Handguns and Ammunition Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does anyone know how these two compare re: size, reliability, function? Would either qualify as a "pocket pistol"? I've looked at .380s for this purpose but am a little put off by the weaker caliber and stout recoil, ammo costs, etc. Thanks for the help.
Ken
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I have neither but am familiar with the handguns. By the traditional definition of the term, neither are pocket pistols (although they could probably be carried in the large pocket of a heavy winter coat). Autos of this size are really only amenable to belt or inside-the-waistband carry. For true "pocket pistols" in accepted "man-stopping" calibers, look at the Kahrs and the Kel-Tecs, the former being the preferred items and the latter for those "on a budget."
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Of the two, I will take the M6906. Why? My M239 feels like a brick in my hands. The M239 is a very reliable and well made pistol but it isn't for me. Regards, Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,064 Posts
pippin 53,

I can offer some comparisons for you and then a suggestion on one. I have fired Smith 6906s and maintained them when they were my agency's issued weapon years ago. I have not really kept up with Smiths much, and don't know the 6902. I am assuming it is a 9mm, double row. If I am wrong, then my comparison will be off from the start.

I do not own a Sig P239, but do own both a P226 and P229. I have fired several 239s as well. When it first came out the P239 was being promoted as a super small pistol. To me it is basically a 229 with a single row grip versus the 229's double row grip frame. Don't get me wrong, I have always been impressed with the Sig quality and the way they have dealt with repair issues I have encountered. They are not cheap compared to some other brands, but I feel they are worth the cost.

If the 6902 is basically a 6906, I would say it will be a slightly smaller weapon overall compared to the 239. At least it my hands the 6906 is smaller, but that is very often best determined by the individual shooter. I can not bad mouth the 6906 in durability at all. Ours were already about 5 years old when I started requiring folks in my office to begin adding a great deal of tactical training to their normal qualification courses. It was not uncommon for a normal range day to involve 600 to 700 rounds of live fire, at a minimum of 4 times each year.

We finally retired the 6906s after they had been in service for a bit over 10 years. Even then there were no problems nationwide with them. Our firearms unit just felt it was time to obtain new weapons. Short verison our firearms unit evaluated everything available and suggested we obtain Sigs to issue. The bean counters said they were too expensive and bought Glocks. When we started the transition program over to Glocks we encountered numerous problems with the weapons, that forced us to re-issue the 6906s until the Glock's FTF issue was allegedly addressed.

At the time we were allowed to carry personally owned handguns with some restrictions to brand and calibers. I was shooting 2 P226s I purchased.

So if the 6902 is a variant of the 6906, I would say both are sound weapons. Personally I think the Smith is a bit smaller, and the Sig is a bit higher quality. Sorry, may not help much, but I am just stating my honest opinions.

If you want something smaller, I would suggest you take a look at the Kahr pistols. I owned both a K9 and a K40. These are their steel framed pistols, and the largest of the 3 models I am aware of that excludes what they call their target version (which is the largest). While I have heard of some folks having problems with Kahrs, I have had zero malfunctions with either from the start. My pistols get a lot of use, as I beleive in practicing with each weapon until I can shoot it well, then maintaining that proficiency.

May sound odd, but to me the K40 had less felt recoil in my hand than the K9 did. Since I only lost one round of 40 versus the 9 capacity, I sold my 9mm and kept my 40 S&W. That is basically my boot or back up pistol now. It is also easily concealed in any decent IWB holster under a shirt with no problems.

My best suggestion though, before you make a decision is to find any weapon you are seriously considering and shoot it first if possible. If you can't shoot it, at least see how YOU think it feels in your hand. How easily can you reach and function the various controls. Does your trigger finger seem to reach properly, or is the reach too long or short to be comfortable? How well does it appear to be mated to your hand. That is the real key, not what others feel about a particular gun you might buy - but what YOU think about it.

So if you can handle and shoot both are all 3, then make a decision based on how well they seem to fit your hand. That also lets you see how large or small each is compared to others as well.

Sorry I could not give you a definite buy this one, but that really only works for one I am going to buy. You need to handle each one and make you own decisions. Hope my comments were at least some help to you. Good luck.

two guns
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I have owned a 6906 for several years and love it. Great sights (Novaks) trigger, and accuracy. The trigger bar broke at about 35,000 rounds, replaced free by S&W.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top