a damn good couple of guns! (SIG 229)

ghostie

ghostie

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
254   0   0
Location
Vancouver
I've posted on here quite alot that I love the SIG 229. My girlfriend and I now have two of them. Here's a little bit of appreciation.

One was bought in August 2007, the other in April 2008. One thing I didn't notice until I started taking pictures of them together is that SIG has taken the "SiGARMS INC, EXETER-NH-USA" off of the slide. The "font" of the "SIG SAUER P229 STAINLESS" is a bit different on the 2008 gun as well.
SIGS4.jpg

SIGS5.jpg


I can tell you, however, that irregardless of what it says on the slide - both guns are stone cold tack drivers. Here is some shooting I've done with the 2008 gun over the last couple of weeks:

These guns have an uncanny ability to group right on top of point of aim for me. This was at 12 yards into a regular 8.5 x 11 piece of paper - just shooting normally.
SIGS12.jpg


I made 6 points of aim on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper and put this at 15 yards to see if I could pick-off the small circles slow-firing. That is pretty damn good man. I'm sure some people can do better with target guns, but I don't see very many people around where I shoot that are putting up results like this. And, in saying that, I'm not saying I am a crack shot... this gun is part magic! :D The bullets have a weird way of going where you want them to go with this gun. It is just so eminently shootable it's just crazy.
SIGS9.jpg


On this one, I banged off a mag on the left with the 229, and a mag (8 rounds) on the right with my HK P7 PSP (This is at the 15 yards again.. or, on a target stand off the log on Range 7 at PoCo for you Vancouver guys). This was pretty much of the 'bang, bang, bang" variety. I really like the P7, but for me at least, nothing I have ever shot can touch the consistency of my shooting with the 229.
SIGS11.jpg


So, to sum it up... these guns are "pretty damn good". :D I like a lot of guns, but I like these the best. I can't imagine not having them at this point.

I'm really curious to try a SIG 229 Elite now and (especially) the Stainless Elite. Somebody bring some stainless Elite's in to the country. They look very promising.

Here is some more SIG "####" for you dudes:

SIGS8.jpg

SIGS6.jpg

SIGS2.jpg

SIGS1.jpg
 
Last edited:
My 229 is easily my favorite pistol, as well. Other pistols have come on gone, the 229 has outlasted them all.
 
nickorette said:
mmmmmmmmmmmm siiiiiiiiiiiggg.

I've got the 226 elite. I have to wait until september to use it though :(
Click to expand...

Did you find the wood grips too fat? I've heard some people say that they are pretty chunky... and I'm curious as to why you put the regular grips on there.

Myself I quite like the regular SIG grips. Wood grips messing with the overall thickness of the pistol is one of the concerns I have about the Elites.

By the way, I forget to mention... my theory on why they took the "SiGARMS" thing off the slides this year... U.S. division of the company changed its name late last year. Anybody know the full answer on why those markings were taken off the slide?
 
ghostie said:
Did you find the wood grips too fat? I've heard some people say that they are pretty chunky... and I'm curious as to why you put the regular grips on there.

Myself I quite like the regular SIG grips. Wood grips messing with the overall thickness of the pistol is one of the concerns I have about the Elites.

By the way, I forget to mention... my theory on why they took the "SiGARMS" thing off the slides this year... U.S. division of the company changed its name late last year. Anybody know the full answer on why those markings were taken off the slide?
Click to expand...

Well, the stiples on the plastic grips seem to dig into my hand better than the wood ones, so they grip a bit better. I ordered the plastic ones when I ordered the 226 elite because I wasn't exactly a fan of wood on a handgun. I was going to sell the wood grips that came with it (because you can't buy the rosewood grips on the aftermarket, and I figured I could makes some good $$$ of them) but once I saw the elite with the rosewood grips it really wasn't half bad. I'm going to keep them for when I turn into some old fart, and will definately like the wood more then :D

img0625rr5.jpg


I think your right though. The grips look to be thicker with the wood ones than the plastic ones. (I'm glad I took a ton of pics before I left :D)

img0641xh5.jpg

img0628ku1.jpg
 
aninchlow said:
GOT BRASS = NO SIG. Your partner has to wear a face sheild or risk loosing their eyes from your FOREFULLY EJECTED BRASS.
Click to expand...

Huh??

I don't get it? ALL semi-auto pistols have the capability of being "assertive" ejectors.

My P220 is a heck of a lot softer chucking brass out than my S&W is!

And strangely enough, I have come to assume that I will be hit by brass on a shooting range, and thus I wear a ball cap and GLASSES all the time.

Also, if the Sigs' brass is being ejected "FOREFULLY", wouldn't it be flying straight forward? I'm sure you wouldn't be intentionally standing in FRONT of the pistol when it fires?

;)

Neal
 
nickorette said:
img0641xh5.jpg

img0628ku1.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow! Those wood grips are a lot fatter! One of the things I like about the SIGs is that they fit my hand very well. I think that is a big part of why I can shoot my 229s better than other guns - I have a very solid grip on the gun, great control during firing without having to white-knuckle the gun or reposition my hand. Those wood grips definitely seems to have the potential to cause havoc with your grip.

If I can get a Stainless 229 Elite, I should probably put in to Brownells for an extra set of 229 standard grips.
 
The only thing I don't like about the Sig P226/229 is the muzzle jump of the pistol when it fires, due to the high barrel position compared to HK P7 (just tried it this weekend), Glock, or 1911 pistols, which have much less jump and are much more managable in fast continuous shooting.
 
--Terry-- said:
The only thing I don't like about the Sig P226/229 is the muzzle jump of the pistol when it fires, due to the high barrel position compared to HK P7 (just tried it this weekend), Glock, or 1911 pistols, which have much less jump and are much more managable in fast continuous shooting.
Click to expand...

To tell you the truth I didn't notice the difference in muzzle jump between the glock, sig, CZ, etc. What I did notice when shooting a 226 is that it came back on target real easy for me. It might jump high, but it came back :D
 
I seriously considered a Sig 229. However when I held one, I found the grip was too short. It seemed like my hand extended past where it should have. I'll probably end up getting a 226 eventually and hopefully a 220.
 
--Terry-- said:
The only thing I don't like about the Sig P226/229 is the muzzle jump of the pistol when it fires, due to the high barrel position compared to HK P7 (just tried it this weekend), Glock, or 1911 pistols, which have much less jump and are much more managable in fast continuous shooting.
Click to expand...

I found the opposite myself, at least in terms of SIG vs. GLOCK. The fullsize GLOCKS seemed to bounce around all over the place for me. I had to put way too much effort into getting my G17 to group decently just firing normally. Rapidfire results were dodgy at best for me. (I found the Walther P99 to be an een more extreme example of this phenomenon... featherweight frame, heavy/front-heavy slide equals difficulty keeping the front sight on target). G19 is better. It's a more balanced anyway. I always found the G17 to be brutally front heavy.

229 seems to "sit down" very well for me and come back on target very naturally. You can just about let go of your grip on it and it will stay balanced on your thumb and index finger... not quite, but almost. That is an appealing quality in a handgun to me - which is proably why I have been gravitating toward shorter, heavier guns over the last year. The 229 is probably 30% heavier than a GLOCK 17 in a more compact package... but it is also something beyond that. The grip, grip angle, and sight picture seem damn near perfect for me. The trigger is pretty much in a class by itself among duty pistols as far as I am concerned.

On the P7, I'm glad you liked trying mine out :). My girlfriend and I are also interested in maybe getting an M1 carbine after trying yours! Thanks for letting us have a go with that. The thing about the P7... they are great little guns, but the magic does wear off to some extent after you have been shooting them awhile. This past winter I used to think they didn't heat up that bad... people were telling me "wait for summer". Well, it's true they heat up like little SOBs in a few mags if they are not being cooled by the cold winter air. That makes it pretty hard to do a whole lot of rapid firing with them. A heatsheild or gloves doesn't seem like much of a solution if you ask me. Gas delayed blow-back guns also seem to foul up quite badly by their very nature. That was the reason I got rid of the Steyr GB I had. It wasn't practical. Although it was accurate, it heated up really bad and it fouled up even worse. It was an absolute ##### to clean. P7 is a better design, but the cocking/trigger mechanism can get gummed up if it gets too dirty.

I don't think I would ever want to give up on the P7 - but I think those who see them as a kind of "ultimate gun" are not being honest about the limitations of the designed. It is worth noting that (as far as I know, and public pressure on HK aside) none of the major manufacturers are making gas delayed blowbacks any more. I would imagine that the above reasons (heat/fouling) are two of the big reasons why (to which cost of manufacture can be added)
 
Well, maybe the Glock 17 was not as good as I remembered.

Or maybe I'm just jealous about you having all the goodies..... Thanks again for letting me play with your P7 PSP. And I have to admit that your Sig P229 is a nice little gun, and shoots a little better than my refurbished P226. Just a little.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom