CZ 75B vs. Sig P226

[Boomm]

I'd be hesitant to judge any weapon's value based on a military unit choosing it.

Anyways this poll isn't really a poll to show which is better, just what most would prefer. Most favor the CZ75B likely for the same reason that I do, because it is cheaper and does the same thing just as well (with a better trigger IMO).

What would make you hesitate?

 

[Kiln]

What would make you hesitate?

Because militaries don't just choose a weapon based on the fact that it is the super best gun on the planet.

What makes it a good gun for the Army doesn't make it a great gun for you.

 

[kazaam]

Alright alright, point taken! I'm just gonna satisfy my desires lol. I know there are stainless CZ 75Bs, but they dont look nearly as cool (imo, of course):

 

[meanmrmustard]

Alright alright, point taken! I'm just gonna satisfy my desires lol. I know there are stainless CZ 75Bs, but they dont look nearly as cool (imo, of course):

Meh. Looks like a ten story building with a trigger. To each their own...so, good luck with it.

 

[Pilot]

Meh. Looks like a ten story building with a trigger. To each their own...so, good luck with it.

Nice gun, no doubt, but I agree, the high bore axis, and ergos do nothing for me. I'll stick with CZ's while my Sig stays in the safe.

 

[Old Dog]

Yeah, looks are subjective. I personally think the CZ-75 looks cooler than the SIG, but I'm all about accuracy, and the P-226 is not only a "softer" shooting pistol, it displays considerably better out of the box accuracy. Also, the sights are easily swapped out, there are more, and better, aftermarket sights available for the SIG, and there's more in the way of accessories for the SIG ... SIG does have a pretty distinguished combat record, and history of durability as well.

But if looks -- and price -- are one's sole criteria for choosing a firearm ostensibly to defend one's home and hearth, we at least have the freedom of choice.

 

[sigarms228]

I'd be hesitant to judge any weapon's value based on a military unit choosing it

.

Each to their own opinion but in the case of the SEALS using the P226 I and many others consider it one hell of an endorsement of the P226 and it's capabilities, reliability, and durability given they have extreme latitude and available funds to purchase what is best for them unlike the most of the rest of the military or law enforcement that is much more restricted budget wise.

Anyways this poll isn't really a poll to show which is better, just what most would prefer. Most favor the CZ75B likely for the same reason that I do, because it is cheaper and does the same thing just as well (with a better trigger IMO).

Again each to their own opinion. For me very often it is not about which is cheaper and what is not just good enough for myself. In the case of the P226 considering the total costs involved for someone like myself that does a fair amount of shooting the initial extra investment of getting a P226 is very insignificant. I am glad that for you that your CZ can do everything that the P226 can do. For me that certainly is not the case as I shoot the P226 much better than any CZ I have ever tried, the ergos are better for me, and I like the trigger better.

 

[sigarms228]

Alright alright, point taken! I'm just gonna satisfy my desires lol. I know there are stainless CZ 75Bs, but they dont look nearly as cool (imo, of course):

Beautiful pistol kazaam and congratualtions.

You will love it. I will probably be getting one for myself or an X-FIVE Allround sometime fairly soon.

This will have to do for now along with my other P226.

 

[OilyPablo]

Sigs with wood are very nice.

 

[WinThePennant]

For value, I guess I'd give the edge to CZ.

For everything else, this isn't even close, the Sig P226 is an all-time great gun. Hands down, go with the Sig P226.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Yeah, looks are subjective. I personally think the CZ-75 looks cooler than the SIG, but I'm all about accuracy, and the P-226 is not only a "softer" shooting pistol, it displays considerably better out of the box accuracy. Also, the sights are easily swapped out, there are more, and better, aftermarket sights available for the SIG, and there's more in the way of accessories for the SIG ... SIG does have a pretty distinguished combat record, and history of durability as well.

But if looks -- and price -- are one's sole criteria for choosing a firearm ostensibly to defend one's home and hearth, we at least have the freedom of choice.

Everything you listed is true of the CZ. As far as out of the box accuracy, once again depends on more variables than who makes the gun. I'd beg to differ that the high bore axis, horrible DA trigger pull, and equality of after market accessories make the Sig more accurate. For every aftermarket goody one can think of, there's one for a CZ and a model that will accept it.

Also, theres other countries besides Czech Republic that employ the CZ line in one variation or another. So, someone could call that distinguished...not to mention the poll numbers as of late.

But, OP is picking based on looks...can't rebuttle that choice.

 

[schmeky]

All I have to say is, for $900-$1,000+, a Sig, NIB, should darn well perform. For less money, you can have a CZ that a Sig would be hard pressed to compete with.

I am not aware of any Sig than can acheive a reliable 6-7 b DA trigger pull with drop-in parts. I am also not aware of a Sig that most owners can "drop-in" a hammer package into that is capable of producing an ice crisp, 1911 like, 3.0-3.5# SA.

The vast majority of Sig owners most likely cannot take their Sigs down to accomplish these mods. But I could be wrong.

Don't misunderstand, I admire and have owned many Sigs, but for less money, a CZ is diamond in the rough.

 

[kazaam]

Ok, to be fair it isnt only about the way they look; I picked up a CZ 75B at a gun show and didn't think it felt good at all. Neither did my brother in law. I have large hands so I shouldve been ok, but I didnt have a religious experience like everyone said I would have lol.

 

[Ash]

No, your religious experience was at the SIG altar. That's fine, your choice and that is what's great about variety. Statements that involve the phrase "hands down" are silly, though, without evidence - which cannot be made that a SIG would be so utterly superior as to be "hands down" superior.

How about let's review some military-issued handguns, shall we?

Type 94. Japan issued handgun, could fire by pressing the side, fired a pathetically weak round.

Enfield #2 revolvers with bobbed hammer. Fired a 38 S&W round that was okay at best, with 6 rounds double-action only.

French 35 model pistols - superb pistols, pathetically weak round.

Japanese Type 26 revolver, every bit as bad a performer as the Enfield but with a weaker round.

The Czech Model 39 pistol - double action only locked breach 380. Nobody wanted it.

The United States replaced the 45 Colt with the 38 Colt. It must have been better, right?

The Warsaw Pact replaced the Tokerev with the Makarov. While the pistols are superb, the 9mm Mak is not equal to the 7.62x25 round on the battlefield.

The Germans issued 32acp pistols of many different flavors - most great pistols, none in a decent round.

The list can go on. Just because a military, even our military, issues it doesn't make it the best. Often what gets picked is not as good as what it replaced. Or, can anyone tell me the #2 Enfield is better than the Mk 6 Webley (or even the Mk IV 38 Webley)?

The Poles replaced the VIS 35 with the Tokerev, which was replaced by the P64. Proof of superior designs supplanting inferior ones?

The SIG 226 is an excellent pistol built to a lower price-point with its stamped slide (I think folks call it folded now). Indeed, many consider the stamped slide German-made examples the best of the breed. I have owned SIG pistols, and liked them. I would own another again, I suppose, were it not for my desire to simplify magazine ownership. Yet there remains nothing in a SIG that makes it better than a CZ.

You want a safety, then no SIG other than a 22lr will do the job. You want a decocker, than SIG or CZ work. You want solid, rugged reliability in a rugged package, both do the job equally well. CZ just does the job cheaper. Compared with the CZ-75, the SIG does the job lighter.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

You want a safety, then no SIG other than a 22lr will do the job.

I've got a SIG 220 Super Match which has a safety. I like it better than any 1911 I've owned. Pricey, though.

I've also got a SIG 226 X-Five in .40 that has a safety, too. I'm not overwhelmed with that gun, but it may just be me. (I can shoot my Glock 35 better.) I'm going to keep messing with it. I had a P-210-6 that was much easier to shoot well than this X-Five.

I've got a Gray Guns P-228 that's pretty nice. No safety, but a slick, accurate gun.

I've got a CZ 85 Combat that's been tuned a little by a local gunsmith that is very nice.

I've got a customized AT-84s (supposedly built by Jim Borland (back he was still alive and doing good things in the race gun business, but I have no proof), and it's the best of the bunch. The AT-84s is a Swiss-assembled early Tanfoglio copy of the CZ-75, and the custom version I've got is the best-shooting, sweetest gun I've got.

I've had FOUR 226s, over the years, and none of them really rang my bell. I've had MANY CZs, and I liked nearly all of them -- but generally got offers I couldn't refuse (and didn't.)

I like SIGs, and I like CZs. (Heck -- I also like Glocks.) I don't seen any need for the "this is better than that" discussion, as it all tends to be pretty darned subjective.

 

[meanmrmustard]

I've got a SIG 220 Super Match which has a safety. I like it better than any 1911 I've owned. Pricey, though.

I've also got a SIG 226 X-Five in .40 that has a safety, too. I'm not overwhelmed with that gun, but it may just be me. (I can shoot my Glock 35 better.) I'm going to keep messing with it. I had a P-210-6 that was much easier to shoot well than this X-Five.

I've got a Gray Guns P-228 that's pretty nice. No safety, but a slick, accurate gun.

I've got a CZ 85 Combat that's been tuned a little by a local gunsmith that is very nice.

I've got a customized AT-84s (supposedly built by Jim Borland (back he was still alive and doing good things in the race gun business, but I have no proof), and it's the best of the bunch. The AT-84s is a Swiss-assembled early Tanfoglio copy of the CZ-75, and the custom version I've got is the best-shooting, sweetest gun I've got.

I've had FOUR 226s, over the years, and none of them really rang my bell. I've had MANY CZs, and I liked nearly all of them -- but generally got offers I couldn't refuse (and didn't.)

I like SIGs, and I like CZs. (Heck -- I also like Glocks.) I don't seen any need for the "this is better than that" discussion, as it all tends to be pretty darned subjective.

Any thread with "vs." in the title tends to bring out the subjective nature in us all. Kinda the point methinks.

 

[Kiln]

No, your religious experience was at the SIG altar. That's fine, your choice and that is what's great about variety. Statements that involve the phrase "hands down" are silly, though, without evidence - which cannot be made that a SIG would be so utterly superior as to be "hands down" superior.

How about let's review some military-issued handguns, shall we?

Type 94. Japan issued handgun, could fire by pressing the side, fired a pathetically weak round.

Enfield #2 revolvers with bobbed hammer. Fired a 38 S&W round that was okay at best, with 6 rounds double-action only.

French 35 model pistols - superb pistols, pathetically weak round.

Japanese Type 26 revolver, every bit as bad a performer as the Enfield but with a weaker round.

The Czech Model 39 pistol - double action only locked breach 380. Nobody wanted it.

The United States replaced the 45 Colt with the 38 Colt. It must have been better, right?

The Warsaw Pact replaced the Tokerev with the Makarov. While the pistols are superb, the 9mm Mak is not equal to the 7.62x25 round on the battlefield.

The Germans issued 32acp pistols of many different flavors - most great pistols, none in a decent round.

The list can go on. Just because a military, even our military, issues it doesn't make it the best. Often what gets picked is not as good as what it replaced. Or, can anyone tell me the #2 Enfield is better than the Mk 6 Webley (or even the Mk IV 38 Webley)?

The Poles replaced the VIS 35 with the Tokerev, which was replaced by the P64. Proof of superior designs supplanting inferior ones?

The SIG 226 is an excellent pistol built to a lower price-point with its stamped slide (I think folks call it folded now). Indeed, many consider the stamped slide German-made examples the best of the breed. I have owned SIG pistols, and liked them. I would own another again, I suppose, were it not for my desire to simplify magazine ownership. Yet there remains nothing in a SIG that makes it better than a CZ.

You want a safety, then no SIG other than a 22lr will do the job. You want a decocker, than SIG or CZ work. You want solid, rugged reliability in a rugged package, both do the job equally well. CZ just does the job cheaper. Compared with the CZ-75, the SIG does the job lighter.

This is what I was trying to get across with my previous comments, just because any military picks something doesn't make it the best. The military makes their sidearm decisions based on several things, including politics.

 

[kazaam]

Appreciate the information guys! I love this website. In all honesty, I will be getting whichever one i don't choose in the future anyway.