which one to pick for ipsc/whatever gun

gwagen

gwagen

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
68   0   0
Location
Anywhere in time and space
I am trying to pick between two guns.

First a used sig p226 in 9mm and I would get a .22 kit for cheaper practice

Or

A new CZ 75 sp-01 shadow in 9mm with a kadet kit

Which way should I go

I have fired CZ 75s and have handled the p226 they both feel great perhaps the sig a little better but is probably in my head.

Please give your opinion

Thanks gwagen
 
I'd go for the CZ, though both are terrific pistols. The ability to lock the safety on a cocked hammer and have a single action first shot is very nice.
 
I would choose the CZ 75, of course I am a little biased as I already own two. Seriously though, I know the CZ would serve you well, have had no issues with mine whatsoever. Can't really comment on the Sig as I have never fired one.
 
ian_in_vic said:
I'd go for the CZ, though both are terrific pistols. The ability to lock the safety on a cocked hammer and have a single action first shot is very nice.
Click to expand...
It is a nice feature but useless feature for IPSC production class(not the gun, just the safety) as you have to lower the hammer anyways.
 
Shadow, it'll be cheaper in the end too, and there are many parts (spare or whatnot) available.
You can still get the SIG as well :D
 
From what I read around, the CZ has a better competition history and was designed for IPSC (or competition). I would still pick up the Sig, because it's ###ier imo :) Both are probably more accurate than we are anyway.

The real answer would be "pick the one you shoot better", but it's sometime hard to try some specific pistols... If it feels good in your hand and aim naturally, you got a winner.
 
I would choose the CZ, but go with whatever you are comfortable with. I'm sure either one would serve you well.

The CZ gives you the option of cocked-and-locked, but would have to compete in Standard rather than Production Division to take advantage of this capability.
 
If both are equally comfortavle wo you, I would go with the Shadow. The SHawdow has a lighter trigger out of the box, and the all steel frame adds wieght to the mizzle that helps with recovery.
 
If it's for IPSC then definitely the Shadow. If the 'whatever' in the original post includes IDPA then the Shadow will have difficulty meeting the weight limit. Might look at a CZ85 Combat. You can make the trigger at least as nice as the Shadow, put on the same sights as the Shadow, and make weight with no problems. If you need the rail, however, then the Shadow would be the way to go.
 
In general, steel can be expected to have a longer service life than aluminum due to the fatigue characteristics of these two metals. Steel has what is known as a fatigue limit for cyclic stresses. If you subject a steel part to cyclic stresses below this limit, it will not suffer from fatigue failure. Aluminum, however, has no fatigue limit and will eventually fail if subjected to enough stress cycles.
 
tjhaile said:
In general, steel can be expected to have a longer service life than aluminum due to the fatigue characteristics of these two metals. Steel has what is known as a fatigue limit for cyclic stresses. If you subject a steel part to cyclic stresses below this limit, it will not suffer from fatigue failure. Aluminum, however, has no fatigue limit and will eventually fail if subjected to enough stress cycles.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
For a general fun gun, a Sig is great and they are extremely accurate, but for the beating that IPSC administers to a gun, you want steel. Or polymer for all the Glocksters out there.

Note that Sig is now producing a steel frame gun also; just not the 226.
 
tjhaile said:
In general, steel can be expected to have a longer service life than aluminum due to the fatigue characteristics of these two metals. Steel has what is known as a fatigue limit for cyclic stresses. If you subject a steel part to cyclic stresses below this limit, it will not suffer from fatigue failure. Aluminum, however, has no fatigue limit and will eventually fail if subjected to enough stress cycles.
Click to expand...

The bolded part was a bad choice of words but I think the idea still got across.

But on a more general note it's not totally accurate. Aluminium does have a couple of fatigue limits but they are lower and there's two significant types of them. With steel it's simple, do not exceed the elastic limit and it'll last virtually forever except under very unusual circumstances. But with aluminium there's a couple of points to consider. One is the long term cyclical stress damage that results in work hardening, embrittlement and finally stress cracks. I think this is the one you and everyone else sees and believes in. And then there's a point beyond that where the elastic limit is passed and the aluminium reacts much like steel. Unlike the repetitive cycle work hardening this is a one time issue just like with steel.

But if the aluminium parts can be held under this long term cyclical stress level the parts will last as long as steel. Some older aircraft such as DC3's are one example of this. The youngest one in the air is around 70 years old and still going strong. Why? Because it's a design that by planning or accident isn't subjecting any of its parts to forces over this lower level long term stress limit. And even steel 1911's have a history of stress cracking when they are not set up 100% correctly and the frame is receiving a constant hammering. So ANY metal can do this when things go bad.

As for Sigs I have not check for stories of cracked frames but if there is none or it's a very low number of them then I seriously doubt there's much to worry about. And let's not forget that there's many hundreds of thousands of Sigs out there so 10 or 12 internet stories does not an epidemic make. I could just as easily haul up the same number of 1911 failures.
 
According to my copy of Mechanics of Materials, 3rd Edition, by R.C. Hibbeler, aluminum doesn't really have a well-defined endurance (or fatigue) limit the way steel does, so the aluminum endurance limits are normally specified as the stress at which the material can withstand 500 million cycles. The endurance limits for steel typically given in handbooks are truly infinite.

Certainly, it could well be that an aluminum part is stressed to such a low level that the service life is so long as to be considered indefinite. I think this is the reason why many DC-3s are still kicking around while newer airframes are simply scrapped after a set number of hours.

I would also like to point out that I was speaking in general terms in my above post. As far as I know, the Sig P226 has a good reputation and I expect that the cost for the amount of ammo required to wear the gun out would be much higher than the cost of the gun. Perhaps a better comparison would be between guns of the same type with aluminum and steel frames, e.g. aluminum vs. steel frame Colt Commanders or Walther P38s/P1s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom