HKPRO Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Considering both guns. Has anyone compared the 2 in terms of size? My goals are easy concealment and reliability. Also does the USP Compact single stack the ammo like the Sig. Thanks
 

·
Requiescat in Pace
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
I love Sigs but I don't like 239's. Never really cared for them much.

The USP Compact uses a double stack magazine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I have both, and each seems to have its own personality. The 239 has a heavy slide, and really soaks up the recoil of stout loads. I shoot it in both 357 and 40. It seems to conceil better on me since its a single stack, and is very flat.
I have a compact in 9mm, but I only carry it OWB, just a bit thick for my comfort IWB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
I use to own a P239 in 9mm. Excellent shooting gun, especially when you replace the factory grips with a Hogue. The one thing I didn't care for was in 9mm, the P239 could only hold 8 rounds because of the single stack. To that end, I ended giving the gun to a friend who I know will be keeping it (he's never sold a gun he's gotten) and I'm in search of a USP Compact 9 to replace it. I like the grip on the Compact 9 and of course, 10 round double stack (I'm restricted in the Big Apple). I've shot one before and its very nice. Overall the P239 is a little heavier in the hands than the Compact 9. I believe the dimensions of the P239 are about the same as a Glock 19.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I have a USC compact in .45, and a P239 in .40. The USC is much thicker and handles like a full size pistol. The P239 feels more compact, is slimmer more like a 1911, and in the waistband disappears.

A better comparison might be between the P2000SK and the P239. I carry them both, like them both. The P2000SK is still thicker and to me feels better work outside the waistband or in an ankle holster, while that P239 cries out for IWB carry for it's relative thinness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I have a USC compact in .45, and a P239 in .40. The USC is much thicker and handles like a full size pistol. The P239 feels more compact, is slimmer more like a 1911, and in the waistband disappears.

A better comparison might be between the P2000SK and the P239. I carry them both, like them both. The P2000SK is still thicker and to me feels better work outside the waistband or in an ankle holster, while that P239 cries out for IWB carry for it's relative thinness.
USC?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
Tale of the tape, out of pure boredom (all measurements approximate):

Reliability, accuracy, and durability: Equal, never a malfunction with either.
Weight, 9mm, full magazine, empty chamber: equal (33 oz.'s).
Height, P239: 5.25" USPc: 5.00"
Length, P239: 8.125" USPc: 8.25"
Width, P239: 1.125" USPc: 1.125", not including safety or slide stop
Trigger Reach: Equal
Capacity: P239: 9 USPc: 14

Conclusion: If you don't want both, buy the one that's most comfortable and you shoot best. Size and weight aren't a factor. Whether or not capacity matters is a personal choice. Also, if you want cocked and locked, there is only one choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I have owned both. Both shoot great, and are very accurate given their small size. I believe the P239 has about the best DA/SA transition of any pistol of that type--very smooth, and the DA pull weight is relatively low. The USPc DA/SA was ok, but not as good or as smooth in my opinion. Training would alleviate the difference. On the issue of size, the P239 is flatter and smaller all around, but the grip felt too thin for my medium-sized hands. The USPc felt a little too thick, on the other hand.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top