Why are Sig Pistols So Thick?

Dragline45 · February 8, 2013, 03:50 PM

Why are Sig pistols so inherently thick? I picked up a Sig 232 a month or two ago and although it is a great gun, my SR9C carries just as easy if not easier than it. It's not just the 232, but pretty much every model Sig is a good deal thicker than competing guns from other companies.

The slide width on the 232 is very thin, but the grip is just as thick as a Sig 239. My SR9C grip, which is a double stack, is thinner than the Sig 232 even though the Sig is a single stack. Why make a pistol so slim only to make the grip disproportionately large? And how could a pistol with such a slim single stack mag possibly have a thicker grip than a double stack mag. The picture posted is the Sig with the factory plastic grips, if I posted a picture with the rubber Hogue grips they are actually a good deal thicker.

As much as I like the Sig 232 it doesn't fill a role for me in my CCW rotation and will be getting sold for maybe a S&W BG380, if I can find one.

TunnelRat · February 8, 2013, 04:15 PM

Quote:

As much as I like the Sig 232 it doesn't fill a role for me in my CCW rotation and will be getting sold for maybe a S&W BG380, if I can find one.

Why not just carry the SR9c?

Dragline45 · February 8, 2013, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Why not just carry the SR9c?

I have been, I carried the Sig for maybe a week before I went back to the SR9C. I am not really a collector, I am still in the process of getting guns I need to fill roles vs guns I just want to have. As much as I like the Sig, and I will probably own another 232 one day, I just don't have a real use for it besides shooting at the range every now and then. What I do need is a small .380.

TunnelRat · February 8, 2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

I have been, I carried the Sig for maybe a week before I went back to the SR9C.

Sounds like problem solved!

David the Gnome · February 8, 2013, 04:29 PM

Well, the P230/232 was designed in 1977. It's pretty comparable to other designs from that time period. Almost all of SIG's current line-up was in fact designed prior to the 90's or was a modification of a design from that period. You could ask the same question of HK as well. This idea of making everything as small as it can possibly be is actually a pretty recent trend (with the exception of sub-caliber mouse guns of course). So comparing the P232 to a gun which was designed in 2010 is kind of like comparing a 1977 car to a modern car.

Noreaster · February 8, 2013, 04:31 PM

Just a WAG but I believe the slides are reinforced for serious/heavy use. When pistol slides fail they break on the side where they twist under recoil. Sig P series and the 1911s have that extra piece of steel running down the slide. As for the grip on your P232 I believe that is just for the shooter. Better grip, the gun is meant to be shot.

BarryLee · February 8, 2013, 04:33 PM

Ok, sorry if I am missing something, but since the Ruger is a poly-gun the grips can simply be molded into the frame which makes the overall grip thinner.

Dragline45 · February 8, 2013, 04:37 PM

David the Gnome, I get what you are saying and it makes a whole lot of sense, but Sig could release MUCH thinner grips for the gun to keep up with the demand for small concealable guns. Instead they went the complete opposite direction and now ship them with even thicker Hogue rubber grips.

And even though the gun was designed in the 70's, it was modeled after the PPK. Which even tho it is an older design, and uses the same width mags, it has a much thinner grip than the 232, or even the SR9C for that matter.

Quote:

Ok, sorry if I am missing something, but since the Ruger is a poly-gun the grips can simply be molded into the frame which makes the overall grip thinner.

Your right, but look at the picture I posted of the size of the mags next to each other. The 232 is vastly smaller than the double stack mag, small enough where even with the difference of polymer mag well vs screw in grips I think the Sig grip should/could be smaller. Look at 1911's, the Sig 232 grip is just as thick, if not thicker than a 1911 even though it uses a thinner mag.

TunnelRat · February 8, 2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Your right, but look at the picture I posted of the size of the mags next to each other. The 232 is vastly smaller than the double stack mag, small enough where even with the difference of polymer mag well vs screw in grips I think the Sig grip should/could be smaller.

SIGs have always been a bit thicker. The standard grips of years passed compared to the E2 style of grips they use now are much thicker. Why? They didn't need to be. Maybe SIG thinks there is something to be gained in trying to appeal to those with larger hands that want a larger grip?

Anyway, it won't change the current situation. Could always call SIG and voice your opinions to them too.

tristar viper · February 8, 2013, 04:53 PM

Sigs are built. Holding one lets you realize you have a substantial piece in your hand, and a gun that is meant to shoot and shoot and shoot....

BILLG · February 8, 2013, 07:13 PM

I carry full size service pistols.I am carrying a Sig P226 9mm dailey concealed with no problems what so ever.I prefer full size service pistols and have no use for pocket pistols except for a back up piece and then I prefer J frame revolvers.

Dragline45 · February 8, 2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

I carry full size service pistols.I am carrying a Sig P226 9mm dailey concealed with no problems what so ever.I prefer full size service pistols and have no use for pocket pistols except for a back up piece and then I prefer J frame revolvers.

I can conceal a full size pistol with no problems too, but I choose not to dress around my guns. I would rather wear what I want and carry a compact 9mm or .380 than have to dress around my gun everyday. Sure it's doable to conceal a full size pistol day in and day out, but there's no denying it's easier to conceal a smaller gun.

As far as J frames, I carried a model 60 and 640 for 3 years and currently don't carry either. I shoot auto's better and conceal them easier.

Technosavant · February 8, 2013, 10:08 PM

Thickness of guns really only means something for concealed carry.

Concealed carry is a relatively recent phenomena, and an American one at that. A German/Swiss company with their mainstay products designed when disco was king obviously not going to be on the forefront of that. Now, even their newer designs (I'm a fan of the P250) are still pretty thick. I'm guessing they weren't designed with concealed carry in mind. Now, the P238 and P938 are obviously a different story, but their time honored metal framed guns are heir to a different line of thinking.

It isn't all that long that we've been seeing an emphasis on semi auto platforms designed expressly for concealed carry, and it looks to me like it's really the American companies taking the lead in that market segment.

donglock26 · February 9, 2013, 11:07 AM

Get a set of P230 plastic grips on EBay. They are much thinner and better for CCW. The P232 grips are swelled for grip comfort.

carguychris · February 9, 2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Concealed carry is a relatively recent phenomena, and an American one at that. A German/Swiss company with their mainstay products designed when disco was king obviously not going to be on the forefront of that... It isn't all that long that we've been seeing an emphasis on semi auto platforms designed expressly for concealed carry, and it looks to me like it's really the American companies taking the lead in that market segment.

+1, and it's useful to remember that the SIG P230- along with its contemporaries, the CZ 82/83 and the Beretta 81/82/84/85 series- were designed primarily for the European police market in an era when 9mm Short (.380ACP) was considered a perfectly adequate and acceptable cartridge for an average patrol officer. These pistols are designed to be easily carried but not necessarily to be easy to conceal.

Compared to recent CCW-specific designs, I find it readily apparent that ALL of these pistols were designed with a greater emphasis on easy operation and comfortable shooting, and a lesser emphasis on minimizing dimensions and eliminating protrusions.

BGutzman · February 10, 2013, 04:01 PM

Metal vs poly - Sigs have some level of machining, poly..... well its a mold

Personally I prefer the metal, but I do own and enjoy both.

tipoc · February 10, 2013, 05:25 PM

The P232 wasn't designed with concealed carry in mind. It was designed as a service sidearm with law enforcement in mind. The gun was widely used for that in Europe and parts of Asia. Very popular in Japan for years as a service sidearm.

It's true the current Hogue grips are thicker than the original style grips.

The gun is overall, meaning in all dimensions, larger than the Walther PPK (which was built with concealed carry in mind) or the PP. It's larger than the old Colt M1903.

Aftermarket grips will help this though. Thinner grips can be found.

There is only one answer to the existential question "Why is it this way?" It's that way cuz that's how they built it. It's how they wanted it. If you don't like it get thinner aftermarket grips.

The 232 is a very good gun nowdays for the same size we can get a 9mm. Not as comfortable for all to shoot though.

tipoc

February 8, 2013, 04:29 PM	#5
David the Gnome Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2007 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 3,092	Well, the P230/232 was designed in 1977. It's pretty comparable to other designs from that time period. Almost all of SIG's current line-up was in fact designed prior to the 90's or was a modification of a design from that period. You could ask the same question of HK as well. This idea of making everything as small as it can possibly be is actually a pretty recent trend (with the exception of sub-caliber mouse guns of course). So comparing the P232 to a gun which was designed in 2010 is kind of like comparing a 1977 car to a modern car. __________________ Si vis pacem, para bellum.

February 8, 2013, 04:33 PM	#7
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	Ok, sorry if I am missing something, but since the Ruger is a poly-gun the grips can simply be molded into the frame which makes the overall grip thinner. __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

February 10, 2013, 04:01 PM	#16
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	Metal vs poly - Sigs have some level of machining, poly..... well its a mold Personally I prefer the metal, but I do own and enjoy both. __________________ Molon Labe

February 8, 2013, 04:31 PM	#6
Noreaster Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 1,449	Just a WAG but I believe the slides are reinforced for serious/heavy use. When pistol slides fail they break on the side where they twist under recoil. Sig P series and the 1911s have that extra piece of steel running down the slide. As for the grip on your P232 I believe that is just for the shooter. Better grip, the gun is meant to be shot.

February 8, 2013, 04:53 PM	#10
tristar viper Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 889	Sigs are built. Holding one lets you realize you have a substantial piece in your hand, and a gun that is meant to shoot and shoot and shoot....

February 8, 2013, 07:13 PM	#11
BILLG Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2000 Posts: 210	I carry full size service pistols.I am carrying a Sig P226 9mm dailey concealed with no problems what so ever.I prefer full size service pistols and have no use for pocket pistols except for a back up piece and then I prefer J frame revolvers.

February 8, 2013, 10:08 PM	#13
Technosavant Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 4,040	Thickness of guns really only means something for concealed carry. Concealed carry is a relatively recent phenomena, and an American one at that. A German/Swiss company with their mainstay products designed when disco was king obviously not going to be on the forefront of that. Now, even their newer designs (I'm a fan of the P250) are still pretty thick. I'm guessing they weren't designed with concealed carry in mind. Now, the P238 and P938 are obviously a different story, but their time honored metal framed guns are heir to a different line of thinking. It isn't all that long that we've been seeing an emphasis on semi auto platforms designed expressly for concealed carry, and it looks to me like it's really the American companies taking the lead in that market segment.

February 9, 2013, 11:07 AM	#14
donglock26 Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2001 Posts: 186	Get a set of P230 plastic grips on EBay. They are much thinner and better for CCW. The P232 grips are swelled for grip comfort.

February 10, 2013, 05:25 PM	#17
tipoc Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Location: Redwood City, Ca. Posts: 4,114	The P232 wasn't designed with concealed carry in mind. It was designed as a service sidearm with law enforcement in mind. The gun was widely used for that in Europe and parts of Asia. Very popular in Japan for years as a service sidearm. It's true the current Hogue grips are thicker than the original style grips. The gun is overall, meaning in all dimensions, larger than the Walther PPK (which was built with concealed carry in mind) or the PP. It's larger than the old Colt M1903. Aftermarket grips will help this though. Thinner grips can be found. There is only one answer to the existential question "Why is it this way?" It's that way cuz that's how they built it. It's how they wanted it. If you don't like it get thinner aftermarket grips. The 232 is a very good gun nowdays for the same size we can get a 9mm. Not as comfortable for all to shoot though. tipoc