Full size, compact, etc...for a first time buyer

O

OhioGuy

New member
I'm pretty new to shooting, but I know I would like to buy a semi-auto (probably striker-fired, although I've shot Berettas and really liked the 92FS!) soon. I intend to take some training locally that will eventually get into holster drawing, shooting from compromised positions, and the like.

I do not yet know whether I want to carry concealed. I've already decided I will not do that until I've put significant time into training and practicing!

I need to bring my own gun to these classes--"train with the gun you'll use" is the advice. I can rent for recreational shooting or some "try before you buy" activity...

So here's my question. A lot of "new shooter" advice says to begin with a full-size handgun...usually lower felt recoil, longer sight distance = more accurate shot, easier to control the gun with a full size grip. However, if I train with a full size gun but end up choosing to carry, I'll have trained with a weapon I will probably never have with me on any regular basis.

Someone at a local shop suggested I get a full size gun, just work on putting thousands of rounds down the range to get used to controlling the gun and building accuracy--then size down to a compact or subcompact version of that same model (for instance, get an M&P 9 4", then eventually get an M&P 9 Bodyguard to carry). It seems like reasonable advice, although it's expensive advice...

He did advise not to train seriously with differing kinds of guns...don't train a lot with DA/SA but then carry striker because it could lead to confusion and error in tense situations. Also seems like good advice.

What have people here done? Is there enough benefit to a full size model over compact to warrant starting big and then going small?

I also know a lot of compact models can also use larger magazines with grip extensions...basically full-size grip with a shorter barrel. Maybe that's enough of a start?

From just shooting a few models I've found I really like Springfield's XD Mod.2 and Beretta's Px4 Storm--both come in full and compact (and subcompact) versions.

Enough of my rambling! :D
 
Meh, I say get the gun you are going to shoot and train with it. I jumped right to a sub compact that I carry (Springfield Mod2 .45ACP) and never had problems shooting it. That being said, this is me....

If I were you, I would rent a few in different calibers to find the one that feels comfortable for you to start. Then, buy based on use. If you plan to carry concealed, a full size will be hard to carry. If not, then nothing wrong with a full size. The other option is to buy full size and then buy another compact later.

It is hard to say what is going to work best for you but out of everything you stated, the one thing that is right is to put thousands of rounds down range until you are comfortable with the gun.
 
If you live near Dayton, OH give simtrainer a call. They have a program where you can try multiple guns for a nominal fee + ammo.
 
DaFlake, did you ever shoot the full size version of the Mod2, and if so, did you notice any appreciable difference between the two (recoil, accuracy, ease of holding, etc.)

I suppose I will have to rent one of each and try myself, just curious about your experience.

That's one I really have my eye on--few models have just "fit" my hand the first time I picked one up.
 
No I never did, besides, the .45 only comes in a sub compact. I have fired a few 1911s in the past but never that specific pistol in any other caliber. I was looking for a conceal carry gun and knew that I wanted a .45. Once I held the Mod.2, I knew that was for me. One thing I do like about that gun is with the 13 round mag, it "feels" more like a full size gun even with the 3.3" barrel. I have a big hand with long fingers and just liked the way it sat in my hand. If you can find someone near you who has one, it would be worth seeing if you could fire it.

First gun is always a hard decision, but try not to wrap a lot into it. If you find you like shooting, you might find that you end up with a few firearms in your house. ;)
 
Last edited:
Most pistol enthusiasts have at least a few pistols. Stance, grip, sight acquisition, and trigger control are the basics that can be learned and carry over to most any pistol. If you stay within a family it might be easier to transition from one like model to another but not necessarily so. The Glock 19 is so popular for many reasons but one being that it is a pretty good jack of all trades including CCW.

If I could only own one pistol I would be fine with a compact like the Glock 19 or very similar in size. I find that especially in 9MM that those size compact pistols which allow a full grip don't have objectionable recoil.

Your best bet IMO is to try out different pistols at the range after you get some basic instruction on stance, grip, sight acquisition, and trigger control to see if some particular models work best for you and then decide what to purchase which may not be what "feels best in your hand" at the gun counter. I see no harm in starting out with a full size and then purchasing a compact size with similar characteristics/trigger action/controls later, which may even be a different brand, to use for CCW if you want to go that way too as long as you have a chance to put some rounds through it first.

BTW many of us have found that we enjoy more and shoot better a compact sized pistol than it's full size counterpart.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
If I understand you correctly, you are not committed yet to carrying concealed. If that is correct, I would think it unwise to buy a very small pistol as your first. A full size like the 92FS you like or a Glock 17 would be great at the range and for home defense. A compact like a G19 or the compact PX4, if you like Berettas, would still be good for those uses, and a lot of folks say they conceal them fine. A G26 is quite concealable and still, in my opinion, a good shooter, but may be a little more challenging to learn on. Pocket guns are usually not a good choice to start with.
 
My recommendation is always a .22 LR pistol, it helps you work on your fundamentals without having to worry about recoil and helps you avoid the dreaded "flinch".

A flinch happens when your muscles clench suddenly in anticipation of the shot firing, yanking the muzzle of the gun downwards and off-target at the last possible moment.

That being said, we are men, hard headed and don't want to be seen shooting a 22 lr pistol as our first pistol :D

This is a question I hear all the time from new shooters: I want a pistol that does everything? There is no right answer, everything is a compromise. The larger the pistol, the better it soaks up recoil but the harder it is to conceal. The smaller the pistol, the easier it is to conceal, but the harder it is to shoot because of the increase in recoil.

I would buy first:

A full size 9mm pistol for home defense and range gun (Glock 17, Springfield XD9, Smith & Wesson M&P9, HK VP9, Walther PPQ) Your choice, you can't go wrong.

If I would decide to conceal carry then I would buy:

A single stack sub-compact 9mm pistol for IWB carry (Glock 43, Smith & Wesson Shield, Ruger LC9s Pro)

Also would buy a pocket carry .380 pistol (Ruger LCP) for the summer.


Optional:
Ideally the more rounds you can carry comfortably the better. Some people might recommend a double stack 9mm pistol for IWB carry (such as the Glock 26), but I live in Florida and I like carrying slim pistols.

Welcome to our community, the fact that you are asking questions is a great start.
 
Last edited:
TailGator: correct, I'm not yet committed to carrying concealed. I've held a few guns that (I think) are what you're calling "pocket guns," like S&W Bodyguard and a Beretta "Pico" that I swear are smaller than my kids' squirt guns and seemed hard to grip even in the store!

I've also noticed that terms like "compact" and "subcompact" are totally inconsistent among manufactures. A 92FS "compact" is still a 4.25" barrel, while other "compacts" are barely over 3".

Maybe it's better to refer to them in lengths that are consistent across manufacturers.

Both the PX4 compact (3.3") and XD Mod.2 sub-compact (3") still feel like "real guns" in my hand. I think both allow the use of extended mags with grip extensions, so they fit the hand like their full-size brethren. I can grip and hold these guns--they don't feel like the little pico-sized pocket guns. I think both are double-stack designs. I would not feel comfortable beginning with a tiny gun.

So my question may boil down to this: is there really THAT much practical difference between a 3" and a 4" barrel? If I could get a 3 or 3.3" model of a PX4, Mod.2, M&P...especially if they allow accept mags for full sized grip...would there be any reason to go up to the 4" barrel for a first-time gun?

Wizzamen: thanks for the recommendation! I shot an M&P 22 at a first shots class and really liked it. Easy to load, easy to shoot, virtually no recoil. I've shot 9mm also...definitely a bigger kick, but very manageable. If I got a .22 it would be for cost efficiency and not fear of recoil. But since 9mm rounds are like shooting quarters out the end of the gun, the prices of that rimfire ammo look REALLY good :D

So you've raised a good point I hadn't considered...if I'm going to get a gun that I know I won't use for defense, but will use heavily for target practice and fun at the range, it may make much more sense to get a full size .22 (believe the M&P I used was a 4" model) and a more concealable ~3" 9mm that I could actually use for carry, home defense and the like. I'd spend another $350 or so on a gun, but save a lot of cost on ammo.

Thanks for everyone's responses! I really appreciate that experienced shooters never have any "hey look, it's a newbie, let's avoid 'em" disdain. More a "hey, a newbie! How can I help? Wanna try my revolver?" :)
 
I also fall into the ".22LR first" camp. .22LR has been somewhat scarce the past few years, but if you can find it, a .22LR allows you to get a lot of trigger time for low cost. That's time spent working on the fundamentals and learning to shoot without developing a flinch.

If you decide to skip over the .22LR (or once you're ready to buy a second gun), I'll also suggest that you go rent a whole bunch of pistols and shoot 'em. We can sit and spout the numbers on weight and capacity and sight radius, and on and on and on. None of us can tell you what will feel right in your hand or what you will enjoy shooting. That may not seem important, but if you hate shooting a gun, you won't practice with it, and you probably won't carry it.

Now, back to the original question: I am one of those "grew up around guns" guys, but I didn't really consider a pistol for home defense, or the possibility of concealed carry until about 6-7 years ago. The first pistol I got for those was full-sized and steel. I carried it for about 3 years before I realized just how heavy the danged thing was. So I went and bought a Glock 19. It's kind of a jack-of-all-trades gun. Large enough to shoot well, small enough to carry. I'll also tell you that the market is packed with good pistols that are in the same size range. (XD compacts, SR9c, M&P9c, CZs . . . ).

Mind you, though that there are plenty of folks who do carry full-sized pistols concealed. In particular, 1911s and Browning Hi-Powers. Length of the barrel isn't a problem, especially if you use and Inside-the-Waistband holster. The real problems with concealment come with: (1) thickness of the pistol; and (2) the butt of the gun sticking out. 1911s and Browning Hi-Powers are fairly thin pistols.
 
A gun is a tool, the question you need to answer is what do I want to do with it? Then get the right tool for the job. If CC is the plan and you buy a full size you probably won't be satisfied.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
 
I would think it unwise to buy a very small pistol as your first.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^
Get/train on a standard/full-size first.
Establish the fundamentals & comfortable trust before grappling with the complexities of handling a small/high-powered handgun.




postscript: Barring the 1st being a 22 (you'll eventually get one ;) ), Consider a Glock-17.
 
A .22LR does seem like a reasonable investment so I can put in a lot of training time for a relatively lower cost...

If the purpose of a .22 is to serve as a surrogate for a "real caliber" would you agree it makes sense to get a .22 that's as similar as possible to the gun I would use to defend my life?

For instance, the M&P22 felt very similar to a striker-fired M&P9...at least it has consistent travel and trigger weight. It might be a good .22 sidekick to an M&P, Glock, Springfield, etc.

If I get a DA/SA pistol like 92FS or PX4, then something like the Ruger SR22 or Walther P22 that's also DA/SA is the right pairing?

The Buckmark-style target pistols seemed designed specifically for highly accurate targeting, but don't even resemble guns that someone would actually carry (am I right in assuming this is true?)
 
postscript: Barring the 1st being a 22 (you'll eventually get one ), Consider a Glock-17.
Click to expand...

So this is a good illustration of what I think is my core question (thanks for everyone helping me think through this).

Clearly there's a world of difference between a G17 and some teeny-weeny LCP style gun designed for pockets.

But the difference between G17 and G19 seems rather minimal...less than an inch in the barrel I think? And a shorter magazine/grip on the G19, although if I've read right, the G19 can take the G17 longer magazine and end up with essentially the same grip.

If barrel length is isolated as the key discriminator, would a 4" version of a particular gun be significantly better to start with than a 3" version? This seems to effectively boil down to the differences between full and compact versions of many guns (PX4, Mod.2, etc.)
 
So my question may boil down to this: is there really THAT much practical difference between a 3" and a 4" barrel? If I could get a 3 or 3.3" model of a PX4, Mod.2, M&P...especially if they allow accept mags for full sized grip...would there be any reason to go up to the 4" barrel for a first-time gun?
Click to expand...

Possibly not unless you are going to do bulls eye shooting at 25 or more yards but again it is best for you to try out a couple full size and then a couple of the smaller pistols to see for yourself.

I have been extremely happy with my HK P30SK and I typically CCW it with 13 round magazines and X-Grip extender. If I had to I could easily live with it as my only pistol if I could only own one. I do shoot my full size HK P30L better but not as much better as I would have thought initially.

My first 10 rounds shot from my P30SK with the grip extender at 7 yards and the second time I ever fired it at first range session.

 
Last edited:
You asked a good question.

I would also suggest that you find some ranges that allow you to shoot different pistols, in different sizes and calibers, and with different manual of arms (trigger mechanisms and controls).

A full-size pistol will usually absorb recoil better, offer a better (longer) sight radius which will make sight alignment easier, and they usually offer better magazine capacity.

You are absolutely correct that the "compact" pistol category covers a huge amount of ground in terms of size and weight. In my opinion a "compact" pistol the size of a Glock 19, a Beretta PX4 Storm compact, a SIG Sauer P320 compact, or a SIG Sauer P229 gives up very little to a full-size pistol like a Beretta 92 or Model 1911 when it comes to recoil management, sight radius, or even magazine capacity.

Subcompact pistols that allow only a 2 finger (trigger, middle, and ring) finger grip on the frame do tend to be harder to shoot accurately, especially in larger calibers so a subcompact would probably not be my first choice.

If you do choose to buy a 22LR pistol you will be doing so primarily to develop trigger control. It will shoot so unlike any self-defense pistol you buy I am not sure I would worry about the manual of arms. Another consideration would be to buy a pistol chambered in 9mm or larger that allows you to buy a 22LR caliber conversion kit for it. Many SIGs and Glocks provide this option.

All things considered, I would be looking at those mid-sized pistols around the size of the Glock 19, SIG P320 compact, or PX4 Storm compact as the best option.
 
My first carry gun was a Glock 19. It is so old it doesn't a generation, it's just a Glock. That was 19 years ago, maybe a longer. Great shooter, easy to hid. One of the reasons I picked Glock over all the other guns I considered was the ease of field striping and cleaning. Also the ammo was cheaper. Just a couple of thoughts. What ever you get I hope you enjoy it for many years to come.
 
1) 22 to practice with
2) full-sized revolver or semi-automatic to shoot at the range and for HD
10) a small handgun that is easy to carry around

I may be prejudiced because I am a very large person with very large hands, but small handguns in decent SD calibers are generally not fun or easy to shoot. IMHO, after you have some experience under your belt, as long as your carry piece is DAO with no safety, it doesn't matter that much if it is different from other handguns you also shoot frequently: it is just "aim, squeeze, bang".
 
I'm pretty new to shooting, but I know I would like to buy a semi-auto (probably striker-fired, although I've shot Berettas and really liked the 92FS!) soon.
Click to expand...

IMHO, "striker vs. hammer" pales in importance to many other factors.

I intend to take some training locally that will eventually get into holster drawing, shooting from compromised positions, and the like.
Click to expand...

Basic class first.

So here's my question. A lot of "new shooter" advice says to begin with a full-size handgun...usually lower felt recoil, longer sight distance = more accurate shot, easier to control the gun with a full size grip.
Click to expand...

It kind of depends on you, and your own personal hands.

BTW, the recoil of 9mm is negligigle, for anything larger than the teeny tiny subcompacts.

What have people here done? Is there enough benefit to a full size model over compact to warrant starting big and then going small?

I also know a lot of compact models can also use larger magazines with grip extensions...basically full-size grip with a shorter barrel. Maybe that's enough of a start?
Click to expand...

OK, here's my advice. Get yourself a Glock 19

From just shooting a few models I've found I really like Springfield's XD Mod.2 and Beretta's Px4 Storm--both come in full and compact (and subcompact) versions.
Click to expand...

Or, yeah, an XD. But probably just get a Glock 19.

It's a good basic gun, with a 4 inch barrel. It's easy to shoot, you can use the longer magazines, it's easy to work on and take care of, and there's a ton of aftermarket support for it. Ignore the whiners who complain about the Glock grip angle.

Take your class. Learn to shoot. There's a good chance the G19 will be all you end up thinking you need.

Oh, yeah. Don't believe everything they tell you on the internet.
 
Typically I follow the ".22LR first" recommendation for people learning to shoot. Taking away the recoil and noise factors helps tremendously for making progress when first establishing the basics. It's also helpful to go shoot some low recoil, low noise marksmanship when you find yourself developing bad habits. (For example, solving the impressive flinch you're likely to develop after trying a scandium framed .357.)

It is possible to teach somebody to be a decent shooter using a service sized 9mm semi-auto or .38 Special/.357 Magnum revolver. It's going to take lots of time, dry-fire practice and live ammo, along with good instruction and proper practice. However, sloppy practice and spending rounds with poor fundamentals is counterproductive, and will lead to more energy and time spent correcting the bad habits in the long run.

All that being said, if the budget or other restrictions limit this to being a one-gun thing, I'd suggest getting a Glock 19 or similarly-sized 9mm semi-auto (I'm very fond of the Walther PPQ). Find somebody who can teach you how to shoot with the pistol and practice regularly.

As for whether or not a .22 should fully mimic your centerfire pistol, my opinion is split. On the one hand, it's great to be able to practice with something the feels similar to the big gun. I have a set of matche S&W K-frames in .22LR and .357 Magnum to prove this point. On the other hand, at some point in time shooting is shooting, which is to say any practice done right is good practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top