I'm buying a new CCW today & need help: SIG P220 Carry / GLOCK 36 / S&W M&P 340

Your personal preference and why

  • SIG 220 Carry

    Votes: 40 49.4%

  • GLOCK 36

    Votes: 15 18.5%

  • S&W M&P 340

    Votes: 26 32.1%
  • Total voters
    81
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kashton

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
323
Location
Houston, TX
Here's my situation:

I am purchasing a new CCW today and will be carrying it either in either my pocket or IWB if it's the S&W M&P 340 (depending on what I'm wearing), or just IWB if it's the SIG 220 Carry or the GLOCK 36. The S&W will be easier to conceal for me because it is the only one that will fit in my jeans pocket without sticking out.

I own a GLOCK 19 and love it, so I am leaning toward the GLOCK 36. I have shot a SIG once before and thought it felt very smooth but I've never owned one. I went to the shooting range and shot two S&W revolvers, one K-frame and one J-frame, the J-frame kicked more than I expected but the grip was tiny and not like the nice grip of the M&P 340.

I am also considering keeping the S&W in an ankle holster while carrying the GLOCK / SIG IWB.

I will be shooting .45 HP for SD in the GLOCK / SIG and .38 +P rounds in the S&W.

I would love some opinions on their:

1. Concealability
2. Reliability
3. How well they feel/shoot
4. Which one you would personally trust your life to.

I understand that it is all personal preference but I would still like some opinions =)

5. The best style of the SIG 220 Carry out of these choices:
http://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=37&productid=139

Thank you very much for all of your help!

Kevin
 
I have a J-Frame, Glock 36 and a Glock 23. Guess which one gets carried the most?

I voted for the M&P 340!
 
Personally, I carry the Sig P220 Carry in SAO. It's a great gun to shoot and is good for CCW when you have a jacket or can where your shirt untucked. It's great for all that and an easy .45 at the range: accurate and low recoil.

With that being said, it's in a different class from the 340. The 340 would be more a backup gun for me, or a pocket gun when I could not easily conceal the 220. I trust my life to my 220.

IMG_6604.gif

IMG_6606.gif
 
If you are going to carry 38+p in the 340, why not buy a 642 and save yourself several hundred dollars?

(Spoken as a former 340 owner :))
 
If you are going to carry 38+p in the 340, why not buy a 642 and save yourself several hundred dollars?

(Spoken as a former 340 owner )

+1
 
Of the choices you provided, I would go w/ the j-frame first -- great size, great utility & tough to beat. Second on that list thos would be that 220 carry. I was introduced to them not to long ago & they seem very nice (at least at the fondling stage ;) ).
 
Thanks for the info guys!

rj112275 thanks for the pics that really puts CCWs in perspective for me, what holster are you using in that pic?
 
CDignition -- whats TB?

I'm having trouble deciding between the DAK/SAO or just plain P220 Carry.

What are your thoughts on the different hammer styles?
 
I have a Sig P245, which is the predecessor to the 220 carry, and a 642 w/ a crimson trace laser, which I chose in preference to the 340.


The 642 gets carried about 60% of the time in winter, and 90% of the time in summer, thanks to its superlight weight and deeper concealability.

Sigs are uber reliable, friendly and accurate, though they're a bit heavy compared to other guns in their class.

Sidebar on the history of the sig .45 ccw models:

The basic, service sized .45 is the 220, which has its own history.

Sig took notice of the fact that a common after market job was to chop the grip down to commander size, and so they rolled out the 245, which is basically a 220, almost an inch shorter in handle and in length.

The 245 didn't sell that well, because a lot of folks complained it didn't fit their hands. (odd, really, it's about the same size as their compact 9, which sold like hotcakes, but hey, whatever), and eventually they took it off the market, replacing it with the 220 carry.

The 220 carry is essentially a 245 slide on top of a full sized 220 frame, which addresses the hand fit issue, but does very little to actually improve its carry characteristics over the 220. :scrutiny:

When it comes to concealability, it's the frame that sticks out, the barrel isn't too much of an issue.

If my 245 ever goes down for the count, I'll probably replace it with a commander sized 1911, which weigh about the same, but is thinner in profile.

A final note: you MUST pay your dues on the snubs in practice and trigger control. They have a heavy trigger, and aren't as easy to wield effectively as the others until those dues are paid in full.
 
After 20 years of carrying autoloaders, I'm a recent and enthusiastic fan of my Smith and Wesson 642CT. Carrying my autos feels like a brick anymore and the 642CT points and shoots so well. With Speer GDHP 135gr +P's on deck, it's a potent package. Though I like the 340 M&P, (would be my choice out of the ones you listed), I don't see the need personally for carrying ful-house .357 loads, when the 135 Speer's perform so well.

To each his own I suppose and I think you'd be making a wise choice with the 340...Good luck.
 
geekWithA.45 -- Thanks for that awesome review!

As far as the SIGs go, The handle did seem to me like it would stick out some when concealing it IWB, but how do you feel about the P220 Compact? The grip is much shorter than on the regular P220 Carry model, I just haven't shot the compact version so I don't know the difference in kick. I have held it and it feels pretty good in my hand. There is a picture of somone concealing a SIG at the top of this thread so I think it will probably be possible for me.

And you emphasized how much practice necessary to wield a snubby. What round would do you prefer for SD? I was considering buying an M&P 340 and using either .38 +P rounds or the .357 Mag rounds. I have had many people tell me to go for the 642 instead but it doesn't have the tritium night sights like the M&P does...

MassMark -- Thanks for the reply =) The 642 CT is a great gun, I just held one today at the local shop. Feels very nice in my hands. Do you carry extra rounds with you?
 
Kashton said:
The S&W will be easier to conceal for me because it is the only one that will fit in my jeans pocket without sticking out.
Click to expand...
Well, there's a reason it's called a CONCEALED carry. If you're going to be wearing jeans more often than not, buy the weapon you'll be able to conceal "more often than not," rather than the "I can conceal if I alter my form of dress by X degrees" piece.

YMMV.
 
Kashton - I carry five on deck and five in a speedloader. I was initially carrying 2 spare speedloaders, but have downsized - I keep that one in my messenger bag. As for the night sights, I can see how they may be useful, but in my personal view, find them more of an accessory, (like the Crimson Trace LaserGrips on my 642CT). The key to snubs for me has been developing point shooting. I thought, (and read) long and hard about all the possibilities I could encounter on the street and came to realize that likely encounters would be from zero to five feet and rarely involve more than a few rounds. Draw - point - squeeze. I do run drills on traditionally aimed fire and the sights on the 642 aren't bad at all - the Crimson Trace LaserGrips assist in aimed fire, but don't aim the gun for you. Remember - in my case anyway, I'm not trying to hit clays off a fence post at 25-feet. I'm trying to group center-mass on a human torso from point-blank to perhaps 15-feet.

No matter which revolver you choose, all I can say is train, train, train. I'm 1,000 rounds deep with my 642 and am now confident enough in my skills to defend my life with it, but I'm still in the learning curve. I can also say that I'm more comfortable carrying my 642, then I ever was any of my autos, (both physically and mentally). I would never endeavor to tell someone which is the best choice for them, but can relay that after 20 years carrying a myriad of autoloaders, I feel at home with my Smitty....

Good luck!
 
Kashton: you're welcome. ;)

how do you feel about the P220 Compact?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of it till you mentioned it. Looking at it on the sigarms site, my reaction was HAH! They resurected the 245! (seems to be a 245 w/ a beavertail safety, pinky extender for the mag...the unknown is whether it will accommodate the various new sig triggers, or if it's strictly a traditional da/sa)

As for tritium sights on snubs...snub sights are pretty vestigial, and IMO, tritium won't improve them a whole lot. I would look at the crimson trace lasers for your low light provision. I talk about that in detail here: http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html#114455019542759871

I generally carry two reloads with me in safariland speedloaders. Safariland style loaders are importantly different from other types, they have a button release that faces the cylinder, such that all you need do is cram it in, and it'll release, no extra twise maneuver etc needed. Just cram, release, and close the crane, letting the speedloader drop.

Now, as for ammo. The snubby and the 45 both have the same issue: shorter than standard barrels leads to less than advertised velocities.

The 245/compact both have the 3.9 inch barrel, which is an inch shorter than the standard 5, so count on losing 50ish fps in muzzle V. .45acp is a relatively low velocity round, so consider backing your weight off from the classic 230 grains. IMO,230 is OK, 200 grains is optimal, 185 is good too, 165 is too light. The 185 grain Barnes DPX bullet also addresses a lot of the .45acp's classical shortcomings, so it's the defense load I use for the .45. Incidentally, recoils pretty manageable: the sig soaks it up as well as any service sized .45 I've shot and .45acp is pretty stately in its impulse anyway, more of a big shove than a slap.

In the snubbie, the issue is even more severe. .38 spc +p barely hangs in the lower ballistic territory of weak 9mm, and with a 2" bbl, it's even worse. The schools of thoughts on this are "go heavy, and hope it hurts (156 grain)", or "go light, and hope it drills". The best compromise seems to be the Speer 130 grain snubbie load, which is tuned to the snubby platform. It has optimized the hollow point such that it will expand reliably at the velocities it'll get from the short bbl, while also balancing the weight/velocity tradeoff.


Finally, as for .357 in a lightweight snub...make sure you've actually shot a couple of cylinders before you choose this path. Recoil junkies enjoy it, but mere mortals hate it. The impulse is most definately a slap, rather than a shove.
 
geekWithA.45 -- Thanks for the great post =) I am considering the 642 with CT. It is a fantastic CCW. The downside is the .38 +P round as my personal preference. I would rather a .40/.45+P/.357 and that is what deters me from the small stubby. Basically, it's down to the .45 P220 (245 style, which I held today and loved the tail on it), the .40 S&W P229, the 642 CT, and the .357 S&W L-Comp revolver.

I'm not saying that the .38 +P is weak (~260 J), it just doesn't really compare to the ~520 J of the .45 +P or the very high energy of the .357 Magnum.
 
Eventually, you'll find that you need one of each. ;)

I also am not excited about .38spc on paper, compared to the others, but you're not underarmed by any means. The track record is solid.
 
How do you feel about the S&W .357 magnum 586 L-Comp and concealment?

Revolvers have there + sides and they just have this aura about them that yells out badass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
  • Poll
Two questions: .40 SIG P229 vs .45 SIG P220 Compact & Hoslters for S&W 586 L-Comp
Replies
16
Views
3K
pablo45
P
A
  • Locked
LCR .357 or M&P 40C
Replies
7
Views
627
Nushif
N
N
  • Locked
  • Poll
What size handgun do you carry?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
neoncowboy
N
K
  • Locked
The Perfect CCW
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
scurtis_34471
S
T
  • Locked
S&w m&p 45
Replies
2
Views
405
TFIT
T
Back
Top