Future .40 S&W Holiday Shopping....Beretta 96A1 or Sig P229

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

I am planning out how I can aquire one of these pistols as I really want to try out an aluminum framed pistol these days long term. I've only ever owned polymer framed pistols (G17's, CZ P-07, H&K USP/P30/P2000's, Walther PPS), just more called towards a more traditional frame design to complement my preferred DA/SA action.

Keep in mind, I have carny hands with very short fingers... I have done OK with all the pistols I've owned up to now... but none of them have really felt optimized for my hands. That said, I feel I can make due with the 2.90" DA trigger reach on the 96a1 and the P229 which may be just smidge closer.

Other thoughts/suggestions/opinions/rants/etc?

[JTQ]

My bet is there will be very few recommendations for the 96A1. While the M9/92 is pretty popular on the forum, the 96 is not. The 96 has a reputation for a very short life span. The buffer in the 96A1 may help, but I suspect it is still not a favorite .40 S&W launcher.

[JonInWA]

That's a tough call. There simply aren't a lot of people shooting and reporting their experiences with the 96A1 on places that I trust (like this forum), but the later production SIG component quality (i.e., use of lower quality MIM components from offshore vendors {both Israeli and Indian vendors have been cited}) causes me to be more than a bit wary of current SIG-Sauers' reliability and durability, especially over time/higher round counts.

I'd probably choose the Beretta 96A1.

Best, Jon

[LockedBreech]

Beretta standard original 96 is a bad choice. Was not engineered for .40 S&W at all.

The 96A1 follows several decades of Beretta engineering learning about .40 S&W, including designing and marketing the Cougar and PX4 primarily in .40.

I am confident that Beretta has tweaked the metallurgy, spring design, and interior buffer of the 92A1 to allow for high-volume shooting. I base that on my opinion of recent Beretta quality, not anything empirical.

As the previous poster said, if we were talking a prime P229 that managed to come off the line with stem to stern quality control, that's the EASY best choice, but Sig has begun to morph into a question mark.

If you get the 96A1, buy new. If you get the P229, try to do some research and figure out when they were the most solid and buy a used one on Gunbroker.

[HCM]

P229.

P226 if you want a full size gun.

Despite the improvements in the 96a1 vs earlier 96's, they have durability issues. The 92 does not equal the 96.

The beretta 92/96 is also a poor choice for those with medium to small hands.

Both guns have grip and trigger options to help with smaller hands but SIG is the clear winner on this point.

[GardoneVT]

Keep in mind, I have carny hands with very short fingers...

Stay far away from anything made by Beretta with a standard frame size. As the 96 Vertec is discontinued, that leaves Sig.

[Sero Sed Serio]

My bet is there will be very few recommendations for the 96A1. While the M9/92 is pretty popular on the forum, the 96 is not. The 96 has a reputation for a very short life span. The buffer in the 96A1 may help, but I suspect it is still not a favorite .40 S&W launcher.

Agreed. The SIG P226 and P229 both tend to handle the .40 extremely well, and several forum members have reported extremely high round counts out of .40 P226s. I currently own one .40, a 2004-ish P229R, and while it has more recoil than my 9mm and .357 P229s, it's not unpleasant to shoot. If I were you I would also consider the P226--it's a bigger gun, but feels slimmer in the hand and balances differently. My P226 .357 is slightly flippier than my P229 .357, but honestly the two guns are pretty much a coin flip to me.

I don't like the newer SIGs from a quality standpoint and from a design standpoint--I think the longer extractor is an inferior design than the shorter "legacy" extractor, and therefore I'm only interested in older SIGs. The good news is that with many departments transitioning away from the .40, police trade-in SIGs in .40 can be had for pretty cheap. If you don't want used, older NIB SIG .40s show up regularly enough that, with a little patience, there's really no need to buy a current production gun.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

So, the Beretta website boasts 10's of thousands of rounds lifespan on the 96A1, so that sounds pretty reasonable if accurate. That being said, I would only be buying NIB for the 96A1... the 226/229 I would likely look at police trade in's. So there's an advantage just on price alone, it will probably be twice as much money for NIB vs Trade In.

The small hand thing, yeah... I hear you guys. Too bad the Vertec is discontinued... anybody know why/when? I guess the reason I've been thinking it may be OK anyways is I've been practicing with my USP 40 which has 2.87" trigger reach DA and it really seems workable believe it or not... I think it helps that the DA travel is about half as long (under hammer tension) than the P30L I have... which seems to spread to force over twice the travel distance.

[john c]

I have Wilson Ultra Thin grips on my B92. I no longer have a classic Sig to compare it to, but it seems thinner than my old P226.

[KhanRad]

The pre Cohen classic Sigs can handle many thousands of rounds of .40&W and .357sig. Beretta......not so much. We've got quite a few academy P226 and P229 .40s in the armory that have well over 50k rounds through them and they still shoot accurately with no parts breakages.

I strongly advise you NOT to buy a new Sig(anything made after 2004). We have had endless problems with quality control issues from our newer guns.

In a P226, a serial number before U675xxx is good. In a P229, a serial number prefix of AL or earlier is ideal(no AM or later).

Gun broker has tons of P226s and P229s in .40S&W that fit into that manufacturing range if the .40S&W is your cup of tea.

[BehindBlueI's]

So, the Beretta website boasts 10's of thousands of rounds lifespan on the 96A1, so that sounds pretty reasonable if accurate.

A few small PDs around us used the 96 for awhile. They quickly ditched them due to durability/lifespan issues. I don't know diddly about the a1. I do know the P229 was designed from the ground up as a .40, not as a 9mm that was pressed into service as a .40. I don't have a ton of experience with a bunch of .40s, but the P229 is relatively easy to shoot and holds up for quite awhile.

[TSH]

I strongly advise you NOT to buy a new Sig(anything made after 2004). We have had endless problems with quality control issues from our newer guns.

What sorts of problems do you have? Does every pistol have the same problems, or is it one or two here and there?

I ask because I was recently discussing hammer-fired guns with my department armorer and range staff and they gave an emphatic thumbs up for Sig. This is from a range staff that immediately banned the on duty and off duty use of the P320 when the drop safety fiasco kicked off (and is contemplating not even allowing them after the "repair"). My department issues Glock but allows the carry of personally owned weapons, and classic Sigs are popular. The range staff agreed the German made Sigs are better, but seemed to believe modern P226s and P229s are great weapons and they see few problems with them in the armory or on the range.

They also thought highly of Berettas, but acknowledged that Sigs have better duty holster options and aftermarket support. I know you can't get an ALS holster for a Beretta 92 with a light.

Aside from the concerns of giving money to a company with questionable ethics (which I believe is a valid consideration), I don't know where the classic Sig models are going wrong. I am certainly not hearing anything from the guys that carry them.

[KhanRad]

What sorts of problems do you have? Does every pistol have the same problems, or is it one or two here and there?

I ask because I was recently discussing hammer-fired guns with my department armorer and range staff and they gave an emphatic thumbs up for Sig. This is from a range staff that immediately banned the on duty and off duty use of the P320 when the drop safety fiasco kicked off (and is contemplating not even allowing them after the "repair"). My department issues Glock but allows the carry of personally owned weapons, and classic Sigs are popular. The range staff agreed the German made Sigs are better, but seemed to believe modern P226s and P229s are great weapons and they see few problems with them in the armory or on the range.

They also thought highly of Berettas, but acknowledged that Sigs have better duty holster options and aftermarket support. I know you can't get an ALS holster for a Beretta 92 with a light.

Aside from the concerns of giving money to a company with questionable ethics (which I believe is a valid consideration), I don't know where the classic Sig models are going wrong. I am certainly not hearing anything from the guys that carry them.

Supposedly, there was an "improvement" in quality after Sig screwed up a major international P226 contract due to one of the test guns cracking a slide. This "improvement" occurred in 2012. Now it seems that most of the post 2012 guns that we have gotten have run okay, but almost all of those are 9mm guns which are generally more durable anyway. However, I have seen a number of reports of many different quality control issues pop up with the agency and in the commercial market. Legion pistols that have enlarged dove tails with sights falling out, take down lever holes in the frame that enlarge to the point of rattling around in the gun, broken locking blocks, broken take down levers, broken extractors(new style long MIM), slides bending with little force(officer dropped his P220 slide on the hard wood floor and was bent enough to keep it from sliding back onto the frame), and of course the dreaded grip screw threads stripping out on P229s.

That's just a few of the problems I have encountered with post 2004 Sigs. Are the post 2012s better than the guns made from 2004-2011......probably. However, the pre 2004 Sigs were phenomenal in terms of materials, design, and execution. The old Sigs were indeed overbuilt. Personally, I would not trust a Cohen Sig with my life........but that's just me.

[Hambo]

Other thoughts/suggestions/opinions/rants/etc?

Yeah, skip .40. Then take a look at an M9A3 (Vertec grip size) an compare to whatever SIG you like.

[GardoneVT]

Some background;
The 96A1 is basically a restyled 90-Two,which was Berettas attempt to fix many of the issues the original 96 had. Hence the integral frame buffer.
Note that the frame cracking issues were first addressed by making the regular 92 frames thicker at the dustcover,which for standardized production also means a regular 92FS features this frame. M9s don't ,being legacy government contract pistols,so they have different dustcovers between the M9/92FS/96.

That tangent aside,the 96A1 is an unknown quantity. No police agency I'm aware of has used them recently ,and Beretta imports them from Italy which makes them an ineligible product for US made contracts. Given market realities it's very unlikely they'll ever be selected for contract use here- so one of my next projects is to order a 96A1 ,have it Wilson-ized and see how it holds up on a 2,000 round test.

It'll be a sample size of one ,but at least it'll be better then no data at all. While there's piles of info on the 9mm guns,it's crickets out there for 96A1 info. Considering modern Sigs are a no go for many people ,it's a tough time to be a DA/SA .40 fan right now.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Yeah, skip .40. Then take a look at an M9A3 (Vertec grip size) an compare to whatever SIG you like.

I like .40 when you consider it from an all around perspective of qualities, though many do not and it is very much the red headed step child these days. Also, the M9A3 is out of my budget currently with the few that are left on the market right now @ $1000 and I tend to only look at a 9mm if it is more of a NPE pistol size.

[GJM]

The pre Cohen classic Sigs can handle many thousands of rounds of .40&W and .357sig. Beretta......not so much. We've got quite a few academy P226 and P229 .40s in the armory that have well over 50k rounds through them and they still shoot accurately with no parts breakages.

I strongly advise you NOT to buy a new Sig(anything made after 2004). We have had endless problems with quality control issues from our newer guns.

In a P226, a serial number before U675xxx is good. In a P229, a serial number prefix of AL or earlier is ideal(no AM or later).

Gun broker has tons of P226s and P229s in .40S&W that fit into that manufacturing range if the .40S&W is your cup of tea.

U675xxxx or UU675?

[KhanRad]

U675xxxx or UU675?

It's a better bet to go with the single U675xxx. The double UU indicates that the frame was made in the USA. These were made from the late 1990s and now into the Cohen era. They are hit or miss on quality, and sometimes I have encountered some UU frames that were out of spec. At the time, Sigarms was making all the newer Sigs with stainless slides and they figured why not make the frames too. However, the German frames were still of better quality and cut more precisely.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I'd bargain shop for early model used 229s, watch Summit Gun Broker, Top Gun Supply and Gunbroker.

There are great police trade ins sometimes, and lots of folks have been ditching 40. That makes a buyers market for these guns.

Find one that looks good gift the price, then send it in to the Sig shop for a recondition and any trigger work/SRT you may want. It will be cheaper than new by far and likely much better. I'm not up on Sig as a company right now, but I have had great experiences with their custom shop/smith end of the house in the last few years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HCM]

I like .40 when you consider it from an all around perspective of qualities, though many do not and it is very much the red headed step child these days. Also, the M9A3 is out of my budget currently with the few that are left on the market right now @ $1000 and I tend to only look at a 9mm if it is more of a NPE pistol size.

.40 works from a terminal ballistics perspective but it costs more than 9mm which means you get to shoot less. Even if you have an agency giving you free .40 it is hard in guns and on shooters if you shoot the quantities necessary for shooting at a high level.

Having been issued Beretta 96 Brigadiers in the 1990's and P229R's from 2005 through the present, all things bring equal, I recommend the P229. Note 96 Brigadier(s) plural because I broke three of them within a few years. They were reliable in terms of the cycle of operation but woefully inadequate in terms of durability.

All the P229 issues I've seen were the result of failure to do preventive maintenance, particularly failure to lube the gun or change recoil springs.

If budget is a concern the current prices in SIG PD trades make them a bargain, even figuring in re-springing the gun.

[Dave J]

^^^^^
What HCM said.

Personally, I wouldn't do .40 unless someone was giving me the ammo for free...but if that were to happen, my old German P229R would find it's way out of the back of the safe pretty quickly.

[GardoneVT]

.40 works from a terminal ballistics perspective but it costs more than 9mm which means you get to shoot less. Even if you have an agency giving you free .40 it is hard in guns and on shooters if you shoot the quantities necessary for shooting at a high level.

Having been issued Beretta 96 Brigadiers in the 1990's and P229R's from 2005 through the present, all things bring equal, I recommend the P229. Note 96 Brigadier(s) plural because I broke three of them within a few years. They were reliable in terms of the cycle of operation but woefully inadequate in terms of durability.

All the P229 issues I've seen were the result of failure to do preventive maintenance, particularly failure to lube the gun or change recoil springs.

If budget is a concern the current prices in SIG PD trades make them a bargain, even figuring in re-springing the gun.

Previous commentary by ToddG is Beretta quoted a 10,000 round service life for the 96. Note that said some years ago; whether that's applicable to the 96A1 today is not definitively established.

Id second the advice above; used P229 or bust. Much as I'd like to say the 96A1 is a better bet, there's no data to back that up.

[LSP552]

It's a better bet to go with the single U675xxx. The double UU indicates that the frame was made in the USA. These were made from the late 1990s and now into the Cohen era. They are hit or miss on quality, and sometimes I have encountered some UU frames that were out of spec. At the time, Sigarms was making all the newer Sigs with stainless slides and they figured why not make the frames too. However, the German frames were still of better quality and cut more precisely.

I had a train wreck non-railed UU frame 226 from about 2007 that had 2 skipped lines in the front strap cut grooves and the rear sight installed at a 45 degree angle in the dovetail. This was an IOP LE gun.

It went back to SIG for the rear sight and they said missing lines was "cosmetic". I ended up selling because every time I picked that gun up it bothered me. SIG fixed the rear sight at their shipping costs but not the cosmetics issues with the frame.

[Sero Sed Serio]

The pre Cohen classic Sigs can handle many thousands of rounds of .40&W and .357sig. Beretta......not so much. We've got quite a few academy P226 and P229 .40s in the armory that have well over 50k rounds through them and they still shoot accurately with no parts breakages.

I strongly advise you NOT to buy a new Sig(anything made after 2004). We have had endless problems with quality control issues from our newer guns.

In a P226, a serial number before U675xxx is good. In a P229, a serial number prefix of AL or earlier is ideal(no AM or later).

Gun broker has tons of P226s and P229s in .40S&W that fit into that manufacturing range if the .40S&W is your cup of tea.

While KhanRad has seen a much larger sample size than I have, I have been willing to go a little later in production time to 2006 or even 07 without issue (I have three 07 guns that are solid, although you can see some minor fit/finish issues starting to show up in two of them). I have 4 SIGs that stand out above the others in terms of build quality, fit/finish, and being completely unremarkable in the sense that they just shoot/cycle the way they are supposed to; of those, 3 are 2005 guns. I really think that SIG was doing some of its best work right before Cohen walked in the door.

Another good rule of thumb is to go with a gun rollmarked "SiGARMS" instead of "SIG SAUER."

[KhanRad]

While KhanRad has seen a much larger sample size than I have, I have been willing to go a little later in production time to 2006 or even 07 without issue (I have three 07 guns that are solid, although you can see some minor fit/finish issues starting to show up in two of them). I have 4 SIGs that stand out above the others in terms of build quality, fit/finish, and being completely unremarkable in the sense that they just shoot/cycle the way they are supposed to; of those, 3 are 2005 guns. I really think that SIG was doing some of its best work right before Cohen walked in the door.

Another good rule of thumb is to go with a gun rollmarked "SiGARMS" instead of "SIG SAUER."

Buying "SIGARMS" guns is a pretty good rule of thumb, but Cohen was in charge of the company SIGARMS for about 3 years before they changed it to Sig Sauer. So, it is MUCH safer to go by serial number.

To the original poster, I also agree with HCM and David J. Unless you have the logistics to back it there isn't much of an advantage to going with .40S&W now days given the advancements in 9mm bullet technology. From my experience with .40S&W Sigs, the best handling ones are the P239 and the P229. The P226 has more muzzle flip to it, and it uses a P220 recoil spring which throws the slide forward with more force than necessary causing the muzzle to nose dive as well. The P239 and P229 have a more comfortable recoil operation making followup shots smoother.

[pblanc]

I have never owned or even shot a Beretta 96 but have handled a few, and the Beretta 92FS is one of the first handguns I owned. I still have it and shoot it.

I do own a SIG Sauer P229R and it is the nicest-shooting .40 S&W pistol I have ever shot. I can't comment on quality control issues with SIGs of recent manufacture. Mine is of recent manufacture and has functioned flawlessly. In fit and finish, it is at least as good as my Beretta 92FS and probably superior. Of the 14 or so handguns I own, I consider it to be the best made.

I am aware of the durability issues associated with the early Beretta 96s back in the 1990s. I know Beretta made modifications to the 96 but I don't know if they solved the problem. I peruse the Beretta forum and I don't recall hearing much about limited lifespan issues with Beretta 96s in recent years.

The SIG P229 handles both .40 S&W and 357 SIG extraordinarily well. The P229 fits my hand better than the P226. I also prefer the trigger action of the SIG to the Beretta in both double action and single action mode.

[Hollander]

I know I'm reviving an old thread here, but I do feel that some clarifying comments need to be added to prevent people from going off bad gouge.

1) Slide cracking issues: this was an issue (and a very rare one at that) with early versions of the M9 (the 9mm variant used by the Army until recently) and the the 90two (the initial .40 variant that Beretta developed). The former issue was largely overblown and largely due to certain DOD units using out-of-spec 9mm ammo. The latter issue was also uncommon. Beretta did in fact make improvements to the followup M9a1/M9a3 and 92/96 varaints (the M9 was unfortunately restricted to the Army's Technical Data Package) which resolved most of these issues. Anyone who wants to claim that slide failures were/are common with the updated 96 and 96a1 variants needs to provide specific examples rather than rely on vague anecdotal (arguably hearsay) evidence. I've shot and handled the 96a1 quite a bit...from everything I've heard and seen, slide failures are not an issue so long as parts are maintained and changed out as per Beretta's recommendations.

2) The 96 supposedly being unlike other .40 pistols in that it wasn't "purpose-built" for that caliber: this is patently false. The 90two was in fact specifically engineered for .40 cal (in the same manner that .40 P226's and P229ls were): slides and frames were beefed up and an internal recoil buffer was added. The follow-up versions (96 and 96a1) were built upon that foundation. This 96 variant is not simply a 9mm Beretta that was made to accept .40 cal cartridges. Yes it uses the same basic design was the 9mm versions (so too does the .40 version of the P226/P229), but changes have been made to the dimensions and design to allow the pistol to safely handle .40.

3) LE and agencies not using the 96: actually Border Patrol and some other LE agencies did use the 96, though the 92 (9mm) seemed far more common. No one can really argue that the P226 (chambered in .40) was any more common, at least not without providing some hard, credible sources. The fact is 9mm has been popular with LE for quite some time. So the .40 version of any DA/SA pistol is going to be a bit less common compared to the 9mm. That aside, I wouldn't fret too much over what agencies and militaries do and don't use; budget constraints and office politics often play a huge role in firearm selection. Beretta, as a company, has a very good reputation for building reliable and high-quality firearms; the 96a1 is no exception to that trend.

If the OP is still considering a 96, I'd recommend that he go rent one and try it out. In terms of accuracy and reliability, it will be as good, if not better, than most other fullsized .40's. The biggest issue he'll have to come to terms with is whether or not the ergonomics (Safety/decocker, grips) work for him.