Walther PPS or Sig Sauer P238 in .40??

[BP Hunter]

I am looking to upgrade my carry from the Kel Tec PF9 to another thin CCW but in a higher caliber. Both the Sig and Walther, as far as I know, are outsanding guns. The hold the same amount of rounds. They are practically of the same dimensions in size. The Walther is made of polymer and the Sig in steel. Being that, would the the Sig have a lighter recoil than the PPS. What would you choose among the 2??

 

[BP Hunter]

Sorry, I meant to say the Sig P239 and not the 238.

 

[smoketheresfire]

PPS is smaller, you will carry it more. A small bit bigger on paper is a ton in real life. Just sold my PPS, sorry I did. My G26 is just not as "go anywhere" capable as the PPS was. Even in .40 the PPS has very little muzzle flip for a gun so small, so don't let recoil worry enter in to it. And it is impossibly accurate for having such a short sight radius. My main gripe was that the trigger on the PPS has a vague, inconsistent reset that used to drive me nuts. It was also pretty gritty out of the box, but a few hundred rounds cleared that right up. Accessories are hard to find as well, but that is getting better.

P239 is awesome as well and just as accurate, but it is not in the same league in terms of concealability. It does have a much better trigger though, if you don' mind the DA/SA thing (which I do). For carry though, I say PPS all the way.

 

[exiledrebel]

I currently have a PPS and previously owned a 239. The PPS is much lighter and thinner, so it is much easier to carry, IMO. In that regard, there's simply no comparison.

I found I can shoot the PPS more accurately with more rapid follow-up shots. In my experience, the 239 had more muzzle flip but perhaps a bit less "push back" recoil, if that makes sense. I also feel the 239 is not quite so well-balanced as the PPS, which combined with the muzzle flip, made it harder to get back on target. It was definitely slower getting back on target than the PPS. In my hands, I also felt the standard 239 grip was a bit too long and thin, although you might feel otherwise.

The PPS did take about 150 rounds to break in before it functioned perfectly. I had a few (one every 20 rounds, maybe) FTEs early on, but none in the last 100 rounds. Better quality ammo seemed to help, too. The Sig was perfect from day one, out of the box.

I wouldn't mind having another 239 but my favorite, go-to gun is my .40 PPS, hands down. I would trust either pistol completely, but prefer the PPS. As always YMMV.

 

[BP Hunter]

Wow! Those comments really helped. The PPS is also much cheaper by about $50. I might even trade in my Taurus PT 145 together with the PF9 for the PPS if I were to use it as my primary carry. Hmmmm....

 

[desert gator]

PPS hands down. It is one of many ccw guns in myn rotation. It is also my favorite to carry. With the PPS you just get up and get dressed and put it on, Im not a fan of having to dress around a gun. Not to mention its like 8 or 9 oz lighter than the 239.

 

[searcher451]

Both of them are find handguns; you can't go wrong. But there's no question that the PPS is an easier pistol to carry concealed. I've got two of them, one in 9mm and another in .40 S&W and find them to be accurate, reliable, dependable. Walther makes a terrific firearm -- no question about that, either.

 

[distra]

I just picked up a used PPS in .40S&W and its a great little pistol! Have a look at my range report http://www.thehighroad.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6349803 I would recommend them to anyone looking for a nice THIN easily concealable pistol.