CZ vs. Sig

[STIGUY]

Forgive me for doing this once again..... As I am waiting for my local Academy to once again have XDM 40s in stock, I basically have the cost of the gun covered in gift cards there due to Christmas and my birthday.

Nonetheless, I have to inquire. What makes the CZ the go to all steel gun in Prduction Division? Specifically, compared to say the Sig 226. These both are all steel guns (or alloys). Is it trigger, cost to value or something else? As always, your comments are Greatly Appreciated!

[All-Gator]

That's kinda' like asking what makes a woman beautiful. It's most often in the eye of the perceiver.

The CZ is really, really accurate; it's ergonomics are outstanding (for me); parts, upgrades, and smithing are available...though you have to look for it; and it's less expensive. The 85C comes with most of the upgrades in place from factory (ambi's, etc.)

I'm sure there are other reason.

A-G

[Joe4d]

Sigs are mass produced blasters designed to win government contracts by being very reliable, accurate enough for the contract specs(which aint much) and cheap. Natural pointing, low bore axis, natural location for controls, speed of shot recovery are irrelevant to government contracts but very important to action pistol type sports. The Sig is a poor design in those areas, the CZ much better.

[beltjones]

I think Sig also falls in the middle of the game of Glock vs. CZ. For example, if you prefer a lightweight gun, Glock wins. If you prefer a heavy gun, CZ wins. Sig is in the middle. Likewise, if you like a consistent trigger pull, Glock wins. If you like a DA/SA, CZ has a better DA/SA than Sig (my opinion). Sig is in the middle.

Whereas being in the middle might be great for bidding for large purchase contracts, it's terrible when you're selling to very opinionated individual buyers.

[Cy Soto]

Something else that you should consider is that, for the most part, both CZ or Sig pistols are shipped from the factory with relatively heavy triggers. If you choose to go with one of those, be ready to spend a few extra dollars having your gunsmith do some trigger work on them. Achieving a good competition trigger on an XD is much less expensive.

Some folks will say that you don't need to lighten the trigger to be competitive in this sport; I disagree with that statement.

For the most part, the reason that CZ is more popular than Sig in Action Pistol Sports is because they have been involved in this sport for much longer. Sig is better known for providing guns for Military and Law Enforcement applications and, until recently, they had very little involvement with USPSA. CZ is also very popular in IPSC where, it is my understanding, rules dictate that the first trigger pull in a COF if shooting Production needs to be at least 5 lbs.

Whichever pistol you decide to pick up will have its pros and cons.

[CocoBolo]

I know this one! I have both a P226 and CZ's (4) but lets just stick to the Shawdow for comparison. First its about Ergo Nomics, how does it fit your hand, the CZ will fit small hands much better not a problem for me I have big hands. The next would be how does it feel in the hand, oops CZ Wins. The Sig P226 and I've shot mine in more than a few matches is totally reliable accurate enough, but because of the grip (Beaver Tail or lack there of) and its bore line being higher above the grip it tends to flip more than the CZ. You can get the trigger of the Sig done at Gray Guns, plus they sell a kit for it as well.

I've Won 2 XD's, I shot one, once, but sold them off, and I certainly think the Sig P226 is a much better gun, in fact my carry guns are both Sig the P226 and a P239. Get a Sig its a great gun but later on when you are well on your way to being a big Dawg Daddy you might switch to something else. The Wife packs her CZ Compact and shoots her 75B in matches when she isn't working. I shoot my CZ Shadow in 3-Gun and in some steel matches.

[DonovanM]

Sigs are mass produced blasters designed to win government contracts by being very reliable, accurate enough for the contract specs(which aint much) and cheap. Natural pointing, low bore axis, natural location for controls, speed of shot recovery are irrelevant to government contracts but very important to action pistol type sports. The Sig is a poor design in those areas, the CZ much better.

Have you ever even shot a SIG? Most of your argument is so awful it's not even wrong. You apply characteristics to a gun that are better served applied specific to a shooter.

There are not many pistols that are Production legal and that can come close to the out of the box accuracy of the SIG X5 Allround. Name for me another gun that can do 2" at 50 yards - out of the box. The list is short. Some of the Tanfoglio and Sphinx models perhaps.

About the only other thing in your post that is even capable of having a truth value is that they are very reliable. Which they are. Oh, and they're not cheap... wrong again.

CZ's are great guns, and you will be well served with either. I own two SIG P226's, and a CZ75 pre-B is on my short list of next pistols to buy (and perhaps use in competition, depending on how I like it).

[Bill40718]

I have never fired a CZ, I did handle a couple at last years NRA convention. The ergonomics felt great until I tried the trigger. I didn't like the feel of the trigger or the reach.

I now have a Sig X-5 Allaround. It feels better than the CZ, to me at least, and has a better trigger out of the box. Mine never has shot a 2" group at 50 yards because I can't shoot it that well. But I'll bet the gun can do it with the right shooter.

The weight of the gun makes shooting a 9mm minor load similar to shooting a .22 LR. There is no flip to speak of. So shot to shot recovery is very quick. The X-5 has been totally reliable and the fit and finish is comparable to a custom built gun. And yes I have custom built guns.

I think the Sig is a fantastic gun.

Between the two, I choose the Sig and recommend it highly.

I'd say try them both, at the least handle them both. See what feels good to you and go from there. Triggers can be worked and will end up comparable. Just don't pay too much attention to the nay sayers. Evaluate positive statements and then check them out yourself.

Bill

[carlosa]

I have a p226 that i thought about shooting in production but dumped in the end...

now it seats in my safe waiting for the day i get off my butt to sell it.

now the gun is super reliable! and super accurate!!

BUT.... i hated the trigger... it was just awful out of the box...

the reset in particular lives allot to be desired, but this wasn't the reason i dumped it.

the straw that broke the camels back for me was the slide release placement.

if i apply the same grip on my 226 as i do on my 1911, my thumbs ride the safety and the gun fails to slide lock 90% the time.

this meant that for me to shoot the p226 in prod and 1911 in SS.. i would have to master to grips, and learn to switch between them.

(I took me about 500 rounds to realize that that my grip was why my slide wouldn't lock) this represented i big distraction in my learning process.

i decided to bench the p226 so i could continue to progress with the i enjoyed shooting the most platform.

Here's the bottom line... if you are willing to have some one do a sweet trigger job on your p226 and the slide release thing is not a big thing to you.

you will more than likely be happy with it, go for it.

for me i much rather shoot the cz sp01 because the ergonomics are a little closer to a 1911's..

anyway with all that said.. in the recent year i've started to lean more towards the idea of shooting a striker trigger style pistol in production due to it's smaller learning curve as compared to a double single action trigger (glock 17 to be exact) but that just me.

good luck with your purchase,

Cheers,

Los.

[Strick]

Having both and having used both I don't even consider the Sig anymore. It is reliable and accurate but the trigger is not all that great. Stock vs. stock the CZ blows the Sig trigger away. As far as a X-five........well for $1900 it better be a good shooter.

For the money is hard to compare much to a CZ 75 for reliability, accuracy, and ergonomics. On top of that with around $100 and a little but of work you can get a pretty good trigger at home.

[Paul Burtchell]

+1

I was looking hard at a 226 USPSA model until I shot one. Same problem Carlos described above with the thumb position issue.

[kitestir]

I think we need to know what you are looking for. Are you looking to spend $1000-1400 on a gun? That would be the range of a tricked out Shadow or X5 all around. Are you looking more at a base gun Like a plain P226 or SP-01? I have an SP-01 that has had a bunch of trigger work done to it and love it. I have had multiple stock P226's and they are ok, but the triggers were heavy(as was the stock SP-01). Both would be acceptable for accuracy for our game as well and both should also prove to be very reliable. Try and handle as many of the different models of each brand to see how they fit your hand and how the trigger/action feels to you.

That being said if it were me and I had the money I would go with the Shadow custom. Has all of the bells and whistles for around $1200. If that is out of the question the normal shadow is also a great gun with decent sights and trigger pull for around $900. If this is still too much, I would go with the stock SP-01 and shoot the crap out of it and have the trigger work done down the road.

No matter what you get, you can gain a lot of experience by shooting as much as you can afford. The more trigger time you get on a gun, no matter what it is the better you will get with it! I am sure there are a lot of guys out there that could win a match with a box stock SP-01 or P226, Especially at a local level, because they put the time in!

[STIGUY]

Went to CZ's website. It seems like the SP01 only comes in 9. Is this substantially the same as the Tactical version of this model as I would really like to stay with .40 due to reloading reasons as I already do this Caliber for an STI.

THANKS

[CocoBolo]

I think we need to know what you are looking for. Are you looking to spend $1000-1400 on a gun? That would be the range of a tricked out Shadow or X5 all around. Are you looking more at a base gun Like a plain P226 or SP-01? I have an SP-01 that has had a bunch of trigger work done to it and love it. I have had multiple stock P226's and they are ok, but the triggers were heavy(as was the stock SP-01). Both would be acceptable for accuracy for our game as well and both should also prove to be very reliable. Try and handle as many of the different models of each brand to see how they fit your hand and how the trigger/action feels to you.

That being said if it were me and I had the money I would go with the Shadow custom. Has all of the bells and whistles for around $1200. If that is out of the question the normal shadow is also a great gun with decent sights and trigger pull for around $900. If this is still too much, I would go with the stock SP-01 and shoot the crap out of it and have the trigger work done down the road.

No matter what you get, you can gain a lot of experience by shooting as much as you can afford. The more trigger time you get on a gun, no matter what it is the better you will get with it! I am sure there are a lot of guys out there that could win a match with a box stock SP-01 or P226, Especially at a local level, because they put the time in!

The way I read it he wants something from Academy since he has gift cards! If they have a full size SPO1 Snag it, a CZ75B go for it, or a Sig P226.

[kitestir]

Tactical version has a decocker instead of a safety. It is a bit more work to get a good trigger job but it can be done.....

[DonovanM]

On top of that with around $100 and a little but of work you can get a pretty good trigger at home.

Same can be said for the SIG. I did my own trigger work on mine with some very rudimentary tools and the reset is now spectacular compared to stock. It can't compare to a 1911 due to the differences in the fire control systems, specifically the safety deactivations, but it's pretty damn good. The reset distance was more than halved and I removed over half of the pre-travel in single action as well.

All I need to do is figure out an overtravel stop and then it'll REALLY be spectacular.

Edited February 21, 2011 by DonovanM

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I shoot a 226 and really like it. It has had work done to it making the trigger very good. That said, I am currently borrowing a Shadow from a friend. I like the Shadow MUCH better. It fits my hand better and points more naturally. If I had to choose, I would stick with the 226 only because it is a carry gun too.

[diablodawg]

Bore axis = CZ

Parts/customizing availability = CZ

Stock trigger = CZ

Price = CZ

Recoil control (mainly due to bore axis and slide weight) = CZ

Ergonomics (at least to everyone I know who's handled both) = CZ

Support for the sport = CZ

Shooting a 'name brand'/'tactical'/recognizable gun = Sig.

While I haven't shot the X5, I can't imagine it would be worth $1900, or be that much better than the CZ, not to mention it still doesn't solve the bore axis or parts availability question.

[euxx]

One thing worth to add about CZ trigger hard to reach.

There is 3 different trigger factory curve profiles been used on CZ. Lately factory been using thinner new more curved profile, which not everyone likes. Personally I had to replace it to less curved old trigger and CZ-Custom came up with similar profile but easier to reach trigger. They sell both parts off their web site. http://czcustom.com/supplyandinstalltrigger.aspx

[enutees]

I've owned both Sig 226 and several CZ's. I shoot a Cz Shadow now. I chose based on feel, trigger, and perceived recoil. I do agree that it is just opinion. They are both reliable guns. Pick whichever you like better and that will be the one that makes you happy.

[JakeMartens]

CZ

price for what you get and what you can do to it can't be beat

[Walküre]

CZ is the name of the game for all-steel Production guns because they are some of the only relatively-common Production guns that are all-steel. (The other main option for all-steel would be a CZ clone - like a Tanfoglio.)

Normal SIGs (and Berettas, and others) use lighter aluminum alloy frames, not steel. Just because it's metal doesn't mean it's steel. There's a pretty big difference between aluminum and steel, mind you. SIG does have a some all-stainless models, but only a couple, and they aren't things you usually see at stocking SIG dealers.

For the most part, the reason that CZ is more popular than Sig in Action Pistol Sports is because they have been involved in this sport for much longer. Sig is better known for providing guns for Military and Law Enforcement applications and, until recently, they had very little involvement with USPSA. CZ is also very popular in IPSC where, it is my understanding, rules dictate that the first trigger pull in a COF if shooting Production needs to be at least 5 lbs.

CZ really did toke a while to really start getting involved competition-wise; heck, look how long it took them to finally release a more-contemporary Open gun! That said, they do have a lot more competition presence these days compared to SIG (but still not as much as other manufacturers, like Glock). (And of course CZ still focuses more on MIL/LEO than competition, but that just makes business sense. Think about how much all of those agencies buy versus how much us competitors buy.)

DA/SAs are indeed far more prevalent in IPSC Production due to the 5# first-pull requirement; DAO and striker-fired "safe-action" guns are at somewhat of a disadvantage under IPSC regs. Before the 15-round limit imposed last year, CZs were also popular due to their 18/19 round capacity. (SP-01 mags are "officially" 18+1, but many times you can fit another in there for 19+1.) Another reason for the popularity of CZs is their relatively short reset, especially on FPB-less models like the Shadow. Classic SIGs have horrendously long resets, a quality which doesn't lend itself to high-speed follow-ups.

ETA: Another thing on SIGs vs CZs in particular - the overall weight of a standard P226 is only an ounce or two lighter than a standard 75B, going by published data. But the SIG uses a milled steel slide and an aluminum frame, versus the CZ's all-steel construction. That difference translates to different balance for the entire package. SIGs tend to be top heavy because of their design; CZs aren't. (In fact, CZs tend to have lighter slides when compared to many other platforms, due to their design.)

Edited February 24, 2011 by Walküre

[Joe4d]

Sigs are mass produced blasters designed to win government contracts by being very reliable, accurate enough for the contract specs(which aint much) and cheap. Natural pointing, low bore axis, natural location for controls, speed of shot recovery are irrelevant to government contracts but very important to action pistol type sports. The Sig is a poor design in those areas, the CZ much better.

Have you ever even shot a SIG? Most of your argument is so awful it's not even wrong. You apply characteristics to a gun that are better served applied specific to a shooter.

There are not many pistols that are Production legal and that can come close to the out of the box accuracy of the SIG X5 Allround. Name for me another gun that can do 2" at 50 yards - out of the box. The list is short. Some of the Tanfoglio and Sphinx models perhaps.

About the only other thing in your post that is even capable of having a truth value is that they are very reliable. Which they are. Oh, and they're not cheap... wrong again.

CZ's are great guns, and you will be well served with either. I own two SIG P226's, and a CZ75 pre-B is on my short list of next pistols to buy (and perhaps use in competition, depending on how I like it).

You must be right, thats why Sigs dominate production,,, umm not. The SIG X series is pretty well reguarded as a jammamatic due to a poor extractor design, Accurate yes, reliable no, and they do nothing a M&P cant do at a third the price.

I have shot the standard sigs and taught several classes with sig shooters, like I said, bad ergonomics for speed shooters. They are reliable enough and accurate enough for a decent shooter to do well in Production but that same shooter would do better with a better tool for the job. Sigs winning government contracts awarded by bean counters, for an all metal gun they are beating out the competition on price.

Thats the reason Sigs arnt very common in USPSA,

[Z-man]

Take a look at Tarr's article a while back in front sight about the new USPSA model Sig P226. He puts it up as a contender for Glock and was very impressed. I suspect we will see more of the all steel Sigs in the not too distant future....

[DonovanM]

Sigs are mass produced blasters designed to win government contracts by being very reliable, accurate enough for the contract specs(which aint much) and cheap. Natural pointing, low bore axis, natural location for controls, speed of shot recovery are irrelevant to government contracts but very important to action pistol type sports. The Sig is a poor design in those areas, the CZ much better.

Have you ever even shot a SIG? Most of your argument is so awful it's not even wrong. You apply characteristics to a gun that are better served applied specific to a shooter.

There are not many pistols that are Production legal and that can come close to the out of the box accuracy of the SIG X5 Allround. Name for me another gun that can do 2" at 50 yards - out of the box. The list is short. Some of the Tanfoglio and Sphinx models perhaps.

About the only other thing in your post that is even capable of having a truth value is that they are very reliable. Which they are. Oh, and they're not cheap... wrong again.

CZ's are great guns, and you will be well served with either. I own two SIG P226's, and a CZ75 pre-B is on my short list of next pistols to buy (and perhaps use in competition, depending on how I like it).

You must be right, thats why Sigs dominate production,,, umm not. The SIG X series is pretty well reguarded as a jammamatic due to a poor extractor design, Accurate yes, reliable no, and they do nothing a M&P cant do at a third the price.

I have shot the standard sigs and taught several classes with sig shooters, like I said, bad ergonomics for speed shooters. They are reliable enough and accurate enough for a decent shooter to do well in Production but that same shooter would do better with a better tool for the job. Sigs winning government contracts awarded by bean counters, for an all metal gun they are beating out the competition on price.

Thats the reason Sigs arnt very common in USPSA,

Matt Cheely and Rodney May aren't doing terribly with theirs. I don't know about the rest of the country but I shoot with two Master class shooters who both use them.

All I'm really trying to get at is it's just a gun. People will spend days arguing until they're breathless over comparatively miniscule differences in equipment rather than talking about the techniques that will actually win them matches. Doesn't make sense to me. Anyone can win a match with just about any gun, unless it's an actual, not perceived, piece of crap.

SIGs don't dominate Production because they're expensive, no one wants to put in a little bit of extra training to master the DA pull, and there's a baseless stigma that somehow a higher bore axis equates directly to slower follow up shots. Brian himself contradicted this last part in his book and multiple times on this forum, and I've cranked out .15 splits with my bone stock P226 on multiple occasions. I have no idea what I can do with it now that I did the trigger work on it, maybe better, maybe the same.

I'm not even a SIG fanboy and think this is ridiculous. I love all guns - well the ones that work, don't look like a baboon's ass, and can shoot like a small rifle, that is.