Sig generation differences?


PDA






seed
May 22, 2011, 08:01 AM
I asked this at TFL with no replies, so I'll ask here: What are some of the differences between the different generations of Sigs. Specifically, I have a very early P229 and I was wondering how a gen 2 is different. Is there a gen 3, even? I know about the break-down lever change, but other than that I know very little.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sig generation differences?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jed Carter
May 22, 2011, 09:39 AM
Seed the SIG Forum may be a good place to look. http://sigforum.com/eve/ubb.x?a=cfrm&s=674608412

9mmepiphany
May 22, 2011, 05:18 PM
Sigs do not have generations per se...unlike Glock or S&W...for many models, there are German and American manufactured ones. Their production changes are running changes and you'll also see models coming out with stray parts they have unearthed.

The 229 has always been manufactured domestically. There are differences between the .40/357 models and the 9mm models, but it is a caliber specific difference. There has been another recent running change in the 9mm 229. Officially these are all Gen 1 229s

What would lead you to believe that they were different generations?

Are you by chance referring to the Gen1 and Gen2, SAS models?...it is a difference of trigger systems, but they are convertible back and forth

seed
May 22, 2011, 09:22 PM
It's weird that I have alway liked my Sigs, but have been so ill-informed about their evolution. I'm on top of all sorts of other types of guns, but not Sigs for whatever reason. As for the Gens...well I would keep coming across threads that would mention different gens without going into detail, so I began to wonder. I did searches, but to no avail in terms of details. And I am not too fond of the Sigforums. I think I have an accout there, but have not been there in years.

So then...what are the differences between the SAS model trigger systems?

MJ_ATL
May 22, 2011, 10:11 PM
The first version of the P229 SAS used the DAK trigger system, which is a modified version of a DAO system. I don't believe it sold very well and they changed the SAS to use a normal DA/SA setup.

ADDED: Forgot about the SRT (short reset trigger) and reduced reach/short trigger.

CutMan
May 22, 2011, 10:16 PM
There is a change at some point on all Sigs, when they switched from an internal to an external ejector. My early 90's 226s have internal ejectors, and I think that change was made when they started making them in the U.S. Also, I think (could be wrong here, please correct me!) that frames were made in Germany for a while, and the slides in Exeter, NH. Now, I believe the whole thing is made in the U.S. I have been wondering about that last statement, so I will be researching it at some point, since i am in the market for a p239.

MJ_ATL
May 22, 2011, 11:16 PM
I think the change to the external extractor coincided with the change from the folded slide with a pinned in breach block to the milled one piece slide. This would have been the same time they started offering .40 S&W P226 and P229 models. Also, they P228 was effectively discontinued at that time since the P229 fills the same market space.

There are a mix of US made and German slides on Sig Sauers these days and I'd be confident in saying that the majority are US made. I do see more of the German made frames on the special 'Custom Shop' models like the SAS and Elite.

9mmepiphany
May 23, 2011, 02:07 AM
Yes the first 229 SAS came with the DAK trigger, the latest 229 SAS has a DA/SA trigger system with the SRT modification and with the short trigger installed.

I think the change to the external extractor coincided with the change from the folded slide with a pinned in breach block to the milled one piece slide. This would have been the same time they started offering .40 S&W P226 and P229 models. Also, they P228 was effectively discontinued at that time since the P229 fills the same market space.
The 229 was the first Sig with the milled slide and external extractor, it was later offered in 357 SIG and finally 9mm (using a different slide contour and magazine). The 228 (9mm only) was in concurrent production with the 9mm 229 for quite a while (the 228 in military dress, is the M11)

The 226 got the milled slide and external extractor when they started offering it in .40...the 239 has always had the milled slide.

The 220 got the milled slide, but kept the internal extractor until recently changing over to the external extractor.

The only regularly available Sig P-series still produced in Germany are the X-5 pistols

MJ_ATL
May 23, 2011, 08:32 AM
Thanks, I wasn't exactly sure of the sequence and timing. I just assumed that they P226 got the .40 S&W at the same time as the P229 introduction.

9mmepiphany
May 23, 2011, 02:49 PM
It was a gradual transition...I don't think they were sure the .40 would be widely accepted.

When my old department made the transition from revolvers to semi-automatics, we were given the choice of the 226 in 9mm or the 229 in .40. Neither gun was available in the other caliber. I'm sure that is why the 228 was kept in concurrent production...to provide a compact version of the 226 in 9mm for the market. A few years later, when we transitioned to the 226R, we were given the choice of one chambered in 9mm or .40

The early 229s are not the same gun you'll see being sold today. There were variations in slide dimensions until they got to right balance of weight to address the recoil characteristics of the .40

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 03:06 PM
Thanks, I wasn't exactly sure of the sequence and timing. I just assumed that they P226 got the .40 S&W at the same time as the P229 introduction.


IIRC correctly it was several years later. I do not remember seeing P226s in 40 S&W or .357 Sig until they 1996 when they moved to CNC equipment.

seed
May 23, 2011, 03:10 PM
Can someone show examples of these slide differences and or describe them in detail? Also, how has the frame changed structurally, if at all (other than the rail and trigger systems)?

9mmepiphany
May 23, 2011, 03:44 PM
Are you asking about the slide differences between the 9mm and .40 slides or the evolution of the .40 229 slide?

I don't have measurements of the variations of the .40 229...I read about them on Sigforum...and IIRC, it came to light when folks were having problems with their 229 not fitting into holsters clearly marked for that model

Lonestar49
May 23, 2011, 03:59 PM
...

Here's a pic of the difference in slides, German vs American

German being lighter/thinner vs the American slides being Stainless steel and thicker for the 40cal

P228n/r 9mm, all German vs P229n/r 40cal half German/frame and USA SS slide

Either slide/gun is a great gun/shooter w/the exception of top-end weight being far to a tad less (depending on who ya talk to) with the German slides and, to many, that gives the P228/225 a more balanced lighter feeling vs the heavier P229/40/9mm.. The same for the full size Sig P226 9mm all German vs half and half.

I have both, and I have to give the edge to the 225/228 9mm over my P229R 9mm

P229R CT 9mm vs P228n/r all German 9mm -

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/Picture387.jpg

P228 German slide/thinner/lighter vs P229 American SS slide/thicker/heavier -

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/Picture384.jpg

Another view of an all German slide vs SA EMP

Sig P225n/r 9mm single stack mag 8+1 vs SA EMP 1911 9mm, 9+1 single stack mags -

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/Picture416.jpg



Ls

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 04:08 PM
Can someone show examples of these slide differences and or describe them in detail? Also, how has the frame changed structurally, if at all (other than the rail and trigger systems)?

Orginally all Sig slides were carbon steel. They were stamped and folded. This includes the P220 9mm, P220 45 ACP, P226 9mm & P228 9mm. Most of these guns were blued. Some will be found with a K Kote finish some might even have Iffalon which are darker finishes. More Black than Blue.

IIRC the P229 & P239 have always used a milled stainless steel slide. The P220 & P226 are now produced using a stainless steel slide which is milled. These days all Sigs are milled stainless steel slides. They are also finished in Nitron. This is why there is a difference in weight. An older stamped P220s is lighter in the slide than the current production P220s.

I believe that the profile of the P226 & P229 slides in 9mm changed when they started to produce the 40 S&W and .357 Sig models in quantity so they could take advantage of economy of scale when milling. They used to be slimmer but now are thicker so they can use the same slide milling profile on the CNC machines.

Again IIRC there where changes in the height of the slide serrations and there have also been changes in the front grip textures too. There are too many for me to remember which applied to which models.

IIRC the vast majority, in the 95% range, of frames and slides are now produced here in the US in Exeter, NH. The last mass produced pistol that was made 100% in Germany were the SP2022s. As of late last year the SP2022s are now made here too.

Frames have changed from non-railed to railed. Guns like the P220 have gone from an internal extractor to an external excactor again for economy of scale. There have been several trigger variations. DA/SA, DAK, DAO, SAO etc...

rbernie
May 23, 2011, 04:18 PM
Are the slides in the current production P226 9mm pistols different than the slides in the current production P226 40/357 Sig chambering? I recently acquired a P226 357Sig and it feels noticably heavier 'up top' than a recent-production 9mm P226....

rellascout
May 23, 2011, 04:20 PM
Are the slides in the current production P226 9mm pistols different than the slides in the current production P226 40/357 Sig chambering? I recently acquired a P226 357Sig and it feels noticably heavier 'up top' than a recent-production 9mm P226....

IIRC they are the same slide but I am not 100% certain. I currently only own and shoot 9mm and 45 ACP Sigs.

MJ_ATL
May 23, 2011, 05:36 PM
Great, you guys are making me learn something about Sigs from before I became aware/addicted since 1996 was the year of my first handgun and the end of a 4 year drinking binge that resulted in a college degree.

Thanks. :)

seed
May 23, 2011, 10:22 PM
What I was wondering is if Sig changed the slides and or frames in a significant structural manner for the P229 in .40 or other calibers, comparing older examples of the same caliber to newer examples. I know about the folded vs. milled stainless change...I was more wondering about whether since they made that change if they tweaked the design or internals in a structurally important and or significant manner. Did they "beef up" the frame or slide or something since they went to the stainless slides?

Rellascout has consistently posted about the changes in manufacturing processes. Like him, I believe that these changes were all about cutting costs and corners. Am I wrong? Has Sig done anything in the post-stainless slide era to address any weaknesses or flaws or concerns thereof?

rbernie
May 23, 2011, 10:44 PM
I went back and checked, and my 9mm slide is an internal extractor version and the 40S&W slide is an external extractor. Between these two, the barrel hood cutout on the 40S&W slide is far more pronounced and yet it feels an ounce or two heavier.

Sadly, the slides are too heavy for my reloading scale to tell the tale of the tape, so to speak.

CutMan
May 23, 2011, 11:38 PM
Wow, great info being shared here! Thanks everyone!

wgsigs
May 23, 2011, 11:49 PM
IIRC the slides may gone from stamped carbon steel to milled stainless steel as a cost saving measure, but also for added heft to handle the .40S&W and .357SIG cartridges.

Also, another difference between the slides is the carbon slide has a separate breech block that is pinned in while the stainless one has an integrated breech block as can be seen from the top of the slides in the photo of the P228 and P229 posted by Lonestar49.

1858
May 24, 2011, 12:10 AM
I believe that these changes were all about cutting costs and corners. Am I wrong? Has Sig done anything in the post-stainless slide era to address any weaknesses or flaws or concerns thereof?

Other than the difference in weight/balance which is a non-issue for me and a subjective issue for others, what complaints do people have with the stainless steel slides? In my world, stainless and CNC are just fine. I like that pairing in 1911s and I like it in a SIG too.

9mmepiphany
May 24, 2011, 12:33 AM
I was more wondering about whether since they made that change if they tweaked the design or internals in a structurally important and or significant manner. Did they "beef up" the frame or slide or something since they went to the stainless slides?
I'm concerned at the lack of forthrightness in your approach. If you'd like to know something specific, you'd receive a lot more helpful answers if you'd just ask it outright. It is rude, if not outright deceitful, to have people take the time trying to guess at what you know and what you don't.

Rellascout has consistently posted about the changes in manufacturing processes. Like him, I believe that these changes were all about cutting costs and corners. Am I wrong? Has Sig done anything in the post-stainless slide era to address any weaknesses or flaws or concerns thereof?

Yes you are

The form you have chosen, begs the question

9mmepiphany
May 24, 2011, 12:42 AM
I went back and checked, and my 9mm slide is an internal extractor version and the 40S&W slide is an external extractor. Between these two, the barrel hood cutout on the 40S&W slide is far more pronounced and yet it feels an ounce or two heavier.

The weight difference...it isn't more than a couple of ounces...comes from the folded slide being a hollow tube with welded endcaps and a pinned in breach block, while the milled slide starts as a solid block. There is a large portion of the breach block that is removed to contain the much longer internal extractor. The folded slides flex much more during recoil

seed
May 24, 2011, 05:44 AM
9mmepiphany, I don't know what your problem is but I asked a question about an inanimate object of which this forum has many prospective candidates who might be able to help me answer. To break it down: I have one of the first Sig P229 .40 S&W pistols ever released on the market from 1994. It was actually the second gun I ever bought. Since that time, I have bought many other types of firearms. Almost all of those I have bought since that time, which were not old designs have been changed by their respective companies, with the intention of improving the design and or eliminating a later discovered problem which arose only after the original design(s) were released to the market and used thoroughly by the public. Often these changes were introduced as new "generations", either officially or unoficially or both (as is the case with Glock). Most of these design changes were obvious and easily explained by the company and or knowledgeable sources on the internet. I had no problem finding what modiifications were made. But in the case of Sig, for some reason I never could find any design changes made since 1994 to address any needs in the arena of strengthening any weak spots and or addressing inherent design flaws. This seemed unlikely that it never happened and more likely that I just never came across the relevant information. I could not be sure. So I asked.

Things were looking promising on this thread, even though no one has come along and actually pointed out any possible design changes like I have mentioned. People were kindly discussing the changes by Sig or Sigarms of which they knew, even if they were not exactly what I meant. Instead of suspicious paranoid innuendos rudely insulting their intentions and or comprehension skills like you did to me, I gently tried to be more specific than I originally realized necessary. If you are insulted that I might imply that I have read from credible sources here or elsewhere that Sig quality has slipped, I ask what your motivations are? Is it to discourage thoughtful inquiries and answers about multi-million dollar corporations and or companies because it may not be flattering to their corporate and or product image? Understand, this is not, nor is it ever my motivation. But if it happens that a company's actions or lack thereof reflect badly upon them, then so be it. I couldn't care less. But I will not cower in the face of a poster with the title of "moderator" or "administrator" when it comes to honest and open discussion about a product for which I have or may spend my very hard-earned dollars. If you find my posts "rude", not "forthright" and even "deceitful", then so be it. I was not attacking Sig, but if I was, and or you think I am, I ask why it should matter either way?

This is a forum. People openly discuss relevant subject matter here. At least they have since before and after I joined here in 2004. Let me know if I am wrong and I will remove my membership.

9mmepiphany
May 24, 2011, 12:12 PM
I apologize if I have read your inquiry or motivations incorrectly. I certainly had no intention to try to intimidate because of any title under my name...I would like to think that that isn't my perceived posting style

I did not think your post was an attack on Sig...and you're right, it doesn't much matter to me as exchange of information is exactly what this forum is for. However, your presentation reminded me of a couple of recent post where information was dribbled out gradually to steer the discussion rather than be asking for the desired information outright as you eventually did.

In the two previous instances, one was a member who want to guide posters to discover what he had...as in a student/teacher relationship...and the other was a hawker of a product trying to raise concern for a shooting issue for which he had invented a solution. This type of behavior is insulting to the membership.

I would think that a simple direct request for information would have solicited much more on-point responses. Something like:

Does anyone know of of any tweaks that Sig has made to the 229 since it's introduction to address problems or improve the platform?

rbernie
May 24, 2011, 12:43 PM
But in the case of Sig, for some reason I never could find any design changes made since 1994 to address any needs in the arena of strengthening any weak spots and or addressing inherent design flaws. The quarrel that I would have is that you did not ask THIS in the OP, and springing it into the discussion along the way makes folk feel like they've been trolled a bit. It's not a huge deal, but the OP certainly seems a bit disengenuous when compared to later clarifying posts of yours.

In the FWIW department - it has been my experience in industry that running changes to a hard product are most commonly implemented to make the product easier/cheaper to manufacture or assemble, with fewer running changes implemented to remediate a latent design or materials defect. More to the point, almost never will the factory tell you what motivated the change unless the change occurs very quickly after product launch and can be directly tied to product issues (e.g. the S&W M&P striker and mag release changes).

For example - I would speculate that it is cheaper for Sig to use a CNC-milled slide than to use a stamped, folded, and welded slide simply because doing so increases their ability to hold tolerances (and consequently reduce inspection steps) during manufacture and also makes it easier to subsequently assemble the extractor and other internal bits. There may be some secondary effects (such as greater frame life due to less slide flex under load, increase in slide mass assisting the timing for higher-energy chamberings) but you nor I will ever know if those effects were the precipitating factor for the change or if cost was the principal driver. This makes it very hard to answer questions that try to "address any needs in the arena of strengthening any weak spots" because a single change will have multiple impacts and effects (most of which are related to manufacturing and not to post-sale sustainment).

seed
May 24, 2011, 02:24 PM
Well thank you for your graciousness. I was caught a bit off-guard by the post questioning my motives. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough in my original post. I will be more careful in the future in light of the problems you mentioned.

I kept reading about different generations of Sig, but they were all in passing...no one ever broke it down. It just so happens that I began the 10-day purgatory (California) on a PPT of a Gen 4 Glock 23. I am keenly aware of just about all the changes on Glocks throughout the generations and was excited to be acquiring their latest incarnation. I always wondered if I was missing out on a structurally improved Sig (non-cosmetic and or convenience features). Like I said, I bought my P229 when they were first released in 1994. I will never get rid of it, but I might be interested in adding a new one down the road, IF any real structural improvements were made and or flaws in design removed. Perhaps I might get one in a different caliber...I don't know. I also have a P239 from 1995.

Anyway, thanks for not crucifying me after my heated reply. As it stands, I have no reason to believe that Sig or Sigarms have really done anything to structurally improve or strengthen the design since they first introduced the milled slide models back in the mid-90's. That, in and of itself is interesting.

rellascout
May 24, 2011, 03:02 PM
The only true Gen changes I have seen in the entire Sig line are:

P250: Gen 1 until 12/09 and now Gen 2.

SAS: Versions of the P series. Gen 1 were DAK guns and Gen 2 are DA/SA SRT.

I cannot think of any major changes to the P229 since its introduction. I was thinking more about it last night and nothing came to mind. Yes different trigger configurations, grips, rail etc but no real changes I would call Gen 1 to Gen 2.

These days IIRC they are all shipping with the E2 grip. Some consider this a major improvement some consider a down grade even others are indifferent.

wgsigs
May 24, 2011, 03:39 PM
I kept reading about different generations of Sig, but they were all in passing...no one ever broke it down.
I don't want to come across as sounding angry or argumentative because I am not, but where have you read this? I am a big Sig fan and have followed many gun forums, including SIGforum, and have never run across any mention of Sig "generations". I am pretty sure Sig has never used the term except in reference to SAS models and the P250. As has been mentioned several times before, Sig has taken more of an evolutionary approach, making small changes to different models, often at different times. From my point of view (now my Sig fanboy may be showing ;)) Sig guns have never had any serious problems (except for maybe the first P250s) that warranted a major "generation refresh". A problem with the internal extractor on SOME early models of the P220 with the stainless slide is the closest I can think of for the mainline Sig pistols. The downside, if you choose to look at it in this way, is that you are basically looking at an almost 40 year old "classic" design in today's Sigs. Maybe they got it mostly right the first time . :D

The bottom line is the reason you have never seen the "generations" broken done is because there have never been any clear demarcation of generations of Sig guns, unlike other manufacturers. I'm not necessarily saying that is good, or bad.

Not to start a Glock vs Sig fight because I confess that I know next to nothing about Glocks, but what changes/improvements occurred during each Glock generation?

One-Time
May 24, 2011, 04:03 PM
really theres only a few differences in SIGs

Some have rails, others(namely older ones) do not
Imported models, have a different type grip until they changed it to the now standard grip, and recently they have introduced the E2 grips, also they had forged or milled slides and now the are folded or something

rellascout
May 24, 2011, 05:02 PM
In the FWIW department - it has been my experience in industry that running changes to a hard product are most commonly implemented to make the product easier/cheaper to manufacture or assemble, with fewer running changes implemented to remediate a latent design or materials defect. More to the point, almost never will the factory tell you what motivated the change unless the change occurs very quickly after product launch and can be directly tied to product issues (e.g. the S&W M&P striker and mag release changes).


IMHO changes to the Sig line have come in 4 forms. IMHO cutting cut has been the #1 motivator of changes to the actual designs of the guns.

#1 is the make the product cost less to manufacture. First they adopted CNC machined slides. Then they standardized the slide across calibers like in the P226 40 s&W, .357 Sig and 9mm. They have gone to all external extractors. They all use Nitron. Parts commonality allow them to take advantage of economy of scale. MIM has been tested and utilized everywhere they can. Look at what they recently did to the SP2022. None of the changes make the gun better but they all make the gun cheaper to produce.

#2 changes which are purely cosmetic changes which are there to make 1 platform look like 10. Look at the P238 and the P226 as examples. How many different "models" have been introduced in the last 3 year. This is a result of the "Kimber" management team. Sigs used to have a very basic straight forward product offering and these cosmetic modifications allowed them to increase the offering appealing to more people.

#3 Changes like grips E2 vs old standard. Triggers like DA/SA. DAO, DAK & SAO all were made to expand the product offering while still taking advantage of the base gun. These helped Sig appeal to more people. The positive of negative effect of these changes on Sig products is 100% subjective. If you love Sigs but want a SAO trigger these additions are great. For others they might be a bastardization.

#4 which are because Sig has allowed the buyer to do their QC. Look at the GSR, 556, Mosquito, P250, 1911 22lr & P238. All these guns have been introduced and then changed made as they were recalled, returned for repair or became problem childs. Another change that falls into this category is the external extractor on the P220. Parts commonality played a part but the internal extractor was an known issue and changing the part out made sense. Two birds with one stone. To this day they have not admitted there was a design tolerance issue with the P220.

All in all Sig still makes good guns. They are better than most guns on the market but at a $700 + price tag for most of them they better be.

I think that they are trying to grow vloume which they have and once you adopt a volume based model then you need to squeeze every penny out of every production hour. This is what has motivated the changes to Sig pistols over the last 4 or 5 years. This does not mean they are junk but making the product better is not the motivation unless there is a clear parts failure IMHO. I personally do not buy many new Sigs. There are so many LNIB used classic guns which I prefer over the new offers. I still want a 556 rifle but I am not in any real rush.

9mmepiphany
May 24, 2011, 06:02 PM
It just so happens that I began the 10-day purgatory (California) on a PPT of a Gen 4 Glock 23. I am keenly aware of just about all the changes on Glocks throughout the generations and was excited to be acquiring their latest incarnation. I always wondered if I was missing out on a structurally improved Sig (non-cosmetic and or convenience features).
You have not...the only improvement that I can think of which was neither structural nor cost saving is the introduction to full height rear cocking serrations.

I can just keep track of the Glock generations, because they were each introduced to address a specific problem with the previous generation. The only confusion is that some models were never Gen 1, they started with the features of the Gen 2 guns, and it seems odd to refer to them that way. I wouldn't even attempt to keep track of the 7 generations of Glock magazines

seed
May 25, 2011, 09:42 AM
Most excellent info. This is exactly what I was looking for. It seems that my impatient rush to get one of the earliest P229's and P239's way back when was a good decision...and not one where I should have waited for them to work out the kinks. I always wondered about that.

wgsigs, I will happily answer your questions about Glocks...but I should probably do that on another thread. There are probably many threads on the subject. If not, I will start one...but not right now. It is a lot to write and I should lean towards going to bed very soon. Let me know if you start one on the subject and I will post there for sure, later.

Lonestar49
May 25, 2011, 01:08 PM
...

Changes

Past (bottom) and present (top)

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/2_sigs_P229_camo_-1.jpg

I like, and own, the old, school, style P229's, 40's, non-railed and round trigger guards, smaller side serrations.. etc., as seen

OMMV,


Ls

seed
May 25, 2011, 09:07 PM
Lonestar49, would you believe that this is the first time I have ever seen that new style of P229? Somehow, I have never seen that in stores, on the internet or anywhere else! I'm very surprised, especially since I spend entirely too much time on these forums! I guess I need to revisit Sigforums again. I just prefer the treatment here and elsewhere.

That said, I actually like the old style better. That new one looks longer and more angular. Does the new one still wear the underside of the frame rails? Are there any differences you can tell, other than what is obvious from your picture?

Lonestar49
May 25, 2011, 11:51 PM
Lonestar49, would you believe that this is the first time I have ever seen that new style of P229? Somehow, I have never seen that in stores, on the internet or anywhere else! I'm very surprised, especially since I spend entirely too much time on these forums! I guess I need to revisit Sigforums again. I just prefer the treatment here and elsewhere.

That said, I actually like the old style better. That new one looks longer and more angular. Does the new one still wear the underside of the frame rails? Are there any differences you can tell, other than what is obvious from your picture?


...

Those are not my guns but I saved the pic just because of the "seen differences" as you pointed out..

I can add, that, in taking notice of the newer P229R's higher serrations and fullness of the rear portion of the slide vs the older P229n/r slides appear to have less top weight with the heavier part of the slide low and even all the way with the, full, thinner, even tops.

Fortunately, I bought both my P229n/r 40's used, one LNIB and the other close and both have aprox 7k flawless rounds by me thus far.. I get a lot of "hi, is that a 40cal you're shooting?" and "what kind of Sig is that?" Fun to let them shoot a mags worth.

Back, nearly 5yrs ago I did buy a NIB P229R CT 9mm which also has the older style slide and it has been flawless thru nearly 5900 rounds. It feels, to me, the same light, balanced, weight as my P229/40's, only difference being that it has a rail and the 40's do not, and the difference in trigger guards, as you can see between the 2 mixed in with my P220R/45, also flawless thru nearly 2000 rounds.

P229n/r 40 - P220R/45 - P229R CT 9mm

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/Picture280.jpg

My thinking is that with the heavier portion of the slide all along the bottom with the milled thinner upper slides offer a bit more lower mid/bottom weight vs a tad more top heavy weight with the newer slides, wider top to bottom, with the long rear serrations area.

I'm sure either are great shooters and will go the distance but there's something about the design of the older slides that appeal more considering all around balance.. OMMV

But it is said, by good authority, that slanted dust covers, in general, (of seen P229n/r 40's) vs square ones with rails, offer greater frame strength -

A good thing in my book,


Ls

seed
May 26, 2011, 12:20 AM
I checked Sigarms' website and saw that indeed, the slide is redesigned on the P229 with the full height serrations...as well as a new style extractor and possibly a different recoil rod. But the slide length was shorter than the one in your picture -- more like the original P229. The one in your picture looks more like a P226, even though it says "P229" right on the slide.

I feel like an idiot now for not having checked their website in the beginning, but even if I had, I would still wonder about internal changes. I guess I still am.

simon_rook
June 9, 2011, 10:50 AM
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/2_sigs_P229_camo_-1.jpg
The one on the top is the new rimfire model. The slide itself is also sold as a .22 conversion. I know because I got mine in the mail yesterday. The slide itself is about 3/4" longer giving it a more aggressive look IMHO. But the shiny barrel (etched 22LR), white filled nomenclature and Plastic adjustable slides (along with the simulated extended mag are unmistakeable).

On the topic of Sigs generational or evolutionary changes. I recently acquired a fondness for the 9mm. Prior to that most my pistols were in .40 I called Sig to find out about getting the caliber X-change kit to convert my 229 over to 9mm and was informed this kit would not work on the older models with German frames. Also to get a .22 conversion they had a separate one for the 228/229 versions like mine and one for the newer railed frames.

Maybe it's due to the extractor placement that was mentioned earlier. IDK. I don't know much about them. My knowledge of Sigs is that they are reliable accurate and the fit form and function suits me. I've just begun my fascination (appreciation?) with the history and design of them as well as the subtle differences in models.

This thread had a lot of useful information between the bickering.
I hope this helped

seed
June 9, 2011, 09:01 PM
The "bickering" is ancient history and was just a misunderstanding. That said, I did not notice the pictured 229 being a .22 conversion. On their own website, you get a good look at the new style of the P229 (and the other models of course). It is definitely shorter than the one pictured above. It is dimensionally similar to the old 229, as far as I can tell with certain very significant cosmetic and functional design changes. If I had to guess, I would say that the much larger extractor design (as seen in pictures from Sig Sauer's website) was introduced to compensate for the inherent comparative weakness of materials being used today. I don't know that for sure, but maybe someone else does.

918v
June 10, 2011, 01:36 AM
Maybe I missed it, but no one mentioned the change in the P226 frame design in the late '80s. Sig did beef up the frame and some grips will not fit.

rbernie
June 10, 2011, 09:23 AM
Indeed - the upper grip area of the frame was changed, with a consequence that the older grips will not fit the newer frame. They also went through several iterations of 'sand cuts' in the frame's slide rails - I have owned four (4) German-made P226s in 9mm, and between those four pistols I observed three distinct slide rail profiles.

The 1913-railed P226 frames are different yet again, and have a noticeably different internal profile around the trigger bar/trigger bar spring compared to a non-railed model. At least the grips between the later non-railed frame and the current railed frame are interchangeable.

seed
June 14, 2011, 02:21 AM
Can anyone tell me if they changed the wieghts of the recoil springs over the years? If so, how?

CutMan
June 21, 2011, 11:44 PM
Here is the damage on my 1991 p226. 400 rounds.

seed
June 23, 2011, 07:25 AM
I don't know about the 226, but with the 229 there is some galling that occurs on the underside of the frame rails. It is noticeable within a few hundred rounds. It is considered normal for Sigs and not a problem for 30,000 rounds when Sigs tend to begin frame problems which may require replacement.

RNNSTANG
June 30, 2011, 04:30 PM
Any words on the E2 models? P226 or P229

If you enjoyed reading about "Sig generation differences?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!