There is sort of a three way balancing act when selecting guns/ammo for smaller, recoil-sensitive shooters. You have...
1) gun weight -- I know that, to many of us, a heavy gun isn't necessarily bad, but for smaller, less-strong shooters, a gun could easily be too heavy. I will use the terms "light" gun to really mean a gun of comfortable, manageable weight and "heavy" gun to mean one that is somewhat difficult to handle well. If a shooter has to lean back to keep from tipping over, that's probably too heavy. If a gun feels like a lead pipe while pheasant hunting, that's probably too heavy.
2) recoil -- No explanation needed. No matter how you twist it, more recoil is bad. Less recoil is good.
3) shot potency -- Light loads are fine for many purposes, but heavier loads certainly have some advantages. Champion trap shooter aren't using 3/4 oz. loads, and it's a rare person who kills geese with a 28 gauge. So for the sake of general shooting needs, I'm considering a gun/ammo combination with a heavy loads to be a good thing while light loads can, in many cases, be unsuitable for a task.
It's not hard to to find a gun/ammo combination that will be great in two of the above categories, but a combination that's great in all three is unlikely.
Possible 2 plus, 1 negative combinations are:
+ light gun
+ light recoil
- weak loads.
- heavy gun
+ light recoil
+ heavy loads
+ light gun
- heavy recoil
+ heavy loads
Which aspect one is most willing to compromise on should depend on purpose of the gun.
Shooting clays generally means a lot of shooting, so a smaller shooter would likely want low recoil as one of the pluses. What this means then is that the gun will have to be heavy, the loads have to be light, or some compromise between the two.
For an upland gun, I personally would not be willing to compromise on weight. If it's too heavy to carry comfortably, it takes the fun out of hunting. So that means one either has to endure harder recoil while shooting standard loads, shoot light loads to minimize recoil, or find a balance of moderate loads and moderate recoil.
For something like goose hunting, people may be reluctant to give up shot potency. So that means either a heavy gun to reduce recoil, accepting some bruises with a light gun, or finding some compromise of a mid-weight gun and tolerable recoil.
I suppose one could try to find an equal balance gun weight, recoil, and shot potency, but things intended to be adequate for many purposes are rarely great for any purpose. That said, some guns could serve two purposes well.
For a waterfowl/upland gun, a light gun with heavy shot capacity could be used. Recoil would be the drawback, but if only a handful of shots are taken per outing, that may be worth it. It certainly wouldn't be good for the hundreds of rounds shot in shooting sports.
For a sporting/waterfowl gun, a heavy gun with heavy shot capacity could be used. It would just be a matter of whether it's too heavy to handle well, and it would be an unpleasant upland gun.
I don't believe sporting and upland guns can pull double duty well, unless you're maybe talking about a sub-gauge used for skeet. Otherwise, the two activities and suitable gun just seem to be at opposite end of the spectrum.
...Keep in mind this is still based on smaller shooters. A stronger person might not perceive a heavy gun as a negative, even while upland hunting.
Finally, I'm not overlooking gun fit. I just didn't mention it because it's ALWAYS important regardless of what your gun weighs, what shells you're shooting, or how much free recoil you're dealing with.
