Why own a full size if sub compact shoots as well or better?

[Swstock]

2 of my guns are an hk p30l and a glock 26.

I shoot my Glock 26 better than I shoot the P30l.

The "on paper" benefits of full size are better accuracy, higher velocity, and normally extra capacity.

In my case, it seems that the accuracy argument is void since I personally shoot the smaller gun better.

In NY the capacity is level on all since were restricted to 10 rounds.

That leaves me with difference in velocity. Is the velocity of a full size gun THAT much better than a sub compact or compact? Im really considering selling my P30l because so far, it doesnt seem that it pays for me to own it. I could use the money toward say a G30+ another G26 and some ammo.

Thoughts?

[ScottieG59]

The 1994 ban inspired the creation of many of the smaller handguns. The trend seems to have continued once people realized the ease of carry.

I kept my bigger guns, though they are not carried as often. They are still my home defense choices.

[wake.joe]

Longer sight radius, bigger magazine, and more velocity. Are any of these needed? Probably not! I really doubt any of these features make much of a difference. :D But I like knowing it's there.

[Arik]

I just dont like the small grips. For me G17/21 have the perfect size. I can tolerate a G19 and EDC one but any shorter and half my palm is just hanging there.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[S. Galbraith]

I tend to shoot compact sized pistols(G19/P228/P2000) better than their full sized counterparts in most practical pistol shooting applications Even at 25yrds or more. When you get into subcompacts, the stability of the smaller grip starts to deteriorate my shooting ability at 15yrds or greater. It has more to do with grip size, than sight radius.

[DanjojoUSMC]

What type of shooting are you doing? Multiple targets at speed, off hand shooting, reloads, etc. factor into it more than slow fire at the range. Subcompacts that have a two finger reload grip are too iffy for me. Pinky is the most important part of the grip for the human anatomy.

[Deputy Dan]

The sub compacts shoot about the same as the compact and full size counterparts... the sub compacts are less forgiving when the shooter makes errors in their shooting fundamentals...however minor they are.

I have cleaned my agency's qual course with my G27 as well as my G23... as long an I execute the fundamentals correctly, I can shoot a perfect score. I find it easier to shoot a compact or full size, but a competent shooter can get the job done with a sub compact.

[Alaskapopo]

2 of my guns are an hk p30l and a glock 26.

I shoot my Glock 26 better than I shoot the P30l.

The "on paper" benefits of full size are better accuracy, higher velocity, and normally extra capacity.

In my case, it seems that the accuracy argument is void since I personally shoot the smaller gun better.

In NY the capacity is level on all since were restricted to 10 rounds.

That leaves me with difference in velocity. Is the velocity of a full size gun THAT much better than a sub compact or compact? Im really considering selling my P30l because so far, it doesnt seem that it pays for me to own it. I could use the money toward say a G30+ another G26 and some ammo.

Thoughts?

The Glock is easier to shoot than the HK with their craptackular trigger pulls. A full size Glock is easier to shoot yet.
Pat

[Salamander]

Accuracy at what range?

For example, on days that I shot my Glock 26 and my M&P45 together, at shorter distances (7 yards) the M&P, with a full extra inch of barrel and sight radius, was only very slightly more accurate. But start moving out, and by 10 yards the difference was more evident, and at 15 yards and beyond it was much easier for me to hit accurately with the bigger gun.

A good quality subcompact from most any name manufacturer is probably capable of accuracy at considerable distance, certainly I've seen a few people do astonishing things with a small gun. If you're able to shoot at that level... awesome. But for many of us, the longer sight radius makes things a lot easier beyond a certain distance. Practical accuracy isn't the same thing as bench rest accuracy.

Thus my current dual approach. In town, where encounters are most likely to be at short range, my EDC is a subcompact. But in the woods, which out here on the west coast can cover hundreds of thousands of acres, potential threats are more likely to be critters (feral hogs, bear) or low-lifes running illegal grows or meth labs and associated fighting dogs. Potential threats can often be observed at much greater distances in the back country, and in that scenario I personally prefer to have more than 3.5 inches of barrel to work with. A full-size grip can also be an advantage in the rain or when hands are sweaty after a long hike through rugged terrain. If I could, I'd carry a rifle. Usually I can't, so I take the next best thing.

Someone who rarely ventures outside of town and who shoots well with a small gun may very possibly be able to standardize on a subcompact, especially if ease of concealment is a primary concern. Others who encounter a wider variety of environments may need multiple guns to cover all the eventualities.

I'm sure others can advance additional scenarios. I guess what I'm saying is that each person is unique, thus we're likely to find a variety of different ways to address our individual needs and those ways may evolve over time as our circumstances change. That's why there isn't just one brand and size of gun out there, and I think that's a good thing.

[silvabaQ]

Ive been taught that velocity is king and in many cases will determine incapacitaion....can a 750fps projectile incapacitate? Yes, it can. Yet odds are, that 900fps projectile will do it on a more consistent basis.

Ill take my full size 1911 any day over a 3" compact. Hands down.

Not saying the 3" wont do the job, but odds are stacked in favor of the 5"

[Magic_Salad0892]

I tend to shoot compact sized pistols(G19/P228/P2000) better than their full sized counterparts in most practical pistol shooting applications Even at 25yrds or more. When you get into subcompacts, the stability of the smaller grip starts to deteriorate my shooting ability at 15yrds or greater. It has more to do with grip size, than sight radius.

I'm in the same boat.

[Deputy Dan]

Out to 25 yards I have seen no difference in my group size between the sub compact, compact and full size Glocks... it is easier to shoot the larger pistols well, but the sub compacts with a competent shooter can do as well as a larger pistol... when we used to carry revolvers the same held true with the J frame and 3" K frames... harder to shoot well, but with an expert driver excellent results can be had.

[Shokr21]

I don't see the problem. You shoot the gun that is easier (for most) to conceal better than a full size pistol that is hard to conceal (for most).

That sounds like a win in my book. Unless you're married to the idea of a p30 why not offload it for 2 used glocks? or a used glock and a case + of ammo?

Seems easy to me, it's not rocket science, shoot the gun you shoot best and are most likely to jam in a holster when you leave the house.

[kcara]

I don't see the problem. You shoot the gun that is easier (for most) to conceal better than a full size pistol that is hard to conceal (for most).

That sounds like a win in my book. Unless you're married to the idea of a p30 why not offload it for 2 used glocks? or a used glock and a case + of ammo?

Seems easy to me, it's not rocket science, shoot the gun you shoot best and are most likely to jam in a holster when you leave the house.

Uh oh. You said you liked an XDM. You know that most people only like glocks, M&P, and CZ here right? :haha:

[Swstock]

I don't see the problem. You shoot the gun that is easier (for most) to conceal better than a full size pistol that is hard to conceal (for most).

That sounds like a win in my book. Unless you're married to the idea of a p30 why not offload it for 2 used glocks? or a used glock and a case + of ammo?

Seems easy to me, it's not rocket science, shoot the gun you shoot best and are most likely to jam in a holster when you leave the house.

Thats what I was thinking. If im more accurate at 7 yards with the glock, then id be more accurate at 25 as well. Im not comparing a full size glock to sub compact glock, Im comparing my full size hk to my sub compact glock. In my case the glock is more accurate. Im sure its just the mechanics of my trigger squeeze.

Im not a competitive shooter, this is really a pd/hd gun. The range is about 10 yards.

"Ive been taught that velocity is king and in many cases will determine incapacitaion....can a 750fps projectile incapacitate? Yes, it can. Yet odds are, that 900fps projectile will do it on a more consistent basis."

This statement would lead me to thinking about getting a glock 19 just for the increase velocity, but Im gonna try to find gel tests from different barrel lenghts.

[G_M]

You probably are faster with your sub-compact but that is another thing to weigh. Accuracy and speed, you want to be accurate yes but you also want to have fast and accurate follow up shots as well. Having a full sized might give you an advantage in that area.

[750.356]

Just so we're on the same page;

Define "shoot better". What measurement are you using to determine "shooting as good as" or "shooting better"?

Running drills from concealment with a shot timer? Timing drills that involve several manipulations (drawing, reloading)? Shooting a static target for groups with no time limit? Are you involving any subjective measurements? (ex: you average 6.30 seconds for drill X using both a G17 and a 26, despite this, using the G17 'feels' more positive and consistent when on the timer).

The definition of "shoot better" can vary wildly depending on what we're talking about here.

[silvabaQ]

At SD range, accuracy does not come into play(in terms of barrel length)

[Shokr21]

Uh oh. You said you liked an XDM. You know that most people only like glocks, M&P, and CZ here right? :haha:

either you quoted the wrong person or you're dyslexic/illiterate.

[Swstock]

Just so we're on the same page;

Define "shoot better". What measurement are you using to determine "shooting as good as" or "shooting better"?

Running drills from concealment with a shot timer? Timing drills that involve several manipulations (drawing, reloading)? Shooting a static target for groups with no time limit? Are you involving any subjective measurements? (ex: you average 6.30 seconds for drill X using both a G17 and a 26, despite this, using the G17 'feels' more positive and consistent when on the timer).

The definition of "shoot better" can vary wildly depending on what we're talking about here.

Im not timing anything. I'm going on the basis that the glock hits where I aim more consistently than the HK.


At SD range, accuracy does not come into play(in terms of barrel length)

Right, im not even talking about that when comparing a glock 26 and 19. Im more worried about velocity.

[750.356]

Im not timing anything. I'm going on the basis that the glock hits where I aim more consistently than the HK.

I will say then that you are using a very inadequate metric for your definition of 'shoots better'. This is not a method I would use for selecting a handgun if your intent is defensive use/fighting.

[Swstock]

I will say then that you are using a very inadequate metric for your definition of 'shoots better'. This is not a method I would use for selecting a handgun if your intent is defensive use/fighting.

You would lean on something that you shoot less accuratley but faster?

[ST911]

When the Glock subcompacts were new, I noticed that shooters often shot those better than larger frames in the same caliber. The shorter grip surface forced a more deliberate grip with the fingers remaining on the gun, there was less surface area to heel the gun with, and shooters were more deliberate in their sight alignment and trigger press. These results were consistent enough that the subs were used for remediation at times to correct grip issues. (This was before the thumbs-forward/reactive shooting type grips now more common.)

Others made the same observations and had the same results.

This does NOT translate to an improvement in splits or other attributes of fast handling/shooting. Just more static or deliberate drills.

[750.356]

You would lean on something that you shoot less accuratley but faster?

Not at all. I'm saying that, for the purposes of defensive use, assessing handguns by comparing the size of slow fire groups at a target with no manipulations is not adequate.

Personally, I would shoot a number of different drills from concealment that at least involve drawing and reloading, and do it on a shot timer. IMO, a full-size gun really pulls ahead when you're actually working it, and not just shooting groups.

There are also subjective things things that could sway your assessment. Just a couple random things off the top of my head:

-Full size gun affords a much more consistent grip when establishing the grip from an IWB holster while drawing quickly from concealment.

-Handgun with full size grips eliminate the 'pinched pinky' thing that can happen when subcompacts are reloaded quickly (or helps you avoid the 'fanning the pinky out' thing to mitigate this).

-Full size handgun has longer slide dwell time, possibly making sight tracking easier and giving the recoil a better subjective 'feel' to it.

If you were to use both guns to shoot F.A.S.T drills (or anything that involved drawing, shooting quickly, and reloading on the clock), I'll bet you would find a lot of things that made the full size gun differ from the compact, on top of turning better times.

[Swstock]

Not at all. I'm saying that, for the purposes of defensive use, assessing handguns by comparing the size of slow fire groups at a target with no manipulations is not adequate.

Personally, I would shoot a number of different drills from concealment that at least involve drawing and reloading, and do it on a shot timer. IMO, a full-size gun really pulls ahead when you're actually working it, and not just shooting groups.

There are also subjective things things that could sway your assessment. Just a couple random things off the top of my head:

-Full size gun affords a much more consistent grip when establishing the grip from an IWB holster while drawing quickly from concealment.

-Handgun with full size grips eliminate the 'pinched pinky' thing that can happen when subcompacts are reloaded quickly (or helps you avoid the 'fanning the pinky out' thing to mitigate this).

-Full size handgun has longer slide dwell time, possibly making sight tracking easier and giving the recoil a better subjective 'feel' to it.

If you were to use both guns to shoot F.A.S.T drills (or anything that involved drawing, shooting quickly, and reloading on the clock), I'll bet you would find a lot of things that made the full size gun differ from the compact, on top of turning better times.

Thank you. That all makes sense.

[mizer67]

You would lean on something that you shoot less accuratley but faster?

You're looking for practical accuracy, i.e. accuracy blended with speed in a handgun. Shooting static slow fire at a B8 or B27 @ 7 yards is not a good measure of this, as another poster mentioned.

I believe it was the Rodger's school that documented 11% better scores with a G17 vs. a G19. I can only imagine that scores with a G26 would be >10% worse than a G19.

http://www.rogersshootingschool.com/index.php

[Rayrevolver]

When the Glock subcompacts were new, I noticed that shooters often shot those better than larger frames in the same caliber. The shorter grip surface forced a more deliberate grip with the fingers remaining on the gun, there was less surface area to heel the gun with, and shooters were more deliberate in their sight alignment and trigger press. These results were consistent enough that the subs were used for remediation at times to correct grip issues. (This was before the thumbs-forward/reactive shooting type grips now more common.)

Others made the same observations and had the same results.

This does NOT translate to an improvement in splits or other attributes of fast handling/shooting. Just more static or deliberate drills.


Very interesting, thanks.

My 26 is a laser beam and I figured it was due to the shorter barrel being more stiff than a longer barrel. It was a point that was always brought up when people said their 26 shot more accurately than their 17/19/34. It made sense because I was trying to figure out how mechanically it would benefit having a short barrel.

I agree with the others, throw in dynamics and the full size should perform better. I might bring a 26 to the next match and run it for a stage. We can't carry in Maryland so the 26 has been sitting for a few years.

[ST911]

Very interesting, thanks.

My 26 is a laser beam and I figured it was due to the shorter barrel being more stiff than a longer barrel. It was a point that was always brought up when people said their 26 shot more accurately than their 17/19/34. It made sense because I was trying to figure out how mechanically it would benefit having a short barrel.

I agree with the others, throw in dynamics and the full size should perform better. I might bring a 26 to the next match and run it for a stage. We can't carry in Maryland so the 26 has been sitting for a few years.

The dual spring setup in the subcompacts is also a factor, for its tendency to produce a stronger and more consistent lockup. I'll defer to one of the resident engineers to explain the hows/whys, but it also explains why many are reporting better OOB accuracy with the gen4s as a whole.

[750.356]

Very interesting, thanks.

My 26 is a laser beam and I figured it was due to the shorter barrel being more stiff than a longer barrel. It was a point that was always brought up when people said their 26 shot more accurately than their 17/19/34. It made sense because I was trying to figure out how mechanically it would benefit having a short barrel.

I agree with the others, throw in dynamics and the full size should perform better. I might bring a 26 to the next match and run it for a stage. We can't carry in Maryland so the 26 has been sitting for a few years.

It's interesting what a widespread phenomenon it is with Glocks. I remember ~15 years ago how Massad Ayoob used to mention in articles how he shot more accurately with a 26 versus a 17. I also remember at that time (with my limited experience and understanding), thinking there was no way it made sense.

And you see this claim made over and over with shooters in general, most notably with the Glock 17 vs 26 and Glock 21 vs 30.

One theory I've heard: with the subcompact Glocks, the projectile has completely exited the barrel before any rearward slide movement or unlocking has occurred. Whereas the full-size guns may start cycling before the projectile has completely exited. This would probably be easy to discern with high-speed video, but I can't say I've ever seen it verified one way or the other.

[Bulletdog]

For me there is no practical difference as far as the shooting results are concerned with the 26, 19, or 17. Same with the 27, 23, or 22. I shoot them all with about the same speed and accuracy. The full grip of the compacts, gives me slightly more of a feeling of confidence, but I've shot whole classes with the subs, with no issues. One could say the a higher round count is an advantage for the big guns, but since the mags are interchangeable, I don't see it as much of a point.

To answer the original question, I don't see a strong case in favor of the full size guns. I rarely shoot my full size ones anymore. I alternate between the compacts for cooler weather (cover garments), and the subs for hotter weather.