New 9MM Advice - Sig P226 or CZ 75B?

[gunderwood]

You will have to decide if the $500 is worth the difference in performance or aesthetics. I managed to pick this one up for much less than $700 or about 1/2 the price of the Sig. I would venture to guess the Sig doesn't perform 2x as well as the CZ.

+1

However, I would note what we call diminishing returns. After a certain level of quality/performance it takes exponential increases in price to accomplish linear increases in quality/performance. IMHO both the CZ and the SIG have reached this point, so you shouldn't expect the SIG to be twice as good even though it costs twice as much. Better in some ways, but don't expect a linear increase in relation to the cost unless you are comparing a $150 HiPoint and a $300 Taurus or a $300 Taurus and a $500 Glock.

Bought the zebra wood grips from Marschals in Hungary for $50 to spruce it up a bit.

Nice grips. I love fancy wood, but so far have only built rifles out of it. All my pistols have more utilitarian grips; not bad looking, but not "nice" either.

[FatAndy]

You might consider the CZ-85 Combat. Basically the same gun as the 75 but it has ambi controls, drop free mags, no trigger block, and adj sights. Extremely accurate. I haven't shot a Sig 226 but I am sure it is a fine weapon. A friend has the 239 and it is a nice gun. You will have to decide if the $500 is worth the difference in performance or aesthetics. I managed to pick this one up for much less than $700 or about 1/2 the price of the Sig. I would venture to guess the Sig doesn't perform 2x as well as the CZ.

Bought the zebra wood grips from Marschals in Hungary for $50 to spruce it up a bit.

I like the 85, but it only comes in polycoat and nickel plated, which yours is, and not stainless. I really like the timeless quality of stainless steel. Those grips are awesome! As you can see in my signature, I like to dress up my pistols as well.

[bophi]

how about a springfield xdm 9mm, cz's are good guns, poly or steel, the sig's are alum. frame, i like 1911's , all steel. glocks are very good gun's, why stainless steel,? i have a browning hipower in hard chrome 9mm. a very exc. choice. go to a range and rent a few and see what works best for you. good luck..

[Micro]

I had the same decision to make recently, so I bought both. Actually, it's a Sig 229R.
That's my 3rd CZ. I also have a CZ83 in .380 and a CZ75B Compact in 9mm. CZ makes a
phenomenally good gun. Ergonomics are about perfect. And it is very accurte. All of
my CZs have been 100% reliable with everything that has gone through them. You will
not be settling for less with a CZ.

[CK1]

I'm of course partial to CZ because I have a CZ75B.
Here's a story about accuracy...

My buddy is in the S.S. on Obama's protection / travel team. Needless to say, he's pretty good with a pistol. We were out at his mom's farm shooting our AR's this past fall. His service pistol is a Sig. He said "I heard you have a new CZ, let me check it out". It was dusk and we were 15 yards from typical paper targets. He shot 3 rounds and had to take a closer look at the target cuz it looked like he didn't even hit the paper. Actually it was cuz the sun was going down and all 3 rounds went almost thru the same whole, dead center of the target, so it was hard to see.

He asked "Where's the decocker?" I said "There ain't 1! Run her dry, like a man!" He put the remaining 14 shots in a spread not much bigger than 2 inches or so. He just handed it back to me and said "Thanks Bryan. That's some nice hardware!"

Now I know them Secret Service boys are pretty damn good with their guns, that's what they get paid for. But that's what a well trained firearms expert can do with the right peice of equip. I did ask later "Do you think you could do that with your Sig?" He said, "Yes. But I train with that weapon all the time. I did that with your gun the very 1st time I ever fired it. That's the sign of a very good gun. The fact that you can just pick it up and just use it like it was a part of you or like you've been training with it for years. That's a good gun."

That's why the CZ is THE most widely used handgun by military & LE worldwide (outside the U.S.).

That's my 2 cents.

[derek141]

Can't speak to the CZ as I have never owned one.

But I own and love both Glocks and Sigs. Two different animals. As long as you stay ahead of the game with PM you are good to go with a Glock.

That being said, anyone who has ever seen a Sig fail at a 1500 round shooting school raise your hand. Not me. I've seen Glock sights fly off, broken trigger springs, pitted strikers, etc. No wonder all the Glock armorers show up with their box of parts... most folks don't do their regular PM. One LEO I know ran the same P226 for 15 years (until retiring) with not a single detail strip.

[gunderwood]

Can't speak to the CZ as I have never owned one.

But I own and love both Glocks and Sigs. Two different animals. As long as you stay ahead of the game with PM you are good to go with a Glock.

That being said, anyone who has ever seen a Sig fail at a 1500 round shooting school raise your hand. Not me. I've seen Glock sights fly off, broken trigger springs, pitted strikers, etc. No wonder all the Glock armorers show up with their box of parts... most folks don't do their regular PM. One LEO I know ran the same P226 for 15 years (until retiring) with not a single detail strip.

Unfortunately, the newer SIGs are suppose to have lower quality internals. I haven't taken one apart to check it out and all mine are older.

[PistolPilot]

Get the CZ, have Angus and the Custom Shop boys do a hammer and spring job, and then go shoot 2" groups at 15 yards. You can put all the money you save toward ammo.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Micro]

Unfortunately, the newer SIGs are suppose to have lower quality internals. I haven't taken one apart to check it out and all mine are older.

From a pure collectability standpoint, older Sigs are more desirable than new Sigs. That holds true for most collectable "things."

From a quality standpoint, newer sigs are absolutely on par with older guns. My 2008 manufactured P220 strikes me as a better fitted and finished gun than my '80s vintage Sig-made Browning BDA .45acp. Both have plenty of MIM parts.

[gunderwood]

Unfortunately, the newer SIGs are suppose to have lower quality internals. I haven't taken one apart to check it out and all mine are older.

From a pure collectability standpoint, older Sigs are more desirable than new Sigs. That holds true for most collectable "things."

From a quality standpoint, newer sigs are absolutely on par with older guns. My 2008 manufactured P220 strikes me as a better fitted and finished gun than my '80s vintage Sig-made Browning BDA .45acp. Both have plenty of MIM parts.

Nothing to do with collectability at all. That remark was concerning a conversation I had with a really good gunsmith (he now only does work for friends) concerning them. It isn't just MIM, but the fit and finish of those internals. SIG supposable outsourced some of the parts to keep costs down and they are of inferior quality. That doesn't make them bad guns.

[Micro]

I haven't seen that. If it were true, it seems I would have observed it my pistols, or that it would be some sort of concern with other Sig owners.

The only part that I've ever seen anyone compain about with anything that could be considered any sort of "regularity" would be the firing pin retaining pin. That was an MIM part that some people claimed craked with extended dry firing. But in March 2009 Sig went back to a roll pin, which not only eliminates any brittleness issues, it is much easier to remove.

Sounds like your gunsmith has what we all have, to some degree. A bias unfounded by fact.

[gunderwood]

I haven't seen that. If it were true, it seems I would have observed it my pistols, or that it would be some sort of concern with other Sig owners.

The only part that I've ever seen anyone compain about with anything that could be considered any sort of "regularity" would be the firing pin retaining pin. That was an MIM part that some people claimed craked with extended dry firing. But in March 2009 Sig went back to a roll pin, which not only eliminates any brittleness issues, it is much easier to remove.

Sounds like your gunsmith has what we all have, to some degree. A bias unfounded by fact.

If you do a Google search you would find that it is an issue and people are complaining about it.

http://www.firearmstrainingandtactics.c ... 006&page=1

To increase profit margins Cohen outsourced the manufacture of small parts. This was not a mere cosmetic change, but changed the very reliability of every pistol they manufactured.

The new parts were all MIM. Broken slide stops, broken trigger bars and a variety of other broken small parts has been the outcome.

There are quite a few internet folks that want to claim that nothing changed and that MIM in Sigs is a non-issue. I'm here to tell you that crappy small parts are going to lose more local and Federal LE contracts than Sig can fathom. I've watched two PD's transition from older Sigs to new production Sigs and both have had an incredible amount of "issues" with their guns including things like slides shooting off frames due to broken slide stops and broken trigger bars after as little as 150 rounds. Not acceptable for a pistol costing $700. Not acceptable in a service pistol period.

Why haven't folks from the DHS contract seen the parts breakage? Sig’s MIM parts have a different part number than their non-MIM parts. Because the DHS contract specified the non-MIM parts with that part number that is what they get. You or I cannot order non-MIM parts from Sig, but DHS contract agencies can.

I've heard similar things from other people, but never experienced it myself. The SIG plastic series has failed many, many LEO tests lately.
http://snipersparadise.com/sniperchat/i ... opic=29728

It doesn't take much searching to find lots of former SIG fans (myself included) who don't buy the new ones for exactly the reason specified. I'm glad that you haven't noticed it on your guns because that means you are still happy. That doesn't make SIG a bad gun, it just makes them less than they use to be. However, many LEAs are taking notice and I'm not surprised at the number which are switching away due to problems.

[Micro]

I just think that these sorts of viewpoints exist with any brand of gun. Google Kimber, for instance, and results will be replete with disatisfied customers. Same for Smith and Wesson, Colt, Ruger, Para. They all have their naysayers. Some louder than others.

Ultimately, I have to draw my own conclusions from my own observations, and not base my conclusions on the opinions of others. Sure, Sig (as well as every other manufacturer) has their critics. With respect to Sig, I haven't seen any appreciable difference in reliability between older and newer models. However, Sig-purists like folded slides and will insist they are better than milled slides. People who like recent Sigs will correctly point out the superior corrosion resistance of the stainless milled slides, and that the folded slides did, at times, have corrosion issues. As for a difference in the internal parts, I'd like to see an example. It's easy to complain, and not so easy to back up that complaint.

As for law enforcement moving from Sig, they've been doing that for a long time. The simple fact is Sigs are expensive, and Glocks and plastic Smiths not so much. Local governments are pressed for funds. But, for instance, the 229 is still the choice of many federal agencies, and the Coast Guard. The Navy still issues the 226 to its specials operations people - who, apparently, have been rather militant in their desire to use the 226.

It's all opinion. To me, Sigs are as good as they've every been. To others, they are a bit different now and that's all it takes to denigrate. But for me, I rather discount it because I've not seen evidence of the quality issues.

[gunderwood]

I just think that these sorts of viewpoints exist with any brand of gun. Google Kimber, for instance, and results will be replete with disatisfied customers. Same for Smith and Wesson, Colt, Ruger, Para. They all have their naysayers. Some louder than others.

Yes, nothing is perfect. The complaints about Kimbers really kicked into high gear when the same guy lowered the quality of their internals as well. He now runs SIG since early/mid-2000s which is when they started failing LEO evaluation tests and previously loyal owners started complaining. Coincidence? Not likely.

Ultimately, I have to draw my own conclusions from my own observations, and not base my conclusions on the opinions of others.

So why do you offer any opinion at all in these forums? Clearly, no one should learn anything from it at all. Furthermore, what I or anyone else says about SIGs shouldn't matter than should it?
I'm glad that you haven't noticed a quality problem. That simply means your either very lucky or that you simply don't use it hard enough to matter. Either way, good for you.

As for law enforcement moving from Sig, they've been doing that for a long time. The simple fact is Sigs are expensive, and Glocks and plastic Smiths not so much. Local governments are pressed for funds. But, for instance, the 229 is still the choice of many federal agencies, and the Coast Guard. The Navy still issues the 226 to its specials operations people - who, apparently, have been rather militant in their desire to use the 226.

Yes and if you read what I posted you would have noticed that DHS and other federal agencies are specing better parts that you and I can't buy from SIG. It should be a tipoff that federal agencies are specifically making it a requirement that SIG not sell them the same gun they sell you and I. The reason for that is from the other link I posted...they are now starting to fail LEA testing standards. The only way they pass now is to provide special parts to those agencies which have stricter standards (like they use too before the Kimber dude started lowering their quality).

It's all opinion. To me, Sigs are as good as they've every been. To others, they are a bit different now and that's all it takes to denigrate. But for me, I rather discount it because I've not seen evidence of the quality issues.

Not really. SIGs failing government testing standards isn't really opinion. They use to pass with flying colors, now they fail after the internals were jacked with? Ya, opinion all right. Besides, you don't learn from anyone else and neither should anyone else, so why do you bother defending them?


All kidding aside, SIGs are still good guns, but IMHO they are not as good as they use to be before the internals were outsourced. Many users, yourself included, apparently haven't noticed, but some demanding users have and ordered special guns. It is worth noting because SIGs sell themselves on their military and LEA hard use legacy. If they aren't as good for that purpose, people should know that they aren't getting the real mccoy. That doesn't make it a bad purchase in any way. It is important to understanding what you are buying and then make your own decisions.

[Micro]

Easy, Gunderwood. If one gets too passionate about a subject, it's easy to get uncivilized. Let's avoid that.

Yes, nothing is perfect. The complaints about Kimbers really kicked into high gear when the same guy lowered the quality of their internals as well. He now runs SIG since early/mid-2000s which is when they started failing LEO evaluation tests and previously loyal owners started complaining. Coincidence? Not likely.

You'll notice most of the complaints start something like, "I've never experienced, but I heard of a ..." You add the ending. Principal complaints regarding Sigs are price, and that some models ship with one magazine. (BTW, my Browning BDA came with one, so that's hardly a new phenomena.)

So why do you offer any opinion at all in these forums? Clearly, no one should learn anything from it at all. Furthermore, what I or anyone else says about SIGs shouldn't matter than should it? I'm glad that you haven't noticed a quality problem. That simply means your either very lucky or that you simply don't use it hard enough to matter. Either way, good for you.

I'll offer an opinion on topics of interest, as do you. But I also know that taking the opinions of internet-jockeys with unknown qualifications and experience as gospel is unwise. Sure, if I see too many bad movie reviews I may wait to rent the DVD. But with respect to issues with real consequences, like a sidearm that may be called upon to defend my family, other opinions may peak my interest, but conclusions are ultimately drawn from my own experience.

Also unwise is presuming the experience of someone you don't know. I've learned a lot of lessons from quiet guys.

Yes and if you read what I posted you would have noticed that DHS and other federal agencies are specing better parts that you and I can't buy from SIG. It should be a tipoff that federal agencies are specifically making it a requirement that SIG not sell them the same gun they sell you and I. The reason for that is from the other link I posted...they are now starting to fail LEA testing standards. The only way they pass now is to provide special parts to those agencies which have stricter standards (like they use too before the Kimber dude started lowering their quality).

You didn't post anything except links to other sites. Frankly, I have no interest in joining a sniper website solely to read it.

With respect to federal agencies requiring guns built to different specifications than those available to consumers, I'd like to see a copy of a contract to see what the changes were. It's not uncommon for a military branch or a federal agency to have unique requirements. It's rare that the government purchases off-the-self equipment available to the general public. So minor changes are not only common, they are to be expected.

Not really. SIGs failing government testing standards isn't really opinion. They use to pass with flying colors, now they fail after the internals were jacked with? Ya, opinion all right. Besides, you don't learn from anyone else and neither should anyone else, so why do you bother defending them?

What tests - specifically? The ATF tests that also resulted in no contracts awarded to Sig competitors? Or the 2009 tests that led to a $300+ million contract to supply the Army Material Command? Or the recent contract to supply the Air Marshalls? Or the Colombian National Police? Or the tests throughout the last 5-6 year that led to contracts with the Coast Guard? The DHS? The US Army Tank Automotive and Armament Command? I don't need to defend Sig. Their accomplishments speak for themselves.

You may wish to consider the fact that for every winner of a competition, there is a looser. For every win Sig had for the contracts above, Glock, Smith and Wesson, H&K and others lost.

As stated previously, every manufacturer has their internet critic. As Roosevelt said, it is not the critic that counts.

[gunderwood]

You didn't post anything except links to other sites. Frankly, I have no interest in joining a sniper website solely to read it.

Here you go: http://www.gao.gov/products/B-402339.3

The GAO denied SIGs protest which claimed that reliability was overweighted for their P250. You can search the FBO, but the P239 contract is older and they only keep them up there for a year or so.


We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I know the people I have talked to in person are legit and know their stuff (they have first hand experience). IMHO, it isn't just SIG that has been lowering QC on their products; lots of manufactures have been doing it to keep prices down over the last 10 years. Again, that doesn't make them bad products. Caveat emptor...nothing more.

[grumpyMSG]

Does Rick sell the Red Man suits? or maybe somebody has got some of those massively padded Sumo suits. We could let gunderwood and Micro beat on each other for a while and neither of them would get hurt. It won't accomplish anything but it sure would be entertaining. gunderwood seems to have some doubts about Sig's quality control. He isn't the only one, there have been lots of cases and they seem to date back to firearms manufactured in the Exeter, NH plant and about the time frame that Ron Cohen took over as the Chief Executive Officer in April 2005. Micro on the other hand seems to believe that he has to touch it or see it, to believe it is a problem. I believe that you should fire at least 100 rounds out of a pistol without a hint of problems (preferably more than that) before you begin to trust it, and I mean aimed fire. pointing it into the ground and pulling the trigger will tell you it will go boom when you want it to, but it won't guarantee hitting what you are shooting at.

For those who don't know what MIM is or means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Injection_Molding explains how it is used to make metal parts. When performed correctly it will offer parts that are 96-98% the density of forged parts. The problem is, if it is done incorrectly, the do not have near the strength.
If you want to know how old a Sig pistol is (not all are marked though) clear the weapon, flip it over and look at the slide just forward of the frame you will see 3 marks, the one closest to the slide is two letters. To interpret the code use the following:
A-0
B-1
C-2
D-3
E-4
F-5
G-6
H-7
J-8
K-9
The other way is to call Sig at: (603) 772-2302
My P229 is marked KC so it was made in 92, My 220 has no proof markings so it was probably manufactured in Exeter, date unknown and is probably one of the pistols in question.

Disclaimer for this discussion: I am a Sig fan, my opinion is slightly biased in that respect, however I also prefer pistols withoul rails underneath and so I usually tend to look at used Sig pistols and most of the ones I looked at were manufactured before 2005.

[gunderwood]

Does Rick sell the Red Man suits? or maybe somebody has got some of those massively padded Sumo suits. We could let gunderwood and Micro beat on each other for a while and neither of them would get hurt. It won't accomplish anything but it sure would be entertaining. gunderwood seems to have some doubts about Sig's quality control. He isn't the only one, there have been lots of cases and they seem to date back to firearms manufactured in the Exeter, NH plant and about the time frame that Ron Cohen took over as the Chief Executive Officer in April 2005. Micro on the other hand seems to believe that he has to touch it or see it, to believe it is a problem. I believe that you should fire at least 100 rounds out of a pistol without a hint of problems (preferably more than that) before you begin to trust it, and I mean aimed fire. pointing it into the ground and pulling the trigger will tell you it will go boom when you want it to, but it won't guarantee hitting what you are shooting at.

VGOF Padded Cage Match!

For those who don't know what MIM is or means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Injection_Molding explains how it is used to make metal parts. When performed correctly it will offer parts that are 96-98% the density of forged parts. The problem is, if it is done incorrectly, the do not have near the strength.
If you want to know how old a Sig pistol is (not all are marked though) clear the weapon, flip it over and look at the slide just forward of the frame you will see 3 marks, the one closest to the slide is two letters. To interpret the code use the following:
A-0
B-1
C-2
D-3
E-4
F-5
G-6
H-7
J-8
K-9
The other way is to call Sig at: (603) 772-2302
My P229 is marked KC so it was made in 92, My 220 has no proof markings so it was probably manufactured in Exeter, date unknown and is probably one of the pistols in question.

Good info. It is waaaay too expensive right now, but at some point I hope additive manufacturing makes it into widespread use. 3D prototyping is cool enough, but when you can actually rebuild a part up and have the bond be stronger than the original product, now that is wicked (AFAIK, there is only one group who really has that worked out and they are in CA, everyone else's doesn't have the finish quality yet).

[Micro]

You didn't post anything except links to other sites. Frankly, I have no interest in joining a sniper website solely to read it.

Here you go: http://www.gao.gov/products/B-402339.3

The GAO denied SIGs protest which claimed that reliability was overweighted for their P250. You can search the FBO, but the P239 contract is older and they only keep them up there for a year or so.


We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I know the people I have talked to in person are legit and know their stuff (they have first hand experience). IMHO, it isn't just SIG that has been lowering QC on their products; lots of manufactures have been doing it to keep prices down over the last 10 years. Again, that doesn't make them bad products. Caveat emptor...nothing more.

That's the ATF test I referred to. What I would also like to see are the reports for the tests that resulted in the other referenced contracts.

As I stated, for every winner of a contract, there is a loser. At times, every manufactuere will come in second, or third. I doesn't necessary indicate low quality on the part of the loser. Nevertheless, brand-enthusiasts will always latch onto some specific report to "prove" their favorite's superiority or to "prove" another's inferiority.

[Micro]

Does Rick sell the Red Man suits? or maybe somebody has got some of those massively padded Sumo suits. We could let gunderwood and Micro beat on each other for a while and neither of them would get hurt.

We could do that, but I'd lose. At 8.2 posts per day on this website alone, Gunderwood has far too much energy for me.

Just to clarify, it's not that I don't believe what I read on the internet. I'm just of the opinion that relying on the results of a government competition that Sig failed to win as evidence of their poor quality it nonsense. Especially when the contracts they did win are ignored. Truth be known, neither Smith and Wesson, nor Glock, won that ATF competition at that time, either. None of the candidates received a contract as a result of that test particular test. And that's not eviendence of Glock's or Smith's poor quality, either.