Sig 239: buy it in 9mm or .40S&W?

[texas bulldog]

i've been considering a sig P239. yes, this would be for CCW. in fact, i don't plan on buying any pistols in the near future that could not, if necessary, be used for CCW. but that's a different topic...

i keep going back and forth on 9mm or .40 for this gun. here are my thoughts in favor of each:

9mm:

• cheaper
• carry one more in the mag
• recoil more manageable (though neither me nor my wife are particularly recoil sensitive)

.40S&W:

• more muzzle energy and better stopping power
• only give up one round...big deal
• ought to carry the most powerful caliber i can effectively conceal

and just to fend off the OT comments...
i know the gun is also available in .357 sig, but i'm thoroughly uninterested in adding that round to the arsenal at this time. and before you suggest the 229 or 226, let me just say that i have fired all three. and though the increased capacity would be nice, the single stack just fits my hand better. i can shoot the other two, but i shoot the 239 best. and that trumps capacity in my mind.

also...
i know this could have been a poll, but i'm more interested in the quality of your argument than the popularity of one round over the other.

thanks in advance!

 

[colt1903]

I know this isn't what you are asking about but, if it were me I would pass on the 239 and buy one of the many surplus P6 pistols that have flooded the market. It is the military/police versions of the P225, they are superbly accurate, have the classic SIG profile (including the marvelous backstrap curve) and, as they are also single stack 9mms, fit my hand better than my 239. Best news is that they are availble most anywhere for between $249 and $299. Most places in my neck of the woods have between 3 to 6 to choose from and don't mind you looking them over to choose the one you feel is in the best shape. For the cost savings you can load up on alot of 9mm ammo or have the pistol refinished should you desire.

As for 9mm versus .40 S&W it should come down to which you shoot more accurately. The 9mm cartridge is still somewhat of a bargain to buy and a good +P will give you similar ballistics to a .40. I wouldn't give the surplus firearm a steady diet of the +P stuff but with good defensive ammo going for about a buck or so a round nobody is really going to do that anyway.

 

[texas bulldog]

at that price, i will definitely look at the P6, though i kinda prefer the 239 profile, to be honest. thanks for the tip, colt1903.

still interested in answers to the original question, though...

 

[pistolero6869]

Sig 239

Texas BullDog If you like the Sig p-239 Get it in 40 S&W and then buy a 357 Sig Barrel thats a drop in and you can shoot the Powerful 357 SIG cartridge. or if you find one in 357 sig just buy the 40S&W drop in barrel. they a nice little guns one I dont have in my collection of Sigs yet!

 

[gbelleh]

I recently bought a 239 in .40. I had always wanted a 239 and had also considered the pros/cons of 9mm and .40. I went with the .40 only because a good deal turned up on a nice CPO with night sights. I would've been happy with either.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I have a 239 in 9mm and it's been a great gun in virtually every respect. I don't think you can go wrong either way... 9 or 40. I am not of the school of thought that believes the 9mm is some sort of sub-standard, or inadequate caliber. If loaded up with top end expanding ammo, it does the job just fine. The 40 does give you the option of using a 357sig conversion. I would say that you should get the caliber you are most comfortable with, but the 239 is a great platform either way. I went with 9mm because I have other 9mm's at home and I could use my same ammo stockpile. Toss some SigLight night sights and some Hogue rubber grips on there and you will be in CCW heaven.

 

[loplop]

The P239 is a great CCW! I had one in 9mm for a few years. Single-stacks fit me better, too, and I always felt more comfortable with my P239 than my P228. With the stock grips it was a tad too thin, actually, and torqued around in my hand in recoil. Hogues or Nill's will cure that.

I personally don't like the 40 much; 9mm is plenty effective with good ammo, recoil is easily manageable, and you'll be able to practice more as it's cheaper to shoot. 357SIG is a very interesting cartridge, and something to check into if you get into reloading, but factory ammo cost is out of sight (around here at least). Personally, if I go bigger than 9mm or 38spl+P/357, I go for the 45. I love the 45!

I think you'll like the P239, no matter which one you choose. They're great guns. I used mine as a "newbie shooter" as it was so easy for anyone to grasp and fire. I could confidently hand it to anyone and know they'd like it. The lines of the gun are neat (kinda Euro), and SIGs are durable and easy to clean. They can be tackdrivers, too, although my P239 was not. The shagged out range P239 in 9mm is, though, go figure...

 

[TexasRifleman]

I carried one for years in .40. Great great gun, still one of my favorites ever.

I changed to .357 Sig a couple of years ago and still love to shoot it and I carry it more often than anything else.

It's in my "favorite stuff" pile

 

[AK103K]

With the stock grips it was a tad too thin, actually, and torqued around in my hand in recoil. Hogues or Nill's will cure that.

I had the same problem with mine. I went the Houge checkered Coco bolo route and its much better. I really prefer the standard SIG grips to most others, and it would be nice if SIG would offer as set with a little more "swell".

My P239 is in 357SIG. Even in the hotter rounds, they are very easy to shoot well with, and I actually shoot mine a tad better than my P226's or P229's in the same caliber.

I also have P6's. If I had to choose, I'd take the P239, just because it offers more options and hotter calibers. Its also "still on the books" so to speak, and parts and mags wont likely be an issue. The P6's also need some help as they come, especially the DA trigger and the stock sights. Not bad guns for the price though, if your willing to upgrade them.

SIG has a funny idea as to what "compact" means. If you compare the P6, P239, and P229 together, they really are not all that different size wise, even in the grips. The P239's grip with the stock grips is thinner, but not by much. It is a tad shorter. For any of them, its really a personal "feel' thing. I like my P239, but I carry a P229, just because it carries more ammo. I doubt you'll notice any difference if carrying any of them. If I had to reach into a bag and take what came out, I'd be comfortable with any of them, but I would prefer one in .40/357SIG.

 

[ezypikns]

I just picked up a 239 in 9mm today.

Like you, I was going back and forth between the .40 and the 9. I've had
.40's before and I really like the round, but what did it for me is the amount of shooting I do. It's slightly cheaper to shoot a 9mm. I reload my own and it maybe shouldn't make any difference, but I find that even the components (brass, bullets)for the 9 are cheaper too.
Brought the pistol home, cleaned it, and took it to the range. I was definitely pleased. Accuracy exceeded my expectations. Some people complain that the .40 has an excessively sharp recoil, but I've never had a problem with it. I will say though that the P239 in 9mm is a very soft recoiling weapon.
In the end it may be simply a matter of personal preference. I do believe though, that you won't be disappointed by either caliber in the P239.
Good Luck.

 

[fastbolt]

Either would seem to be a good choice. Good guns. Just depends on your reasoning for choosing one caliber over the other.

I came close to picking up a P-239 when I went through the armorer class. For my preference I'd decided the 9mm model was what interested me the most.

Now, in my case I'd already had some experience with P-239's in both of those calibers, and I own an equal number of 9mm & .40 S&W pistols in other makes/models, so I was pretty familiar with what was involved with meeting my own preferences and anticipated needs when it came to picking a specific caliber. The 9mm model was an easy choice for me.

Unfortunately, what Sig Sauer considered a decent individual LE discount was quite a bit higher than what could be found through other channels.

That being the case I passed on ordering one through Sig Sauer.

I might still pick one up someday ... for the right price. No hurry, though. As it is, my other compact/subcompact pistols chambered in 9mm suit my needs fine. Picking up the P-239 would be more of an indulgence than anything else.

However, if I ever do pick one up someday it'll be in traditional double action instead of the DAK. Not saying the DAK isn't 'as good', just that I prefer the TDA design. Different strokes (no pun intended ).

You ought to be the best judge of your desires and needs.

 

[ugaarguy]

The 9x19 auto cartridge has been working quite well as a defensive handgun round since 1902. Keep in mind that the major advances in JHP design didn't start until the late 80s. 9mm with current JHP loadings is a fine defensive loading.

40 S&W does give you a heavier and slightly larger diameter bullet that's only moving a little slower. It's developed a great reputation as a defensive cartridge; but it's benefited because it was introduced after the advent of the modern JHP.

I like the lower recoil and cheaper practice ammo that 9mm affords. Much as I enjoy my 1911s in .45 ACP I still keep at least one 9mm in the collection at all times for those very reasons.

Either will work just fine. Don't get hung up on the caliber; just pick the one you like and practice with it.

 

[Cowboy2]

I've had a 239 in .40 for about 10 years and love it.

It seems to me, the main reason for picking a smaller SD caliber is to get the smaller platform and/or considerably more mag capacity. In this case, picking a 9mm isn't going to get you a smaller/lighter gun, and only one extra round. So I would (and did) go with the .40 and 180gr JHPs.

[Just to head off the comments--I'm aware some people go smaller because of recoil. The original poster says recoil sensitivity isn't a big problem. If .40 is too stout for somebody, they obviously should go with the 9mm.]

 

[Loomis]

9mm

Cheaper ammo, more plentiful. Buy +P if you're worried about the stopping power.

BTW, 357sig is more than just slightly more powerful than a 9mm. 357sig is more powerful than the 40S&W.

 

[bestseller92]

.40 caliber.

 

[DougDubya]

The P239 is great in any caliber.

The 357 SIG makes me grin - got to love a PPK-sized pistol that can punch through a car door easily.
The 9mm is great, because you get nine shots in an itty bitty package, and the current roster of 9mm defense loads will do the job great.
The .40 really doesn't do much against humans better than the 9mm, but if I ran the risk of encountering large dogs like Mastiffs or German Shepherds, 155-grains at 1150 fps seems like more comfort than 115 grains at 1250 fps. ('Course, that brings me back to .357 SIG for going through a Mastiff's skull.)

My choice would be 9mm. The ammo options are just better, and anything the .40 does, the .357 SIG can do equally well (I seem to recall a 147-grain .357 SIG load at about 1100 fps.)

 

[evan price]

IMHO .40 in a short barrel isn't going to get you much more than 9mm in the same size barrel. When you consider modern self defense ammo is designed and engineered to perform under certain conditions (velocity, etc) the two are nearly identical, as proven in ballistics testing.

I have a 9mm P239, had it twelve years, and it is my daily CCW. Loaded with Speer Gold Dot 147-gr ammo, I feel comfortably protected.

Well, I also just don't like the .40 cartridge, but that's me. If I were going to carry a .40 I would just carry a .45 personally.

I also have P6 Sigs and while they are about the same size the P239 is more CCW friendly and mags/holsters are available.