is/are the default for our elite units. Please be specific.

"Then too, the SIG P226s now being used by the U.S. NAVY SEALs are not the same P226 you and I can buy."

Please be specific in how they are different...and further, why aren't us civvies allowed to buy/own the same pistol. As a SIG afficianado, I'm intrigued at what might be available.

"And the finest SIGs I've owned, used, or shot, had STEEL FRAMES -- and they're heavy -- and typically not used by military types. And these steel-frame guns are not comfortable CARRY weapons."

Specifically, how are these steel-framed pistols [P-, ST- or X-series, perhaps] the "finest" you have owned? IOW, what parameters did you/do you use? And why would SF units carry heavier pistols if they had faith that forged-aluminum frame pistols would operate just as effectively on their missions?

"Most of these claims seem to come from people very distant from the elite units being discussed, and in many cases the claims seem to be restated versions of advertising copy from gun mags."

Well, you've a lot more experience in writing for firearms magazines than I have. Perhaps it's important to refute some of these claims...or perhaps not.

"I've spent many long hours trying to find data or evidence to support such claims, and it's seemingly impossible."

I don't think you've spent the time in the proper places to dispute those claims...but that would just be my personal opinion.

"If you've found any reliable/verifiable data about who uses what, in what numbers, please share it with us."

How 'bout you go first, Walt? Our special forces' use of the P226 is a fact despite your protestations. If you insist on denying clear history, present your proof. What semi-auto DA pistol...in 9mmP...is really the choice? Further, for what reason?

I'm a fan of your writing, Walt...you've had a prodigious and distinguished career...but in this instance, you're wrong.

Best of luck with the new pistol...and let me know what you want for that P228 custom.

...Alex

 

[TestPilot]

Having shot both CZ-75 and P226, I would strongly lean towards P226.

Ergonomics wise, P226 is significantly better for me because of trigger reach. P226 grip size and DA trigger is at the near edge of what I can reach and excpect some degree of trigger control. I simply cannot reach the CZ trigger without modifying my grip that makes it less secure in order for my index finger to reach the trigger, even when CZ's grip felt thinner. I don't know why, but CZ decided to place the trigger hinge point way forward than most other DA pistols. So, no matter how good other features are, no CZs for me.

I also have a disdain for thumb lever type manual firing inhibitors on pistols.

The above can be just an issue I have.

What is more of a general issue, even for others, is the CZ's slide rail configuration. People falsely claim CZ has a low slide. Actually, it is not the slide that is low, but the frame that is high in order to have the fram rail on the outside. It may be a tad lower than a SIG, but not any significant amount. It is still waaaay higher than a Glock or M&P.

What is the problem with that? It makes any slide manipulation difficult during emergency manipulations. It's not even easy doing non-emergency manipulations. And, it does not make the pistol any better in any regards.

Also, SIG's Nitron finish is undeniably better than a plain Blue finish on CZ-75 in every practical aspects.