Leaning toward the P229 but won’t be in the market for one until sometime this fall. My hands and middle three fingers probably just barely qualify as large, but my thumbs and pinky’s are definitely medium sized.

Little late to the party but sounds like you haven’t decided. My first gun was a P226 in .40, love the thing. I’ve about 5k round through it and it just shoots so straight and I have never had a failure that wasn’t mag related. Partially cuz I’m in CA and the slide lock (slide release but not really) is apparently different for standard Mags and limited cap mags. Anyways many people say the 229 is great cuz it was designed for the .40, I cannot say my 226 has been anything other than awesome in .40.

ETA I don’t have the biggest mitts but make the 226 work well. I have Hogue G10s which help make it feel less massive.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SigSauerP226,

When I have the funds to get one, I think whichever model I find on the used market at that time, that is in the best shape for the most agreeable price, possibly with the most factory magazines will wind up being the determining factor(s).

This thread has satisfied me that either the P226 in .40 or the P229 seem like solid choices.

When I decided to buy one of these it was the P226, as it felt 'better' in my hands than the P229.

I also have dimensionally challenged hands.

My fingers are usually 1/8" or more shorter than the average for my palm size [said every glove I ever tried on- leaving space at each finger tip].

The ONLY way Sig handguns 'fit' me is if they have the E2 grip AND a short reach trigger.

With the E2 grip and the standard trigger the DA pull is still too long for comfortable use and transition between shots. With the short reach trigger I can do DA and SA shooting without shifting my grip.

The only major company out here in California I found to be worse for my hands was the CZ 75 lineup- especially the thumb safety versions.

I mention all of this due to Sig Sailor's post, and for anyone else in a similar situation.

[for CZ 75, I've found modifications that make that useable also, but won't clog this thread.]

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
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.

I disagree, my 229 is as flat shooting as they come. And the 229 was the 1st pistol developed specifically for the .40, everything else was adapted. I’d get the 229. Either will be just fine, and they can be found for pretty cheap