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.