better Sig for 40cal - 226 or 229? or - anyone in Ottawa can show me theirs?

BP7

BP7

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
begin to hunt for a sig, in 40cal, but not sure if 226 or 229. from what I read, the 226 is the older design and the 229 was designed specifically around the 40/357 calibers. now, of course, both are made in 9/40/357, so I COULD just buy a 226/40 or I can buy a 229/40.

but, are the frames and slides now identical as far as thickness, strength, durability? I run fairly hot 40cal reloads, so i'm somewhat concerned about durability. I mean, I went the 40cal route because of the power (personal choice, no need to justify it). if I didn't care, I would have gone 9.

so anyways are the frames equal now on the 229 and 226? meaning - has the current 226 been somewhat revised to handle a 40cal the same way that the 229 was originally done?

here in Ottawa, there are next to no handgun stores, and only two rifle stores. in short, it sucks. so I have no real chance to see them side-by-side, or handle them to see if there's grip differences i'd care about. I HAVE handled a 226 before, so I know how it fits me (and it's good, a nice full fit)
 
From wikipedia:

"The P229 differs from its cousin the P226 in several respects, and was originally introduced to supplement and then replace the P228 by adding the .357 SIG and .40 S&W as available chamberings. The P229 was the first production handgun introduced that could chamber the .357 SIG round.[17] The P226 and P228 were originally manufactured using a stamped-steel slide on an aluminum alloy frame. The P229 consists of a CNC-milled stainless steel slide, typically colored black with a Nitron finish. The P229's milled steel slide was introduced to handle the higher slide velocities created by the .357 SIG and .40 S&W loads, which the stamped slide of the P228 could not handle without the use of a much stiffer recoil spring. This would have made manual slide-retraction much more difficult and the use of a milled stainless slide (coupled with the new milling and stainless production capabilities found in the U.S. factory) with a standard weight recoil spring made more sense."

So I believe that any modern P226 or P229 with a stainless slide can handle the 40s&W cartridge with no issues. It was not a frame issue, more a slide velocity issue (Due to material used).

The P226 is a fullsize pistol while the P229 is a compact; some prefer the P229 balance and muzzle flip in .40 over the P226. I guess it all comes down to personal preference; You'll have to try them both :) There are also All-Stainless version of both pistols if you're into heavier pistols.
 
ah... ok, then i guess at this point in time they're equivalent. and i just realized that thanks to our silly barrel laws, the 229 barrel is only 1/4" shorter than the 226 barrel. i mean, i knew it stuck out a bit, but didn't hit me that the difference is now so small. seems like i may just pick whichever one is available first since they end up being nearly the same bloody thing now! ha! too easy... :p
 
I would say it depends how big your hands are. I've had both a .40 cal P226 and a P229. The P229 shot nicer groups for me (no idea why), but the grip was WAY too small for my bear paws. My pinky finger basically hung off in space unless I crushed all my fingers together as uncomfortably as possible, and even then the grip would only partially accommodate my pinky. The P226 was a nicer sized pistol, but the grip shape didn't suit me, they have wide almost round grips compared to a 1911 or even a Glock. Hard to explain, better to try one out than listen to Internet ramblings! I should add, the P229 I had came with a conversion kit. I could shoot 9mm in my 40 S&W mags, but I wouldn't do it in competition, the 9mm would pop out if you gave the mag a decent rap, at the range, no problem though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom