Sig generation differences?

[seed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

P229 back when and now

...

Changes

Past (bottom) and present (top)



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]

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]

Newer slides appear a bit more top heavy -

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



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Can anyone tell me if they changed the wieghts of the recoil springs over the years? If so, how?

 

[CutMan]

Frame damage on a 1991

Here is the damage on my 1991 p226. 400 rounds.

 

[seed]

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]

Any words on the E2 models? P226 or P229