CZ 75b vs Sig 226

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chiltech500

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
536
Location
N of Allentown PA
Hello,

I am hoping for some owners to speak up pros and cons. Anyone own both?

I have a Sig 225 (single stack 9, predecessor to the 226) so I know what the Sigs all about. MY biggest surprise was the grip didn't feel much different 225 vs 226 (single vs newer double stack).

I have read the that some feel the CZ triggers aren't great and have a relatively heavy weight. I did some dry fire pulls in a shop and the CZ didn't feel too bad. Maybe 5-6 lbs in SA? Double action was much lighter than the Sigs.

Thoughts, ideas?
 
While I can't speak about the 226, I can say that I love my CZ75 BD, and have no complaints whatsoever regarding the trigger. Also, putting a set of VZ grips on the 75 really transforms it from okay ergos to a gun that feels like an extension of my arm.
 
I have a CZ75 "pre-B" with moderate action job and high profile sights and a CPO P226 with every Grayguns improvement to action and sights allowed by IDPA.
I think the P226 is the more refined design and possibly a more reliable service pistol, although my early troubles with the CZ were fixed with a new extractor.
BUT, in my main use as IDPA SSP, I can hit better with the CZ.
 
To the extent it's relevant, consider the fact that there are MANY more CZ's (and CZ-pattern guns) in the practical pistol shooting games than Sigs. One might conclude that this indicates that, among people who have an incentive to find the pistols that absolutely maximize their ability to get hits fast, CZs work better for more people. And since those shooters don't get do-overs for jams or other equipment failures, this may indicate that the reliability in relatively clean conditions is good enough.

What competition shooting won't generally tell you about is tolerance for abuse - getting dropped in mud, tossed in the back of a truck or glovebox and then bounced around for several thousand miles, etc.
 
There is a SA version of the CZ as well. Not sure about the viability of cocked and locked carry with it. Is it as safe as a 1911? I'll let the CZ guys answer that.

Being that the Sig and CZ DA/SA guns are so similar, I give the edge to the CZ. CZ has a far better reputation for reliability IME.
 
Thanks for all these replies. Price is much higher for the Sig than the CZ at the LGS, that alone had me leaning towards the CZ. I definitely see the value of the VZ grips,I had been thinking of the thins because the CZ stock rubber look pretty thick.

I am not going for competitions really because I have limited mobility, except for Steel and Bullseye. Have just become somewhat of a collector of guns I like to shoot and don't have a double stack 9mm. Have 2 Sig single stacks and a 1911 9mm which I am thinking of selling.

I have a bit of everything 3 revolvers, 2 1911's (not including the 9mm SA 1911) and I wanted to either own a Browning and/or CZ. Have tried other semi-auto 9's and have a preference for metal frame guns only (except for my mini Sig 290rs).
 
I have both. Here are the differences as I see them. First, the CZ is thinner, has better fit for my hand, points better. It also feels and carries heavier, so it pulls away from the body more than the Sig when carried OWB, although I have not weighed them. In fact, I do not carry the CZ for this reason. It is prettier to my eye than the Sig, and everyone must have a steel framed handgun at some point. I shoot tighter groups with the CZ in slow, single action fire.

The Sig has better sights, better trigger, better controls, and oddly I can get better rapid fire from the Sig even though it is lighter and has a higher bore axis than the CZ. I actually notice recoil more in the CZ than the Sig, which makes no sense given the weight and lower bore of the CZ.

The MecGar 18 round flush mags for the P226 are flawless and smooth; I assume they are also available for the CZ but I've not checked, so capacity with them is likely a wash.

I like and use the rail on the Sig, something the CZ lacks. From a smoothness of operation standpoint, everything about the Sig feels lighter and more smooth. The slide glides on the rails, the CZ is both heavier and more clunky. The stock trigger on the CZ is horrid.


The bottom line for me was this: I had to have them both. They are different enough and interesting enough to need both.

My CZ 85b is double-action, no de-cocker. After shooting Sigs, a de cocker for a carry gun that gets loaded and unloaded frequently is a very reassuring feature.
 
Last edited:
chiltech500, if you're used to a 1911, you may find your grip is more suited to the CZ. You can ride the safety on a CZ just as you can a 1911. With a Sig, gripping in that area can get you onto the decocker.

As for the competition issue, the reason I referenced it wasn't out of an assumption that you would be competing, just using it as a measuring stick for which gun many (not all) shooters find easier to run fast and accurately. That's all.
 
A couple decades ago, I would enthusiastically said Sig. But now I'm sold on the CZ75.
After wanting one for years, I finally stumbled onto a nice BD model (decocker) on one of the local classified sites, and I've been raving about that thing ever since. It's the most accurately I've ever fired a new pistol. I've since fired in with numerous types of ammo, from Winchester white box and Federal, to some decades old Fiocchi, to re-loads, to Russian steel-cased stuff,etc. It eats it all with nary a glitch.
I bought a Sig226 back around '86, it's always been absolutely perfect, and was among my most beloved toys for many years, but alas, love doth fade, and I traded it , then got it back, then traded it away again (still in my circle of good freinds) . It's a fantastic pistol, and noticably tighter than the newer ones are, but the bore axis makes it a larger package, and the prices on them these days is way high, making the $200+ cheaper CZ's even more enticing.
I'd recommend getting a CZ before they catch on even more and go even higher in price than they are now. I've seen them a couple times in the last year on sale at Kentucky Gunstore for well under $500.
 
I have the P226 in .40 S&W and the CZ 75B in 9mm. The P226 was bought used but AFIK the trigger is stock. The CZ was bought new and the trigger is stock, however I have noticed improvement in the DA/SA pull with use. I don't see the need for trigger work for either gun but the subject of trigger weight and feel is subjective and debatable among shooters.
 
Last edited:
Before the CZ-75 was legally imported, I jumped on the bandwagon (back in the early 90s) with what was then available in California: the TZ-75 and the Springfield P-9. What a joyous occasion when I was able to finally obtain the real thing, a pre-B CZ-75. Later added a satin nickel (stupidly traded away) and finally, a high-polish stainless CZ-75B.

Absolutely adore the CZ-75; in my opinion, the prettiest semi-auto out there (along with the 1991A1 and the original 92FS). I wish I could say my CZs have been as reliable as my SIGs (almost, but not quite) or as accurate as my 226s (two in 9mm, one in .40 S&W), but no, sorry, not quite. However, the CZ points beautifully for me, feels great in the hand and leads the pack in coolness factor ... for me, great range toys.

My SIGs' triggers are better, the sights and sight picture are much better, and the accuracy and reliable has always been 100%. Maybe a lot more competition shooters like the CZ, but there's far more SIGs in law enforcement land and on active duty in the hot zones.

I love the CZ-75, but carry SIGs.
 
A local Sig lover that shot his a LOT and did fairly well with it didn't start winning at IPSC until he switched over to a CZ Shadow. It's only one story so take it for what it's worth.

I got to shoot some Sigs, including this guy's gun, on occasion and found that I really had to focus on the basics to match my usual performance. Somehow my CZ's were just a more natural fit. I tend to blame this on the relatively high bore axis of the Sig which seems to produce more rotation in the recoil and induced a flinch issue in me due to the different feel.
 
Well now I HAVE to buy the CZ :) You all have sold me.

Having shot pretty darn accurate guns for Bullseye (9mm 's excluded because they were never accurate enough), I find my old Sig 225 great to shoot for sight picture and find the recoil feels light to me. Someone was trying to tell me they did something different in the 226 which increased perceived recoil ... don't know bout that.

I really was looking for persuasion to buy the CZ and you have given me the green light LOL
 
This is honestly like asking what is better, a 68 Camaro Super Sport or a 69 Mustang Shelby.

I've fired and own many CZs and Sigs. You're talking about top shelf, premier hammer fired 9mm pistols. Both are capable of near 100% reliability, are accurate, and will outlast many lifetimes of repeated use. Both have large capacity magazines available and lots of aftermarket support in holsters and parts.

Both have decockers - the Sig's is more forward on the frame whereas the CZ is at the rear of the frame. The slide release is the opposite location (forward on the CZ and rearward on the Sig). It's really just about preference.

Here's a few notable differences.

CZ: Perhaps inherently more accurate due to lower bore axis and slide INSIDE frame design on the rails. I've read these make it more accurate and faster followups for superb performance. But the drawback is the slide is very narrow top-to-bottom and makes it harder to grasp. Hammer is rounded so more snag resistant. It is notable that according to an article I read about 5 years ago, CZ is the top choice in competition shooting in Europe, and #2 behind Glock in the USA for competition shooting.

SIG: Slide is taller and thicker so easier to grasp the slide, but higher bore axis and more felt recoil in my view. Trigger is perhaps marginally better and not as far reach in DA mode. Hammer is pointed and perhaps more snag prone. Of course the Sig is 20% more expensive so that is a definite consideration.

Either will serve the owner well for many lifetimes. It really just is about personal preference and budget.
 
Had a P225 and P220, I've shot the P226 and CZ 75 pretty extensively and if I were picking one, I'd get the CZ for sure.

They fit my hand better, point better and shoot better (something with how the trigger breaks, but I can't define it) and are generally a bit cheaper.

Not that the Sigs are anywhere close to bad. If you're looking for a cheaper but still really nice Sig, take a quick glance at the 2022, great gun for a reasonable price.
 
Well now I HAVE to buy the CZ You all have sold me.
Click to expand...

The CZ will sell itself, they really make some good firearms. Check out a GS called "The Handgunner" in Topton PA for a good price on a CZ, this is where I got 2 of mine; ask for Randy at (610) 682-6714
 
Last edited:
Hey thanks for the tip. Buds (big online dealer, I've never used) has the CZ 75b at $526 - I'm told that Bud's is among the cheapest places to buy.

Topton is quite a bit of a drive for me. There's an indoor range I'm a member of and they sell guns, the CZ 75b is $539 there. From my standpoint 2.5-3 hrs driving isn't worth $50 savings to me.
 
To the extent it's relevant, consider the fact that there are MANY more CZ's (and CZ-pattern guns) in the practical pistol shooting games than Sigs.
Click to expand...

If you're looking for a gun for personal protection, LE or military use you will see just the opposite. Despite CZ's carefully worded descriptions they are rarely chosen for this use.

I think that if someone wants a handgun to play the various shooting games the CZ's are a good choice. They are a little less expensive, although the price difference is getting pretty close, and they tend to be more accurate than average. The heavier steel frame helps keep them steady for accurate rapid fire.

Some design features, such as the slide inside the frame, are less than desirable in a combat gun. Most want a lighter gun to carry all day and I've found them to be less than average reliability wise. The triggers on the ones I've shot needed some work in SA and were an awful long reach in DA. By the time a gunsmith works on the trigger and reliability issues are addressed you are at the same price as a Sig.

On a personal note the grip is an awful fit for me. The down turned beavertail digs into the web between my thumb and trigger finger with every shot. For me a BHP or 1911 is just a better choice for shooting games. While I like the Sig a lot better, it really doesn't do anything any better than my Glocks which cost less than either.
 
My CZ-75D PCR made my Sig P228 a safe queen, and I actually carry it in the same holster designed for the Sig. Yes, it is that good, and the trigger was excellent out of the box. My 75B is my HD pistol, and also has a nice, stock trigger, but it is slightly heavier than the PCR's. The excellent Kadet Kit .22lr conversion works on both, and I like the placement of the controls a lot better on the CZ's. They are just as reliable as the Sigs, and more accurate in my experience.
 
The triggers on the ones I've shot needed some work in SA and were an awful long reach in DA. By the time a gunsmith works on the trigger and reliability issues are addressed you are at the same price as a Sig.
Click to expand...

I've found exactly the opposite. CZ triggers I've shot are much better to me than the Sig's I've owned/shot. Probably why I sold off my Sigs.

Triggers are so subjective, what fits one person might not fit another. Just gotta try em all and see what we all like.
 
CZ: Perhaps inherently more accurate due to lower bore axis...
Click to expand...

Can you explain how the bore axis makes a gun "inherently more accurate"? I'm really interested how that affects accuracy.

If I put two guns in a Ransom Rest to test for accuracy, will the one with the lower bore axis automatically be more accurate? If so, what causes this?
 
There are some strong feelings emerging, games vs combat, etc. Assuming (hopefully) none of us will need to be in combat, self-defense is my word substituted for combat. Combat arms that withstand heavily adverse conditions well - mud, sand, extreme temps etc. - will not really be needed by most of us in the self-defense mode.

Therefore the Glock and Sigs reputation for toughness may be overkill for the rest of us. Sorry but I don't see a Glock being as accurate as a Sig, well yes at 15-20 feet into a silhouette chest zone - but not for greater accuracy limits at longer distances.

So I rule out the need for a new Sig for toughness, for me. I already have two :) We'll have to see about a higher standard for accuracy which comes out ahead, Sig or CZ. My standard for accuracy is Bullseye 25 yds. Neither is a Bullseye gun but it's always fun to see what happens.

In terms of triggers and shootability (not really a word) I am kind of flexible. I have S&W and Ruger revolvers, 1911's by Dan Wesson and Les Baer, 9 mm by Sig and a SA 1911 in 9mm for a 22 conversion, plus a Browning Buckmark. I like to shoot them all and rotate frequently thus I have no real safe queens, well maybe the Buckmark to be honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

4
  • Locked
  • Poll
Poll Sig 226 vs. CZ 75B in 9mm
Replies
13
Views
978
cjl8651
C
J
  • Locked
CZ 75B or Sig 226? Which is a better buy?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
brnmuenchow
B
T
  • Locked
Sig 220 > < 226?
Replies
7
Views
426
The Lone Haranguer
T
H
  • Locked
which 9mm to choose: CZ-75B or Sig-226 ?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Werewolf
W
K
  • Locked
Sig 229 or 226
Replies
19
Views
6K
MarcusWendt
M
Back
Top