Defensive Carry banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello all,

I'm looking for some first hand experience and advice here. I'm planning to get a Sig P239 (classic) for my next carry gun. I currently own a .40 USPc, my wife owns a Kahr K40, and I like the caliber. It would be a no-brainer to me to get the 239 in .40, but a few posts on here have given me pause.

I've read a couple of posts from people either outright saying they like the P239 in 9 better than .40 or at least hinting that the 9 is a better choice.

So the real question is this. Does anyone have negative feedback on the .40 239 who thinks the 9mm version is much better? If so, please explain why. I am not interested at all in .357sig.

As always I really appreciate the advice/perspective. Thanks a bunch.

Take care,

nasm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,873 Posts
I think that you should stick with the .40, since you are already used to it and you probably already have a stash of them at home. Why change now?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,107 Posts
I have shot both of them quite a bit.

I went with the .40. The sizes are virtually identical so you may as well pack as much punch as you can.

The only negative that I can see at all is the .40 holds less than the 9 because it is a bigger round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
get the 40. You can add the factory .357 sig barrel for another caliber in the stable, as well as a 3rd party 9mm barrel (professional fitting needed) and have it all. (someday, I will follow my own advise and get the 3rd party 9mm barrel fitted to my P239/40 cal)

The only negative I can think of concerning the P239 (name your caliber) is that it is on the maximum side of carry size for my needs, which is normally IWB. In the winter when I can comfortably carry OWB under a sweatshirt or jacket, the P239 .40 cal goes with me quite often.


surv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
The P239 is a little topheavy,the .40/.357 even more so as the beefier slide adds a few ounces to the overall weight.The nine also gives you another round in the mag,looks better,and ammo is cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
I have shot both (I own a 9), the reason mainly I choose the 9 is because my GF can shoot a 9 better than the .40. I feel the difference is marginal, but that's me, not her.

Another thing with the 9 is it's not your fathers 9 any more, with the variety of loads now days makes the 9 a very potent round.

So, a little less punch, one extra round, and cheaper ammo is why I picked the 9 over the .40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Sig 239 .40 vs 9

I have a .40 cal in theclassic Sig 239 that I sold for the SAS DAK trigger. The only reason I would have chose the 9mm is because is is less recoil. But once I got used to the .40 cal, I would think of nothing less for power. :comeandgetsome:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
I bought the P239 in .40 from a forum member here.

Before I bought his I went to the range and shot the 9mm (which was what I originally thought of getting) and the .40S&W (which is what I ended up buying). I felt the difference was marginal from a shooting experience.

In terms of loaded weight... meh... not a lot of noticeable difference. Sure the .40 rounds are heavier, but you'll pack an extra round in the 9mm anyway so it seemed like a wash to me. IMO, 7 + 1 is enough for me.

In terms of the shot, again I felt it was a marginal difference. I'm a bigger guy and I've been shooting for a long time so I had no problems upping to .40 from 9mm. Considering the statistical data indicating the additional power you get out of a .40 compared to a 9mm weighed against what I perceive to be very little difference in terms of recoil, I think it's worth it. Obviously this could turn into another caliber war, so again this is just my opinion.

Comments about the ammo are what have me a little confused. The .40 is a bit more expensive (although I bought 50 rounds of Federal 180gr .40S&W at WalMart for a little under $15) but 9mm ammo is notoriously difficult to find right now... at least in my area. From some of the ammo threads I think this is a pretty accurate statement in general. If I'm wrong, somebody will please correct me.

Regarding concealment, I haven't had a problem. I took another suggestion from the folks over on the holster board and went with a Minotaur MTAC for my P239. I'm a South Florida boy, so I wear very light clothing for about 11 1/2 months of the year. I'm able to conceal it completely with a t-shirt and shorts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
I had a 239 that had both the 40 S&W barrel and 357 SIG priced it to a guy for more than I gave for it wish I had it back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
I have a 239 in 40 S&W and I just converted it to 9mm by way of Bar-sto barrel. It is more accurate it 9mm than it is 40 (or maybe I just shoot the 9 better). I now carry it as a 9mm.

Here are my thoughts:
1- modern 9mm ammunition is very effective
2-Second shot ability is greater with 9mm
3- 9mm carries an extra round
4- 9mm costs less.


All in all, I'm glad I originally purchased the 40, since it gives me the option of converting it to 9mm. Granted at $212 the Bar-sto barrel was not a bargain. Going the opposite way (from 9mm to 40) is not possible. Now I can convert back and forth with the switch of a barrel. 40 magazines work fine for 9mm also.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
I have a 239 in 40 S&W and I just converted it to 9mm by way of Bar-sto barrel. It is more accurate it 9mm than it is 40 (or maybe I just shoot the 9 better). I now carry it as a 9mm.

Here are my thoughts:
1- modern 9mm ammunition is very effective
2-Second shot ability is greater with 9mm
3- 9mm carries an extra round
4- 9mm costs less.


All in all, I'm glad I originally purchased the 40, since it gives me the option of converting it to 9mm. Granted at $212 the Bar-sto barrel was not a bargain. Going the opposite way (from 9mm to 40) is not possible. Now I can convert back and forth with the switch of a barrel. 40 magazines work fine for 9mm also.

.

who did you get to "fit" the Bar-Sto barrel? I have been procrastinating for several years on getting the Bar-Sto.

And, does the gun shoot the 9 better, or do you? My 239 40 cal is much more capable than I am. Could it be recoil anticipation with the 40 that makes the 9 appear to perform better, or is it the barrel? I have wondered how that would affect my accuracy.


surv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,028 Posts
who did you get to "fit" the Bar-Sto barrel? I have been procrastinating for several years on getting the Bar-Sto.

And, does the gun shoot the 9 better, or do you? My 239 40 cal is much more capable than I am. Could it be recoil anticipation with the 40 that makes the 9 appear to perform better, or is it the barrel? I have wondered how that would affect my accurac

I was very lucky in that my barrel dropped in with no fitting needed. Check out Bar-Sto web site. About 70% of their barrels will drop in. If not, they will fit the barrel free of charge, but you must pay shipping.

As for your second question.....I actually think the gun is more accurate now. I can shoot 15 rounds through a single hole @ 11 yds. off a sand bag rest. In 40 cal. my best group would be about 1 3/4". Not a huge difference, but it does make a difference how "I" shoot when not using the sandbag!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
I have one of each. My EDC is a Sig 239 SAS DAK in 40 S&W and I have a Sig 239 DAK in 9mm. Both are great guns but if I had to choose one, it would be the 40.

Now, I'm not a caliber snob (unless you want to talk about the 25 ACP) as I often pocket carry a LCP in 380, but when you consider that the two 239 variations are virtually the same size with the 9mm being 1/10" less in height and 2.2 oz. less in weight, then I pick the 40.
Size comparison from the owner's manual:

Comparing only one brand of ammo, the Federal LE Tactical HST, using mid-range bullet weights for both calibers, the 165 gr. 40 makes 104 more ft.lbs. of muzzle energy than the 124 gr. 9mm and still has 1 more ft. lb. of energy at 75 yards than the 9mm has at the muzzle. The 40 wins.


I'll trade 8 rounds of 40 for 9 rounds of 9mm any day of the week. I used to joke about the 40 falling into the "Short & Weak" definition of the cartridge but over the last few years, I have come to have a great deal of respect for the 40 S&W. I've come to believe that it may be the best compromise of bullet weight, diameter, power and controlability available for a carry firearm.

Hoss
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melvin

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Thank you all very much for the responses. Solid advice all around. Unless anyone has any really compelling reasons that the 9 is a much better choice I will go with the .40. Certainly keep the feedback coming if you have thoughts.

Now, just to save up and find one. Thanks again.

Take care,

nasm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,046 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I'll trade 8 rounds of 40 for 9 rounds of 9mm any day of the week. I have come to have a great deal of respect for the 40 S&W. I've come to believe that it may be the best compromise of bullet weight, diameter, power and controlability available for a carry firearm.

Hoss
Me too! Although, I still prefer my P220 .45, the P239 SAS gen II .40 has become my #1 carry gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I'm not going to get into a caliber discussion, because almost all guns and calibers fit their purpose: to kill in the appropriate situation.

Yet I know that both the 9mm and .40 P239s are excellent firearms, carried by many professionals I know, including good friends. These are some of the best compact firearms on the market. I know someone who carries both, and says that the 9mm is more pleasant to fire, with lower recoil, which can translate into faster, more accurate firing, with the added benefit of an extra bullet in the magazine. Both calibers kill, yet if you want to punch larger holes in your target regardless of relative recoil and accuracy, then the .40 is better.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top