Size Matters...

In the comments to last Friday's gun pr0n, agg79 asked the following question:

I've been debating getting a 21 or 22 but had not considered the compact versions. What is your opinion over full sized verses compact?

And while I posted a quick response,

Realistically, I can't see any significant difference between the full size and the subcompact as far as shootability goes.

The weight difference is only something like 4-5 ounces, so perceived recoil really isn't going to change much.

Barrel length is only another 1-1.5" longer - it's not like you're talking about the difference between a 1 7/8" snubbie and an 8 3/8" target revolver.

The biggest difference is the grip - the subcompacts only allow for a two-finger hold (like a J-frame) whereas it's all three fingers on a full-size. This can be overcome somewhat by the extensions, although it starts defeating the purpose of the smaller grip.

I quickly realized that the response merited a post all its own.

---

I figured I'll start by giving a quick overview of the grip and overall sizes currently available. For this purpose, I'll use Smith & Wesson for revolvers and Glock for semi-automatics. These two manufacturers offer the widest variety of grip/frame sizes and are pretty universally known - even in the Volksrepublik of MA...

For S&W revolvers, there are four sizes currently offered: The mongo sized X-frame monsters like the 500 S&W Magnum and the 460 are the largest revolvers available, offering 5 rounds of dumptruck-stopping calibers in a nearly five pound handgun; the N-framed guns were the largest until the X-frame came along; these are the 6-round big bores and 8-round .357 Magnum handguns; the L-frames, which are the medium sized revolvers offering 6 or 7 rounds of centerfire ammo or up to 10 rounds of .22LR; and the J-frame, the most common of which is the five-shot .38 special "snubnosed" revolvers.

The X- and N- frames are simply too large and heavy for the vast majority of folks to consider for concealed carry. Yes, there are people that happily carry a 4" barreled 629 IWB all day long; however, it's far more common to see a J-frame than an N for a CCW piece. The L-frames (and the K-frames the L-frames replaced) were commonly used as duty guns for police agencies. These are concealable in the smallest configurations (2½" and 3" configurations with round-butt grip). Even the lightest L-frame tips the scales at over 24 ounces. The J-frame is the smallest and lightest variants, with the airweight versions in .38 Special and .357 Magnum weighing under a pound and rated for +P ammo. The lightest of the airweights checks in at a scant 12 ounces, empty, making it eminently carryable.

On the semi-auto front, Glock offers three different sizes: Full-size, compact, and sub-compact. The full-size variants (17 for 9mm, 22 for .40 S&W, and 21 for .45 ACP) are the heaviest (~ 26 ounces) with the largest grips (full three finger) and 4.5" barrels. These are most commonly "duty guns" for law enforcement. The sub-compact versions (26/27/30 for 9mm/.40S&W/.45ACP) are lightest (under 20 ounces) and have the shortest barrel length (3.5") with only a two-finger grip (although there are extensions that go on the magazines). The compact models (19 for 9mm and 23 for .40 S&W, no compact model for .45 ACP) are right in the middle, weighing in at 21 ounces with a 4" barrel.

---

Some manufacturers - like Smith & Wesson with their new M&P line - offer simply the sub-compact and full sized sidearms. There's generally not a terribly big difference between the two sizes:

Full size M&P:
Length: 7½"
Weight: 24 oz.
Barrel length: 4¼"
Capacity: 17 rounds 9mm

Compact M&P:
Length: 6.7"
Weight: 21.7 oz.
Barrel length: 3.5"
Capacity: 12 rounds 9mm

So there's not an awful lot of difference between the full-size and the compact, really - you save less than an inch of overall length, a little over 2 ounces in weight, and lose a whopping 0.75" on the barrel, all at the expense of 5 rounds capacity.

I have the predecessor to the M&P, the SW99, in both configurations. I've carried and shot both sizes extensively, and, realistically, there's no difference between the two as far as accuracy, perceived recoil, or controllability. The compact model is easier to carry, in that the smaller grip means less printing overall. Given that there's no discernable functional difference between the two, I see no advantage to the full-sized version whatsoever.

As far as wheelguns go, the difference between the two sizes is sharper - for the paltry 2 round advantage of the larger "L" frame, the extra weight, grip size, and overall length make the larger gun much harder to conceal. The smaller J-frames, however, offer significantly more perceived recoil and are not particularly fun to shoot for any length of time. It's a definitive trade-off, with the light weight of the snubbie offering one advantage over all the other guns listed: it can be carried in one's pocket. Sure, it's a little harder to master shooting a .357 Magnum snubbie, but when you can have 5 rounds of .357 Magnum at your disposal, that's a tradeoff worth making.

In summary: For the semi-auto or the revolver, the smaller/smallest frame guns are easier to carry. The semi-autos don't seem to see much difference in accuracy or recoil between the full-size and compact guns; the difference is far more pronounced in the revolver side. For the experienced gunnie, the smaller guns are a better fit; for a novice, though, better to have the extra heft for recoil and the longer barrel for accuracy - a gun you don't shoot because it's physically painful or too inaccurate doesn't do anybody any good.

The bottom line here goes against the American grain a bit - smaller is better.

That is all.