quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:
Yes, unfortunately, the more the gun manufacturers try to consolidate things and cut corners, the worse they make it for the consumer, and ultimately themselves whether they think that the consumers "will never notice the difference", making a few extra cents or bucks, etc.. I'll keep my other thoughts on that for another thread I'm thinking about posting about other observations of quality issues and manufacturing changes observed in recent years and my personal experiences in the last few months, so back on topic.

I have both a P229 and a P228 parts kit. I included a picture of them below. The P229 kit clearly has the white spring and the P228 has the original P228 spring that belongs in the P228 just as 12131 has posted in his spring picture, I even counted the coils. 11 for the P229 and 13 for the P228 spring. Not only does the P228 spring have more coils that are closer together, it is a little longer than the P229 spring too. I'm glad I grabbed to P228 parts kit when I did for my KG two tone P228 but unfortunately it is the only one I have for it.

The concerns for anyone with a P228 though are that the P229 spring is indeed going to allow the P228 to beat itself up more quickly because of the spring difference since the P229 spring is also designed to manipulate a heavier milled slide that absorbs more of the recoil and requires less dampening than a lighter folded steel slide like in the P228. It would seem that even if the springs have identical uncompressed tension ratings, the fact the original P228 spring has two more coils and is longer should slow the slide down more smoothly and also return the slide back to battery more smoothly as well. At least that is what it seems like from 12131's testing.

I guess this is a good lesson for all of us that if we plan to keep a gun for a long period of time, we should invest in enough original spare parts for as long as we intend to keep it because you never know when the manufacturer may make a change or stop supporting a gun altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by tigerbloodwinning:

Sig has had a nasty habit of dropping support for discontinued models very shortly after the discontinue date.

From what you know, would it be the same situation for the stamped slide P226 and P220? That the new model recoil springs will cause potential damage to those guns because they are in fact spec’d for heavier milled stainless slides?

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:

12131...what is the part number of the spare locking insert you are using? It seems there are several different SIG part numbers for those as well with similar descriptions. Obviously I would not be looking at one for the magazine safety models but there are still several different ones labeled for "P228/P229 9mm". Given your testing, and even with swapping out the recoil springs and a reasonable interval, I'm sure I and others with a P228 may want to have at least one on hand just in case. Thanks in advance.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:
A piece of the locking insert out of a SIG.

DING! WINNER!
Congrats, soggy. That's amazing. I don't know if you're into long guns much, and if so, would you care for a LNIB Aimpoint PRO. All yours. Let me know.

quote:

No SMTP service
Reject due to policy restrictions.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by soggy_spinout:
A piece of the locking insert out of a SIG.

DING! WINNER!
Congrats, soggy. That's amazing. I don't know if you're into long guns much, and if so, would you care for a LNIB Aimpoint PRO. All yours. Let me know.

soggy, please respond. I've sent 3 emails to the address listed in your Profile. Two went unanswered. The 3rd one this morning, I received a Mailer-Daemon unable to deliver message, due to

quote:

No SMTP service
Reject due to policy restrictions.

Something screwy with the email address. Hope the 4th time is a charm. Just sent you another one.