Micro Compacts vs Subcompacts: Which do you prefer for Concealed Carry?

Aguila Blanca said:
I don't get hung up on "micro" vs. "sub" compact but, since you asked for a non-overlapping set of criteria, my attempt would be

Micro Compact Pistol
A very small, single-stack pistol chambered in smaller caliber cartridges from .22LR to .380 ACP with a barrel length of under 3".

Subcompact Pistol
A smaller handgun, single or double stack, chambered in cartridges ranging from .380 ACP and larger, with a barrel length 3" or greater and less than 3-1/2."
Click to expand...

Those are okay and all, but they're actually less descriptive than the ones I provided, ergo they only leave more margin for error.

I would rather see a more detailed description.

ghbucky said:
Aguila, why are you arguing over the criteria. The OP clearly wants to talk about what people carry.

Focus on what the OP wants to talk about.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your attempt at keeping the discussion on-topic, but it doesn't bother me, so he can say what he likes. Besides, I've already challenged him to come up with a superior description of his own, and obviously if he can do so, then the thread can only benefit from it. He's already isolated the issues, has continued to identify flaws in my description even after I pointed out the fact that overlap is inevitable, so clearly he must have a superior description in mind, and I would like to hear it.
 
Last edited:
Forte S+W said:
Those are okay and all, but they're actually less descriptive than the ones I provided, ergo they only leave more margin for error.

I would rather see a more detailed description.
Click to expand...
You are free to consider my definitions inferior to yours -- opinions are what make horse racing -- but mine do not allow for any overlap. Personally, I carry what I want to carry and I don't care if someone else calls it a micro-compact or a subcompact or a compact.
 
I would bet a hill of money that the LCP is the most CARRIED gun in the US by people with concealed carry permits.

Then I would double down on that bet with a follow up that most people with a concealed carry permit do not carry at all.
 
Someone how I doubt that the majority of folks who went through the trouble and expense of obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit/License do not carry a firearm.
 
I spent some time thinking about if or how the actual labels matter.

The question is what do those labels convey. From the descriptions provided so far the labels seem to try to impart some degree of concealability. The problem I’ve found is that people tend to disagree greatly about what they find easy to conceal. We have people here that won’t carry less than a Glock 17 and claim it easy to carry and others that won’t carry more than a Ruger LCP. I can point to the label and say, “It’s easy to conceal, it’s only a subcompact”, and someone will disagree strongly. Looking at some of the examples given I would almost add another “class” of pistols as I have a hard time considering the PPK and Glock 27 as the same class of firearms.

I think another factor might be what I’d call “capability”. That to me is a combination of the cartridge the firearm is chambered in as well as the capacity. Of course then there are discussions on how effective one cartridge is versus another and how much more capacity is or isn’t an advantage relative to the cartridge. Is a Glock 27 with 9 rd of 40SW the same as a Walther PPK with 6 rd of 380 ACP? In my own mind, no, even if weight and external dimensions show them as very similar.

When I choose to carry a firearm concealed, overall size isn’t the only factor. Certainly there is a limit to what I can carry without printing based on my clothing choice, but there are trades in terms of size that I’m willing to make in order to gain what I would consider more capability.

Going back to my first point, as a thought exercise I get the point of this discussion. I just question if any labels that are decided on will really have that much value given how nuanced the issue of carrying a pistol concealed seems to be, person to person.

Lastly, to a point I’d agree with wild cat about many people owning carry permits and not actually carrying. In some states obtaining a permit isn’t particularly arduous and/or comes with benefits in terms of the legality of transporting firearms or ease of a background check on firearm purchases. Someone might get a permit for just those reasons. I know people that live in “Constitutional Carry” states that still have permits just because they think it reflects well on them if they went to court for a defensive shooting. And someone having a permit doesn’t mean that person always carries. Some are much more religious, vigilant, whatever adjective you want to choose about it. Do most people with a permit not carry? Idk, but I bet a significant number don’t, at least not regularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Someone how I doubt that the majority of folks who went through the trouble and expense of obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit/License do not carry a firearm.
Click to expand...
I think this varies by locality. I live in one of the very restrictive states. About three years ago the State Police told me that in my town of about 10,000 population there are (were) 450 people with carry permits. I certainly don't know everyone in town, but I'd be willing to bet that not more than 10 percent of those 450 people carry regularly -- or at all.

The thing is that our state law makes it illegal to possess even an unloaded handgun outside of your home if you don't have a permit. That means just to be able to go to a shooting range once or twice a year you MUST have a permit, or you are committing a felony. So even casual, occasional shooters need the permit so they can legally transport a handgun to a range.
 
I just can't see someone going through the effort and expense involved to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit/License merely for the sake of infrequent recreational range trips, nor can I understand why anyone who may have done so fail to take advantage of the fact that they can now legally carry a firearm on their person, especially nowadays when there are so many featherweight pistols/revolvers that anyone can slip right in their pocket and practically forget that it's even there.

Honestly, I live in a "Shall Issue" State in which obtaining a Concealed Carry License is as easy as showing up at the Sheriff's Office or Court House with your ID, a $20 Bill, and filling out a bit of paperwork that the average person could practically fill out with their eyes closed, yet I never bothered to get one until a few years after I bought a gun because I really didn't see any need for one. Granted that it's legal in my state to transport firearms between properties, places of business, and shooting ranges without the need for a permit so long as the firearm is unloaded and secured while in transit, but even if one were required to take my guns to the range, I just can't see doing so if I wasn't going to frequently visit the range, and you better believe that if I went through the trouble of obtaining a permit in order to do so, then obviously I'd be taking full advantage of the permissions granted by holding one.
 
If a permit is required to transport firearms and you can’t shoot on your own property then even if you aren’t going to go to a range frequently you’ll still likely want that permit. To me that’s pretty sensible. You just described a rather painless process that cost you all of $20. I can’t speak to everyone’s financial status, but compared to the cost of a firearm itself and the cost of shooting in both time and money (especially these days) that seems like a small price to pay if that was the only way to be able to shoot (I’ll add I’m not advocating for such a requirement en masse). It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to go through that process and not carry regularly, at least it seems more reasonable than buying a firearm and not shooting it because you don’t want to spend the money on a carry permit.

At the end of the day there are a number of decisions people make that I find baffling. That doesn’t mean those decision don’t get made or that many people might make those decisions. My experience is this forum and the people that visit it are a select subset of actual gun owners. There are many, many gun owners that go through the requisite paperwork and that’s about it. They like the option of doing things, even if they don’t exercise that option.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Micro compact definition

OK how about this: can we add this into the consideration of what a micro-compact is? Assuming a person has the standard number of fingers in their normal places, A micro-compact can only fit the user's dominant middle and ring finger on the grip of the gun with a flush fit magazine. Sure, mag extension base plates can be added, but a gun like this has the potential to be a micro compact. That would include J frames with boot grip, little Kahrs, nano, pico, (no femto? you heard it here first! I bet it's in 22LR) LCP, PF9 etc.

What if you're a giant that requires a compact size for a "2 finger grip"? Well, relatively speaking, that becomes your micro-compact. Maybe this "2 finger test" gives you a relative idea of how you will be able to shoot / handle recoil / rapid strings.

I added a little hogue handall JR to my Kahr and the palm swell really speeds up sight re-acquisition. It's wider than originally intended, but I still consider it a micro compact. An extended mag will fit in my pocket but it can feel kind of pointy against my leg
 
Hmmm... I don't have enough experience with nearly enough Micro Compacts to be sure if that statement is universally true, but it's most certainly true of my LCP, which is why I keep the finger extension on all of my LCP Magazines, so I can get a decent two-finger grip on the pistol.

What the heck, I'll add it.
 
dyl said:
OK how about this: can we add this into the consideration of what a micro-compact is? Assuming a person has the standard number of fingers in their normal places, A micro-compact can only fit the user's dominant middle and ring finger on the grip of the gun with a flush fit magazine. Sure, mag extension base plates can be added, but a gun like this has the potential to be a micro compact. That would include J frames with boot grip, little Kahrs, nano, pico, (no femto? you heard it here first! I bet it's in 22LR) LCP, PF9 etc.
Click to expand...
I think that's characteristic of many pistols that would be classified as subcompacts, as well. I'm thinking of the Para-Ordnance Slim Hawg, P10.45, and Warthog models, as well as the Colt Government 380, and I'm sure there are many more.
 
Answer: Neither.

I don't carry mouse guns in mouse calibers. I only cary large-frame guns in adult calibers.

LBTDPdiaroma.jpeg
 
I only cary large-frame guns in adult calibers.
Click to expand...
I used to carry 1911s a lot but circumstances change. Some of us can't carry large-frame guns because of clothing restrictions due to work. And any caliber I carry is a proven one for stopping, even killing adults.
 
I guess by the OP's definition I carry a sub-compact...a Sig P365... I have no problems concealing it in an OWB with a shirt tail or jacket. It's 9mm, has a 10+1 capacity and I can hold groups to an inch at 10 yds, slow fire from a Weaver stance. The sights are excellent and it has been virtually 100% reliable since I bought it...~1300 rounds now.

Short of going swimming, it's no trouble to conceal...YMMv Rod

BTW, when the mood strikes me, I've also been known to CC with 3" bbl'd, Smith Model 60 .357. Either hides well. Here's my rig, shirt tail tucked in to demonstrate the gun position.

 
Last edited:
Never carried the little Astra, but I do miss it. Here it is next to a LCP.
 

Attachments

  • LCP & Astra Firecat.jpg
    LCP & Astra Firecat.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 40
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top