Question for a Sig P228 & 229 expert

[musket]

I know ODT is real short on experts, but here goes, anyway.

I have a 229 .40 cal made in this country and a German 228 9mm. I bought a 229 .40 cal to 9mm conversion kit. Slide, barrel, springs etc. and put TFO sights on it. When I bought the 228, later, I decided I would carry it and loved the TFO sights on the conversion slide.

So, I put the 229, 9mm conversion kit on the German 228 frame. Function checked it and all seemed well. I shot this set up for the first time yesterday and it was running smooth until I started having extraction problems. The empty case would extract far enough to get trapped by the slide on about every third or fourth round. I looked at the cases that didn't eject and I could see where the extractor scrapped the case rims on each of them. After a few failures, I put it up and decided to take a closed look when I got home and figured it needed a new extractor and/or spring.

Now comes the question. As I was looking at the conversion slide vs the original P228 slide, I saw that the conversion has an external extractor and the original has an internal extractor. (Now is when all the external extractor hater experts chime in). Is that the problem or do you think it's a bad extractor? I never had a problem when I ran the conversion on the U.S. Made P229 frame and the original .40 cal slide also has the external extractor. I have yet to try the 9mm conversion back on the .40 cal 229 frame to see if it ejects ok.

If all that isn't confusing enough, one slide if Nitron and the other is green Cerakote. LOL

Any constructive comments will be appreciated.

 

[1006]

Well,I will tell you what I think based on the info provided.

Keep the conversion on the gun it was made to be on. But, verify its function on the 229.

The tooling used to produce your two guns was likely different in some of their dimensions. Most parts have to be hand fit. My guess is: your conversion slide fits on your 228, but the slide/barrel fit is not exactly correct. Since most Sigs' frames are made from aluminum, I would be concerned about premature frame rail wear due to an improper fit with the 229 conversion slide.

External extractors are great and they rarely fail. They are cheaper to produce these days. In the old days the internal extractor was the cheap way to go, but CNC machining changed the economics. They do get dirty behind the extractor, and their springs can get worn out or jammed up with grime, but this rarely causes a failure.

If you really want the TFO's on the 228, it will be easier to just buy some more for it.

Now, if all of the above is off target, and you really want the swap to work, I would try hotter ammo or a lighter recoil spring to get the conversion to work on the 228.

I would also call on the experts at Sig for an answer.

 

[musket]

I checked it out today on the 229 frame and the conversion slide was doing the same thing, so, I ordered an extractor and spring.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Cadcom]

When did you start using sights?

 

[musket]

When I fingered out what they were for.

 

[Spikey]

Try a lighter recoil spring. My new spring with change kit was about 1 1/2" longer than my old spring. Got the new spring in another gun with the slide locked back. Just ordered a 14 pound spring from Wolf. I'll let you know what works

 

[musket]

Please do. I have lighter recoil springs in my other Sigs. You just have to be careful to not go too light so the slide doesn't get banged up during recoil. I'm pretty sure the extractor is one of the problems because the FTE cases have scrape marks where the extractor by passed them.
I looked at the extractor with a jeweler's lope and the side closest to the chamber has some burrs on it which tells me the end is worn down.

 

[Spikey]

Ordered a 14 and 15 pound spring. No lighter. Gonna try the wolf 15 first Sig factory is 15 Next time I shoot I'll check my brass. You would think that in a brand new slide that the ejection spring would be good. Also should say mine is a p226. 2005 model .40 cal