Need an idea of what a used P229 Sig is worth...
Looking at a P229 in 9MM - used, has a black frame and stainless slide. Seller rates it at 99% on frame, 98% on slide with a scuff on right side of slide near muzzle. They are asking $625..
or they have a P229 in .40SW - 99% on frame and slide for $650.
I'm leaning toward the stainless (not because it's stainless) but rather it's 9mm. Then I saw tonight that the aftermarket offers a 9mm kit for this gun (always thought sigs were only 9mm or 357sig/.40sw.
I'm only hesitant about the .40SW - as the one time I shot that caliber (about 400 rounds that day) in a Glock 22 -- it was not comfortable. Maybe it was the Glock - which have never fit my hands well (feels like I'm holding a square block, where the sig just fits). Or maybe a combo of that + the weight reduction of the Glock (they tend to run 8-10oz lighter generally + the uncomfortable grip + a round that has a fair bite to it (9mm.. is nothing and .45 is nothing really.. just a harder slow push)... .40sw felt like a hard snap.
Since there are so many .40SW P229's for sale... (either because it sucks to shoot or just a good mix of weight of the gun + round) it's popular. Not sure.
Perhaps my experience with the glock 22 - and not being a good fit + the snap and light weight of the 22 put me off (I tore my skin on that shoot that day). No gun has ever done that and kick doesn't bother me that much - shot pistols from .45 to .44 red hawk, to .300 and .308 in rifles.
thanks for the help.
damon
or they have a P229 in .40SW - 99% on frame and slide for $650.
I'm leaning toward the stainless (not because it's stainless) but rather it's 9mm. Then I saw tonight that the aftermarket offers a 9mm kit for this gun (always thought sigs were only 9mm or 357sig/.40sw.
I'm only hesitant about the .40SW - as the one time I shot that caliber (about 400 rounds that day) in a Glock 22 -- it was not comfortable. Maybe it was the Glock - which have never fit my hands well (feels like I'm holding a square block, where the sig just fits). Or maybe a combo of that + the weight reduction of the Glock (they tend to run 8-10oz lighter generally + the uncomfortable grip + a round that has a fair bite to it (9mm.. is nothing and .45 is nothing really.. just a harder slow push)... .40sw felt like a hard snap.
Since there are so many .40SW P229's for sale... (either because it sucks to shoot or just a good mix of weight of the gun + round) it's popular. Not sure.
Perhaps my experience with the glock 22 - and not being a good fit + the snap and light weight of the 22 put me off (I tore my skin on that shoot that day). No gun has ever done that and kick doesn't bother me that much - shot pistols from .45 to .44 red hawk, to .300 and .308 in rifles.
thanks for the help.
damon
0
-
Prices on these can vary quite a bit, but I'd say a used SIG p229 in great shape is worth about $550-$650, depending on accessories and exact condition. Threaded barrel, fancy finish, or other extras can increase the price over a base model.
As to your other remarks, this is subjective, obviously, but you're not the only one who isn't a fan of the Glock pistol shape. . . .there's a reason some people call them "blocks".
Things can be done to change the feel of the grip (eg grip sleeves, mechanical alteration to the grip frame, etc), though whether or not its worth doing these things as opposed to just buying a gun that fits you from the get-go is a worthwhile question. IMO better to just start with something you like.
.40SW recoil is noticeably increased over 9mm, in my experience, though its not all that bad in an absolute sense, especially from a full sized all steel gun. As a sort of ballistics frame of reference, the very weakest of the 40SW loads are roughly equivalent powerwise to the most powerful of the 9mm loads, and they go up from there. .45 is usually perceived as lower recoil, I think in part because its usually fired out of all steel 1911 pistols that weigh 2.5 lbs, literally half the weight of a standard construction brick!
If you define "recoil" as the subjective unpleasantness of firing a gun (as opposed to the simple physical force generated by the rearward motion of the gun), the by FAR the most significant factor in generating "recoil" is FIT OF GUN TO SHOOTER.
The single most recoil-abusive handgun I've ever shot was the Kel-Tec P40 (which is their old P11 subcompact 9mm, chambered in .40SW). That's a full .40SW through an 11 ounce polymer gun with a short boxy grip with nasty checkering on it. Every shot through that gun was like getting whacked in the palm with a baseball bat. I can see why they discontinued the model after just a year on the market.
Anyway, the point is that a poor fit can make a relatively low velocity round unpleasant to shoot, and the converse is also true (good hand/gun fit can make a relatively powerful round not unpleasant).
My suggestion is that if you can, try before you buy. Sigs are common enough that you may be able to locate one you can rent or borrow. That will help answer your question about recoil and ergonomics. Most people who try the SIG like it.
On 9mm vs .40SW, I'd say that whichever of the two you want, its better to buy that one rather than trying to convert one to the other.
My personal take is that if 9mm luger is good enough for 90% of the police and military units on the planet its "good enough" for me for personal defense. A good 9mm+P round puts out 75% of the energy of a 357 magnum, or maybe 85% of a 357 SIG.
No argument that .40SW is ballistically better than 9mm, but in my opinion what little the 9mm lacks in power, it makes up for in lower recoil (ie faster followup shots, less chance of "limp wristing", easier double-taps, etc), higher capacity, and lower per-round cost for increased practice. When it comes down to it, placement of the shots is more important than the exact caliber, and if you can shoot a 9mm better, that probably makes it a better choice.0 -
One thing that you may note is that the .40/357 version of the P229 has a slide machined from a block of stainless steel - the black version is a coating on the stainless. The early 9mm's were made with a slide built like the other Sigs the shell is heavy sheet metal folded and welded to form with a breech block pinned in place. Now they are machined from a block/billet like the .40/.357 versions. The grips ergonomics, for me, are much better than the Glock's so it is easier firing longer strings. My preference would be to go with the most powerful cartridge you are confident with. I have carried the .357 Sig version of the P229 for nearly 20 years - custom barrel from Barsto Precision. The Speer Gold Dot 125 grain at 1400 fps is a significant upgrade over the 124 grain +p 9mm at 1150 fps and very close to the .357 mag 125 grain jhp "fight stopper". 0 -
Well Damon, your question is basically what are they worth? Both guns right now are priced a bit on the low side. Before the crazyness they would be priced just about right depending on location. I just sold my 228 for $625. It had lots of holster wear and no night sights. 229s are worth a bit more than 228s. If you are only going to shoot 9 then get the 9. With the 40 you can get a 9 barrel and mags and it will be more versatile. I have a glock 17 and 22 and they both shoot about the same for me. Sigs and Glocks are good guns.
Edit: The Sig lovers speak! How many are on commission?
Look at some of the completed auctions for the past two weeks, not a month ago as things have slowed down. You will see what they are going for. If you can wait I think they may go down even more. In November I saw some used ones with night sights right at $600 that were like new. Sig also has a line of factory refurbished pistols that are like new called CPOs, certified pre owned. There is alot of them out there. Theres always lots to choose from.0 -
I have shot both the P229 in 40 and the Glock 22 in 40...the ergonomics of the Sig P229 made it more comfortable and easier to shoot than the Glock 22. I sold the G22 and still have the P229 which is one of my favorite carry guns. 0 -
Speaking only to the ergonomics of the 229....
My agency issues SIG 226 or 229 in .40S&W, with the choice being solely that of the individual. Shooters are supplied the opportunity to fire both types side-by-side using a shot timer in a sort of Pepsi Challenge before making their decision.
Fully half find that both their first shot on target and follow-up shots are faster than with the 226, despite it having a shorter slide/sight plane.
Contrary to what many assume based upon appearances and them sharing several internal components, the 229 isn't simply a cut-down 226.
The 229 was SIG's first pistol specifically designed for the .40S&W round, whereas the 226 was designed for the 9mm and later adapted to the .40S&W.
Due to this, besides having a shorter barrel and grip frame the 229's upper frame is slightly wider and beefier than the 226. Though seemingly minor, these differences have the effect of moving the pistol's balance more IN the hand rather than out front, giving it entirely different - and better - recoil characteristics.
Based on observation of multiple shooters with varying physical characteristics on the line firing both 226's and 229's, contrary to what you'd expect the stubbier 229 shows less muzzle rise than the 226. It's balance causes it to recoil more straight rearward into the hand instead of torquing upwards at the muzzle.
Rather than just judging by the feel of this pistol in your hand while standing at the gun counter, find an opportunity to actually put rounds through one. Compared with any other .40S&W pistol I've fired, the 229 is a very good feeling pistol to shoot.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Txs
Speaking only to the ergonomics of the 229....
My agency issues SIG 226 or 229 in .40S&W, with the choice being solely that of the individual. Shooters are supplied the opportunity to fire both types side-by-side using a shot timer in a sort of Pepsi Challenge before making their decision.
Fully half find that both their first shot on target and follow-up shots are faster than with the 226, despite it having a longer slide/sight plane.
Contrary to what many assume based upon appearances and them sharing several internal components, the 229 isn't simply a cut-down 226.
The 229 was SIG's first pistol specifically designed for the .40S&W round, whereas the 226 was designed for the 9mm and later adapted to the .40S&W.
Due to this, besides having a shorter barrel and grip frame the 229's upper frame is slightly wider and beefier than the 226. Though seemingly minor, these differences have the effect of moving the pistol's balance more IN the hand rather than out front, giving it entirely different - and better - recoil characteristics.
Based on observation of multiple shooters with varying physical characteristics on the line firing both 226's and 229's, contrary to what you'd expect the stubbier 229 shows less muzzle rise than the 226. It's balance causes it to recoil more straight rearward into the hand instead of torquing upwards at the muzzle.
Rather than just judging by the feel of this pistol in your hand while standing at the gun counter, find an opportunity to actually put rounds through one. Compared with any other .40S&W pistol I've fired, the 229 is a very good feeling pistol to shoot.
Fixed it for ya [;)]0 -
I'd like to thank all of you for your very detailed replies, I appreciate them.
I guess first to note, the gun shop selling the Sig's I was looking at (like I've seen far too often on GunBroker.com (and almost on every auction on gunsameric.com) won't ship to California. I know this isn't the most gun friendly state, but almost all of Sig Sauer's guns are on the accepted list. I've got a great FFL - older gentlemen (in his 70's) who does FFL transfers on principle and certainly not for the money. Name is Tom Jones - if anyone looking to sell into CA / Los Angeles area, he is the guy to use. However, it's a little sad that most won't sell into CA, because it may require an extra step (which I think is on our side). It certainly isn't helping keeping our 2nd amendment alive and kicking - as local gun shops are going out of business.
That rant aside. I appreciate the comments that the P229 was designed for .40SW - makes a lot of sense. Especially considering the weight of the gun (not much lighter or even "that" much smaller that my P226 (9mm). I picked up that P226 in 2001 and put over 7000 rounds through it, without a failure, less "1" stove top from the first magazine. Which was my fault, not the gun - forgot to properly oil it. Since then, not a single failure. So aside from just fitting my hand (the whole Sig line), IMO, they are the best guns on the market and I've owned. Likely the reason they are the gun of choice of so many LE's and spec ops that get to choose their own side arm.
I was mostly curious about how the .40sw kicked on the gun. As the only .40SW I had shot previously - was the Glock 22. As noted, I've shot almost every other caliber with more frequency (9mm,.45acp, .357..44, etc and rifle rounds - .223, .300W, .308 (owned a PSS700 - loved it).
Funnily, the only reason I rented that gun and the only .40SW I had ever shot, was a friend had just purchased it and wanted to get a feel for his purchase (lives back east). As mentioned by me and some others (and the reason I don't own any Glocks) is they simply don't feel good in my hand. I'm sure with some aftermarket grips are better, but why not get what fits... I just know after 200 rounds with that Glock 22 that day, my hands weren't numb from shooting, but the Glock grip design did a number on my the skin between thumb and index finger. Couldn't wait to get through the rounds I purchased at the range that day. At the time was so put off, didn't even think about .40SW again, even tho the reality was it was the gun, not the round. With a comfortable sig, in hindsight, wouldn't have been an issue.
I think I'll take your advice and go with the .40SW in a P229 (assuming I can find one to buy, our local gun shop is pretty bare these days.... only sigs in stock were P239's. Not a good time in CA - especially with the rush to buy as we've all seen in the news.
As I wasn't aware until this thread and some aftermarket shops, a 9mm conversion was available. I always thought it was either 9mm or .40SW/Sig357.
Only real reason I'd want the conversion is not personal defense or because it snaps harder, but range ammo. In the last 1-2 years, ammo has more than tripled in price. Case of ok/decent range ammo (Fiocchi 9mm... shot pretty clean... was $120/case shipped to the door)- or the white box Winchester from Wal-Mart (none hear me, but a case was $100). Those days are gone - now $300/case if in stock and .40SW is closer $500/case. Reality is, unless you are LE, your gun will be shooting at paper targets... as a friend I used to joke "it's like slinging quarters down the range", lol.
So I'll go with the .40SW - kinetic energy alone makes it a better defense round, but get the conversion as well. I know - practice with what you plan on using. However, 2 boxes of .40SW and x amount of the far cheaper 9mm will keep me in line and used to staying on target for follow up rounds. Reality is - with good 124+ grain 9mm hydra-shock, does pretty well considering ballistics. Double or triple tap.. still be cheaper than a single .40SW... j/k. Yet it was great info to know that they offered 9mm kits for the .40SW. Keeps all options open.
So again, thank you all for your insight and generous time in writing - it was greatly appreciated and helped me make my decision ( even though I was first asking about pricing... but the discussion was great!).
If anyone is still reading
-- I got to play with an "EAA Witness Compact" (Steel ~30oz). Really shot well, but only got about 200 rounds through it. Anyhow have any experience with the EAA witness line (poly or steel) and reliability? think I'm going to pick one up as well. Has a lot of CZ like features (CZ discontinued the model I wanted, but also a great gun - almost put it right next to a sig). However, when relying on a gun, I'd only put my life behind a Sig, one of the few things not to cheap out on... haha. Glocks/XD's are great guns - but I'm old school in the DA/SA setup and know I can comfortably shoot that set-up. Nothing wrong with the Striker, but I'd go with a 1911 style before that. Wilson's KZ-45 is a great gun, pricey and hard to find, but like them a lot more than Kimber.
Thank you,
damon
damon@edamon.com0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments