The 229 really wouldn't have helped. The 229 is a big, chunky gun. When we had the 9mm 226's, we purchased 228's for a couple of officers with small hands. When the cool kids of that era decided we needed .40 and told me to write the proposal, I considered the 229 both department -wide and for the small-handed officers. Staying with the 226 for general issue allowed us to keep the same holsters and the bulk of the 229 was a definite no-go for the small hands.
When I later ran firearms training, I got the 239 authorized for officers who found the 226 too large. It was a shame SigSauer discontinued the 225.
To be fair, OP did add “or two” in his first post.
NJSP started to replace their P228s with P229s in 2014… but ultimately canceled the contract due to issues with the guns and went with Glock 19s. Prior to the P228s, they attempted the SW99… but were issued P7M8s for YEARS before. I’d guess that would be an example of an agency going from striker fired to hammer fired.
I thought I remembered at least one dept/agency that dropped the 227 due to issues, but I can't think of which one or what the issues were. I always thought the 227 was a flop as an issue duty pistol, but I could be misremembering.
I am far from in the know about what dept/agency is issuing/switching to what outside of my local area, but if I were to pick a hammer fired pistol for institutional issue today, it would be an HK P30 (or HK45 for those institutions inclined to larger calibers), or a Beretta 92 series. Really I have a preference for the USP over the P30 or full size HK45, but it would probably make more sense for an institutional user to go for the P30/HK45 due to the accessory rail.
I don't know how current production metal frame P226/229 pistols are doing quality-wise and QC-wise, but my last update on them was that Sig has still been shitting the bed on those and they're not as duty-suitable as they were in decades past. I would love to be corrected on this as the MK25 has been a want of mine for a long time.