Why?

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:
Here's a couple measurements for comparison:

228 barrel is .831 hood to feed ramp lip
229-1, 229/40/357 barrel is .780 hood to feed ramp lip

228 locking block is .828 tall .708 short feed ramp height
229/40/357 locking block is .828 tall .735 short feed ramp height

228, 229-1 barrel diameter is .530
229/40/357 barrel diameter is .550

My P228 locking insert height .826, .704 at ramp

My P228 barrel hood to ramp .832

My P228 barrel diameter is .531

I'm assuming that the couple thousandths difference is due to my cheap calipers and/or normal production tolerances.

Based on the measurements, it would seem that if I get a P229-1 barrel with a shorter hood to ramp height, it should clear the P228 locking block. I'm hanging up on the .82x section which is the same for both inserts per your sample measurements.

The P229-1 barrel is meant to be used with a P229-1 / P229 .40/.357 locking insert. Don’t half-ass it by trying to use the P228 / P229/9 locking insert.

quote:

Originally posted by ah3:
The P229-1 barrel is meant to be used with a P229-1 / P229 .40/.357 locking insert. Don’t half-ass it by trying to use the P228 / P229/9 locking insert.

I'm not able to find anyone with the 40/357 locking insert in stock.

What bad things happen if the locking insert at the feed ramp is .027 shorter?

The gap between the bottom of the feed ramp and that section of the locking insert will be .027 larger, but it should not affect lockup since the barrel lug locks on the takedown lever and that is unchanged between the two versions. The only thing I can think of is the larger gap between the barrel ramp and insert could maybe cause feed issues with any bullet profile with an edge, like hollowpoints. Having a hard time seeing ball hang up.

I can get a P229-1 barrel now, but I am on notification lists for when the locking insert comes back. What is the risk? This seems like a situation where you mate a rifle upper receiver with a barrel with an M4 cut extension - not technically correct but works.

Since everything works with the 228 slide....

Something is different with the 229 slide, as in what is happening to not allow the barrel to seat in the slide?
Is it hanging up on the hood?

With everything I have and have tested, I don't see how it can not work.

At this point it must be an installed height issue.
Installed the barrel into each slide and measure from the top of the slide to the edge of the feed ramp.

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:
Since everything works with the 228 slide....

Something is different with the 229 slide, as in what is happening to not allow the barrel to seat in the slide?
Is it hanging up on the hood?

With everything I have and have tested, I don't see how it can not work.

At this point it must be an installed height issue.
Installed the barrel into each slide and measure from the top of the slide to the edge of the feed ramp.

I cannot make the suggested measurement because my measuring equipment can't get to those points cleanly.

P228 slide, bottom to top at the breech face 1.085

P229 slide at same spot 1.065

Visually with P228 barrel installed, I can see more barrel lug above the bottom of the P229 slide, holding slide upside down and sighting across the bottom edges.

This is consistent with the external slide measurements with the P229 slide being shorter.

Based on the above, it seems there are differences in how the same barrel rides in the two different slides. Relative to the rails, the barrel rides lower in the p229 slide, ie more hangs past the bottom of the slide. This again matches observation that I'm hanging up on the feedramp trying to go past the .82x section of the locking insert.

I'd be interested in knowing (since I don't have a 40/357 insert to measure) how the transition between the two levels of the locking insert compare. Is it the same slope, just a shorter run for the 229?

Also want to add that the P228 barrel, as far as I can tell, seats completely in the P229 slide. I have had to do some fitting previously on a different barrel on a P220, so I have seen what an example of a barrel not fitting looks like.

quote:

Originally posted by RobLew:
I cannot make the suggested measurement because my measuring equipment can't get to those points cleanly.

Scratch that... it wouldn't help, as the slide material thickness is not the same between a SS and carbon steel slide.

quote:

Visually with P228 barrel installed, I can see more barrel lug above the bottom of the P229 slide, holding slide upside down and sighting across the bottom edges.

Now, this is where the problem exists.
The distance should be the same, in correlation to the bottom of the slide and the rail in which cocks the hammer.

quote:

Based on the above, it seems there are differences in how the same barrel rides in the two different slides. Relative to the rails, the barrel rides lower in the p229 slide, ie more hangs past the bottom of the slide. This again matches observation that I'm hanging up on the feedramp trying to go past the .82x section of the locking insert.

I'd be interested in knowing (since I don't have a 40/357 insert to measure) how the transition between the two levels of the locking insert compare. Is it the same slope, just a shorter run for the 229?

The blocks are identical, other then the front ramp height.

The problem is that the barrel hangs lower in the 229 slide.
The question becomes... *why* does it?

Why did SIG choose to alter the dimensions for the P229-1 slide? IDK, but it seems that all those things are consistent with the measurements thus far:

- Your measured hood to feedramp diff between P228 and P229 barrels is about .050

- Your measured feedramp height diff between P228 and P229 locking inserts is .027 - call it .030

- Slide height difference I measured is .020

- Eyeballing the difference in lug protrusion between the two slides, and a .020 gap on my calipers...seems pretty close

So I'm taking away that in the P229-1 slide, the barrel rides about .020 lower relative to the frame rails. SIG cut down the P229-1 hood to feedramp height by .050 to compensate, giving .030 clearance over the higher portion of the locking insert. On the ramp part of the insert, they raised the height by about .030, yielding the same gap between that section and the bottom of the feedramp as the shorter insert/taller hood-to-ramp on the all P228 parts.

Looking at my worn parts the feedramp also locks up with the ramped portion of the locking insert as well as the takedown lever I mentioned previously. If the locking inserts are identical in angle and location, then a P229-1 barrel should lock up with a P228 insert, but there will be a .030 bigger gap between the bottom of the feedramp and the ramp section of the insert because of the shorter height on the P228 insert. The lockup appears to happen at the top of the insert, right near where it rolls down to the lower section, so it seems like lockup will not be affected.

So I think I'll order a P229-1 barrel while waiting for the matching insert to come back in stock and play around with it.

I'm not sure the 229 slide is different (other than the usual SS vs carbon), but I'm stating something is going on to have a lower lug (possibly fitting issue).

If the barrel is designed to ride lower (dont think it is), then the distance from the top of the guide rod to the bottom of the barrel hole would have to be closer together.

You have both, so see if they are different measurements.

I think you'll find them to be the same.

quote:

Originally posted by RobLew:

Looking at my worn parts the feedramp also locks up with the ramped portion of the locking insert as well as the takedown lever I mentioned previously.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the sense that you think the take down lever stops the rearward movement of the barrel?

The take down lever stops the forward movement.
While the locking block stops the rearward movement.

quote:

If the locking inserts are identical in angle and location, then a P229-1 barrel should lock up with a P228 insert, but there will be a .030 bigger gap between the bottom of the feedramp and the ramp section of the insert because of the shorter height on the P228 insert.

Correct, since you have the shorter locking block (leaving a slightly bigger gap), everything should work with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:
I'm not sure the 229 slide is different (other than the usual SS vs carbon), but I'm stating something is going on to have a lower lug (possibly fitting issue).

If the barrel is designed to ride lower (dont think it is), then the distance from the top of the guide rod to the bottom of the barrel hole would have to be closer together.

You have both, so see if they are different measurements.

I think you'll find them to be the same.

I'll have to measure after I get back from my trip. Up late packing and have locked everything up.

This will likely bug me the entire trip.

quote:

Originally posted by Excam_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by RobLew:

Looking at my worn parts the feedramp also locks up with the ramped portion of the locking insert as well as the takedown lever I mentioned previously.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the sense that you think the take down lever stops the rearward movement of the barrel?

The take down lever stops the forward movement.
While the locking block stops the rearward movement.

quote:

If the locking inserts are identical in angle and location, then a P229-1 barrel should lock up with a P228 insert, but there will be a .030 bigger gap between the bottom of the feedramp and the ramp section of the insert because of the shorter height on the P228 insert.

Correct, since you have the shorter locking block (leaving a slightly bigger gap), everything should work with it.

My understanding is the same as yours, maybe I stated things poorly. Front surface of barrel lug is stopped by the rounded back part of takedown lever, preventing forward motion and causes the barrel to lever up tight into the slide. Moving further back, the front surface of feed ramp also seems to engage the locking insert when slide is fully forward - which is why I wanted to verify that the two inserts are identical except for length of the slope down to the ramp section of the insert.

One more thing I failed to mention. I have two P228s (consecutive serial numbers, in fact). I tried both P228 barrels in the P229 slide on their respective P228 frames and got the same interference result.

quote:

Originally posted by RobLew:
This will likely bug me the entire trip.

I understand.
We will eventually get to the bottom of it.
(kind of surprised a Sig guru hasn't posted the scientific reasoning)

Have a fun and safe trip!

You simply cannot use the P228 (same as the old P229(9)) barrel in the new 229-1 slide and expect that assembly to slide completely onto your P228 frame. It doesn't work, as you found out. You have to have the 229-1 barrel, as mentioned by powermad on p.1. There is no other way around it. Sure, the P228 barrel sits snuggly in the 229-1 slide but that's about it. So, why does the P228 barrel work perfectly in its native slide on its native frame, but not when you put it in the 229-1 slide? It's because the 229-1's slide height is less than the P228's slide height. Think of it as the P228 barrel being pushed down more inside the 229-1 slide resulting the barrel feed ramp not clearing the locking insert.

So, again, the bottom line is, get that 229-1 barrel for your set up.

ETA: pic comparison between the P228 vs. P229-1 barrel will tell you a whole lot.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 12131,

And, fyi, this is what I did several years ago, tinkering around, when I still had the M11-A1 (which is just a rebadged new style P229 (i.e., 229-1), putting the entire M11-A1 upper assembly onto the P228R frame. It went on completely. Called it the M11-A1R. Mechanically sound, but I never shot it, though.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
It's because the 229-1's slide height is less than the P228's slide height.

So the slide height *is* different.

Any idea as to why they would have changed it from the original 229/9 short extractor, slide dimensions?

It's anyone's guess as to why SIG NH do what they do.

Understand, just thought you might know.

And thanks for clearing up the mystery.