CZ vs Sig

[NineseveN]

Hey Mayo, based on your logic, you made the wrong choice, you should be championing the 1911, after all:

It costs more
Is more accurate
Has an infintely better trigger (less travel, little to no slack, cripser, shorter reset)
The fit and finsh is better (especially on house guns like Wilson Combat and Valtro)
The resale is better
Every gun writer raves about them, the legends pretty much all carry them with few exceptions
The recoil spring guide rod is made of METAL
Has Torx head screws and allen head screws as well
Oh and did I mention they cost more than the Sig P-series guns?



I love my 1911, so much better than a Sig P-Series....

 

[ArmedBear]

just don't justify any comparison based on price.

That's silly. Every comparison is based on price.

If the CZ were $250 and the SIG $2500, people would be calling the CZ the best bargain ever and the SIG a quality gun but really a laughable toy for the rich collector. Only because they're not so far apart is the discussion even taking place.

In the shotgunning world, the price differences are far greater, like $250 vs. $25,000. Yet even connoisseurs can acknowledge that Remington makes great guns, and so does Perazzi. If they were the same price, the opinions would be different, but they're not the same price and that makes all the difference in the world.

That said, I really like the CZ, price independent. It's a great gun and it shoots well for me. I haven't shot SIGs much, so I don't have an informed opinion; I suspect I'd like them at least as well.

 

[Mayo]

Hey, I love my EB Kobra and HK P7 just as much as my SIG's!

 

[robertbank]

Well lets say the Sigs are great guns for the money. Better, well CZ, Glock and 1911's dominate IPSC world wide. Sigs do well but in my part of the world CZ's and their clones dominate IPSC Production. Just a sport I know but why would top shooters go CZ, 1911, and Glocks?

Take Care

 

[Croyance]

For the money.....CZ is the better gun.

If they were the same price, I'd get the Sig

And that was the original question. Is the SIG worth the price difference? Not which is the better gun.
Dollar for dollar you get more the the CZ.

 

[Pilot]

I have a Sig P228. Great gun but the CZ-75's I have are better even at the same price.

 

[Mayo]

Ugh:banghead: , so we've established that SIG is better but you get more for your money from CZ?! Let's see here---Buy a new SIG for $600 then sell for $500---total cost $100.
Buy a new CZ for $400 then sell for $300 later--total cost $100? :banghead: So I end up with a better gun for the same price!!

 

[Redhat]

No YOU have imagined that SiG is better.

I suspect anyone who paid the cost for a SiG would be reluctant to admit a cheaper gun could shoot as good or better.

 

[kbheiner7]

I have little personal knowledge of SIGs or CZs, but if someone gave me either or both they'd be traded in within the week! I don't care for the looks of either of them.

 

[varoadking]

CZ's are outstanding shooters - really outstanding for a combat handgun.

That said, I guess I'm something of a snob, 'cause I like a handgun that not only shoots well, but is well crafted and attractive as well.

CZ's rough machining and blocky design leave me cold. I sold the two that I owned years ago...

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Schmecky...

You are buying this for a carry gun...

I can solve the SIG v CZ dilemma......

.

.

.

.

.


.


BUY A SW642 and a DiSantis Nemisis Holster and walk away happy.

YMMV, but unless you are a LEO do you really want the weight and firepower???

Oh, and you auto guys... Shoot it once through a pocket. Oh, yep, that is ALL it will fire most times.

I own autos, quite a few, but don't carry one...

 

[Mayo]

No YOU have imagined that SiG is better.

I suspect anyone who paid the cost for a SiG would be reluctant to admit a cheaper gun could shoot as good or better



2 holes in your theory---
1. I've had CZ's before---ehh
2. Since money isn't a concern then my opinion is based solely on performance and not which gun gets "more" for the money.

SIG's are better overall whether they cost more or less then a CZ

 

[Redhat]

Cool,

How exactly do they out perform the CZ???

 

[schmeky]

Mongo,

I'm just a shooter. When I carry concealed I carry a Glock. I was injured 4 years ago and haven't really been able to shoot like I used to. I have owned many autos and many 9's. The only one I have held onto for the longest has been my Glock 17.

When I got back into shooting, I got interested in buying 9's and after reading up on them, I bought a CZ. Now, if I had to own only one 9, it would be the CZ. Although quite a bit heavier than the Glock, it is more accurate for me and I like the confidence the CZ inspires.

Mayo,

I will most likely eventually get a Sig one day. I never meant to imply the CZ was better than the Sig. After shooting them both back to back, I simply began to doubt why I would buy a Sig since the CZ handled and shot as well (in my hands) as the Sig. I was surprised to say the least, since I assumed the Sig would be better all around.

As I said before, they are both excellent firearms and it really boils down to personal preferences. CZ's, like Sig's, aren't for everyone. I think no matter which one you choose, you can't loose.

 

[cslinger]

I am a SIG guy and make no bones about it. I prefer the triggers, the controls and the feel in general not to mention the fact that of all the semi-autos I have ever used SIG has been the most reliable by far.

All that being said my exp. with CZs is that they are basically Eastern European SIGs. They are excellent shooters, tend to be very reliable, have loads of history and are truely one of the few items in life that I think you actually get more product then you pay for. I do agree that the fit and finish is not as good as most SIGs but does that really matter, as most of this is inside the gun. I really like the CZ polymer finish on the outside.

Phillips vs. flathead screws.......PULEEZ Who cares buy some nice torx screws if it blows your skirt up for a few bucks.

I do not like plastic recoil guides but they don't seem to be functionally an issue.

The one thing CZ seems to have had a problem with lately is weak or mismatched springs. This is likely just a QC or distributor problem and it is not like SIG has never had QC problems. Heck they are having some right now.

So all things considered I really don't necessarily think these guns should be compared on price as much as I think they should be compared on their merits as both have many and it really comes down to personal pref. if you decide the CZ fits you better then you get the added bonus of a bargain price.

All that being said I don't care what you folks think the P220 IS THE PISTOL period end of story......I will now put my fingers in my ears and hmmmm loudly as I scoff in your very direction.

Chris

 

[cslinger]

Oh yeah and one more thing. To that guy who thinks a small revolver is the better carry piece...........I gotcha back.

 

[Majic]

CZ's rough machining and blocky design leave me cold.

Blocky design? I guess you never noticed looking down the slide of a SIG is like looking down the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.

 

[cslinger]

I guess you never noticed looking down the slide of a SIG is like looking down the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.

Well I love SIGs and yes it is like looking down an aircraft carrier. CZs are, as a rule thinner and less blocky IMO.

Chris

 

[GTSteve03]

Do SIGs have hammer-forged barrels?

 

[Tecolote]

I've lost count of how many rounds I've fired through SIGs. I've only seen one SIG Classic choke and to this day I think it was a problem with the user going wild with heavy grease on the frame and slide rails. On the other hand I've seen plenty of CZs choke, CZ75 pre-B, CZ75B Compact, CZ75 PCR, and a few others. Going by personal experience I don't think that SIGs are over priced for what you get. I'm sure there are folks with CZs that have never failed and other folks with SIGs that have had problems, I'm only reporting what I've encountered first hand.

 

[gc70]

Hmmmm, so far nobody has claimed that CZs or Sigs are not good guns. So, it boils down to personal opinions on the merits and value of different designs. And the discourse has devolved to the very mature level of "mine's better than yours." That kind of juvenile exchange is more suited to a 1911 thread in which the trolls can bicker over the nuances of different brands of the same design.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

which brings me right back to my initial point, 2 pages later. What am I getting, functionally, for my extra couple a hundred bucks? Better function? More reliability? A better factory gunsmith who will take care of my problems more thoroughly and quickly?
I'm really not a brand whore. I buy the best products I can buy. If I thought Sig would give me something that CZ doesn't for a couple a hundred bucks, I'd buy a Sig. But, functionally, they don't.
On the CZ, you load the mags, rack the slide, squeeze the trigger, and it goes bang. And, for me, it's done it every time. That's something that Colt, IMI, Glock, et al haven't been able to do.
My CZ is super reliable and more accurate than I am. I don't see what could be better than that. Even for 2000 more dollars. Even with John Moses Browning's mummified trigger finger duct taped to the piccatinny rail like some disembodied pointer of doom. Even for a bagful of pixie dust that would make aggressors gleeful and empty of malice, thereby avoiding armed conflict. (well, okay, that'd be kinda cool)
Unless Sig is throwing in a ticket to visit Europe or something, I just don't see the point. CZ has built me a weapon just as reliable for less money, and that's the name of the capitalist game, tovarisch. I'll pretend I bought a Sig, take the spare 200 bucks and spend it on some training. How's that?

 

[Black Snowman]

I shoot the CZs better than I've shot the SIG's I've tried. So, I own more CZs than other handguns. 4 CZs in the stable and one on order. I wouldn't mind a SIG and I belive they're fine guns but they just don't point as well for me as the CZs do and I have trouble with the dot over block stock sights. I can't fault anyone for buying either gun.

There are many differances between the guns. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. CZ uses less expensive to produce designs than those of SIG but I don't think they put any less quality into those designs than SIG does.

 

[boogalou]

What am I getting, functionally, for my extra couple a hundred bucks? Better function? More reliability? A better factory gunsmith who will take care of my problems more thoroughly and quickly?

IMHO, you're getting nothing except for possibly a better finish on the Sig, and if you carry your gun a lot, the polymer finish that CZ puts on their guns is very durable. For all practical purposes, a typical CZ is just as reliable & accurate as the more expensive Sig while giving the shooter the choice of a DA, decocker, or cocked and locked mode of carry.

I'd pick a CZ over a Sig even if the CZ cost $100 more, because I feel they are that much better in pointablility, ergonomics, and durability.

It's not that CZ is such a greater value then a Sig, but that the Sig is overpriced for the fewer features that it offers.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

BTW cslinger

I did not say that the 642 was a better carry piece. I said a snub revolver...

Like the snub.. Where oh where did you get that cheap POS knife....