thanks, drabfour

quote:

Originally posted by Anush:
Did I not say "Slightly"! It's about 1/16" diff probably due to the slide height being "Slightly" less on the P229C/P224 vs the P229.

I'm going by Sigs own numbers. Both are 5.4 inches tall. If they both use the same magazine, which according to Sig, they do, then there should be no reason why the frames shouldn't be the same height.

"These reduced-length pistols maintain the standard grip length and magazine capacity as the standard P229, but with a shortened slide and barrel length."

P229C Press Release

"As we’ve worked with armed professionals over the years, we kept hearing comments about shorter slides and barrels, but with full-size magazines and grips,” said John Brasseur, Director of Product Management for SIG SAUER, Inc.

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:
Because I was never a fan of the carry series. Yes you keep capacity but you lose barrel length. And if you are cutting down the slide and barrel for better carry, why not shorten the part that sticks out of your belt?.

Agreed

If you carry on your belt, or in a shoulder rig,shorter barrels conceal easier,and are handier. If you carry IWB, shorter barrels don't poke you as much.

They want $879 plus tax at the LGS.
No wiggle room or negotiations.
Otherwise, it would be mine.

Sig went about this all wrong. The 224 was a bomb from the start because of the slide fatness. They should have taken the 239 top end and did a double or stagger stack.

that would have been a god idea. I think Sig did a Smith and Wesson, and saw a bunch of leftover parts and thought "what can we do with these?"

quote:

The 224 was a bomb from the start because of the slide fatness.

The 224 was doomed, IMHO, because SIG was at least 10 years (if not more) too late introducing it.

By 2014 when the 224 came out, the Glock 26 had been on the market for almost 20 years, M&P Compact about half that, and even the Shield had been out for 2 years by then.

Day late and a dollar short.

quote:

Originally posted by LtJL:
If you carry on your belt, or in a shoulder rig,shorter barrels conceal easier,and are handier. If you carry IWB, shorter barrels don't poke you as much.

This is my thinking too. Why it is easy for me to carry a G19X with he 19 round magazine. My Incog Eclipse rides deep, the longer grip allows me to get abetter grip when drawing from concealment. The shorter slide doesnt poke as much in my nether regions.

I think I like the look of the 229C better than the standard 229. I don't think I have ever run into one before.

This gun never made sense to me. I generally don't have any trouble carrying a 4" barreled pistol IWB, as long as it's of a certain thickness. So I did have an issue with the P229 when I tried it many years ago. Too much girth, bulky as all get out. The P224 and then the subsequent P229 Carry did nothing to alleviate that. So owning a P229 Carry would dictate that it's OWB-only for carry and/or a range toy. The added length of a standard P229 is not a hindrance for me if it comes down to carrying one on the belt (which I hardly ever do), so then it comes down to the Carry's sole purpose is as a range gun. Losing length off of the sight radius and taking weight off the front of a standard P229 that I already think balances nicely as-is makes the Carry a non-starter as a range toy. So like I said, it made no sense to me.

Because of the sluggish sales of the P224, perhaps SIG NH had a lot of unused slide material lying around. They felt they HAD to do something with that so chop a bit off of an existing P229 frame and VIOLA, we have foisted on an unsuspecting public the P229 Carry.