Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
I recently picked up an ex-LEO DAK P229 in 40. I love the DAK trigger but would also like the ability to shoot 9mm. I know that Bar-Sto makes a P229 9mm conversion barrel, but I was wondering if a complete P228 top end (barrel, slide and recoil spring assembly) would work just as well? I found one locally for $50 than the Bar-Sto barrel alone is going for. Any help would be greatly appreciated. | ||
|
Oriental Redneck |
Yes. All you need additionally is the P228/old P229(9) locking insert. If you cannot locate that old locking insert, current generation P229 one works, as well. At least for me it does. I bought a P229 SAO Legion complete frame and mated it to my old W. German P228 upper without any part swapping, creating a >> P228 SAO <<, and the gun functions just fine. Q | |||
|
Member |
Thank you! Will I need to swap locking inserts every time I swap top ends? | |||
|
Oriental Redneck |
Yes. Q | |||
|
Member |
OP, Q has put together a nice post about the new Locking Insert (LI) that came in his SAO Legion lower that works with the P228 and P229 (9mm) Legacy slides. https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/9670038884 That new style LI can be purchased at MGW when they are available: https://www.midwestgunworks.co.../mgwi/prod/1202381-r As Q has found out and reported on, that 1202381-R seems to work with all the variations of 9mm slides. A while back, I had purchased a 1202381-R from MGW. I can tell you that it also allowed a functional check with the 40/357 slide. It may be possible that you can swap 9mm slides and 40/357 slides between a frame with this new LI. You would need to prove that on your own experimentation. | |||
|
Partial dichotomy |
| |||
|
Member |
Thanks for all the great replies! | |||
|
Member |
I think Q just had luck with respect to tolerances. I just recently did the same experiment with that same locking insert. While I was able to mount one of my P228 slide assemblies (with noticeable “grittiness”, I might add), I was not able to mount the other. And while it is possible that Q’s experience is the normal one, and that I was unlucky, I don’t think it is likely (based on the previously known differences between the 40/357/P229-1 locking insert and the P228/Legacy-9mm-P229 locking insert). I believe the best practice would still be to use the correct locking insert for each slide assembly. Formerly known as tigerbloodwinning | |||
|
Oriental Redneck |
I agree with both lot_45 and tigerbloodwinning. Tolerance stacking (or stack-up) allowed my luck. Hence, the qualifier, "At least for me it does". Q | |||
|
Member |
P226's of any caliber (9mm/40/357) all use the same frame. This is not true with P228/P229(legacy or classic cary) vs P229 E2/P229-1. P228/P229 9mm's can't accept the 40/357 magazines as those P229 frames were bigger. When SIG made the P229 E2(P229-1) they standardized the frames to all calibers to be the size of the 40/357.... also why you don't want to use the earlier magazines for the P228/P229 fat slide in the later P229-1, may have reliability problems. YMMV of course Which is why you only need to change a locking insert in a newer style P229-1 to use 9mm. another option, is a Bar-Sto barrel. Very accurate high quality barrels, expensive but wouldn't have to change the locking insert each time just a barrel swap. https://barsto.com/product-cat...g-sauer-229-barrels/ | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |