My P239 has been in the safe for most of the recent past, but I recently took it out to do some basic maintenance. I was struck by how heavy it seemed. I have gotten used to the polymer pistols that have been my EDC recently.
I can't imagine choosing to carry it over one of the compacts or subcompacts from Glock, Sig, S&W or others. The size and weight compared to capacity just don't make it a viable choice - at least here in Florida with a hot climate. With the wide selection of smaller, lighter pistols out there these days, I am curious if the P239 still has a place these days.
Posts: 6084 | Location: FL | Registered: March 09, 2009
In my opinion, the P239 is an exceptional handgun. I carried one for some time, and found it was one of the more comfortable inside-the-waistband pistols that I carried. Mine was .40.
I'd wanted a .357 P239 for some time; last year I found one in excellent condition and picked it up. I found another .357 Sig barrel for my previous P239, and swapped the grips for Hogue.
While Sig has apparently discontinued the P239, there are a lot of owners who still appreciate the pistol. Mine have excellent triggers, are very reliable, and the P239 has a unique ergonomic with the flat front strap that makes a tactile reference for "muscle memory" that aids in aligning the pistol when shooting.
It's a metal handgun vs. plastic, but the weight difference isn't significant. I've used them with factory plastic, hogue metal and G10, and the hogue rubber grips; it's comfortable in the hand with all, easy to retain, easy to grip. If someone is comfortable with any of the other P-series Sig pistols, the P239 is a natural.
CSM makes some good points on the p239. This is a gun that I'll never get rid of. It feels good in my hand with Hogue rubber grips. I shoot it well, but I hardly ever carry it anymore. I do notice the heavier weight compared to my other carry guns, and the single stack has fewer rounds. A beautiful, classic gun though. I'm glad I own one.
The P239 is perfect for the AIWB method carry. I think it’s weight to be more of any drawback than its capacity. It’s ergonomics are superior to any of its single stack competitors with the exception of the P225-A1, the reason for its discontinuance...
______________________________________________ Life is short. It’s shorter with the wrong gun…
Posts: 13873 | Location: VIrtual | Registered: November 13, 2009
I have a TT that I swapped a .357 Sig barrel into and put CT grips on it, and a regular black version in .40 S&W. The .40 was my second choice hiking pistol, after my Glock 29; however, the Sig P250sc .40 has taken the number two slot since I acquired it.
Posts: 1990 | Location: metro Atlanta, GA | Registered: July 30, 2004
I have a .40. I bought it as a backup to my issued 226 .40. I wore it in a holster velcroed to my vest. It is heavy for a single stack, but it may be the most accurate box-stock Sig I've ever owned.
Not for me. Got rid of mine years ago. The combination of heavier weight, size and lower capacity made it very expendable. Mine was in 9mm. It was a nice pistol, don't get me wrong, but the practicality of it didn't work for me.
Have to agree with Edmund. I have probably owned 10 different ones over 20 years. Scorpion, Nickel, SAS, etc.. all 9mm. Very accurate, very reliable (cannot ever remember one malfunctioning) but i always gravitated toward the smaller, higher capacity wonder pistols. Great gun for its time, but i think it became kind of obsolete.
I only keep guns that work well mechanically, are accurate, and suit my needs. The P239 is near to top of my list in all areas.
But I can see why it is not for everyone.
Ironically, the P239 -- the answer to the need for a low-capacity pistol with the onset of the 1995 Gun Control Act, strong enough to handle the .40 and the .357 as they came to the fore in the market -- went obsolete in Sig's eyes the same year that the P35 Hi-Power went obsolete in Browning's catalog.
Both are great guns but possess designs that were perfect for an earlier era but which have been surpassed in modern times, at least in absolute metrics such as capacity, weight, size, etc.
But for me, a major plus factor is the DA/SA workings of the P239. A lot of people think this is obsolete too. But I feel a DA/SA pistol is inherently safer than a striker-fired pistol. I cannot bring myself to stuff a striker-fired pistol with a pre-tensioned striker and a light trigger (to which they all seem to aspire) down the front of my jeans.
Plus the darn thing just shoots well.
Posts: 1597 | Location: Virginia, USA | Registered: June 02, 2007
I only keep guns that work well mechanically, are accurate, and suit my needs. The P239 is near to top of my list in all areas.
But I can see why it is not for everyone.
Ironically, the P239 -- the answer to the need for a low-capacity pistol with the onset of the 1995 Gun Control Act, strong enough to handle the .40 and the .357 as they came to the fore in the market -- went obsolete in Sig's eyes the same year that the P35 Hi-Power went obsolete in Browning's catalog.
Both are great guns but possess designs that were perfect for an earlier era but which have been surpassed in modern times, at least in absolute metrics such as capacity, weight, size, etc.
But for me, a major plus factor is the DA/SA workings of the P239. A lot of people think this is obsolete too. But I feel a DA/SA pistol is inherently safer than a striker-fired pistol. I cannot bring myself to stuff a striker-fired pistol with a pre-tensioned striker and a light trigger (to which they all seem to aspire) down the front of my jeans.
Plus the darn thing just shoots well.
Exactly my thoughts.
________________ tempus edax rerum
Posts: 1251 | Location: Oregon | Registered: March 18, 2014
