Hello,

I am thinking of snagging either a P226 or P226 in .40. I am asking the brain trust which platform is better (durability, reliability and shooter comfort) or is it that they are so similar that their size differences are the only meaningful differences.

I plan on running 170-180 grain ammo exclusively. Not looking to turn this into a caliber debate, I know the .40 is the unpopular kid right now, which is probably somewhat responsible for my shift towards it.

Thanks

I was thinking that a P229 for carry and a P226 for the range.

You can use the mags for the P226 in both.

quote:

that their size differences are the only meaningful differences.

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

that their size differences are the only meaningful differences.

Yes.

I agree with 12131 on this. Dimensions is the only meaningful difference. In regards to weight they are fairly close to each other.

Also, I would check prices in regards to pistols and ammunition before committing to a purchase. I've looked for P226's and P229's in .40cal and they don't seem to be too far off their 9mm counterparts. And any savings you may realize in the purchase may be eaten up by higher ammo costs.

The only addendum I’d make is that the 229 can be somewhat snappy whereas the 226 is a complete pussycat with the .40; the difference in recoil is definitely noticeable.

Factory ammo is more than 9mm but not horribly so, with careful shopping. Plus, I will be handloading roughly 50-75% of my practice ammo so I will have some ability to keep increased ammo costs in check. I will also wind up casting some of my practice projectiles too which will help me be less dependent on store bought bullets (Berry’s, Eggleston etc).

With regards to the extractors, are both the short external and long external available as spare parts?

I agree with the size difference but either would serve you well. They are tough guns and both do a great job with recoil/capacity for the round size.

On a side note, check on the E2 grip option for both pistols. For me it was a game changer. It is a bit more slim compared to the standard grips and it just feels right.

The 229 is beefier and made around the 40/357 cartridges.

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
The 229 is beefier and made around the 40/357 cartridges.

Leaving out the old folded slide P226, which was made only for the 9mm, the P226 is constructed the same way with the same material as the P229. One is not beefier than the other.

Aren't the 229 grips marginally shorter & wider?

When discussing the magazines for P226 and P229 pistols chambered for 357 SIG / 40 S&W, keep in mind that P229 mags for the cartridges are wider than those for the P226. P226 mags will fit and lock in the magazine wells of a P229, but P229 mags won’t fit into a P226.

Many people report that P226 mags function okay in P229s, but they are a loose fit and not designed for the purpose.

A 357 P229 was my carry gun for many years, and I used a P226 for duty. I never felt there was any significant difference between the two other than that the P229 was slightly more compact, and the P226’s longer sight radius was a little better for practical accuracy.

The 40/357 versions of the P226 and P229 have exact the same slide weight. I suppose you could apply the logic that since the P229 slide is also smaller, that it is "beefier" relative to its size. But it honestly wouldn't be anywhere on my radar when choosing between these two.

For me, the 40/357 P229 is the slightly better option because it has the same capacity in a smaller size. That's because its magazine is actually designed to efficiently package 40/357 (it has the correct width), unlike the P226's magazine. I've shot them back to back, and I couldn't say that the P229 had noticeably more recoil than the P226. The weight difference between them is minimal.

sigfreund, I think the reason most people never have an issue using the P226 magazines in the P229 (whether its 40/357 or the 9mm P229-1) is because all P226/P228/P229 magazines (regardless of caliber) are nearly identical from the catch notch up. SIG likely did this to avoid having to mess with the surrounding hardware (trigger bar, slide stop lever, etc.), so these pistols could share as many parts as possible. As a result, even though I too always suggest using the "correct" magazine (especially for defensive purposes) like you do, I don't think the loose fit amounts to anything more than just extra noise.

quote:

Originally posted by MacGyver:
all P226/P228/P229 magazines (regardless of caliber) are nearly identical from the catch notch up.

A good point that I never considered. Thanks.

I agree with gearhounds. I tried a 229 twice. Didn’t like it, and ended up selling the 229 both times. Stumbled across a 226 for a good price, and decided to try one more time. For me, the 226 was a completely different gun. Almost like a 9mm. I still have that pistol.

I have had both as duty guns, and still own them. I always thought the 229 was heavy for CCW. The 229 has a shorter slide but I shot it better than the 226. I liked it's balance better too.

I've got a Mk25 and I loved it so much I picked up a COPO Red Box P229 with .40 and .357 sig barrels.
They both fit my hand so well that the P229 and the MK25 go to the range everytime I do.
No real difference to me, maybe a touch heavier on the P229 side, but fits so good I don't think about it.
By the way, I switch between them for car carry every month too!

I have two 229/.40s. Imho, there is no finer .40 pistol on this planet. I've shot a bunch of of them, and the 229 is the best balanced .40 out there. In addition, it becomes a .357 Sig with a barrel swap. Which I also have.

Which one fits you best? With my short, fat fingers I find the 226 to be just a bit large for me. My son has long, slim fingers, like his Mom, and he finds the 226 just right. It's a Goldy Locks thing; 226 to big, 239 to small, 229 just right.
Rod

I had both the 226 and the 229 in .40 at one point a llooonnngggg time ago... Sold the 229 because I felt that it was a bit more snappy recoil-wise than the 226. Still have the 226 but don't really shoot it anymore as I've accepted my 9mm Overlords.

quote:

Originally posted by sig sailor:
Which one fits you best? With my short, fat fingers I find the 226 to be just a bit large for me. My son has long, slim fingers, like his Mom, and he finds the 226 just right. It's a Goldy Locks thing; 226 to big, 239 to small, 229 just right.
Rod

Interesting. I have huge hands, so grip size is generally not an issue. For some weird reason I SHOOT single stack pistols better than double stack. I am sure it’s something in my head. But the result is that I usually carry either a 220 (in .45ACP) or a 229 (in .357 Sig). I have a wonderful old German 226 in 9, and have been looking for one in .40 (I have a .357 Sig barrel already).

To me, the difference between the 226 and 229 is akin to the difference between the 1911 Government Model and the Commander Model. Aluminium frame ones aside, the Combat Commander is simply shorter. There is a drawback, slight though it is - the decrease in “working space” in the slide. So, putting a shok buffer on a Commander MAY make it more unreliable. That front space is that tricky. Such a potential issue is possible with the 229. I don’t know any who use a shok buffer, but were one to try that to decrease frame pounding (with the .357 Sig for example), it might be a problem.

Mag differences are as noted. I have used 226 mags in my 229s with no issues ever but they rattle - slightly. The mag consistently and reliably locks the slide back, and to my thinking, that means it presents the bullet reliably to the barrel - all you want or need in a combat gun.