Almost traded my M&P for a Sig p229......mistake?

[smolck]

Interesting lot of responses. Funny thing is I have more people in this single thread saying I should get the Sig than I could find in any thread during an EXHAUSTIVE search last nigh (both this forum and others). Lots of people said it was a great gun but too heavy and bulky for carry. Since the weather here is HOT about 8 months a year, I need something lite and easy to carry, the M&P is just that and is very accurate.

One of the big factors was, I was trading my gun and 4 holsters (worth about $200) for just the Sig. And the Sig had an owner polished slide, not factory finished. So anyways, what is done is done. I appreciate the responses.

For now, the M&P is my sole carry gun. And I feel confident with that choice.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[fastk9dad]

You would have traded for a gun that is 33 oz unloaded and close to 40oz loaded (M&P 9C is 21 0z) and 1.5" in width (M&P is 1.2").
No doubt the SIG is a fine pistol....I just have no use for them as a concealed carry weapon as I don't wear my pants two sizes too big to accomodate a 2x4 in my waistband,

Just so we are clear, the 1.5" width of the SIG is all at the grip, the slide widths are pretty close (the frame just below the slide on the M&P is nearly identical to that of the widest part on a 229s slide). A 229E2 or 228 would have an even thinner slide.

[zonker1986]

Just so we are clear, the 1.5" width of the SIG is all at the grip, the slide widths are pretty close (the frame just below the slide on the M&P is nearly identical to that of the widest part on a 229s slide). A 229E2 or 228 would have an even thinner slide.

the width of the M&P slide is exactly 1" on the 9mm. No clue about the slide width on the SIG. Is the 33 oz unloaded weight on the SIG also all in the grip?

[fastk9dad]

the width of the M&P slide is exactly 1" on the 9mm. No clue about the slide width on the SIG. Is the 33 oz unloaded weight on the SIG also all in the grip?

Calipers on my 40 measure the slide at 1.0625", slide on 229 is 1.125" which equals the M&P frame width. 228 is exactly 1" as well as the 220 Carry. We aren't talking about a whole lot of difference in width. An technically since we are comparing a polymer frame to an aluminum frame, yes all the extra weight is in the grip. :p

[SIGguy229]

One of the big factors was, I was trading my gun and 4 holsters (worth about $200) for just the Sig. And the Sig had an owner polished slide, not factory finished.

With that piece of information, I would have passed on it also. I'm not a fan of owner "enhancements", not unless new sights or grips (with the proper tools), but owner finishes (unless they do it for a living, like Gray Guns) I'm not a fan of. Not to mention, what other mods did he make that he didn't tell you?

[zonker1986]

Calipers on my 40 measure the slide at 1.0625", slide on 229 is 1.125" which equals the M&P frame width. 228 is exactly 1" as well as the 220 Carry. We aren't talking about a whole lot of difference in width. An technically since we are comparing a polymer frame to an aluminum frame, yes all the extra weight is in the grip. :p

so why do all the 229 owners say the SIG is too fat to carry IWB? A thin slide is the part you shove down your pants, not the fat grip. Do the decockers and slide release stick out enough to cause an issue? Sorry, I'm SIG-less, so I have no idea.

[fastk9dad]

so why do all the 229 owners say the SIG is too fat to carry IWB? A thin slide is the part you shove down your pants, not the fat grip. Do the decockers and slide release stick out enough to cause an issue? Sorry, I'm SIG-less, so I have no idea.

I'm not sure, a 228 was my first IWB carry gun and I still carry it. The widest part is at the control levers and the grip swells there making it so they don't stick out on their own. It does add some girth to it so mostly on the inboard side if you are right handed so I guess there is potential of it being tight for some. I'm relatively thin and don't have the holster digging into me. The actual grip compared to an M&P is ~1/8" larger across as well, thinner grips will close that gap a little but the swell near the controls will still be there. In some tighter shirts it will print a little easier than my 220 or M&P, plus it all depends where you position your gun. I will say I think the 40c is definitely the easiest to conceal of all of them due to grip length and width.

[ashamans]

The m&p is my first handgun i have owned, it is also will be my last, i have no need for any othrs as they will be safe queens

[21bubba]

so why do all the 229 owners say the SIG is too fat to carry IWB? A thin slide is the part you shove down your pants, not the fat grip. Do the decockers and slide release stick out enough to cause an issue? Sorry, I'm SIG-less, so I have no idea.

Not all P229 owners say the SIG is too fat to carry IWB.

I carry one IWB SOB everyday except when I carry a P239 the same way.

Think about how silly this rant about thickness really is. A tenth of a inch is the distance of two characters on a standard typewritten page. Like this ii Huge isn't it?

[gglass]

I traded off a Sig P226 some years ago, for the reason that many have stated in this thread. The grips just feels plain FAT, and I was always repositioning my hands during long strings of fire. I also traded off a couple Glocks in 2007, when I first held an M&P. Neither the SIG nor the Glocks felt like they belonged in my hand, and I always felt like I had to change something about my shooting style to make them work well. That all changed with my first M&P. I finally found a polymer handgun that fit me like a glove, and it felt so natural that I shot well right out of the box. I now own five M&P's, and I suspect that I will have quite a few M&P's in my will to pass onto my heirs.

I have held the new Sig P226E2 and it felt so good that I am considering adding it to the stable once again. If you have a chance to try the new E2 grips, you will no longer think of SIGs as being FAT.

[dukalmighty]

I have a 229/40 and an M&P45c,I shoot both just as good,The Sig is heavier,but it really tames the 40

[SIGguy229]

I have a 229/40 and an M&P45c,I shoot both just as good,The Sig is heavier,but it really tames the 40

That is exactly why I like the 229...

[ksholder]

Let's see. You have 1 EDC. It has holsters that you like and are comfortable with. You really like the gun.

Now if you trade it off you have a gun you have not proven with no holsters. You will need to spend time and $$$ putting a few hundred rounds down range and proving a carry round. You will have to find holsters that work for you with the new gun. Only then will you have a new EDC.

While I might like a Sig (I don't own one and have no aspirations to own one), I would not trade my only equipped and proven EDC, period. I would save up for a new or used unit, but avoid a user finished model.

[357and40]

I have both a Sig P229 in 40/357sig and an M&P40/357c.

I love both of them. I shoot both well. If I had to pick one for which is better made, is a sweeter shooter, has more value monetarily... The Sig. If I had to conceal one, NO QUESTION the M&P.

The M&P is lighter, thinner & has the ability to have 15 OR 10 rounds depending on mag. The Sig is limited to 12 or 14.

I love the sig but the M&P is one of my daily carry weapons.

[sigmanluke]

I carry a 229 IWB sometimes, as a BUG. They are not too fat for IWB. I agreed with Hotguns, until you posted about the owner mod. I wouldn't have made that trade, but ONLY because of the owner mod.