Two questions: .40 SIG P229 vs .45 SIG P220 Compact & Hoslters for S&W 586 L-Comp

[kashton]

I have two questions:

1) I am have narrowed me choices down to a .40 P229 or the .45 SIG P220 Compact for concealed carry IWB. The .40 holds 12+1 and the .45 holds 6+1. This is for self-defense concealed carry so I would love some opinions on the better SD weapon.

2) My other choice is the Performance Center S&W 586 L-Comp, .357 Magnum. However, I am having trouble finding a holster for it, so that it will make it just as easy to conceal and hopefully just as comfortable as the P220 IWB holster (By Galco).

3) Are there better holsters than the Galco for IWB P220 / P229?

4) Thoughts on the better SD CCW, S&W, SIG P220, or SIG P229?

Sorry, 4 questions instead of 2

Thank you for all of your input!

Kevin

------------------------------

S&W 586 L-Comp : http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ted=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15714

SIG: http://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogCategory.aspx?categoryid=1

 

[Golddog]

The most comfortable IWB for a snub L frame is the Tucker Texas Heritage, at least for me. The thin leather and widely spaced clips carry the gun well.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Kashton - Have you handled these two firearms yet? I own the 299 and have shot the compact 45. You cannot go wrong with either Sig. They are great guns. If I had to chose one I would chose the 45 as I'm not all that sold on the 40S&W. The only thing though, is that I would not carry either of them. To me they are thick and heavy. There are several other handguns better suited for CCW.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[kashton]

Yes, I shot a .40 SIG P229 and a .45 (Can't remember model) SIG yesterday afternoon. I felt that they were very easy to shoot and extremely accurate. I also shot two revolvers, one older K-frame and one small J-frame with a wooden handle that hurt when it kicked. I shot them both with .38 +P rounds because the range would not allow .357 mags, apparently they 'go punch the back wall' lol, which I'm guessing is a good sign for SD? Not to mention, I don't think someone would fight back if you whipped out a .357 S&W magnum L-frame and shot one of those powerful rounds at them.

 

[rj112275]

i think you'll find the 229 a light shooter, even in .40s&w. i would probably vote for the 220compact, except i don't like the beavertail. i have a 220 carry that is very similar to the 229 and it carries fine. a good belt and nice holster goes without saying. check out brigade gunleather. a buddy of mine convinced me to buy one, M-11, similar to MS VM2 but not as long a waiting period.

 

[crebralfix]

kashton,

Where do you intend to carry the handgun? Appendix IWB (inside the waistband -- "AIWB") gets you a faster draw and protection of the gun (hands are in front) at the expense of some concealment (depending upon the weapon).

Strong side carry ("SSC") is traditional and more folks have trained like that. It tends to be more comfortable for a wider range of handguns. It is more difficult to protect the gun and is easier to detect from a light touch (most folks carry there). It is generally a slower draw due to the longer movement that is required.

Long barrels do not lend themselves well to AIWB carry for some people. For example, I have discomfort with a Glock 19, but no problems with a Glock 26 with a Glock 19 magazine loaded into the gun. You'll need to test several first by sitting and moving around. You'll soon discover which guns have a low nut squishing index (NSI). Also look for a MINIMUM of material around and below the front and muzzle area because you will feel this on your thigh.

For SSC, IWB holsters are more concealable. You certainly minimize the risk of "flashing" because most of the gun is hidden by your pants.

Are there better holsters than the Galco for IWB P220 / P229?

Just about anything is better than Galco. I have found their products to be adequate up to a point, but are expensive for what you receive. My problems have been with noise, wide cuts for belt loops, bad molding that prevent the gun from consistently coming free, and cheap leather. I find them to be adequate for range use.

Concealability for AIWB will be enhanced by a more vertical holster. You may even want it canted back a bit to avoid your thigh. You'll have to experiment.

SSC holsters should be canted forward to minimize printing (where the shape of the gun can be discerned in your clothing) and to prevent the gun's grip from sticking straight out when you sit (may not look like a gun, but "There's SOMETHING there").

For the P220, I enjoy my Milt Sparks VM2 and my (modified from a Glock 21 holster) Blade Tech IWB kydex holster (I drilled extra holes in it to enhance the forward cant). I use the VM2 for SSC and the Blade-Tech for either SSC or AIWB. You will have similar requirements for the P229 since they are nearly the same height.

The S&W 586 has different concealment "problems". They are tall AND long. Here's a S&W N-Frame carried AIWB:



The problem here is that the overall height of the N-Frame with four inch barrel is approximately the same height as a Glock 17. There is LOTS of grip that will print unless it is kept low on the belt. The barrel is across my groin and pokes the opposite thigh (may not be a problem depending upon your build). A 586 will be slightly shorter, but not by much.

With SSC holsters, you'll have printing/bulging of the grip. The cylinder isn't a problem because it's round and looks like something else (and gets lost in the folds of the shirt). If you get lots of forward cant in the holster, the bulging will be negated.

Overall, for large handguns, SSC is more comfortable over a long day than AIWB carry. It's possible to carry a large gun AIWB, but distracting *for me*. Your build may allow it. I have found that any metal-reinforced holster with lots of forward cant will perform adequately for SSC. Split belt loops assist in distributing the weight of heavy handguns (>28-30 oz loaded) and they reduce the overall thickness of the holster (Concealability is reduced by: gun thickness + belt thickness + fabric thickness + holster thickness).

 

[crebralfix]

In the above photo, the N-Frame grip is hidden when the t-shirt hangs over it loosely.

 

[Deaf Smith]

SAS 229. But then I'm a Glock man who happens to own Sigs, Smiths, Colts, Rugers.... Still I every time I see a SAS 229 I have to resist the urge to buy one.

All three are fine guns. It's far more a matter of how well you shoot than what you pack. Any of them will do quite well.

 

[Checkman]

I reccomend the Sig P245 (45 acp). Sig discontinued it in 2005 and there are those who state that it was poorly balanced. I don't agree. I bought mine in 2000 and I have no intention of getting rid of it. You might even be able to find one for a fairly decent price (as Sigs go) since it wasn't such a big seller.

I carried mine as my duty weapon for many years until my department went to issuing Glocks. For patrol I used an eight round extension magazine, but for off-duty I used the six round mag. Very concealable, but I could use the same holsters that fit my 220.

 

[Lonestar49]

I voted P229 Carry 40cal for round count, but..

...

I would do a final acid test of the following:

Using 2 Half man silhouette targets, one for each caliber, at min 15ft to 21ft.. aiming at COM areas 9 and 10.

Take both guns, 40cal, 13 rounds, and 45cal 7 rounds, take focused aim, then shoot, pause, then pump out the rest as fast as you're allowed.

Then I'd compare accuracy, and where the bad shots are, and think, where would they have gone, if you missed, using rapid fire, to empty?

I'd go with the gun that put the most in COM the best out of that test.


LS

 

[kashton]

Lonestar49 -- That is a fantastic idea, but unfortunately I will not get a chance to shoot the guns until I buy them... so the closest I could get was shooting a K-frame revolver with .38 +P rounds, and two guns from the indoor range, a P229 .40 S&W and a .45 cal SIG

 

[Lonestar49]

Fair enough

Ah, the P220 "Compact" vs the P229 Carry 40cal.. no brain-er then, go P220 Carry, 8 round mag, 1 chambered, 9 shots first round.

Many of us CCW with ease, the full size P220 Standard, as it is much narrower/slimmer than either models you're considering and holds same 8 round mags plus 1 chambered for 9 shots, first round, as the 220 Carry model.


LS

 

[Wayne G.]

I vote P220 carry SAS, 8+1 and slimmer than the 229. It's DAK. I'm really fond of mine so far. Just waiting on my VM-2.

 

[slow944]

I voted for the 40 because you get 12+1. I don't have a SIG but I do have a Taurus PT140 and I really like this round for SD.

 

[glockman19]

I picked the Sig 229 in .40 because I think you'd be better off with a 1911 in .45.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Personally, I don't like the "snappy" impulse of the .40 s&w's recoil, so if I'm going to carry a hicap < .45, I carry a 9. Nothing wrong with 9mm, as long as you've got good, reliably expanding hollowpoints.

Alessi makes great holsters for just about everything.

BTW, the 245 accepted 8 round 220 mags, which I carry as spares, so I suspect the compact 220 (aka 245 under a different name) will do the same

 

[pablo45]

I voted for the Sig p220 carry. I have alway's liked Sig's, but the p229 is a little top heavy. I like the p228 a little better. The p220 is an awesome shooter. The one that 45-nut has is an excellent choice because of the dak trigger. That way you will not have to get use to the da/sa trigger of a Sig. When doing drill's I have noticed the Sig is he only gun with a da trigger that actually gves my forearms a workout. When I carry a Sig I just use a Fobus. Sorry I could not be more help on the IWB. I do not prefer that option.