comn-cents
New member
357 & 40 are the same also! Really!
Thoughts on Sig p228
- Thread starter Topher127
- Start date
So now you are changing your story? If you would bother to read my posts you will find that I always referred to a wider magazine well on the .40 frame - never the grip frame, because I know the external dimensions did not change. You on the other hand explicitly stated the mag well and mags did not change.
The difference is about .055", .805" for the P228 mag, and .860" for the .40 mag - enough difference that the .40 mag can not be inserted into the P228 mag well.
I say you are correct about the P226 because Sig used/uses the same unmodified frame for all three calibers and the magazines are all the same dimension also, except for the feed lips, which is what you said was true about the P229 also, but it is not.
I am speculating here, which you seem to do a lot of, but because the P228 grip is shorter than the P226 one, Sig had to widen the mag well, and the mag, to get a sufficient number of rounds. A 9mm P226 mag holds 15rds while the .40 holds 12 rds. A P228 9mm mag holds 13 rds so by extrapolation the .40 P229 mag would hold only maybe 10rds without widening the mag. Instead it holds 12 .40 rounds because of the wider bottom.
Read my posts. I NEVER said the grip changed because I KNOW it didn't. The external dimensions are the same. It is just the internal magazine well that was widened.
Last edited:
comn-cents
New member
wgsigs "See my post with the pictures"
Why!
Why!
I have a W. German marked P228 with the triple matching serial numbers. Supposedly the best of the P228's. It is a serviceable pistol, but I do not find it overly accurate or better than some others. It is reliable, and well made, however, but a bit blocky with the characteristic, overly high bore axis of Sig pistols. I much prefer the compact CZ's, like my PCR which I have carried in the Sigs holster for over ten years while the Sig sits in the safe. YMMV.
So that you can physically see that the P228/P229 mag on the left that you had a link to (which you correctly identified as being identical) are different from the .40/.357 P229 mags, an example of which is on the right. I am sorry if you were offended. That was meant as a suggestion, not a command.
How else do you explain all of those thousands and thousands of Glock things out there. I love the balance of my P228 and how feels and handles, but truthfully, I shoot my P226 better and more accurately.Well, it appears that you are evaluating with a bit too much emotion. The pic of the P-228 9mm magazine on the left compared to the P-229 .40 S&W magazine on the right look very similar except for the difference in taper on the .40 S&W magazine. If the .40 mag is wider, all that would be necessary would be a larger opening at the bottom of the magwell. NOT a complete enlargement of the grip frame to accommodate a slightly wider magazine. There is NO difference front to back of the magazine and that's what holds the OACL of the .40 S&W cartridge to 1.135". I HAVE read tour posts, and it is becoming increasingly clear that you are unfamiliar with the entire geometry of the two cartridges. I've been handloading for over 27 years, been observing the .40 S&W cartridge since its very origin. NO pistolmaker has had to widen the gripframe of an existing 9mm pistol to accommodate the .40 S&W cartridge. a larger opening of the magwell is all that's needed for a slightly wider mag.
SIG designed the P-229 slide completely as a .40 S&W originally, and the only changes were a slight modification of the locking system and a heavier slide machined from stainless bar-stock rather than using sheet steel that was mandrel formed in two parts and welded together. But, it was not necessary to widen the grip frame of the P-228 to accept a slightly wider mag. They simply opened up the magwell opening a bit. Like I said though, if it's that hard for you to fathom, remove the grips from your P-228 and P-229 and measure the outside dimensions of both. It has never been necessary to widen a 9mm gripframe to convert it to .40 S&W. If you say that the older 229 mag is slightly wider, I believe you even though they look near identical in your pic. What you're failing to understand is that a slightly larger opening of the magwell is all that's necessary.
I will concede
that it is quite possible that technically just the mouth of the mag well and not the entire well was widened although I have no official verification either way. I was just repeating everything I have read that called the modification to the frame as a widening of the "magazine well" to accommodate the wider .40 mags. Regardless of what exactly was done and how minor the change may have been, the frame was modified to accommodate the new wider .40 P229 mags.
The important fact and the one I really disagreed with you about is that the .40 P229 mags are materially different enough from the old 9mm P229/P228 mags that they are not interchangeable. Your initial claim was
That was more than an instance where you "did oversimplify", it was the omission of a very obvious and important fact - the mag body is wider and can be seen with the naked eye if they are side by side, even if it is less than .1". You as an experienced reloader and me as a novice one know that a difference of less than .1" can have a big impact where guns and ammo are concerned. This inaccurate statement can have current real world implications especially now that 9mm P229-1 mags are available that basically have the same mag body as the .40 mag.
Someone who was looking for mags for his new 9mm P229 Elite Dark might elect to buy the new P229-1 mags over the old P228/P229 if he thought they were the basically the same because of the 15rd capacity of the new over the 13rd capacity of the old. The surprise when he received the Elite Dark is that it, and three other new models of the P229, use the old P228/P229-like frame (I doubt if it is the exact same P228 frame of old) with the narrower mag well (opening) and the P229-1 mags modeled after the .40 mags won't insert completely. Something similar to this actually happened to a guy on another forum.
I believe I have said what I wanted to say so it is probably time to un-hijack this thread and return it to its regularly scheduled program. It is probably only fair that if you feel the need to respond to this post you can do it here, but I will do any further discussion using PM.
Thank you 57K for the stimulating discussion, and thank everyone else for your patience and indulgence.
that it is quite possible that technically just the mouth of the mag well and not the entire well was widened although I have no official verification either way. I was just repeating everything I have read that called the modification to the frame as a widening of the "magazine well" to accommodate the wider .40 mags. Regardless of what exactly was done and how minor the change may have been, the frame was modified to accommodate the new wider .40 P229 mags.The important fact and the one I really disagreed with you about is that the .40 P229 mags are materially different enough from the old 9mm P229/P228 mags that they are not interchangeable. Your initial claim was
That was more than an instance where you "did oversimplify", it was the omission of a very obvious and important fact - the mag body is wider and can be seen with the naked eye if they are side by side, even if it is less than .1". You as an experienced reloader and me as a novice one know that a difference of less than .1" can have a big impact where guns and ammo are concerned. This inaccurate statement can have current real world implications especially now that 9mm P229-1 mags are available that basically have the same mag body as the .40 mag.
Someone who was looking for mags for his new 9mm P229 Elite Dark might elect to buy the new P229-1 mags over the old P228/P229 if he thought they were the basically the same because of the 15rd capacity of the new over the 13rd capacity of the old. The surprise when he received the Elite Dark is that it, and three other new models of the P229, use the old P228/P229-like frame (I doubt if it is the exact same P228 frame of old) with the narrower mag well (opening)
and the P229-1 mags modeled after the .40 mags won't insert completely. Something similar to this actually happened to a guy on another forum.I believe I have said what I wanted to say so it is probably time to un-hijack this thread and return it to its regularly scheduled program. It is probably only fair that if you feel the need to respond to this post you can do it here, but I will do any further discussion using PM.
Thank you 57K for the stimulating discussion, and thank everyone else for your patience and indulgence.
Last edited:
Well, you make good points on the mag models that might help someone avoid confusion. I should not have oversimplified the mag change as just widening the feed lips. Obviously if the .40 mag is wider than the magwell has to be opened up slightly. Glad we agree and remained fairly civil like good Texans! Back to our regularly scheduled program.
Well that what makes the world go around. Everyone is different, and everyone likes different things. I will say that the P228 is one of the better semi-compact, service pistols out there. I know Sig is marketing something now called the M11 which is a bit different from the P228, and the M11's used in the military, but I am sure it is a solid gun. I hope some Sig experts can chime and let the OP know if Sig is actually producing the P228 again.
Sig is not producing the P228 anymore. They are producing the M11-A1 which is nothing more than a Cohen invented model which is really just a non railed P229 with different slide serrations. They claim its just like the one used by the military. The facts are that no govt agency uses this configuration.
Sig submitted it as a replacement for the M11 which is the US military contract designation for the P228 but no one has accepted it yet IIRC. They need to get people out of the existing P228/M11 contract because of the cost to make them to the old spec is too high. They cannot make them inside the US because the tooling to make the older frame and the older stamped/folder carbon steel slide are nearing end of life and are in Germany, where IMHO all good Sigs should be made... LOL.
Sig created these guns for consideration. They took a non-railed P229 frame put a MIL-STD UID label of the standard-issue M11 and called it a M11-A1. They are now being sold to the public because they cannot sell them to the military because they have no takers for this new configuration. This is a frankengun IMHO. It has parts from all over the Sig line up. It has the SRT trigger which the P228/M11 never had, a milled stainless steel slide with full height slide serrations, phosphate parts so you can swim with your Sig and used the Mecgar 15 round P229 magazine to bump its capacity. Etc...
It is still a decent gun but it is not a P228.
M11-A1
Vs
P228
Sig submitted it as a replacement for the M11 which is the US military contract designation for the P228 but no one has accepted it yet IIRC. They need to get people out of the existing P228/M11 contract because of the cost to make them to the old spec is too high. They cannot make them inside the US because the tooling to make the older frame and the older stamped/folder carbon steel slide are nearing end of life and are in Germany, where IMHO all good Sigs should be made... LOL.
Sig created these guns for consideration. They took a non-railed P229 frame put a MIL-STD UID label of the standard-issue M11 and called it a M11-A1. They are now being sold to the public because they cannot sell them to the military because they have no takers for this new configuration. This is a frankengun IMHO. It has parts from all over the Sig line up. It has the SRT trigger which the P228/M11 never had, a milled stainless steel slide with full height slide serrations, phosphate parts so you can swim with your Sig and used the Mecgar 15 round P229 magazine to bump its capacity. Etc...
It is still a decent gun but it is not a P228.
M11-A1
Vs
P228
Last edited:
I mentioned earlier that Ozark County Guns is selling a gun that has the characteristics that most Sig purists would accept as defining a P228, but I don't know the history or origin of them. They are missing some markings on the carbon steel slide and have an unusual finish on the slide, however, and appear to have a Short Trigger. No affiliation, etc.
http://shop.sigsauerguns.com/Handguns/P228-Series/Sig-Sauer-P228-German-Non-Railed.html
http://shop.sigsauerguns.com/Handguns/P228-Series/Sig-Sauer-P228-German-Non-Railed.html
Last edited:
This is an old thread, BUT ..... my daughter qualified at The United States Naval Academy with the M11-a1, during plebe summer in 2014 ..... and again in 2016. She's been told many times that the m11-a1 is the issue sidearm for pilots in the Fleet ....She graduates in May and will go on to flight school in the fall ...... now maybe she has been fed an enduring rumor for 4 years and this is not so ..... or maybe wgsigs has gotten hold of an enduring rumor .... we'll know for certain in a year or so when she hits the Fleet.
I believe you have me confused with WVsig since you quoted his post.
Regardless, I have still not heard or read of any U.S. military organization that has adopted the M11-A1 much less put out a new procurement request which is what would be needed to purchase M11-A1s. But I am not in the military or attending a military academy so your daughter's instructors might be correct.
However, I suspect the instructors are repeating old SIG marketing misinformation although SIG no longer makes any reference to the M11-A1 being an actual military firearm on their website like they did before, which one would think they would do if it had actually been adopted. I suspect that the pilots still use the P228/M11, which the military academies do not have access to, and the instructors incorrectly think the M11-A1 is the "civilian" version of the M11, which it is not because of the different slides, stamped carbon steel on the M11(P228) and stainless steel on the M11-A1(P229). However, I am going to cling to my "enduring rumor" until your daughter can find out what the truth is in a year. I look forward to it because I am always open to learning new facts, especially if they correct any wrong ones I have acquired over the years. My only concern is that in a year the pilots may be carrying new M17/M18s(P320) because SIG has finally phased out the P228.
Last edited:
While researching whether Naval pilots had switched to the M11-A1 (haven't found any substantiation yet) I ran across this old article from April 24, 2013 written by Wiley Clapp in the American Rifleman about the newly released M11-A1.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/4/24/service-grade-sig-sauers-m11-a1/
Here is an interesting excerpt from the article with my highlighting:
" Therefore, in 1988, military-marked and -finished SIG SAUER P228s went into U.S. service officially designated as the M11 pistol. Military investigators in Army, Navy and Air Force units, as well as Department of Defense personnel, use this excellent handgun. Once a pistol has achieved such status, it may be ordered, with proper justification, by any element of the Department of Defense. Use of the M11 (P228) is growing to include Naval aviators and others, who have an obvious need for compact survival equipment."
I will still wait patiently for your daughter to personally confirm or deny the claim that Naval pilots now use the M11-A1 and am prepared to eat crow if it is confirmed even though it was WVsig who argued the point.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2013/4/24/service-grade-sig-sauers-m11-a1/
Here is an interesting excerpt from the article with my highlighting:
" Therefore, in 1988, military-marked and -finished SIG SAUER P228s went into U.S. service officially designated as the M11 pistol. Military investigators in Army, Navy and Air Force units, as well as Department of Defense personnel, use this excellent handgun. Once a pistol has achieved such status, it may be ordered, with proper justification, by any element of the Department of Defense. Use of the M11 (P228) is growing to include Naval aviators and others, who have an obvious need for compact survival equipment."
I will still wait patiently for your daughter to personally confirm or deny the claim that Naval pilots now use the M11-A1 and am prepared to eat crow if it is confirmed even though it was WVsig who argued the point.
It is still my understanding that the M11-A1 is not used by any US military. I think the tell is that if they were producing them for a Govt agency you can guarantee that Cohen-Sig would be promoting it and selling the same pistol to the fan boy want to be public.
I know that at the time they were in production they were a marketing gimmick to sell a different version of the P229 that the govt did not want.
I know that at the time they were in production they were a marketing gimmick to sell a different version of the P229 that the govt did not want.