Need some hands on information Sig P245 vs. Sig 230 40cal

[Bare Bones]

I am in a quandry and as dazzled as a kid looking in a store window at a Red Rider bb gun. I am going to have to choose between a Sig 239 in .40 cal. and the Sig 245. Both fit my need for a fairly compact CCW. I am more familiar with the .45 caliber, but have never fired or handled either of the above weapons much. I like sig's reputation for accurecy and reliability and I've shot up a bunch of rounds in ,357sig and was impressed with that experience

What I would like to hear about is experience with these weapons. The guns ability to dissapate the recoil generated, shooter's ability to control the recoil for sight alignment, etc. In other words, how the gun and shooter function.

I guess you could say, "just buy the one that works best for you." The truth is , I can't afford two just to compare them so I'll try to pick your brains on this. Looking forward to your input.....

 

[at-home-daddy]

I've haven't owned either, but I can tell you that the majority of SIG owners that I've heard from or have talked to seem to have glowing comments about the P239, while the P245 seems to be the bastard stepchild that no one much talks about...and when they do, it's usually not in overly glowing terms. Take that for what it's worth...

 

[JB in SC]

My son has a 245 and I've owned several 239's in various calibers. The 239 in .357 Sig is a real stomper, and would be my first choice in that particular weapon. The .40 is not bad at all, using 165 grain Pro Load Gold Dots.

I personally love the .45 ACP, but the 245 isn't my favorite platform. It is 100% reliable, and built Sig tough. The grip is a little short for most shooters, but it is still a fairly large pistol. The grip makes it a little less controllable than the .40 with similar loads. My hands are pretty small, and it won't allow a good purchase with my pinky.

I think the 239 is easier to shoot well, but that's just my personal opinion. I don't know how much smaller it actually may be measurement-wise, but it sure feels smaller. The 245 feels bulky to me.

The 245 (non stainless slide) is made using the old style stamped and welded slide. The 239 is made in the US with a blackened stainless one piece slide. Don't know which is better as I've never heard of a failure due to construction.

Sig makes fine pistols, but my number one choice in a .45 ACP would be a full sized 1911. I can shoot a 1911 far better than the 245.

I guess in retrospect, the 245 is smaller than the 220 but not small enough to make a real difference in carry.

More confusion than help, but that's my take...

Best,
JB

 

[Bare Bones]

P239 vs P245

More confusion than help, but that's my take...

No, this is what I wanted to hear. Personal experience has a lot more meaning than hypothetical blather where this decision is concerned. I wasn't aware that the 245 had a welded slide assembly and, like you say, I don't know whether this is pertinent to the effectiveness of the weapon, but it is something to consider...

I know what you mean about the 1911. A dealer opened his safe and showed me a NIB Kimber series one tactical carry (not the reallly short bbl)with the complete custom shop workup (melt down and action work). God, that gun felt like old home week in my hands. If I had $1500.00 that gun would have gone home with me jammed in the back of my britches.... A true lotto dream..

I really do think that the 239 will be my final resolution unless I hear a more compelling reason to consider the P245. As time goes by, I'll probably aquire the alternate barrell/ magazine combo, too.

Again, thanks for your input.

 

[perception]

I hate to do this, but also consider the sig 229. It is much the same as the 239, but has a double stack magazine for higher capacity. Many people with larger hands complain about the thin grip on the 239, so depending on your hand size you might consider the 229 as well.

 

[sig-it]

i am one of those people....i shot the 239 and 229 exclusivly for a month before i settled on the 229, while i like the looks and the percieved size of the 239 much more than my 229, the 229 provided me with more consistant results as well as an all around more balanced shootig experience.

i also have larger hands....(4.15" from first knuckle to last) and the grip on the 229 allows for the minimum amount of comfortable purcase for my pinky.

plus they just came out with the 229 (.40) in stainless...almost too tempting...

 

[JB in SC]

Until recently I wasn't aware the blued 245 had the stamped/welded slide either. I can't tell you how many times I looked at my son's gun and didn't notice. The weld marks are almost imperceptible in comparison to my old 225.

If I wanted a 1911 I would get one.

My son has three .45 caliber handguns: the 245, a S&W 625, and a Kimber TLE. The Kimber may well be the most accurate of the group, at the very least it's the easiest for me to shoot well. Don't really want to sway your choice, but in my experience a compromise is usually that...a compromise.

 

[BigSlick]

The 239 is a great little piece, and as JB indicated, the .357 Sig is a thumper.

I sold the 239 I had for two reasons, I was never able to quite get used to the top heavy feel of the gun and the factory grips were awkward for me. Aftermarket grips help a lot I am told.

The 239 is top quality in every respect, reliable as you could hope for and a barrel swap is all that's needed to shoot different calibers.

Lot's of bang for the buck, it just didn't work for me. If it might work for you, I certainly wouldn't hesitate for an instant to recommend it.

BigSlick

 

[JB in SC]

The 239 is definitely a pistol for folks with small hands. The grip probably makes for the top heavy feel (I've heard that from a lot of shooters).

The bore line seems a little high. Best in that regard was my P7 M8.

 

[jtb1967]

The 239's have are a little more compact and carry easier for me. I just listed a new unfired 40S&W 239 in the classified section.