Hi all I'm picking up my 229 at the end of the week we talked about a few weeks ago and when I stopped by the shop he actually has an older model AD dated with box and papers he said . The one I discussed with you guys is a 2013 model both equally in great condition although I haven't stripped down the older one yet just a quick look just wanted to know what you think before I bring one home . Thanks Stephen

Congrats on your new Sig. Being a 2003 or a 2013 year, You can't go wrong with a 229, and it should serve you well for many years.

If it were me, I'd say get both.

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
If it were me, I'd say get both.

The standard SF answer to this type of dilemma.

AD is not a date code on the P229. It's the serial number's prefix. And, based on that, it would be a year 1994 P229, with the old legacy slide with short extractor.

The 2013 model would have newer slide with long external extractor and full-height rear cocking serrations.

They are both great guns. It's up to you to decide. Some folks prefer the classic legacy slide P229. Others don't really care. Me, I hate the look of the long external extractor on a SIG. So, old one for me.

I would be going for the older P229

I presume that the older P229 as no equipment rail while the 2013 produced one does.



I think that the rail and the hooked trigger guard ruined the lines of the P228/P229 family of pistols.

I was also figuring it was a 1994 model and I like the look of those as well not sure if it has triple serial numbers or not . For the most part I think they are built the same I'm assuming it would just be preference

They are truly solid performers anyway you go. I have been debating getting one myself.

As for colt__saa,I love those Equinox pistols. The only downside for me is that they are too pretty to shoot. I miss the one I had.

quote:

Originally posted by SMG6702:
I was also figuring it was a 1994 model and I like the look of those as well not sure if it has triple serial numbers or not . For the most part I think they are built the same I'm assuming it would just be preference

Early P229s up to 1994 should be triple serial numbers. The number on the barrel is typically on the hidden side of the barrel hood.

A 1994 era P229 will have a slide finished in the original Nitron that was not very durable, but more important, was extremely abrasive. I had an AD-prefix 9mm P229 whose slide wore the barrel so much that it produced a groove near the upper front locking surface.

I really dislike the looks of the hook and rail on later P229s, but given a choice between a gun with those features versus one whose slide is finished in the old Nitron, I would take the newer pistol. (It might be possible, though, to have the old Nitron finish stripped off and to leave the slide in the white. I had that done by SIG to the first P229 I owned.)

In any case, I would check the barrel of the older gun to ensure it doesn’t show excessive wear on the front upper surface.

I will check the barrel for the serial number I looked quickly because I was in a rush . I thought I didn't see it now I know why it's on the inside thanks

I bought a new 229 .40 soon after they were introduced, and have owned other 229s in 9MM in the years since. I currently have 1995 and 2017 versions, both with the Legacy type slides, chambered in 9MM, without rails,etc. A few differences I've noticed between old and new are the slide/barrel fit and finish, and triggers. In battery, the older 229 barrel/slide/frame display no play at all, kinda like it'e all one piece of steel. The newer gun has just the tiniest bit of slide/frame play. Actually wish my Colts had all had slide/frame fit equal to the newer 229. The finish on the barrel/slide on the newer gun looks about the same as the older gun, but the newer finish is obviously much harder. Approx a hundred rounds in the older gun shows more finish wear on barrel, than the newer barrel with 300-400 fired. While trigger pull weight seems about the same, the newer gun's DA trigger pull is smoother than the older gun's. There are other small differences that I don't consider all that significant, standard trigger vs. thin trigger, front cocking serrations vs. rear only, and a subtle difference in slide profile. If restricted to one or the other, I'd choose the older gun. Just personal preference.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rock185,

I lean toward the older 229, mostly due to the short extractor, but geez I hate the half-height serrations.

I have a ‘94 and while it’s a fantastic pistol, have serial numbers in 3 places doesn’t make it magical. I would go with the newer one, only because they have changed the firing pin positioning pin since ‘94, and it may be challenging to find the older style, especially as time goes on. If that doesn’t matter to you, ask to dry fire and pick the one that has the better trigger.

I like & prefer the older P229 myself

Thanks for the help guys I myself am leaning towards the older model I will keep you posted when I pick it up

Hi all went and picked up the older model .it has the triple serial numbers original box and papers and 2 magazines . Internally it needs a cleaning but the rails are still black and very little barrel wear . I'm sure after a good cleaning should be great

quote:

Originally posted by SMG6702:
Hi all went and picked up the older model .it has the triple serial numbers original box and papers and 2 magazines . Internally it needs a cleaning but the rails are still black and very little barrel wear . I'm sure after a good cleaning should be great

Congrats! Fantastic pistols.

Anybody know if there is a weight difference between the older and newer 229?

Fraction of an ounce difference between my 1995 and 2017 examples. 1995=31.1 Oz., 2017=31.3 Oz.

I also might add & not to create controversy, I prefer the non rail variant of the P229. There is a place for rails on pistols. I just prefer the P229 without it.