Ruger LCP or Sig P232?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ruger LCP or Sig P232?

Posted: 7/17/2008 10:08:03 AM EDT

Granted there is a big price difference, but overall both appear to be getting very good reviews.

Since this would be primarily for carry in the sweltering Florida heat, would the Ruger actually be less prone to rust or does the P232 have just has much of the hard plastic material?

Order of importance:
--------------------------
- Reliability
- Less prone to rust. Want to be able to come in from the heat, and take the firearm out of the pocket at night and put in in the pocket in the morning without worrying about oiling.

Posted: 7/17/2008 10:14:52 AM EDT

[#1]

You'd use a pocket holster, right?

I have both (well, I have 4 Kel-Tecs) and the P232 points better and is the gun I'd rather have in a gunfight.

But I can't always hide the P232 the way I can hide the P3ATs.

Haven't noticed any significant rust on either one - once had a light coat of something that looked like rust with the Sig, but it wiped off by hand. A bit of CLP and I've never seen it again. AZ is dry most of the time but I sweat a lot and have rusted several handguns in leather IWB holsters.

Posted: 7/17/2008 10:49:50 AM EDT

[#2]

The P232 is enormous compared to the Kel-Tec/Ruger.

Once you handle them, you'll realize just how small the Ruger/Kel-Tec is.

The smaller size helps in concealability but makes the gun harder to shoot effectively.

Posted: 7/17/2008 3:39:10 PM EDT

[#3]

I'm very partial to the P232. It is 100% dependable and extremely accurate for its intended purpose.

Posted: 7/19/2008 10:19:17 AM EDT

[#4]

P232

Posted: 7/19/2008 11:08:52 AM EDT

[#5]

well, 1st off, the 2 are not that comparable size wise, esp if you want to pocket carry (in which case, the LCP is better suited in most cases)

overall though, i'd take the P232 hands down, esp if its a primary gun of the two

Posted: 7/20/2008 9:37:51 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
well, 1st off, the 2 are not that comparable size wise, esp if you want to pocket carry (in which case, the LCP is better suited in most cases)

overall though, i'd take the P232 hands down, esp if its a primary gun of the two

+1

The only similarity between these two guns is the caliber.

I've always been a fan of the 230/232 but there are many guns available now that are smaller, lighter and shoot a more potent round.

Posted: 7/20/2008 10:11:41 AM EDT

[#7]

I have a Ruger LCP - small, super lightweight.......but its back at Ruger for fixing as it would jam the 5th round against the top of the barrel. If it functions good when I get it back, it will be a keeper.
I have several Sigs, but not a P232. I looked at one for my wife and ended up getting her a P239 in 40.
The Ruger is great if you get a good one - the P232 is nice, but for a 380, its fairly expensive and large compared to the Ruger. Plus being lightweight will probably have recoil just like the Ruger.
IMO if you spend that much for a 380 - look into the Walther PPK. It is smaller than the Sig., heavier to absorb recoil and less expensive than the Sig. A friend has one and it is very accurate also.

Posted: 7/21/2008 6:23:45 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I have a Ruger LCP - small, super lightweight.......but its back at Ruger for fixing as it would jam the 5th round against the top of the barrel. If it functions good when I get it back, it will be a keeper.
I have several Sigs, but not a P232. I looked at one for my wife and ended up getting her a P239 in 40.
The Ruger is great if you get a good one - the P232 is nice, but for a 380, its fairly expensive and large compared to the Ruger. Plus being lightweight will probably have recoil just like the Ruger.
IMO if you spend that much for a 380 - look into the Walther PPK. It is smaller than the Sig., heavier to absorb recoil and less expensive than the Sig. A friend has one and it is very accurate also.

The P232 I have recoils noticeably more than my P3ATs. Blowback vs. short recoil...

Oh, and the PPK has too many sharp edges, and too many of them have problems...

Posted: 7/21/2008 2:27:30 PM EDT

[#9]

Since your primary use is concealed carry, then go with the LCP.

If you occasionally carry, then go with the Sig. Overall the Sig is better in every aspect, but it's better to have a gun than no gun at all and the LCP can realistically go with you everywhere.

YMMV

Posted: 7/21/2008 2:47:42 PM EDT

[#10]

Thanks everyone. Lots of good information.

Posted: 7/21/2008 3:26:36 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
P232

What he said

Posted: 7/21/2008 6:29:54 PM EDT

[#12]

Everyone I know who has had a 230/232 has sold it. They are very well made, the problem is they are huge for a .380. Might as well carry a small 9mm. Nice on the range, fun to shoot, accurate, but the wrong size.

They are big compared to a Colt Mustang, and the Mustang is large compared to a P3AT or the LCP.

Posted: 7/23/2008 4:22:23 AM EDT

[#13]

If you owned both, the one you'd carry the most would be the LCP.

I can drop mine in my pocket no matter what I'm wearing.

I don't think rust would be an issue with either gun, just size and weight.
I know many people who've gotten their CCW license, and bought a gun too big to conveniently carry.
They end up keeping their gun in the car.

The Sig is closer to my CW9 in size.
(Actually, I'm pretty sure the CW9 is lighter.)
I love that gun, and like to carry it in a belt holster when I can wear an untucked shirt.
But, 90% of the time, it's the LCP in the pocket, especially while the temp. is in the 90s.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ruger LCP or Sig P232?

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us