SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Conversion barrel question for SIG P229

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Conversion barrel question for SIG P229 Login/Join 
Res ipsa loquitur
Picture of BB61
posted
I have a NIB Barsto 9mm conversion barrel for my P229. I know many have found that a conversion barrel and 9mm mags provides a reliable weapon. However, if I also replace the extractor and maybe the recoil spring could I expect it to be, for all intents and purposes, a purpose built 9mm? I guess I’m wondering if it would be as reliable as a purpose built 9mm or would I need different parts as well? Also, what pound recoil spring would you suggest? The standard 9mm or a different weight or would you keep it the same?
Thx


__________________________

 
Posts: 10419 | Registered: October 13, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
A few years ago, I purchased a 9mm Bar-Sto conversion bbl for my 229. I fitted the bbl and have stuck with the 40 S&W mags and recoil spring. I have yet to have a malfunction. YMMV.
 
Posts: 4326 | Location: Az | Registered: May 27, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
People who have only installed a 9mm conversion barrel usually report no problems. The most likely issue would be low slide speed malfunctions (usually failures to eject) with the original 357/40 recoil spring. Therefore I personally would use a 9mm P229 recoil spring unless shooting hot +P ammunition.

In converting a 357/40 P229 to 9mm, the one thing that is usually not changed is the slide. Because the 357/40 slide is heavier than the 9mm P229 slide, that could/will result in lower slide velocity even with a weaker recoil spring. That will very likely not be a problem, but strictly speaking you could change all the other parts to the 9mm version’s and still not have the exact same gun as a true 9mm P229.




“Striking is about wreckage. The goal of striking is to impart the largest possible load of kinetic energy (kE) into your target to achieve that state of injury and disrepair.”
— Tim Larkin, When Violence Is the Answer (New York: Back Bay Books, 2017), 227.
 
Posts: 39276 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
That's just the
Flomax talking
Picture of GaryBF
posted Hide Post
I own a Bar-Sto 9mm conversion barrel which has been used in two different P229s. So far, I have fired 699 rounds with no failurs that I recall. I do install a 9mm recoil spring when I make the barrel swap and I use P229-1 9mm magazines, which are a hair wider than 9mm magazines. I have not found the extractor to be an issue. All shooting has been at the firing range; no carry.
 
Posts: 11431 | Location: St. Louis, Missouri | Registered: February 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Tooky13
posted Hide Post
I put an EFK Fire Dragon conversion barrel in my P229 SAS years ago, along with a 9mm recoil spring. Didn't change anything else. I've lost count on how many rounds I've fired, but have never had a malfunction. One of my favorite guns to shoot. I've used both stock and -1 mags with no issues.



If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
 
Posts: 910 | Location: Arizona | Registered: December 07, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Also have an EFK 9mm bbl, 9mm recoil spring, 229-1 mags. No issues so far. Often my carry .
 
Posts: 235 | Location: South Texas | Registered: February 27, 2018Reply With QuoteReport This Post
teacher of history
Picture of maxwayne
posted Hide Post
I thought the 229 9mm slide was the same size as the .40 slide. I will of course stand by your answer.


quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
People who have only installed a 9mm conversion barrel usually report no problems. The most likely issue would be low slide speed malfunctions (usually failures to eject) with the original 357/40 recoil spring. Therefore I personally would use a 9mm P229 recoil spring unless shooting hot +P ammunition.

In converting a 357/40 P229 to 9mm, the one thing that is usually not changed is the slide. Because the 357/40 slide is heavier than the 9mm P229 slide, that could/will result in lower slide velocity even with a weaker recoil spring. That will very likely not be a problem, but strictly speaking you could change all the other parts to the 9mm version’s and still not have the exact same gun as a true 9mm P229.
 
Posts: 4519 | Registered: March 04, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Res ipsa loquitur
Picture of BB61
posted Hide Post
Thx everyone.


__________________________

 
Posts: 10419 | Registered: October 13, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by maxwayne:
I thought the 229 9mm slide was the same size as the .40 slide. I will of course stand by your answer.


There have been at least a couple varieties of 9mm P229 slides. I have only the original version myself, and I know that although the gripping ridge is the same width as the 357/40’s slide, the top section is a little narrower. Also, the lightening cut on the bottom of the 9mm slide is a little deeper. In measuring two otherwise identical slides (solid FPPP, short extractor in both), a 9mm slide weighs 350.3 grams and a 357/40 slide weighs 393.6 grams. The difference, 43.6 grams, is equivalent to 1.53 ounce. I don’t know anything about the P229-1 slide, however.

Something similar is true of 9mm and 357/40 P226 slides. The shapes of the upper slides are the same, but the 9mm slide has much more extensive lightening cuts on the bottom.

The difference between the two original P229 slides caused much confusion and angst back when the P228 was still a factory offering. Most people used the 357/40 weight specification in comparing it to the P228, and were appalled by the fact that the 229 weighed a few ounces more than the svelte P228. Some of them evidently couldn’t imagine humping those few ounces around for more than a couple of nanoseconds. If, however, the 9mm P229 is compared to the P228, the 229 still weighs a bit more, but the difference is less than most people realized, and was almost bearable for those who couldn’t manage a 357/40 229—assuming, of course, that they actually attempted the task.




“Striking is about wreckage. The goal of striking is to impart the largest possible load of kinetic energy (kE) into your target to achieve that state of injury and disrepair.”
— Tim Larkin, When Violence Is the Answer (New York: Back Bay Books, 2017), 227.
 
Posts: 39276 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Res ipsa loquitur
Picture of BB61
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by maxwayne:
I thought the 229 9mm slide was the same size as the .40 slide. I will of course stand by your answer.


There have been at least a couple varieties of 9mm P229 slides. I have only the original version myself, and I know that although the gripping ridge is the same width as the 357/40’s slide, the top section is a little narrower. Also, the lightening cut on the bottom of the 9mm slide is a little deeper. In measuring two otherwise identical slides (solid FPPP, short extractor in both), a 9mm slide weighs 350.3 grams and a 357/40 slide weighs 393.6 grams. The difference, 43.6 grams, is equivalent to 1.53 ounce. I don’t know anything about the P229-1 slide, however.

Something similar is true of 9mm and 357/40 P226 slides. The shapes of the upper slides are the same, but the 9mm slide has much more extensive lightening cuts on the bottom.

The difference between the two original P229 slides caused much confusion and angst back when the P228 was still a factory offering. Most people used the 357/40 weight specification in comparing it to the P228, and were appalled by the fact that the 229 weighed a few ounces more than the svelte P228. Some of them evidently couldn’t imagine humping those few ounces around for more than a couple of nanoseconds. If, however, the 9mm P229 is compared to the P228, the 229 still weighs a bit more, but the difference is less than most people realized, and was almost bearable for those who couldn’t manage a 357/40 229—assuming, of course, that they actually attempted the task.


Very interesting. I had always assumed SIG used the same slide.


__________________________

 
Posts: 10419 | Registered: October 13, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of molachi
posted Hide Post
I recently purchased a Bar-Sto 9mm conversion barrel for my P229. Once I get it fitted I intend to try the 40/357 mags. first before buying the -1 mags.
 
Posts: 1235 | Location: The Backyard of Nowhere | Registered: August 09, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Conversion barrel question for SIG P229

© SIGforum 2019