SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Armorer    Slide Interchangeability (?)

Moderators: Chris Orndorff
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Slide Interchangeability (?) Login/Join 
Member
posted
I have an opportunity to pick up a older P226 for a very good price. Gun looks to be in good condition except for some small blems on the slide. It is a stainless slide with Nitron coating and short extractor in 40 cal. I would probably want to replace the slide. Do I need to replace in kind or will the newer slides with the longer extractor work? (I see the term -1 slides but I can't find out what that means).
 
Posts: 102 | Location: South Carolina | Registered: March 16, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
That's just the
Flomax talking
Picture of GaryBF
posted Hide Post
I don't understand the need to replace the slide. The slide can be refinished, if that's the issue, and the gun can be easily converted to 9mm with a conversion barrel.

A replacement slide should work, however, there are no guarantees when swapping parts.
 
Posts: 11681 | Location: St. Louis, Missouri | Registered: February 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GaryBF:
A replacement slide should work, however, there are no guarantees when swapping parts.


I have seen some P226 slide swaps work, some not.




“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
— Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer, 1970
 
Posts: 41457 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GaryBF:
I don't understand the need to replace the slide. The slide can be refinished, if that's the issue, and the gun can be easily converted to 9mm with a conversion barrel.


The blems are a couple of small but fairly deep pock marks and one is on the "226" rollmark. They cannot be just buffed or sanded out. I know I could bead blast or coat them to make them look a little better but I prefer a totally clean look. That is why I am considering a replacement slide. I just found on one site that the -1 slide is apparently the newer long ejector type. Since mine is the older short ejector, my question is are they interchangeable?
 
Posts: 102 | Location: South Carolina | Registered: March 16, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of markstempski
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by les45:
quote:
Originally posted by GaryBF:
I don't understand the need to replace the slide. The slide can be refinished, if that's the issue, and the gun can be easily converted to 9mm with a conversion barrel.


The blems are a couple of small but fairly deep pock marks and one is on the "226" rollmark. They cannot be just buffed or sanded out. I know I could bead blast or coat them to make them look a little better but I prefer a totally clean look. That is why I am considering a replacement slide. I just found on one site that the -1 slide is apparently the newer long ejector type. Since mine is the older short ejector, my question is are they interchangeable?


I have an older 226 and a newer one. Folded steel and whatever the new ones are. I can easily swap slides. That is an n of one or two as they say and your mileage will almost certainly vary. I can do the same with 229s and 220s just did it as an exercise. Usually my luck is that everyone else but I are able to do such things but not with sig slides and frames. I wonder if it is worth a chat with Sig customer service. I can understand having a slide that you shoot the piss out of and one for show but make sure shoot to same point of aim or determine what offset is if any between the two. The ejectors should not make any difference, didn’t on mine.


Mundus Vult Decipi
 
Posts: 1152 | Location: Duvall WA, USA | Registered: February 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
FWIW, the ejector is in the frame, not the slide. The slides have extractors, and I cannot think of a reason why which extractor a slide has would by itself have any effect on whether it’s interchangeable with another.




“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
— Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer, 1970
 
Posts: 41457 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of markstempski
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
FWIW, the ejector is in the frame, not the slide. The slides have extractors, and I cannot think of a reason why which extractor a slide has would by itself have any effect on whether it’s interchangeable with another.


Good catch yes indeed the extractor is in the slide and ejector on the frame. My bad. We do need to keep the terminology straight.


Mundus Vult Decipi
 
Posts: 1152 | Location: Duvall WA, USA | Registered: February 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
I have a newer-ish .40 226 that will mount and fire a folded slide 9mm upper with no issues whatsoever. Honestly, I don't know why beauty marks on a standard 226 .40 slide would be troublesome. It's not an Elite, or Legion. It's literally the cheapest Classic Sig you can find and as generic as they come. Buy it shoot the hell out of it. I certainly wouldn't get a long extractor version over the MUCH better short one.




"Live every day as if it's going to be your last, and one day, you'll be right.”
Malachy McCourt
 
Posts: 11778 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of markstempski
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
I have a newer-ish .40 226 that will mount and fire a folded slide 9mm upper with no issues whatsoever. Honestly, I don't know why beauty marks on a standard 226 .40 slide would be troublesome. It's not an Elite, or Legion. It's literally the cheapest Classic Sig you can find and as generic as they come. Buy it shoot the hell out of it. I certainly wouldn't get a long extractor version over the MUCH better short one.


Interesting but not unexpected I guess. I don’t think I would try that the other way around though. I have 226 in 9mm. I don’t run max but usually have stout loads.


Mundus Vult Decipi
 
Posts: 1152 | Location: Duvall WA, USA | Registered: February 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have never met a .40 slide that would not interchange. I do it all the time.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 8421 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of markstempski
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hrcjon:
I have never met a .40 slide that would not interchange. I do it all the time.


I just wonder about a 9 mm slide on a 40 frame. I thought that the locking block was an impediment but maybe not. I do not have the required gear to test the variety of Frankensigs that can be cobbled together. I have 9 mm barrels for my 229 40/357 frame and slide. That is from Barstol and fits in the slide perfectly because is thicker barrel.


Mundus Vult Decipi
 
Posts: 1152 | Location: Duvall WA, USA | Registered: February 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I can't answer the question about .40 to 9mm. I haven't any reason to do that. The original OP is .40 to .40. That I am 100% sure will work.


“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”
 
Posts: 8421 | Registered: October 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by markstempski:
I just wonder about a 9 mm slide on a 40 frame. I thought that the locking block was an impediment but maybe not.


The locking inserts of all P226s are the same and there is no impediment to swapping slides on P226 frames except, sometimes, rail incompatibility.

Although I cannot say anything about the 9mm P229-1, the locking inserts of 357/40 P229s and original 9mm P229s are different. In addition the barrel diameters of the two 229s are slightly different as well.




“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
— Simon & Garfunkel, The Boxer, 1970
 
Posts: 41457 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
My original question is moot. Seller backed out on me so I ended up buying a red box 229 from CDNN. Those are great deals and CDNN has some really good prices right now($439 for a 40 cal no rail, short extractor, and Legacy slide).
 
Posts: 102 | Location: South Carolina | Registered: March 16, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of markstempski
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by markstempski:
I just wonder about a 9 mm slide on a 40 frame. I thought that the locking block was an impediment but maybe not.


The locking inserts of all P226s are the same and there is no impediment to swapping slides on P226 frames except, sometimes, rail incompatibility.

Although I cannot say anything about the 9mm P229-1, the locking inserts of 357/40 P229s and original 9mm P229s are different. In addition the barrel diameters of the two 229s are slightly different as well.


Which is why a number of us went to the Barsto 9mm barrel, same outside diameter as the 229 40 or 357 sig


Mundus Vult Decipi
 
Posts: 1152 | Location: Duvall WA, USA | Registered: February 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Armorer    Slide Interchangeability (?)

© SIGforum 2020