Sig .40: 226 vs. 229
I'm in the market for a .40. I already have a 226 in 9mm. I am seriously considering getting another Sig in .40. I'd prefer not to get another gun that looks the same. How is the recoil on the 229? I shot a Sig Pro in .40 and found the recoil to be more than I'd like. I'd like to hear from folks whop've shot the 226 as well as the 229 in .40, so I can get a basis of comparison.-Marcus
0
-
The only difference between the two is the length. I think the 229 is a 1/4 inch shorter, other than that there is not much difference. 0 -
I have a Sig P229 in .40 S&W and have found the recoil to be practically nonexistent. In fact, my fiance (who stands 4'11" and had never fired a gun in her life) preferred the Sig .40 over the Glock 17 9mm when I took her to the range and was taught her to shoot. She said that to her, the Sig had way less recoil than the Glock. The SigPro recoil seems to be greater, due to the polymer frame and lighter weight of the gun. I like my P229 so much I doubt I'll ever get rid of it. 0 -
The slide on the P-229 is made from a solid block of stainless and is heavy enough to dampen the effects of the .40 as well the .357 sig, IMHO the 229 is the most reliable auto on the market today,I have never had a malfunction in any of my Sigs, with thousands of rounds through them. Good luck... 0 -
Guys,Is the grip on the 229 any shorter than the 226?-Marcus 0 -
The grip of the 229 is shorter and it makes a difference if you have large hands and fat fingers. You just have to wrap your paw around one and see. Personally, I like the 229 and prefer it to the 226.
Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Moderator of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Visit www.gunbroker.com, the premier gun auction site on the Net! Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments