Practical differences between compact and standard sized handguns

[Zeroptsdown]

Hi guys,

I asked this question over on our local forum, but didn't get many responses, so thought I would ask the experts here on pistol-forum!

Been contemplating this question for a while.

The practical differences between compact and standard sized handguns, other than ability to carry, conceal and capacity, but rather from a pure shooting perspective.

So for example a stock G19 vs G17 or M&P FS vs M&P compact or Sig 226 vs 229 etc.

A CZ75 P07 vs a Shadow is not really that comparable I think (due to polymer vs metal), but rather a CZ 75 compact vs CZ75B fullsize.

I feel the difference between my G17 and CZ P07 is basically minimal, but haven't been to the range to actually compare real values.

Has anyone taken a timer to the range and run practical drills and compared their times?

For example bill drills, Moz drills, FAST drill etc.

Thanks
T

[MDS]

FWIW, my performance is the same with a g19 vs g17.

[JV_]

I am faster and more accurate with the 17 than the 19, but it's not a huge difference. I tend to have more reload issues with the 19. The longer mags and more generous magwell on the 17 is noticeable. Perhaps it's my technique, but I've worked at it for a while and was never able to get it equal to a 17.

FWIW: I'm not a great reloader, if I can get a sub 2.0 from under a polo shirt, on an 8" @ 7Y, I'm usually thrilled.

[JHC]

I'm borderline obsessive about such comparisons. My comparo's are between G26, G19 and G17 and I find the distance to be pretty much the only variable that affects them. Not recoil or any other handling quality.

Drills I see VERY close to equal for me include FAST, Bill Drill, Bill Drill #2, El Prez and The Test (10-10-10). So basically out to 10 yards, nil of a difference.

At 15 yards I start to see the difference on drills like the 10-8 Headbox Standard or the 15 yards stage of the 99 Drill. Then at 25 yards a little more. If someone estimated a 15-20% advantage of a G17 vs a G26 at that range at low prob targets I might be inclined to agree.

If the target in the exercise is more generous then the differences are even less. Last year a very experienced shooter and I were prepping for a GSSF by shooting our own set up of the Glock M. Both of us with G17s. I pulled out my G26 and shot a half dozen runs with it as did he and our scores were virtually identical to our G17 scores. And that was his first time shooting a Glock sub compact.

[okie john]

The practical differences between compact and standard sized handguns, other than ability to carry, conceal and capacity, but rather from a pure shooting perspective.

I've tested the G17 vs. G19 vs. G26 and posted my results, which favor the G17. Other folks have done near-identical tests and found in favor of the G19 or the G26. There IS a difference, but it probably varies more by shooter than it does by make or model.


Okie John

[TR675]

Practically speaking, I see no real difference between my M&P FS and M&P compact, other than reloading speed.

Sample size of two, and etc., but my 9c is more accurate and has better sights (and a laser), so I favor it and use the FS for practice. YMMV.

[KevinB]

Practically speaking, I see no real difference between my M&P FS and M&P compact, other than reloading speed.

Sample size of two, and etc., but my 9c is more accurate and has better sights (and a laser), so I favor it and use the FS for practice. YMMV.

The C cannot take a real flashlight..

[TR675]

The C cannot take a real flashlight..

True, but that's not really relevant to my needs or the OP's question, which asked about differences from a "pure shooting perspective."

[LSP552]

I shoot the Glock 17 slightly better than the 19 inside 10 - 15 yards. The difference increases with distance beyond that. The same is true of the SIG 226 vs 228 or 239. Some of this could be more fit than anything else. The 17 and 226 fit my hand better that the compact versions. I also find the full size guns easier to reload at speed. For most people, larger guns are just easier to shoot/manipulate to a particular standard than a smaller gun.

The trade off in size vs performance is worth it for many people, which is why the G19 is such a popular carry pistol.

Ken

[KevinB]

As far as 'quantifiable' data goes.
Keep in mind that since 2004 all my pistol shooting has been done with a WML where possible.

I shot my 9C better than any of my M&P FS guns (even the MRDS ones) static shooting to 25m. Reloads where pretty close in time - with a slight edge to the FS.
I'm not really sure of why - but groups were significantly smaller with the 9C - I also found it quicker on the time by a noticeable percentage (it did not have a light - so it was not totally apples to apples)
I sold the 9C as it was too small for a duty gun (min 4" bbl req), and too big for a BUG. Had I been both able have an option for a 3rd gun, and find a workable MWL for it, I probably would have retained it as an off-duty/CCW, but use my FS for that role.

I shoot a 19 better than 17's (based on DoD and DoS quals I did with both for a few years), both accuracy and speed - reloads are a split. I got out of Glocks 3-4 years ago so all my experiences are Gen3 and earlier - but the grip angle on the 19 is much easier for me to deal with (and I still hate it) than the angle on the 17. That aspect alone would have me choose a 19 or a 17 all else being equal -- but I find my ability to 'run' the gun was higher with the 19 as well as my accuracy out to 25m was around 20% 'better' -- perhaps because I shot a 19 a lot more.


I shoot a 226 much better than a 228 - accuracy, reloads and speed. Even moving to the P226R and X200 from the 226, and comparing to a P228, I was better with the 226.


To me the difference in size and performance is minimal and personal 'feel' with a specific gun model can affect performance at several levels - however I do see why some opt for the smaller and lighter versions given the choice.