CZ 75b vs Sig 226

[TestPilot]

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

Simple. It does not. It only has to do with recoil characteristics that affect follow-up shots.

CZ proponents often cite the slide rail being inside as reason for higher accuracy. But, mechanically speaking, as long as the rails are machined well, there is no reason why slide rail being inside or outside should have any relevance in accuracy at all.

What may be relevant is that CZ-75s once were machined by craftsman. Now it is just CNC machined to preset tolerances like any other pistols. I have no reason to think why it would be signficantly more or less accurate than others.

 

[chiltech500]

Tolerance of fit? Flex possibilities? Barrel lock up design? Quality of barrel?

I say take a couple new stock P226's and cz 75B'S, attach to Ransom Rest and find how on average they compare. Only way to settle that part of the discussion.

I will only refer back to an original post I made about looser fit = greater likelihood to fire under adverse conditions. Tighter fit (wadcutter gun like Les Baer target 1911 is very accurate but more tempremental because of tightness of fit = less margin of error). I would not carry the more accurate gun in my example with 1911's because the likelihood it may be more prone to misfire, FTE, FTF etc.

 

[JTQ]

Tighter fit (wadcutter gun like Les Baer target 1911 is very accurate but more tempremental because of tightness of fit = less margin of error). I would not carry the more accurate gun in my example with 1911's because the likelihood it may be more prone to misfire, FTE, FTF etc.

You should post that on a Les Baer forum somewhere and see what kind of response you get from the Les Baer faithful.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

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.

I know one fellow who has spent several years working as a trainer with Special Ops/Delta troops at Fort Bragg (here in NC), and had two close friends who served with Special Ops teams. (They are both dead -- brain cancer, and an accident.) The training they do and did, and the missions they undertook involved a range of weapons, changed to suit the task at hand. They typically didn't wear or carry weapons except when training or on missions. Back then, if there was a default weapon, it was probably a Beretta M9. After leaving services, both seemed to favor BHP Clones.

If you can show us which weapons are STANDARD or DEFAULT for Special Ops teams (be they Marine Force Recon, Army Special Forces, Delta, or NAVY SEALS, from credible sources, please do so – I'll stand corrected and not make an incorrect claim in the future. (I understand that the USMC recently ordered a bunch of 1911s (.45) from a vendor for some of their specialists -- but I only know this based on gun mag ads and gun mag articles, and not upon more credible or verifiable sources.)

One SEAL I knew said, perhaps jokingly, that handguns are nice, but he sometimes felt it would be better to carry an extra canteen on some missions. (He preferred longer-barreled weapons). But a BUG that is accurate and suitable for close-quarter combat would be reassuring for many folks.

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.

As I understand it, the guns have the same specs, but aren't given the same handling and attention during manufacture at the factory. If you have different information, share it with us. But just pointing to the SIG web site as proof isn't really proof.

(CZ claims to have the most widely-used pistol in the world. (If you inlcuded all of the CZ-pattern guns made in Italy, Turkey and elsewhere, they mitght be right...) But, please note: "widely-used" isn't the same as "most-used" or "largest number in use." People sometimes read into ad copy and web-site statements (claims?) what they want to read and misinterpret what's actually written. I'm skeptical about all such claims from any gun maker.)

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?

I guess I used the same parameters most people would use when talking about top-performing guns: fit, finish, and PERFORMANCE. The P-210-6 (steel frame) I owned came with a proof target showing a 1.75” five-shot group at 50 meters (about 55 yards). Eight-round magazines are no longer the standard. A double-stack P-210 would be a game changer for me.

I never saw the proof target for my P-226 X-Five Competition in .40, but anyone who shot it shot very small groups. (I never could do that with THAT gun; we didn't get along.) When I sold it, it was to a guy who shot USPSA, and he eventually sold it, too, because it was just heavier than it needed to be for the role he wanted it to play. Beautiful gun with fabulous fit. It was an early X-Five and he (he did his own gunsmithing and is good at it) said the gun was badly over-sprung -- despite the fact that I had gotten lighter replacement springs (recoil and hammer) from SIG.

My SIG P220 Match came with a proof target showing a sub-1 inch target group at 25 yards, and one of the 5 was a flyer (or, maybe, the first shot)! The 4-shot group was just a bit over 5/8ths of an inch. I could do very well with my SIG P220 Super Match, which was also alloy, but I did best from a rest. (In an IDPA-type match, I typically shot my Glock 38 as well or better!) Both of the P220s were alloy – but the U.S. Military doesn't seem to use many P220s. I don't know for sure, but I've also read about SIG P220 X-Fives, rare, and I suspect they're steel-framed guns, too.

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 never written an article for a gun mag. My writing experience, some years back, was as a technical writer in the financial services industry, and as an advertising copy writer for some local ad agencies. (I did that as a side-line, on my own time, with my big-bank employer's knowledge. Some of the work I did through the ad agencies was for that same employer! Go figure.) I also spent a number of years in marketing/product development -- but that had nothing to do with guns. I also (prior to retirement) spent a while doing marketing and market research, and that probably explains the skepticism I mentioned earlier -- but cynicism rather than skepticism might be a better term.

I've spent many long hours trying to find data or evidence to support such claims, and it's seemingly impossible. If you've found any reliable/verifiable data about who uses what, in what numbers, please share it with us.

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.

So, tell us the proper places and show me the things that you feel are so easily found. I'll gladly concede the point to you, and thank you for finding what I've been unable to find.

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 never said they don't USE the P-226. I said they use them and other weapons, too. I made no claim about which weapon was "default" or even most frequently used -- as I suspect there isn't any such beast for Special Ops operators. Guns with longer barrels that shoot a more powerful round seem to be the most widely used weapons for those folks -- and the weapons used change from task to task.

Think about what you're asking me to do, above: you're asking me to prove a negative – to cite the sources I can't find? How do I do that? It's the absence of such sources that has been the problem for me. I think it'll be a problem for you, too... Maybe not, and if not, great!

Except for advertising copy, gun mags that don't cite their sources, and web-site puffery by the gun makers, I've seen almost nothing about who uses what. I've seen a lot of ad copy and articles in gun mags about who has sold guns to the U.S. Dept of Defense for specific military teams, but nothing that cites what's most commonly used or what is the DEFAULT weapon, if any of those teams have a DEFAULT weapon.

To make things more clear and to correct what you consider my obvious errors, cite YOUR SOURCES that claim a clear history and specify default weapons. I haven't found those sources. If you can show us that information, I'll pat you on the back, thank you, and share it all with the world in future discussions.

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

It'll be several weeks before that gun is up for sale, if it does get offered for sale. The sights had to go back to Heinie (Straight Eight night sights) and then Trijicon for triitiuml vial failure (after just 4 years.) Trijicon hasn't acknowledged that the vial failure was their fault -- but they will be replaced, even if it's at my expense. If it comes back with bright sights, I may feel compelled to hold onto it. It is a very nice gun, but I like (and shoot) the Sphinx SDP better. Regardless, it'll be even better than it was. (One fellow already has first right of refusal.)

 

[5-SHOTS]

Thanks for your compliments about my english, my friends. Yes, I'm 100% italian so for me using another language is a good effort. I think THR, as well as others gun forums I attend, has helped me alot.

I'll expain other reasons why I like the SIG more: I prefere DA/SA pistols with a decocker-only feature; it's alot easier for me to rack the SIG slide; I've experienced the standard CZ 75B front and back strap to be slippery with sweaty hands; I like the hold-open position more on the SIG (which, I know, it's not the rule...).

 

[Walt Sherrill]

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

What sort of firing inhibitor is available with the P-226? Hammer down or decocked, the CZ and SIGs have firing pin blocks that won't let an accidental discharge (due to drops, etc) happen; with both gun you have to pull the trigger for the firing pin block to be disengaged.

The manual safety on the CZ can't be engaged unless the hammer is cocked and there's no reason for the safety, otherwise. This is one difference between CZs and many of the CZ-pattern guns from Italy, Turkey, or Israel (most of which are based on the Tanfoglio version of the CZ design.) With those guns you can engage the safety in any action position. But if the CZ hammer is cocked (as with a cocked & locked start), the only way it can be used, your observation about trigger pull length doesn't apply.

Your comment about the long DA trigger reach for the CZ is a legitimate and common topic/complaint about the CZ design; some of my shooting friends who like CZs otherwise say the same thing. That long pull is less of a problem with the decocker-equpped CZ models, as those triggers have a greater curve (less far to reach), and the action starts from the decocked position, which is the half-cock notch (and NOT hammer fully down). Those CZ models are similar in function to the decocker-equipped SIGs.

Some folks don't like cocked & locked starts. It's not an option with a decocker equipped SIG or CZ. You can start from C&L with all non-decocker DA/SA CZs and SAOnly SIGs. If you don't like C&L you'd probably never get a SA Only SIG, either.

Some folks find guns that don't fit them (either physically or for other reasons) and that seems to be the case with you and the CZ(s?) you've handled.

 

[chiltech500]

Keep up the good work 5SHOTs .

By the way you write phrases which are placed at the beginning of a sentence - native English speakers would do the opposite, I can tell you were Italian.

The above sentence is an example. A native American English speaker would probably say it like this:

I can tell you are Italian by the way you write phrases which are placed at the beginning of a sentence - native English speakers would do the opposite.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Well, at least the choices are two great guns: a CZ and a SIG...
...as opposed to a Glock. Yep, I went there.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Walt Sherrill:
What sort of firing inhibitor is available withe P-226?

As far as thumb swtich type is concerned, NONE. Which is one of the reasons I prefer it.

It used to be my personal choice for primary pistol. Not it is M&P40.

 

[5-SHOTS]

Keep up the good work 5SHOTs .

By the way you write phrases which are placed at the beginning of a sentence - native English speakers would do the opposite, I can tell you were Italian.

The above sentence is an example. A native American English speaker would probably say it like this:

I can tell you are Italian by the way you write phrases which are placed at the beginning of a sentence - native English speakers would do the opposite.

Thank you chiltech500.
Yeah, you are right: it's a very common error for italians to write english phrases "upside down".

 

[Thompsoncustom]

Well, at least the choices are two great guns: a CZ and a SIG...
...as opposed to a Glock. Yep, I went there.

All this thread needs is more fuel in the fire lol.

 

[AKElroy]

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.]

My 85b does this, and it is one of the reasons the Sig spends more time on my hip. I didn't realize prior to your post that it was a known issue with a relatively easy fix. I'm looking into getting this done -- thanks for this post.

 

[AKElroy]

I know one fellow who has spent several years working as a trainer with Special Ops/Delta troops at Fort Bragg (here in NC), and had two close friends who served with Special Ops teams. (They are both dead -- brain cancer, and an accident.) The training they do and did, and the missions they undertook involved a range of weapons, changed to suit the task at hand. They typically didn't wear or carry weapons except when training or on missions. Back then, if there was a default weapon, it was probably a Beretta M9. After leaving services, both seemed to favor BHP Clones.

If you can show us which weapons are STANDARD or DEFAULT for Special Ops teams (be they Marine Force Recon, Army Special Forces, Delta, or NAVY SEALS, from credible sources, please do so – I'll stand corrected and not make an incorrect claim in the future. (I understand that the USMC recently ordered a bunch of 1911s (.45) from a vendor for some of their specialists -- but I only know this based on gun mag ads and gun mag articles, and not upon more credible or verifiable sources.)

One SEAL I knew said, perhaps jokingly, that handguns are nice, but he sometimes felt it would be better to carry an extra canteen on some missions. (He preferred longer-barreled weapons). But a BUG that is accurate and suitable for close-quarter combat would be reassuring for many folks.


As I understand it, the guns have the same specs, but aren't given the same handling and attention during manufacture at the factory. If you have different information, share it with us. But just pointing to the SIG web site as proof isn't really proof.

(CZ claims to have the most widely-used pistol in the world. (If you inlcuded all of the CZ-pattern guns made in Italy, Turkey and elsewhere, they mitght be right...) But, please note: "widely-used" isn't the same as "most-used" or "largest number in use." People sometimes read into ad copy and web-site statements (claims?) what they want to read and misinterpret what's actually written. I'm skeptical about all such claims from any gun maker.)


I guess I used the same parameters most people would use when talking about top-performing guns: fit, finish, and PERFORMANCE. The P-210-6 (steel frame) I owned came with a proof target showing a 1.75” five-shot group at 50 meters (about 55 yards). Eight-round magazines are no longer the standard. A double-stack P-210 would be a game changer for me.

I never saw the proof target for my P-226 X-Five Competition in .40, but anyone who shot it shot very small groups. (I never could do that with THAT gun; we didn't get along.) When I sold it, it was to a guy who shot USPSA, and he eventually sold it, too, because it was just heavier than it needed to be for the role he wanted it to play. Beautiful gun with fabulous fit. It was an early X-Five and he (he did his own gunsmithing and is good at it) said the gun was badly over-sprung -- despite the fact that I had gotten lighter replacement springs (recoil and hammer) from SIG.

My SIG P220 Match came with a proof target showing a sub-1 inch target group at 25 yards, and one of the 5 was a flyer (or, maybe, the first shot)! The 4-shot group was just a bit over 5/8ths of an inch. I could do very well with my SIG P220 Super Match, which was also alloy, but I did best from a rest. (In an IDPA-type match, I typically shot my Glock 38 as well or better!) Both of the P220s were alloy – but the U.S. Military doesn't seem to use many P220s. I don't know for sure, but I've also read about SIG P220 X-Fives, rare, and I suspect they're steel-framed guns, too.

I've never written an article for a gun mag. My writing experience, some years back, was as a technical writer in the financial services industry, and as an advertising copy writer for some local ad agencies. (I did that as a side-line, on my own time, with my big-bank employer's knowledge. Some of the work I did through the ad agencies was for that same employer! Go figure.) I also spent a number of years in marketing/product development -- but that had nothing to do with guns. I also (prior to retirement) spent a while doing marketing and market research, and that probably explains the skepticism I mentioned earlier -- but cynicism rather than skepticism might be a better term.


So, tell us the proper places and show me the things that you feel are so easily found. I'll gladly concede the point to you, and thank you for finding what I've been unable to find.



I never said they don't USE the P-226. I said they use them and other weapons, too. I made no claim about which weapon was "default" or even most frequently used -- as I suspect there isn't any such beast for Special Ops operators. Guns with longer barrels that shoot a more powerful round seem to be the most widely used weapons for those folks -- and the weapons used change from task to task.

Think about what you're asking me to do, above: you're asking me to prove a negative – to cite the sources I can't find? How do I do that? It's the absence of such sources that has been the problem for me. I think it'll be a problem for you, too... Maybe not, and if not, great!

Except for advertising copy, gun mags that don't cite their sources, and web-site puffery by the gun makers, I've seen almost nothing about who uses what. I've seen a lot of ad copy and articles in gun mags about who has sold guns to the U.S. Dept of Defense for specific military teams, but nothing that cites what's most commonly used or what is the DEFAULT weapon, if any of those teams have a DEFAULT weapon.

To make things more clear and to correct what you consider my obvious errors, cite YOUR SOURCES that claim a clear history and specify default weapons. I haven't found those sources. If you can show us that information, I'll pat you on the back, thank you, and share it all with the world in future discussions.

It'll be several weeks before that gun is up for sale, if it does get offered for sale. The sights had to go back to Heinie (Straight Eight night sights) and then Trijicon for triitiuml vial failure (after just 4 years.) Trijicon hasn't acknowledged that the vial failure was their fault -- but they will be replaced, even if it's at my expense. If it comes back with bright sights, I may feel compelled to hold onto it. It is a very nice gun, but I like (and shoot) the Sphinx SDP better. Regardless, it'll be even better than it was. (One fellow already has first right of refusal.)

The navy has a Sig contract for the SEALS, a P226 with a few mods. Those mods include phosphate coated internals so that it can be immersed in salt water, night sights, chrome-lined bore, and special care and fitting during manufacture.

That EXACT gun is available for purchase by civilians as the MK 25, P226 Navy. Those responsible for assembling these selected guns know not whether it is going to your LGS, or a deployed Navy Seal.

Sig was required to obtain special permission from Uncle Sam to sell the exact weapon under current contract with the military to the general public.

This is why it runs a grand.

To Walts point, I am also aware that the SEALS have some latitude on what they actually use. My understanding is that many prefer Glocks.

 

[5-SHOTS]

Same experience here with both father's CZs: when pulling the trigger SA the hammer goes a little back before the release.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Is the "camming" still an issue with the new Omega triggers? I have a 75 clone and my father is buying a P-07 with the Omega trigger, and I want to keep an eye on them.

 

[Dudedog]

Buy the CZ.
I had the same question and I bought the Sig. After 3 range trips the rear sight is loose and the front sight almost fell out of the dovetail this morning when shooting.

Sure wish I would have bought the CZ now.

 

[Old Dog]

Have you even given SIG a chance to make things right? It's kind of customary to at least give the factory one chance to fix a pistol before bashing it on an international forum ...

For the record, my first CZ-75 was the most wildly inaccurate 9mm pistol I ever owned.

If I gave up on a particular manufacturer because I had one bad example from that company, I wouldn't own any Colts, Springfield Armory, CZ, Ruger, or Smith & Wesson autopistols ...

(strangely enough, I've never had a bad Taurus or Kimber semi-auto, and they seem to be the two most-bashed manufacturers on this particular forum ... and I've owned 20 SIG pistols, all of which have been phenomenally accurate, durable and reliable ... go figure).

 

[wojownik]

I have never had an issue with a Sig or commercial CZ pistol. And particularly not the CZ75B or P226. Both are remarkable products.

 

[joebiker]

have both..

Wanted a Sig 226 for almost 20 years before I found a nice, used, reasonably priced one. Mine's a W.German version. After shooting it awhile, I added several other Sigs to the collection, a 220, then a GSR 1911, then finally a 232.

One thing I've learned is there seems to be 2 types of gun owners, those who "fit" Sigs, & those who do not. If you are a Sig guy, there's nothing you'll like better. I bought a new CZ-75B after owning a CZ 83 (380) for a few years..was impressed with the accuracy & quality of the 83, had read that CZ was a very underappreciated brand, and that the 75 was a kind of Browning High Power variant, or copy.. Found Cabelas had them on sale, so bought one. Timing-wise, this was perhaps 6 months before I found my used Sig.

As in most brands, triggers are not only subjective in feel or quality, there is some variation in gun to gun objective quality of parts fitting. In this situation, the Sig trigger is much smoother than my CZ...enabling me to shoot it more accurately. The Sig also feels better in my hand, which is another totally subjective observation, but may be relevant if you have large hands,..as I do..

Best advice anyone can give is for you to handle & if possible,shoot both guns. The choice over which you should purchase will become easier..

 

[Walt Sherrill]

... had read that CZ was a very underappreciated brand, and that the 75 was a kind of Browning High Power variant, or copy.. Found Cabelas had them on sale, so bought one. Timing-wise, this was perhaps 6 months before I found my used Sig.

The CZ looks a bit like a BHP, but there's really NOTHING about it that is similar. Internally they couldn't be more different.

As in most brands, triggers are not only subjective in feel or quality, there is some variation in gun to gun objective quality of parts fitting. In this situation, the Sig trigger is much smoother than my CZ...enabling me to shoot it more accurately. The Sig also feels better in my hand, which is another totally subjective observation, but may be relevant if you have large hands,..as I do..

SIG triggers, out of the box, are typically smoother than CZ triggers out of the box. With 400-500 rounds through the guns, they'll be more similar, although the CZ trigger will be a bit longer in SA, and also longer in DA.

If the SIG points well for you, you'll probably like it better than a CZ. If a CZ points well for you, you'll probably like it better than a SIG -- but only the CZ lets you start from cocked & locked.

I picked up a CZ-P07 today. Will try it out next week, I hope.

 

[viking499]

Walt, new style or old style 07?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

New or old style? I honestly don't know, yet, and the price was so good, I don't really care!

The SA trigger is very nice -- I was surprised by it. (Mine came without the grip inserts, or the decocker mechanisms... but I may get those eventually. I'm not a big decocker fan.)

 

[viking499]

Will it accept the different size back straps?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I'm assuming that it's the old style -- as it didn't come with backstraps. (It also didn't come with a decocker -- and I'll probably buy those parts -- but did come with bright NIGHT SIGHTS.)

I paid $325, so couldn't see how I could go wrong. I've never even HELD an Omega system gun before, and I just couldn't resist.

 

[viking499]

Sounds like a good price. Probably is the older model.