SIG 239 vs snub nose .357 for CCW ?


October 25, 2003, 11:06 PM
I've spent about 2 months thinking about what I want for a CCW gun. I have a Beretta Bobcat .22 (too small and unreliable) and a Beretta 92S (too big) So I figure if I'm buying again it might as well be a bigger caliber. I've spent about the last two weeks looking through old threads on this board for input too. I think I have it narrowed down between a SIG 239 in 40 cal or a .357 snub nose. (either S&W or Taurus.) The thing I like about the .357 is the reliability of a revolver and possibly it's size. The thing I like about the SIG or auto's is the trigger. I'm not used to double actions. Also, I like the night sights that can be put on an auto. What do you think? Any input would be appriciated. Which one would be more easily concealed?


If you enjoyed reading about "SIG 239 vs snub nose .357 for CCW ?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
George Hill
October 26, 2003, 12:08 AM

Tough call.

That little SIG is a most excellent little automatic. One of the top choices for CCW.

My take is that it would be a matter of which one you can hit with better.

October 26, 2003, 12:16 AM
Thanks for the input. I know it really comes down to personal choice. I'm hoping I'll get the chance to shoot a .357 to help me make up my mind.

October 26, 2003, 12:53 AM
If it means anything, I've always found the flat profile of an automatic lends itself to concealment considerably.

James Bondrock
October 26, 2003, 12:54 AM
I think you will find the P239 much easier (i.e., getting good fast hits with) and more pleasant (less blast, flash and recoil) to shoot than the .357 snub. The Smiths and Tauri have small grips that make them harder to hold onto and control, and amplify recoil. The Ruger SP101, although larger and heavier, is a good .357 snub, however. The revolvers are easier to draw from carry modes that hold them tightly to the body (e.g., pocket holsters). If you want to duplicate the .357 Magnum ballistics, the P239 is also available in .357 SIG.

October 26, 2003, 01:02 AM
Both will work, both are fine firearms choices for CCW. I'd give the nod to a compact .40 S&W autoloader, be it Sig, Kahr, or Glock.

October 26, 2003, 08:03 AM
Actually, Ballistically speaking the 40 may snub the snub in energy.

A 357 from a 2" tube is still pretty hot..but a hot 40 from a 3 1/2 + tube is nothing to sneeze at either.

Shoot them both and then make a will help ALOT!

Shoot well

October 26, 2003, 09:19 AM
If it's between the Sig and Ruger -- I'd say the GP 100 in a 3." But if between the Sig and Taurus -- get the Sig....

October 26, 2003, 10:53 AM
I had a S&W M60 in .357 (2.25" barrel), and a Sig 239 in 9mm. I sold the S&W because:
- I shoot the 9mm better/more accurately (better trigger, longer sight radius)
- 239 fits my hand better (boot grips on M60 doesn't allow full fingered grip)
- 9mm +p way more controlable than .357
- 9 rnds of 9mm vs. 5 .357, faster reload
- Sig is slimmer, more comfortable (for me) to carry, tho fully loaded it weighs a couple oz.s more than the S&W

October 26, 2003, 11:04 AM
I like the 357 wheelgun, specifically in a S&W j-frames.

October 26, 2003, 11:42 AM
Personally I like the smaller revolver. My choice is for the Colt D frames in 38 specila, but I also own quite a few SiGs and the 239 is certainly a winner as well.

Avery Goodschott
October 26, 2003, 12:02 PM
I have both - a P239 in .40 and a S&W 686 2 1/2"

The P239 is a superior CCW - weight is good...light enough to carry, heavy enough to tame recoil, accurate and dependable as a pistol can be. I carry mine in a Don Hume IWB with 2 spare mags.

The 686 has the dependability and easy manual of arms. I carry it in the field carry, but I usually have a vest or jacket for comfort. It's loaded with cast loads for penetrating critters. It's not too heavy and actually carries well in a Kirkpatrick between 4 and 5 o'clock. The .357 is a VERY versatile cartridge.

Pick the tool for your purpose

When I know I am moving between environments, I'll bring along a few Speed Strips of JHP and a shoulder holster for the 686

Safety First
October 26, 2003, 05:44 PM
Don't know about the wheel gun.. I do know about the sig p239 ( in 9mm), it carries very well and weighs 25.2 oz unloaded and is only 1.2" wide. I'm sure the wheel gun is a good gun, but have you ever heard anyone say a sig p239 was not reliable? or any other Sig for that matter. I have had mine for a year now I researched like crazy before I made my decision.
There wasn't even a close second, although I considered a couple of other guns when all was said and done it was the Sig hands down..One piece of advice, if you are going to CCW, get a very good belt and holster. I bought mine from Wild Bills Concealment, they do have a web site. Bill answered several of my emails with questions and was always very helpful. It will take at least 2 months for him to deliver. I would suggest you get either the 1 1/4" double-thick belt for dress purposes or the 1 1/2" for more casual such as jeans. There are several other top belt/holster makers but Wild Bills made a good system for me. If you go to his site,check out the Undercover in IWB...

October 27, 2003, 12:29 AM
I own both, except my 239 is a 9mm. I would have to go with the 239 for regular carry, as it's just a great little gun, with a slight edge in round count and faster reload than a 5 shot snubby (for me). Of course, these are really very subjective decisions, as some things that work for me, don't work for you, y'know? But, whichever you feel most comfortable with, can access fastest and get on target with, THAT'S the one to go with. Go to the range, shoot them both and see which feels best. There is no right or wrong here!

October 27, 2003, 12:42 AM
I dearly love revolvers, but I find that autoloaders conceal more easily. Thickness is the single most important factor and revolvers are almost always thicker.

--Bob Q

October 27, 2003, 12:23 PM
My sig 239 has been as reliable as my best revolvers and more reliable than some of the worse ones. Autos in this day and age are just as reliable as their wheelgun brothers. In 357 sig the 239 I have is faster with any given bulletweight than any snub 357 mag. It also recoils considerably less. It holds more ammo and is far easier to shoot well. This one is a no brainer get the sig.

October 28, 2003, 01:55 AM
I have been contemplating getting either the P239TT in .357 SIG or a Ruger SP101 snub nose. Hard choice...might have to get both.

October 28, 2003, 06:17 PM
Have a Sig 239 and M640.
Would much rather touch off rounds from the Sig.

But, the Sig will only get one clean shot from a jacket pocket. YMMV:D

October 28, 2003, 06:41 PM
Thanks for all the input. I've still got some thinking to do but I'm leaning towards the Sig. Mainly because I should probably stick with something I'm familiar with, and that would be auto's. It's been 12 years since my limited revolver experience.

October 28, 2003, 06:54 PM
I just got a Ruger SP101 3" .357 and put some Badger grips on it. It has definately taken over the CCW role from my Glock 26 for winter carry. I am about 190 pounds and 6 feet, and it carries very nicely IWB with an old Galco Royal Guard holster that I had in the box.

November 1, 2003, 09:23 PM
Some wise ole shooters used to tell me - "Revolver for defense - Auto for offense"... I love auto's, especially the 1911, but generally use a revolver for CCW.

November 1, 2003, 10:11 PM
Some wise ole shooters used to tell me - "Revolver for defense - Auto for offense"... I love auto's, especially the 1911, but generally use a revolver for CCW.


There is nothing wrong with chosing a revolver for CCW. However neither should be considered for offense. Handguns are defensive weapons. We use them because its not practical to carry rifles and shotguns around concealed. Use the handgun to fight your way to your longgun.

If you enjoyed reading about "SIG 239 vs snub nose .357 for CCW ?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!