OK people, I need opinions and advice, not flames of one gun or another. These are the 3 choices I have narrowed it down to. I'll tell you what I like and hate about each, and if you have something to add, then please be my guest.
SIG 229, sweet gun. The most ergonomically correct gun I've used to date. I don't know much about the 239, so if you guys can comment on the P229 vs P239 please do. My reservations, unlike the USP, it can't be "cocked and locked" which I like. Also, I hear stuff about it's durability. All the local shooting ranges around me have switched to Glocks from the SIG's. They tell me durability is not SIG's strong point. So if you have a SIG for a long time and have put maybe 10K+ rounds through it, please let me know. Also, they say it's not as accurate as the USP's. But what I can do is drop in a .357SIG barrel. Tada! This makes me smile (a lot)
USP40. Nice gun. Period. I find it bulky, and not as comfortable; the 50th shot isn't as comfortable as the 1st, which means I feel some gun fatigue in my hands. The recoil reduction system is great. I have not tried the compact, so I can't comment on it, but it's without the recoil reduction system right? Also, the safety on it is great. Best out of the three. I hear that the Hostile Environment coating isn't as durable as claimed. I have seen some wear on these puppies, nothing extreme, but some wear. I do not know if you can modify it to shoot .357SIG's though.
Glock 27. The Tenifer coating is the best in the industry IMHO. They are lighter than the USP's and easier to carry. I do find a tendency to shoot high due to the grip angle, which is no as comfortable as the SIG. Also, I can drop in a G33 barrel in it and have it shoot .357SIG's as well. The safety on the finger is a little scary to me though.
So give me some pros and cons about each. And please, be professional, don't give me "Oh, the Glocks suck, all glock owners are losers" or something like that. I need constructive criticism, not kindergarten comments.
Thanks in advance,
Albert
SIG 229, sweet gun. The most ergonomically correct gun I've used to date. I don't know much about the 239, so if you guys can comment on the P229 vs P239 please do. My reservations, unlike the USP, it can't be "cocked and locked" which I like. Also, I hear stuff about it's durability. All the local shooting ranges around me have switched to Glocks from the SIG's. They tell me durability is not SIG's strong point. So if you have a SIG for a long time and have put maybe 10K+ rounds through it, please let me know. Also, they say it's not as accurate as the USP's. But what I can do is drop in a .357SIG barrel. Tada! This makes me smile (a lot)
USP40. Nice gun. Period. I find it bulky, and not as comfortable; the 50th shot isn't as comfortable as the 1st, which means I feel some gun fatigue in my hands. The recoil reduction system is great. I have not tried the compact, so I can't comment on it, but it's without the recoil reduction system right? Also, the safety on it is great. Best out of the three. I hear that the Hostile Environment coating isn't as durable as claimed. I have seen some wear on these puppies, nothing extreme, but some wear. I do not know if you can modify it to shoot .357SIG's though.
Glock 27. The Tenifer coating is the best in the industry IMHO. They are lighter than the USP's and easier to carry. I do find a tendency to shoot high due to the grip angle, which is no as comfortable as the SIG. Also, I can drop in a G33 barrel in it and have it shoot .357SIG's as well. The safety on the finger is a little scary to me though.
So give me some pros and cons about each. And please, be professional, don't give me "Oh, the Glocks suck, all glock owners are losers" or something like that. I need constructive criticism, not kindergarten comments.
Thanks in advance,
Albert