The P239 had been an enigma for me. When I bought my first SIG, a P229, I initially developed the thought that the P239 would be a natural complement to the girthier P229. Then I handled one. And then I shot one. While it more or less handled like the fatter P229, I couldn't reconcile that its footprint wasn't that much smaller, and the squared off front strap annoyed me as much as it did. Guess my girly hands were just too dainty back then.

Then SIG I think came out with a version that had the blubbery rubbery Hogue grips, and here was one time that finger grooves was gladly excusable. With that rather ungainly grip the gun felt really good in hand, yet I ultimately procrastinated over the lack of capacity and never bought one. There's still a wee bit within my crusty brain that regrets that call.

Of course SIG brings out the P225A/A1/A-1/A-whatever, the spiritual successor to the P239, rectifies the front strap without the need for rubber bumpered grips, wows me and my prickly pickiness, and YET AGAIN I procrastinate meager mag capacity until it too get confined to the cobwebbed dregs of SIG's Dead and Buried Archive. Chalk up another woulda, shoulda, coulda. Oh-fers be damned.

As for the femininity thingy here on page 3: well considering that I have a gun with a purple slide and my aforementioned dainty hands, I ain't too concerned about such matters. It makes holes, don't it? Good 'nuff for me.

Well it would be, if I actually had gotten off the fence and bought one. To the OP, good to hear that yours is doing just fine, and in a very righteous caliber to boot. 40 ROCK!

quote:

Originally posted by 94hokie:
If I can find my original plastic grips (since replaced by g10), I can send them your way.

Thank you, sir, that's a very kind gesture and greatly appreciated, but Bulldog7279 is already hooking me up. You guys are awesome and I really appreciate your generosity!

I carried the P239 on my nightly dog walk tonight, and to 4H to pick up my kid, and it carried about like the P229, so that is to say pretty well. The sticky Hogue grips are kinda grabby on the cover garment, but I imagine that won't be an issue with the factory plastics. One noticeable improvement over the P229 was the trimmer and lighter reload mag on my left hip. The P229 mag is thick enough to be a nuisance against the seatbelt in the car, but the shorter and thinner P239 mag is barely noticeable at all.

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.

This ^^

This model came along at the time when CC as growing, capacity might be limited, and the micro guns had not been developed. For me it shoots better, was more reliable, and more durable than others at that time.

It's thinner, easier to conceal, and my example in 40s&w, is a tack divers and soft shooting. I'm not a not a weak man or have medical issues, so weight is a not issue and not something I consider with a belt gun. Concealment matter more.

FWIW: I regularly OWB concealed carry a 35oz S&W 686+ 12+ hours a day on the move without an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Retro80:
It's thinner, easier to conceal, and my example in 40s&w, is a tack divers and soft shooting. I'm not a not a weak man or have medical issues, so weight is a not issue and not something I consider with a belt gun. Concealment matter more.

FWIW: I regularly OWB concealed carry a 35oz S&W 686+ 12+ hours a day on the move without an issue.

Welcome to the forum and your first post..

I love my 3" 686+, but I've yet to carry it..

My first gun in .357 sig.
A hoot to shoot and bought it when it was gotm
Never used the .40 barrel, but the .357 load says “hello” with authority and carries with utter confidence.

I have about 20 SIG pistols and my beater P239 in .357SIG is the best shooter of them. It's a tack driver and just feels right in every way. I may start carrying it, but have grown spoiled by the P365X and Macro mag capacity. Going down to 8+1 (I have a one round extension on a few mags) would give me mag capacity anxiety.

I've only scanned the thread and it looks like it may have already been said, but the P239 came out in 1996, and back then, 9mm pistols were larger than the micro stuff we get today. Saying that the P239 is not that smaller than other SIG offerings is judging it by a different standard than the mid-1990s. Back then, even minor reductions in size were viewed as significant.

I think the real SIG size comparison with the P239 should be with the P225. The more streamlined trigger guard alone gives an advantage to the P239.

All that being said, I've never owned a P239. I've considered it a couple of times, but it's not really for me.

For 20 years it was my CCW because it handles 357sig extremely well like the P229. It’s slimmer and carries much better than the P229. P229 carries like a brick IWB.

I have neither pistol anymore as I migrated to polymer DA/SA pistols.

quote:

P229 carries like a brick IWB.

There's some truth to this, and to be fair I'm comparing a .40 P239 to a 9mm P229 SAS in my original post. I also have a .40 P229, and I must admit, that one does carry like a brick. It has pretty much sat in the safe since I bought it back from the PD, and just makes occasional trips to the range.

The SAS is a whole different animal, though. It's lighter than the .40 and the melt job must really make a difference, because I don't mind carrying it at all. I've been going back and forth between the P239 and the P229 SAS for the past couple of days...taking walks, replacing a fence, hanging around the house, riding in the car...I really put it though the wringer of daily activities. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between the two guns on my belt...the biggest noticeable difference is actually the single-stack vs double-stack reload on my off-side.

The only discernable difference between the guns themselves is the sticky Hogue grips on the P239 grabbing my shirt, and Bulldog graciously gifted me some factory plastic grips to replace those, which should be here tomorrow. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of difference that makes to how it carries and shoots.

Factory grips arrived today...very generous gesture from Bulldog7279! I put it on and walked the dog 4 miles, and they are definitely an improvement over the Hogue rubbers. They don't grab my skin or my shirt while I'm walking, and the gun does feel a little thinner. The front strap is definitely very square, but all in all it fits my hand better than expected. Hopefully I can get out and shoot it later this week.

92fstech, are you carrying your P239 IWB OR OWB?

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
There's some truth to this, and to be fair I'm comparing a .40 P239 to a 9mm P229 SAS in my original post. I also have a .40 P229, and I must admit, that one does carry like a brick. It has pretty much sat in the safe since I bought it back from the PD, and just makes occasional trips to the range.

You would love the PX4’s given your forum name. Same MOA. After I ditched the Sigs I tried various platforms. P2000/sk combo. Glocks. Sphinx SDP’s. The PX4 subcompact is something else. 13+1, shoots like a compact. Carries extremely well and not much bigger than a Glock 26 once you put the slim levers on it. Had Burke do the trigger on all 3 of them, full size, compact, and subcompact. I like the full size and the subcompact the most. Subcompact definitely my favorite carry gun of all time. Once the triggers are worked over, feels extremely close to a worked over Sig P Series trigger. Love the things.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I've only scanned the thread and it looks like it may have already been said, but the P239 came out in 1996, and back then, 9mm pistols were larger than the micro stuff we get today. Saying that the P239 is not that smaller than other SIG offerings is judging it by a different standard than the mid-1990s. Back then, even minor reductions in size were viewed as significant.

I think the real SIG size comparison with the P239 should be with the P225. The more streamlined trigger guard alone gives an advantage to the P239.

All that being said, I've never owned a P239. I've considered it a couple of times, but it's not really for me.

I was gonna say it came around the time the shall-issue movement started taking shape. Way, way fewer options back then. I was living in VA at the time and the first day their shall-issue law took effect, the police ran out of paper applications (no online then). I was roughing it with a Series 70 Commander as my EDC at the time, but gave the P239 serious consideration after shooting a buddy's. Nowadays, there are just so many options out there for higher-cap, lighter 9mm guns. But I still maintain none of them shoot as well as my P239s.

The P239 is a great pistol. Recall that back when it came out, the Smith 3913 was considered a compact 9mm. The Glock 26 and Kahr K9 and then MK9 (folks forget about these) started the sub 9mm arms race for the smallest, shootable, reliable 9mm. The major manufacturers never looked back.
The P239 is laser accurate, utterly reliable and kind of concealable. Its only when you start to do the size comparison analysis that you start to question its role. But, on its own its hard to beat.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
92fstech, are you carrying your P239 IWB OR OWB?

IWB, 4:00. Thats pretty much my go-to for any off-duty belt carry.

quote:

You would love the PX4’s given your forum name.

I do like the PX4! I had a full-size, and really enjoyed it, but never carried it because it was too big, plus I like my Sig P22X guns just a little better. I traded that PX4 off fully intending to buy a compact to replace it, but then started thinking practically and realized that I have a bunch of "carry" type handguns, yet only so much range time and ammo, and as such it makes more sense to invest that training time into a single platform. My reasoning is to try and cover all or most of my CCW needs with P22X guns...P229 SAS for regular EDC, P226 for the range, P220 Compact/P245 for when I want bigger holes or can't get small pistol primers, and I was hoping that the P239 would fill the subcompact/dress-clothes concealment role, but I'm wavering on that as while it's a great gun, it seems to not be much more workable than the P229 so far, at least for me, at the cost of half the capacity. I'm hoping the trimmer grips will help with that a little.

If you live in a state with a 10 round mag limit, the sig 239 in 40/357 is a compelling choice

I got the P239 back out to the range today. This was my first time shooting it with the factory grips and an SRT kit installed. I also brought the .40 P229, just to compare the two side by side. I didn't have a ton of ammo, but I did have enough to shoot RichardC's postal match drill from hell one time with each of them. I like this drill for this, because it involves shooting both hands, right-hand-only, and left-hand-only, all under time pressure which speaks to the naturaly pointability and controllability of the gun.

The results were suprising. This drill has been kicking my ass for weeks, even just staying under time. Right out of the gate I was very impressed with the accuracy and pointability of the P239. The two-handed group was centered on the target and pretty darn tight, and 5.73 is a pretty good time for me. Right hand only was also pretty darn tight, and still under the 8 second par time. I was starting to get excited, wondering if this was going to be the day I finally clean this drill.

Not to depart from my tradition of mediocrity, I dropped two rounds on the left-hand only stage, but did manage to keep it well under time (hard on this one because you have to draw from concealment with your right hand and then transition the gun to your left before shooting), which I've been struggling with overall. It's not the clean run under time that I was hoping for, but pretty darn good compared to some of my other attempts at this drill, especially considering it's a "subcompact" .40 that I'm shooting in this configuration for the first time ever.

The P229 was worse. Two-handed was faster, but a slightly wider group. Right-hand-only was faster but I threw a round left. Then everything went to hell shooting left-hand-only.

Admittedly, it's only one rep of a single drill, but there may be something to this chunky little gun after all.

In the early 1990's I bought a P230SL because, for me at the time, it was an excellent EDC option. Then in the late 1990's I sold the P230SL for a P239 two tone SAS in 357Sig. Why, because they were very close in size but the 357Sig was preferred by me for EDC.

Recently I sold the P239 because I bought a better option for me in the P220 Compact SAS.

I liked both the P230SL and the P239 SAS at the times I had them. They're both now gone now and fortunately I don't miss them. I also have no desire to go down that route again.

When I was still working, I carried a Sig 226 in fourty as my duty gun,and a 239 fourty as my backup in a vest holster.
When I qualified with both guns I generally shot a tighter group with the 239. I have no explanation why.
I carry a 239 DAK in fourty as my retirement gun.