It’s not really smaller in the way that matters to those of us now who have specific standards for what a concealed carry gun should be. Those standards didn’t really exist back in the day. I always figured the P239 was made for women what with the feminine looking trigger guard or men with tiny hands.

::ducks for cover::

quote:

Originally posted by FP2000H:

feminine looking trigger guard

::ducks for cover::

This is the first time these words have ever been used together, I think.....

Well, I once owned a Ladysmith, so I'm clearly secure enough in my masculinity to not get bothered about what somebody might think of my P239's effeminate triggerguard .

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Well, I once owned a Ladysmith, so I'm clearly secure enough in my masculinity to not get bothered about what somebody might think of my P239's effeminate triggerguard .

HA!!! I have as well. .

Not being crazy about the 226 I had, but really liking the 220's I had, looking at the 239 shape and size I thought for sure I would love it.

I did not. I hated it, couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Felt terrible in my hand. Makes no sense.

To the point where years later I look at them and say "Hmmm... maybe one of those.... NO! Remember!?"

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Not being crazy about the 226 I had, but really liking the 220's I had, looking at the 239 shape and size I thought for sure I would love it.

I did not. I hated it, couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Felt terrible in my hand. Makes no sense.

To the point where years later I look at them and say "Hmmm... maybe one of those.... NO! Remember!?"

I wanted love my P225, but it was just too thin in my hand..
Back when I was trying to collect the classics..





My WG P220 was another 'classic' that came and went as well.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

The P239 - Why?

Because it is obviously smaller than the P229. Dimensional differences might not sound like much, but for carrying purpose, it works out well for a lot of people. And, not everyone wants to, or can legally, carry 15 rounds.

Agree with this. Also, with the factory grips it is feels much thinner. I carried one daily in the 90’s as an off duty gun before all the subcompacts came out. I picked up another in 9mm for old times sake and love it, but likely won’t carry it much because my 365 is easier to carry and holds more ammo. The 239 sure is sweet though.

I’ve had multiple 239s over the years, in 9 and 40. The only one I have left is a 40 with a 357 barrel that I got in a trade. When I had the 9 I found that I liked carrying my 3913 much more than the 239 so it was sold. I probably won’t get rid of the one I have now but it’s not something I’d consider carrying. I do like it in the 357 configuration but still not enough to carry it

Had a P239 9mm many years ago I bought off a guy in rural Oklahoma. It was a swell pistol and I carried it often. Ended up selling it to finance an AR which I don't regret.

It carried well and shot well.

I think OP can't look back at the P239 and ask why know what we have available today. Pistols like the P365 and Hellcat didn't exist back then.

I used to carry my P239 in .357 sig in a iwb TT gun leather holster with one of his iwb dual mag holsters and could wear a rather tight T-shirt and not print at all!! That thin grip and those single stack mags are so thin!!!!

Try Talon grips before you invest in G10's. A cheap but effective alternative.

I played around with it a bit more last night trying to figure out a way to strap it to my vest. I think if I was wearing it under a uniform shirt I could make it work, but there's just not enough space under this outer carrier to hide it, and the gun is far too big for any of the built-in pockets.

I compared it to my P6 as well. I figured that would be a fairer comparison because they are both single-stack. Like it was with the P229, the P239 is slightly smaller than the P6 in pretty much every dimension, but not enough to matter anywhere except the grip. The LOP on the P225 is quite a bit longer, both front-to-back on the grip as well as trigger reach, which fits my hand better than the P239. Surprisingly, despite being slightly larger, the P6 is actually 2oz lighter than the P239, and it feels far less top-heavy.

quote:

Try Talon grips before you invest in G10's. A cheap but effective alternative.

Unfortunately, the only grips it came with are the sticky rubber Hogues, so I don't have anything to stick the Talons to.

I might have an extra set of original grips laying around. I'll look later today and let you know.

I recently unloaded mine on consignment at my LGS. It was an SAS in .40S&W, always shot it much better than the 229. Basically it came down to, "Why do I have this?" When a CCO 1911 is similar in size but yet is .45ACP and a P365 is smaller, lighter and has significantly more capacity.

I carry my 239SAS (.40) sparingly. I usually carry either my Glock 19 or my 442. But the 239 was not only my first Sig, but also my first purchased handgun (I didn't grow up with guns but did carry department issued weapons for years). I currently have Ryan at RGrizzle making me a new holster for it and hope to work it into the rotation.

Back in the day Mid 90's), there was a magazine capacity limitation and few reliable smaller guns designed for concealed carry, and many were carrying 40 caliber or 357 Sig that were easier to shoot in a larger and heavier gun.
The 239 is a rounded edges version of the P series and it suited those requirements a bit better than many others.
Now it's a different world in so many ways and there are so many better options for CCW in almost all respects.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Back in the day Mid 90's), there was a magazine capacity limitation and few reliable smaller guns designed for concealed carry, and many were carrying 40 caliber or 357 Sig that were easier to shoot in a larger and heavier gun.
The 239 is a rounded edges version of the P series and it suited those requirements a bit better than many others.
Now it's a different world in so many ways and there are so many better options for CCW in almost all respects.

I can't argue any of your points, actually. But I'm pretty firmly in the "carry what you like and can shoot well" camp. And often the 442, with it's 5-rounds gets the call here. And maybe it's partially because I don't buy large numbers of guns, but I've never sold a gun (unlike knives, where I've bought and sold constantly) and probably won't. The 239 still works for me...

Due to back issues I only carry AIWB. Lots of folks are fine carrying striker fired guns that way, but I’m not one of them. For me, my 239 sas in 9 carries great, and it actually feels better in my hand than my 229s. For mags, keep checking Midwest gun works, when they come in they usually sell for 20ish bucks each, new. You can also find new RSAs there as well periodically. If I can find my original plastic grips (since replaced by g10), I can send them your way.

The P239 has been described as just a little smaller than the P229. While this may be true, I find there's a much bigger difference in the way these two feel as a CCW -both in .40 and both carried OWB at 3:30.

Neither are uncomfortable, but I'm more aware of the P229's presence from time to time, while the P239 sort of disappears. The difference in carry feel transcends the size difference. Since putting an optic on the P229 a half dozen years back, that's what I carry.