I have been looking at a NIB P229R in .357Sig that would run me around $680 out the door. The price is about the best I have seen. Have been hearing mixed opinions about new Sigs and their quality drop off in recent years, so am still on the fence about it. Anyone have empirical info on the new production Sig QA vs the older ones ? Thanks.
Sig’s QCs went downhill when it was taken over by new management in 2005. Sig Sauer USA doesn’t make all of their parts in-house, and they started trying other vendors for parts to reduce manufacturing costs. Needless to say, they had some problems.
I think that Sig is slowly realizing that your reputation means a LOT in this business. Nobody wants second best in a firearm, and the consumer will stampede away from your company if your products are crappy.
I’m seeing an attitude and product difference lately. In 2007 when I went through my first LE armorer course for Sig, the representative teaching the class wasn’t even willing to acknowledge QC problems with Sigs made after 2005. In my refresher this year, the attitude was very different from the rep. He basically admitted the QC problems with different vendors, how it hurt LE and consumer sales, and how Sig is doing their best to earn that trust again. The only thing I found annoying about him was his constant pushing of the Sig Sauer proprietary cartridge the .357sig based on small samples of shooting statistics.
I’m issued a DHS 2009 P226 .40, and I have personal Sigs from 1998, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009. My 2006 Sigs are a P226 9mm and a P239 9mm. I’ve had some function problems with both guns that I simply can’t explain other than the frames may be out of spec. My 2008 and 2009 pistols have been excellent. The quality seems to be better than the 2006 ones and I haven’t had any issues with them.
Just from my observations, I think Sig has learned an important lesson about the free market. If you bought a new Sig today, I think you would get a good pistol. However, are you certain that you want one in .357sig?
Thanks for that inside info. Good to know that Sig is aware of the issues. The reason I decided on the 357Sig is that from what I read getting the 357Sig barrel as an add on is difficult as new ones are unavailable due to production shortages. .40 seems to be quite common, so I have the option of adding it later.
It’s my preference, but I prefer either .40S&W or 9mm over the .357sig. From an armorer’s standpoint, pistols in 9mm are the most easy to maintain and lasts the longest. The .357sig beats the hell out of guns and greatly reduces their lifespan. The .40S&W does does well as long as you stick with the milder recoiling 180gr. Go to 155gr or hot 165gr and it is as hard on the gun as .357sig. From a police officer’s standpoint, I prefer the .40 over the .357sig or the 9mm. We don’t always get to use the best ammo on the market, and under that circumstance the .40 seems to be the better overall performer. From a cost standpoint, the .357sig is the most expensive. 9mm and .40 are about equal right now, but the .40 is more widely available on the civilian market than the 9mm.
Thanks. I think Barsto makes a 9mm conversion barrel for the 357/.40 P229. I might pick one up based on your comment.
I have that gun (built in 04) and with the DAK. so I’ll tell you what it’s taught me. the 357 barrel is completely interchangeable with the 40. and the 9mm drop in works just fine with the .40 magazines.
I don’t know if they’ve changed this, but on my gun, the stocks are secured with steel torx screws. one of mine had been cross threaded when I got it, and buggered up the thread boss. not a huge deal but it’s annoying.
as for the caliber, I shoot a lot of 357sig and 9mm through this gun. I shoot very little .40 through it. I understand what entropy is saying about abusing the gun, but I honestly, sincerely truely, shoot 357sig better than I do 40. I say so, the timer says so, the target says so… you get the idea. range time gets split between the 9mm and 357sig barrels, but I never carry the 9mm barrel. for me, it’s the best training investment I could recommend because 9mm ammo is still less expensive than cheap .40 ammo.
Carried a 229 in .357 SIG for about five years…until I retired in 2007. Attended the SIG Armorer Course in 2005. We initially carried the standard 229, then 3 years later got a “deal” from SIG and we switched over to the R series, "rail"guns.
We qualified four times a year, with alternate Quals also being Range Days with 200-250+ rds fired that day. Overall each Troopers 229 went through 600 or more rds each year on average. Though many would beg or buy additional ammo and practiced more than the average Trooper.
I can not recall EVER seeing one of the .357 SIG’s fail to feed. IMHO probably one of the big selling points of the cartridge. A bottlenecked case just falls right IN.
During annual inspections the 229’s were taken apart, any parts requiring replacement were installed, it was cleaned, lubed and returned to the Trooper.
I don’t ever recall having to replace ANY parts due to failure.
IF the QC had fallen so…we never saw it with our 200 guns.
FN in MT
Thanks for that positive vote for the 229. The better feeding advantages of the 357Sig cartridge is one of the reasons I like it, despite its higher cost. I’ve always wondered why there aren’t more such bottle necked pistol calibers offered. Right now the only other such designs that come to mind are the FN 5.7x28, 7.62x25 Tokarev.