Why doesn't the SIG P232/230 get any respect?

I like my P232 just fine. It gets respect from me. I find most of the criticisms here to be personal dislikes and likes:

- the heal safety is quite fast and simple for me -- it's not intended to be an IDPA gun and if I am in a CCW situation where I need multiple mag changes anyway, I'm in WAY over my head.

-The size is less of an issue than the grip, actually. It's small enought to fit into my pants pocket. But it has a full-size grip (something I like because I have large hands) and as with most semis, the grip is the hardest thing to conceal in a IWB scenario (at least for a scrawny guy like me).

- it points very, very naturally, an important thing in a carry gun.

- it's DA/SA with no external safety, which is my requirement for a carry gun (a preference which makes me a minority on this board, I'm sure).

I do think that Sig should explore the possibility of chambering it for the 9mm Para in addition to the 9mm Kurz though. The Kurz is not an impotent round, but it is at the margins and is a remnant of European ammo preferences. I think they'd increase their market share considerably by offering a 9mm in the 232 form factor.
 
Cruzer, if you want to know why the SIG gets less respect, check out a CZ83. These guns are also a huge improvement over the Walther PP_ series.

I think we should all be wondering why the Walthers are so highly thought of.
 
I like my 232 just fine. As many have pointed out, it's a natural pointer, feels oh so nice in hand, accurate, easy to shoot, etc. Mine has NEVER had a FTF or jam. With the proper ammo (e.g. Corbon, Fed H/s, or Rem GS) I don't feel particularly undergunned. My only complaint is that it can bite, though nothing like the PPK/S (POS) that I had. It's also quite handsome, it's the one my non-gun friends reach for when I'm doing 'missionary' work.;) FWIW
 
I owned a Sig P232 for a short while. All guns have limitations and positive attributes. The challenge is to choose a gun whose limitations don't cause you concern, and whose attributes best fit your needs.

The P232 has wonderful ergonomics.
It points well.
It's blowback recoil is snappy but nothing you can't get used to.
the 380 ACP worries some people (jeez, maybe I will be in the situation where it wasn't enough gun...)

I think most people pass on 380s because they worry about "is it enough gun?". They talk themselves into carrying a heavier gun for the peace of mind it brings. I am one of those people.

I found the P232 to be a bit awkward for jacket pocket carry (not the weight, but the length from front sight post to heel of butt)

In my case, I would always ask myself the question, why not just carry the Colt CCO .45, IWB, as opposed to a 380 in the pocket? And if I am going to carry the P232 IWB, then shucks -- just pack the 45 IWB.

The P232 is a perfect backup gun to a 45, and a great carry gun if you are too bothered or just not in the position to pack a 32 ounce (loaded) 45 auto.

I don't have a back-up gun. If I ever acquire one, it will either be a P232 with the Golden Saber load or a S&W M640 with the Golden Saber 357 load.
 
Cruzer,

I am not sure how you can not understand the term "size-efficient". It is simple. If I have a gun that is the same size as yours but holds just as many of a more potent round, then it it more size efficient. A Kahr K9 holds 7 9mm rounds. A Sig P230 holds 7 .380 rounds. They are very similar in size. The Kahr is more size efficient. If you like the Sig 230 better, that is fine. Is it a good gun...by all means. Will it kill a bad guy...damn straight. Does it feel good in the hand and point naturally...Absolutely! Is it as size efficent as a Kahr K9 (or MK9 for that matter)...NO!
 
Sundance,

My eyebrows are singed :eek:

OK, fine, if the K9 and MK9 are "size efficient" [by your definition] then [by my definition] they are "weight inefficient". My point being that "size efficiency" and "weight efficiency" are in competition, and should be in proper balance for a CCW. To me, anything less than 6x4 and over 23 ounces pushes the limits of "weight efficiency" losing all ergonomic features and simply becoming a brickfull of bullets.

"Size does matter" :) and SO DOES WEIGHT. I admit that having held the MK9 multiple times, I am impressed by how small it is. I was also turned-off by its weight, and the lack of decent ergonomics. My experience tells me that if it doesn't fit my hand right, I won't shoot it right. On this we agree to disagree.
 
Coronach:

My issue on size efficiency is this: the Sig is too big for me to carry in a pocket and if I'm going to carry a gun in a belt holster, there are similar sized guns in better calibers (9mm and up). I certainly understand why it's your choice, given the restrictions imposed by your department.

Dave R:

I haven't shot the 232, but I can tell you that my P239 .40 is quite accurate. I prefer my Kimber Compact but the P239 is no slouch. I'm just not a DA/SA kind of guy.

J.T.: I'm with you on the ti S&W revolvers: the recoil on those is not fun. I have a 642 and recoil on that is not fun either. Add to it the non-existant rear sight and I find it quite hard to shoot.

But the Kahr MK9 has real sights and soft recoil. There are plenty of other guns similar in size to a 232 that are a larger caliber and do not have punishing recoil (e.g., Kahr K9). They might be a bit heavier, but if you're carrying in a belt holster, will you really notice the difference of a few ounces?

Again, I'm not saying that the 232 is a bad gun. Just that it doesn't fill a niche for me.

M1911
 
I second M1911, but go a bit more extreme - if it isn't small/light enough to pocket carry I'll carry my full-size pistol on my belt. Hence, I have little use for intermediate sized guns, except as toys.

I had a P232 for a while, and I liked the ergonomics, accuracy, and looks (one of the best looking, sleekest pistols ever, especially the SS model). Unfortunately, it was unreliable, even after a trip to SIG, where they simply replaced the recoil spring and told me it was fixed. The problem is that it would double feed - with the heel mounted magazine release and no external way to lock the slide back, clearing this malfunction requires three hands. Dumped it unceremoniously, but I'd still buy another once I fill up on the more useful (for me) weapons I want.
 
My P232 is all steel. It is another of my department's byzantine regulations ('Thy firearm shall be hewn from cold steel' ;)), and results in my ankle gun (J frame snubbie) being a tad heavier than most people would like, too. Thats OK, though- I don't mind the weight (don't even notice it, actually), and if I recall my physics classes correctly, added weight softens recoil. So its a plus in my book. I also wear it on a holster, and don't worry if I print a little. If I had to do really undetectable CCW (as most people have to do, alas) I would be forced to be more creative, or go with a smaller weapon.

And I'm well aware that the P232 is a niche gun, and its a niche that has been shrunk by newer entries. I still like it, though, and even if they added an acceptable alternative to the off-duty list, I would probably stick with the P232.

Mike
 
Since I have ruled out mouse guns (.32 and under) I have been torn between the Sig 232 and the MK9. While I would prefer to stick with 9mm since all my other guns are so chambered, I simply cannot get comfortable with what I perceive to be the ridiculously light trigger pull of the MK9. I just don't know that I would ever be comfortable with carrrying "one in the chamber" in the MK9. The stronger DA pull on the 232 on the other hand, is much more reassuring. While I am sure that I will hear from lots of people that the only true safety you have is between your ears (blah, blah, blah), that is the most significant difference between the two for me.
 
Well, I did it...

Finally went by my local shop and picked up a P232 two-tone (alloy frame). It is sweeeeeeeeeeeeet! I appreciate the encouragement and the banter. I needed some blunt talk to make sure I wanted to go ahead with my decision. Thanks to all who gave it to me straight.
 
Cruzer, DerGrosse:

In the unlikely event you are near Boston, I'd be glad to take you out to the range and let you try my K9 and MK9.

M1911
 
M1911,

I travel a lot, but we don't have an office near Boston (nearest is Philly). If I'm in the area, I'll take you up on your offer. I never turned down an offer to shoot someone else's gun :)

BTW, I have already been practicing magazine changes. To be honest, I don't know what the big fuss is about. It's definitely "different" but not difficult nor time consuming. First, I grab spare mag with my left hand. Second, using my index finger, I push on mag release (mag drops). Third, I insert the mag, and drive it in. Admittedly, the mag release is a little stiff, but it is a new gun, so it ought to loosen up over the next few hundred rounds.

Ayoob did time trials with the P7PSP (European mag release) and found that the time differences for mag changes were negligible. I don't agree with him always, but I'm with him on this one.
 
Last edited:
Why would the introduction of small pistols chambered for 9mm and .40 S&W make the .380 obsolete when the introduction of small-framed .357 revolvers has not rendered the .38 snubby obsolete? Also, Cruzer, I may be getting a duo-tone myself in the next week or two. Enjoy!
 
Butch48: No way you'll get your hands on my P239 .40 (the only hard-chromed P239 in existence):

iBA92A0F6-1CFE-4362-A9C0-278B7759671C.jpg


It is a dream to shoot, just a little heavy sometimes.

Laz: You need to get that P232 two-tone. I can hear it calling your name :) Seriously, can't wait to get to the range this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top