Which Sig (226 or 229)?

[Sigfan26]

Distributor has a deal on factory pre owned versions of both in .40S&W. is there any real preference between the 2 in that caliber? Capacity is the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sero Sed Serio]

I posed the same question between 357 SIG models here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?21383-226-vs-229-as-357-SIG-launcher. The general consensus seemed to be a slight favor for the P229, as it was designed for the 357/40 and then scaled down for the 9, while the P226 was designed for 9mm and scaled up for 357/40 (although they did NOT do the Glock "parts is parts" thing and the P226 .357 slide is noticeably heavier than the 9mm version, as is the recoil spring.) Being the SIG whore that I am, I took this advice to mean that I should get two P229s in .357, and one P226 in .357...

If I had to choose just one, I'd go with the P229. While I notice a slight difference in recoil between my 9mm P226 and my 9mm P229s, I don't really notice any difference between the .357 P226 and the P229 .357. The P229 is also a bit shorter (the spec sheets say it's .1 inch, but in the real world I think it comes out to be a little more than that), and while a lot of people here carry a P226 over a P229 with no issue, the extra length does slightly affect concealability for me. YMMV, of course. Also, new manufacture runs of the excellent Mec-Gar phosphate mags (unmarked except the "Made in Italy" stamp and sold as "OEM" mags) have shown up more frequently for the P229 than the P226.

Of course, the differences between the two are so minor that, if I were buying used, the condition of the gun would trump the model. Even though a lot is redone on the factory CPO guns, the frame is left alone, which will be an indicator of what the gun was exposed to. And I'm assuming you've seen this, but just in case, here's the Gray Guns SIG inspection guide: https://grayguns.com/guide-to-sig-sauer-pistol-inspection/--very handy if you get to inspect the guns in person.

[Dismas316]

It may depend on how you carry. The 229 is all around very versatile and is a bit easier to carry (again depending on your location of carry). Both are fantastic guns to shoot so its really not like one shoots better than the other so much as it is what you prefer to shoot from a size standpoint. Personally I prefer the "compact" size guns in general so I will always default to that size first. That said, I have a 229 legion and 226 tacops and whichever one I shoot last seems to be my favorite.

"If" I had to choose one it would be the 229 for reasons I mentioned above regarding the versatility. The 226 is just a bit to big for me to carry unless I carried it owb for duty use.

In the end, once you have one, it's highly likely you will want the other so it's only a matter of time before you end of up with both. :D

[BehindBlueI's]

The differences are quite minimal. They carry and shoot very close to the same for me. I go ahead and carry the P226 because why not, but own two P229s as well.

[psalms144.1]

I prefer the feel and balance of the 226 over the 229, but that's just one man's opinion. They're both largish, and heavy, so it's really about how hard you're willing to work to carry and conceal them. IWB, they're darn near equal - grip length isn't much different. OWB, the longer slide means you need a longer covering garment, but, lots of folks have successfully carried and concealed a 226 for decades now, with no issues.

[GJM]

I would wait for Taadski to weigh in, as he has years of 228 and 226 experience in the LE and competition worlds.

Not sure if it just me, but I shoot the 226 significantly better on low prob targets. This is over multiple guns over multiple years, of on and off Sig dalliances. I assume that is the longer sight radius of the 226, but that is just a guess.

[spinmove_]

Had a P229-1 for a bit. I liked it, but was never a huge fan of the exaggerated hump on the left side where the decocker is. The P226 profile is definitely my preference from a pure feel and balance perspective.

I knew SIG actually used caliber specific springs, but didn't realize the .40S&W slides were heavier. It probably handles .40 just fine. The P229 was actually designed for it.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[pastaslinger]

I'd go 226 unless you were trying to carry this with any sembelance of concealment but I don't think I could carry a P229/P228 that well (could probably make it work but it would be uncomfortable for me and be hard to not print)

As for 40 cal and 357 sig differences between the two, does this apply with modern versions? I could understand with the old German style slide but not sure about if there are effective differences for calibers between the modern compact and fullsizes

[LSP552]

I would wait for Taadski to weigh in, as he has years of 228 and 226 experience in the LE and competition worlds.

Not sure if it just me, but I shoot the 226 significantly better on low prob targets. This is over multiple guns over multiple years, of on and off Sig dalliances. I assume that is the longer sight radius of the 226, but that is just a guess.

You may put in the group that shoots a 226 much better than the 228/229, despite the slight difference in size. I have never cared for the 228/9 hump by the decocker. It's enough difference than the 226 to bother me and I "think" is a big reason I shoot the 226 much better.

If I need to dress smaller than a 226, I go straight to the 239.

[Sero Sed Serio]

As for 40 cal and 357 sig differences between the two, does this apply with modern versions? I could understand with the old German style slide but not sure about if there are effective differences for calibers between the modern compact and fullsizes

Are you asking about differences between 40 and 357 guns, or between the 40/357 and 9mm guns? The only difference between a 40 and 357 P226 (or P229) is the barrel, and the 40 uses a different sight set than the 9/357 guns. However, the 40/357 guns use the same slide, which is heavier than the 9mm slides, and the same stronger recoil spring. I believe that the P226 dimensions are the same, but the 40/357 P229 slides are wider than the 9mm P229 slides, making holster compatibility an issue. Until the development of the 9mm P229-1, the 9mm P229s had a narrower magwell.

I'm almost certain that the folded carbon slides were never even considered for the 40/357 guns, which have always utilized a stainless slide. At some point in the late 90s or early 2000s, the P226 9mm folded carbon slide was replaced with the short external extractor, one piece milled stainless slides that are still currently used on the MK25 guns, and in the early to mid-2000s, the carbon slide P228 was fully replaced with the P229 9mm and its solid stainless slide. I believe that the stainless 9mm slides are heavier than the older carbon slides were, but they are definitely lighter than the 40/357 slides.

[pastaslinger]

Are you asking about differences between 40 and 357 guns, or between the 40/357 and 9mm guns? The only difference between a 40 and 357 P226 (or P229) is the barrel, and the 40 uses a different sight set than the 9/357 guns. However, the 40/357 guns use the same slide, which is heavier than the 9mm slides, and the same stronger recoil spring. I believe that the P226 dimensions are the same, but the 40/357 P229 slides are wider than the 9mm P229 slides, making holster compatibility an issue. Until the development of the 9mm P229-1, the 9mm P229s had a narrower magwell.

I'm almost certain that the folded carbon slides were never even considered for the 40/357 guns, which have always utilized a stainless slide. At some point in the late 90s or early 2000s, the P226 9mm folded carbon slide was replaced with the short external extractor, one piece milled stainless slides that are still currently used on the MK25 guns, and in the early to mid-2000s, the carbon slide P228 was fully replaced with the P229 9mm and its solid stainless slide. I believe that the stainless 9mm slides are heavier than the older carbon slides were, but they are definitely lighter than the 40/357 slides.

I had thought the carbon 226 was offered in 40 at some point but I could be and probably am wrong since I am not a huge Sig buff

[JDM]

I shoot the 228/9 way better than the 226. I suppose that makes me weird; but, for me, the longer slide of the 226 flops around a lot more during recoil recovery than the more compact guns.

This probably has more to do with my low skill level than anything else.

[LockedBreech]

I don't think it's your skill level, that mirrors my experiences exactly. I'm selling my 226 .40/.357 and keeping my 229 .40/357 because despite being so similar on paper, it just feels like the 226 takes forever to cycle and/or get back on target.


I shoot the 228/9 way better than the 226. I suppose that makes me weird; but, for me, the longer slide of the 226 flops around a lot more during recoil recovery than the more compact guns.

This probably has more to do with my low skill level than anything else.

[pblanc]

I own a P229R in 40 S&W/357 SIG. The only P226s I have shot were 9 mm pistols so it is a bit hard to compare. I don't find a huge difference in how the two shoot. I like the size of the P229 a little better and it is plenty big and heavy enough to handle the recoil of .40 S&W or 357 SIG. I would try to handle both and pick whichever feels better in your hand and seems to balance better. As has been said, the P229 grip is definitely chunkier especially up around the decocker.

[ReverendMeat]

I shoot the 228/9 way better than the 226. I suppose that makes me weird; but, for me, the longer slide of the 226 flops around a lot more during recoil recovery than the more compact guns.

This probably has more to do with my low skill level than anything else.

This has been my experience as well. The grip shape is also condusive to dropping magazines during recoil with my left hand inadvertantly. I prefer the 229.

[Sauer Koch]

FWIW, I'll share my experience...I have a 226, and my wife has an M11 A-1. I have large hands, and although my hand fits the smaller M11, it's just a tad bit more snug than on my 226, but I would not call it uncomfortable by any stretch. That being said, I shoot my 226 a little better. Granted, if I had to go into battle with the M11, I'd feel completely comfortable doing so.

My wife seems to shoot them all equally well (220-226-M11, 1911), damn her!

[taadski]

My sentiment is that the 228/229 and 226 are pretty equally shootable pistols. Ergonomically, they're so similar that going back and forth wasn't really ever a huge issue. If you want to dig into the minutia though...

It took me a bit of mileage to bring my reloads with the 226 up to the same level as with the compact when I first switched over. But I'd been carrying a 228 full time for a number of years at the point, so it was kind of expected. Not an issue of one being inherently better than the other.

I think shorter slided guns in general (G19 vs 17/34, Beretta compact vs full size, 229 vs 226/X5, Stock II vs Stock III, etc...) tend to cycle a bit more quickly and a bit flatter than their larger counterparts. Is it an advantage? How much? IDK. More than anything, I think it's a difference in timing that one will grow used to. Again, more than either one being inherently 'better', they're just different.

One thing I will note... You can mitigate some of the excess movement in the longer slided guns by tuning the gun to the loads you intend to shoot. I believe they (Sigs in particular) come a touch over-sprung out of the box, even for modern duty ammunition. YMMV. Going lighter means you may have to increase the frequency of replacement, but IME, it's worth it to have less disturbance as the gun comes back into battery. Especially if you're splitting hairs in the shooting sports.

I'm actually in the process of vetting a 5" custom shop gun as a USPSA production pistol and I'm finding some of the very same phenomenon between it and my standard full-sized Sigs. I think it moves a touch more in recoil. I think the extra sight radius is a slight plus. And I think they handle (read draw, transition, etc.) a big more sluggishly simply b/c longer/heavier gun. But I'm getting a lot more used to it and for me THAT is the key ingredient.

I don't think any of the above is likely gonna make a difference in the food court. :)

[Sigfan26]

Thanks for the input folks! I ended up with a P226R in .40 (a Red Label Gun from Lipsey's that looks new). I like it so far. Pretty soft shooting for a .40. This has ended up being an office gun. I tend to run between the warehouse and the administration office constantly for work (super low risk environment), and wanted a decent DA/SA that I could just throw in the waistband (I know, I know. Not the best of ideas. And I don't recommend people do that). I had considered using my BrigTac, but the lint build up around the locking block area always freaked me out. Thanks for all the input!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

I had thought the carbon 226 was offered in 40 at some point but I could be and probably am wrong since I am not a huge Sig buff

No. The .40/357 SIGs, at least those sold as production models are all one piece slides. SIG did it right the first time with these guns.