Quality: SIG vs. Beretta

N

Neal_G.

New member
My buddy is looking to get a nice, quality, all metal semi-auto in either 9mm or .45 somewhere in the $1000-1400 range. He DOES NOT want a 1911. He's been weighing a Wilson Beretta 92G Brigadier Tactical, or any number of higher end Sig models like the P226 Elite Stainless and P220 Carry Elite Stainless.

Personally, I'm a CZ nut, but for higher end all metal pistols I definitely favor SIG over everything else. All of the above mentioned guns run about $1200, but I guess I never really considered Beretta's at the same quality level as SIG. I'm sure the Wilson upgraded 92 is nice, but it's still just a 'hot-rodded' Beretta 92. Am I wrong? Do gun enthusiast generally see the best of the SIG and Beretta line on equal footing?
 
I've owned multiple examples of Beretta 92 series guns and Sig P220-based guns. Can't say I've ever noticed much of an objective difference in quality between them. Of course, most folks, including myself, will have their subjective opinions of which one they prefer.

Whether there is a noticeable difference at the higher end of the price spectrum, I can't say. I've never seen one of the Wilson Combat Berettas.
 
I'm assuming size isn't a concern? Does he have a planned purpose for this pistol, or just because (which is a valid reason too)?
 
Lol at the notion that SIGs are inherently higher quality than are Beretta duty pistols.

Just because SIG can charge suckers more for their version of very similar products in relation to their competitors does not equate to SIGs being higher value.

After all, the Beretta 92F beat the living hell out of the SIG P226 in the XM9 trials. So much so that an entire section of the mud test results had to be tossed out just to allow SIG to bid at the end of the trial.

I'd take the Wilson for the kind of scratch being discussed in this thread.
 
I'm assuming size isn't a concern? Does he have a planned purpose for this pistol, or just because (which is a valid reason too)?
Click to expand...

It's not a concern. It's more or less a nice range/barbecue gun with a possibility of HD gun use.
 
If he's got the cash and just wants a really nice all metal semi-auto, I'd personally opt for the Wilson Combat. SIGs are great but there's no reason I'd personally pay that for a SIG. I can find a used SIG for <$700 that typically has barely been shot. The Wilson Combat is at least a type G 92 (which is a big plus to me) and has had the action worked on and is pretty handsome too.
 
Last edited:
Which pistol does Seal team 6 and other SOG forces that can pick any pistol in the world use??
Click to expand...

Umm, who cares what they use? I guess sigarms does sell a fake version of that pistol if you want to overpay for it.

The Green Berets use the M9, but guess what? No one in the elite military forces of the world wants to fight with a handgun if they can help it.
 
Umm, who cares what they use?
Click to expand...
Seals do and that's why they use the Sig Sauer P226/228.

Fake P226???:rolleyes: Thats not even up to any interpretation so lets not start any internet misinformation. Might want to look up your information.
Its a MK 25 and only difffrence is its stamped markings. Hardly fake.
 
Last edited:
"Politics and bean counters?"

SIG OBJECTIVELY LOST the M9 trials. They needed total charity relief from the their poor results during a section of the testing protocols to even go on to lose the bid.

http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf

Page 39 of the actual report, paragraph one. SACO is the SIG P226 entry that need to be relieved of its poor dry mud test scores to ensure a second bidder which was "technically acceptable," would be available to compete for the contract.
 
And yet the most elite SOG forces still use the Sig Sauer P226 over all other pistols when its their choice to pick the best weapon.:D. I wonder why Seal Team 6 would even use such a inferior weapon, especially suppressed in environments beyond what 99.9% of civilians would ever shoot in.
That is either a hell of a endorsement or at least a very valid testament to the Sig.
The Sig P226/228 being selected by more elite military operations than any other hand gun is a hard pill to swallow by non Sig fans yet the facts are what they are.
 
Last edited:
I've owned somewhere between 60-70 handguns, closer to 70. I've owned a lot of SIGs (~12) and really enjoyed them. They were no more reliable in thousands of rounds than any number of other brands I have also owned. The OP seems to indicate that this pistol is more for the sake of having a metal framed pistol and range purposes too. I think we can agree most of our shooting ranges are not underwater nor are most of us Navy Seals. Now all else being equal, I do think it is a commendable feature of the SIG that it is chosen by the Seals. However, it's hardly the only feature worth noting about handguns or else all we would own are SIGs (P226s in particular) and nothing else. That would be a sad world. While I don't quite fall into the, "who cares", category, I'm closer to being in it than not.

And yet the most elite SOG forces still use the Sig Sauer P226
Click to expand...

Let's keep in mind the seals are but one group. Other groups use any number of pistols (the seals use the HK45c too). I don't see enough empirical data to say that "most" special operations groups use the P226.
 
Last edited:
The MK.25 currently on sale to "civilians," complete with a useless ID tag, a "collector's assurance of authenticity" and a set of sights not found on the mil-spec version, is a fake MK.25 as it is undeliverable to NAVSPECWAR in that configuration.
 
People who slobber over who is using what in the secret squirrel world remind me of nothing less than rock-n-roll groupies.

The SIG p226 was a loser who made good to a limited extent. Pretty much end of story and not a tale worth nearly $1200 retail.
 
Both are great- I see Sigs as more of a "luxury model" personally, they tend to be fabulous on every level. I personally have a soft spot for the 92s... I don't know why, I just really like them. I have an M9 and an 90-two and I think they're the bees knees, especially considering they're half the price of a lot of the sigs.

The Brigadier is totally lovely (I'd take one in a heartbeat!) but some of the regular 92 accessories don't work with them (namely holsters, but other things too I think) which is annoying. From my perspective it makes more sense to by a higher end item than to buy a lower end (relatively speaking) item and dress it up with upgrades. I'd say the Sig is a Mercedes, and the 92 is a nice Ford. The Brigadier is the same ford but with a very expensive paint job and leather seats and maybe a better suspension that costs the same as the Mercedes.
 
I’ve had a number of Beretta products over some decades from the 84, 71 and Bobcat 25ACP Model 21, I think. No issues at all in terms of quality. Had a Sig P220, early version with heel mag release, it was almost perfect except for a ding on the top side of the slide. And I’m not happy about the quality issues that have appeared here on TFL about Sigs and elsewhere.

The Beretta is perhaps the only brand I might buy sight unseen.
 
Not those exact versions, but I've owned 2-3 examples of the basic models of both. Both are equal quality as far as I can tell, I just like the Sig design better. I sold all of the Beretta's and all but one of the Sigs. If I were issued a Beretta I'd use it with confidence, but if I'm spending my money I'd take a Sig over the Beretta. To be honest, I'd probably just buy 2 Glocks with the same money.
 
LOL @ Beretta v. SIG fanbois

I'm with the OP, a high end CZ like a Tac Sport would be sweet. Maybe a Shadow and a Kadet .22 conversion kit.

2nd place would be one of the SIG X5 variants.

YMMV
 
To the OP:...... if money isn't too tight get the Sig. You won't regret buying quality and from a company with outstanding customer service and a custom shop with warranty approved packages like the AEP that will make a great gun feel like a custom gun. If money is tight then there are other options.
 
In terms of "SIG vs. Beretta" quality, having owned and own various variants of both brands, I have only this observation: either SIG is over-priced or Beretta is under-priced. I can discern no significant difference in quality of build and finish between the two brands. I like them both but, given the disparity in price between the two brands, I consider either the Beretta is a "best buy" or SIG is getting more money due to their name-or a combination of both factors.

In any event, I see both pistols being on "equal footing"-you just have to pay more for one than the other. But the specific and unique features of either pistol with respect to the buyer's needs/wants might be the best reason for choosing one over the other, cost aside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top