PDA

View Full Version : Sub-Compact, Worth the Trade off?



ABC
03-09-2011, 08:31 PM
With a sub-compact pistol one loses out on sight radius, magazine capacity, and grip space.

So my question is this: Is the diminished sight radius, capacity, and grip space worth the exchange for a more concealable weapon?

What else does one lose to gain the more concealable weapon?

Can those more knowledgeable than myself speak to any significant loss of muzzle velocity, and energy transfer due to the shorter barrel?

Can you make up for lost sight radius with a laser grip?

What about training? Will fatigue set in faster because they are less comfortable to shoot?

jslaker
03-09-2011, 08:43 PM
I'm not a fan of sub-compacts, personally. I'm especially not fond of double stack sub-compacts; they just feel completely out of proportion to me. I carry a USPc (which is dimensionally near-identical to a Glock 19 for a more familiar size reference) every day wearing khakis, a button up dress shirt, and tie and have never had concealment become an issue for me. There's just no place for a subcompact in my world.

In fact, my least favorite gun ever is easily the Glock 30. An old roommate of mine a couple of years ago owned one, and I never could find anything I liked about that gun. The short, fat grip combined with .45 ACP made controlling the gun under recoil a difficult proposition at best, even with the extended grip magazine floor plates.

I think there's some argument for micros and pocket guns as BUGs or for situations where you really can't hide a compact, but I don't see subs as adding enough concealibility to possibly justify the massively reduced ergonomics, personally.

EDIT:

I suppose it is worth noting that I have XL glove size hands that just barely fit a USPc/G19 sized grip. The ratio may not be quite as out of whack for others. I still think most double stack subs are far too wide for their intended purpose, though.

JodyH
03-09-2011, 08:45 PM
The sights radius advantage is greatly exaggerated.
With typical defensive sights it's a non-issue.

Capacity, my P2000Sk is 10+1, that's still more rounds than a full sized 1911.

Grip length is not that important because your pinky finger isn't the foundation of your grip.

Muzzle velocity drops around 100fps per inch of barrel.
A Glock 17 has 1" more barrel than a Glock 26, 100fps isn't the difference between Thor's hammer and a powder puff.

willowofwisp
03-09-2011, 10:21 PM
The sights radius advantage is greatly exaggerated.
With typical defensive sights it's a non-issue.

Capacity, my P2000Sk is 10+1, that's still more rounds than a full sized 1911.

Grip length is not that important because your pinky finger isn't the foundation of your grip.

Muzzle velocity drops around 100fps per inch of barrel.
A Glock 17 has 1" more barrel than a Glock 26, 100fps isn't the difference between Thor's hammer and a powder puff.

I have to totally agree with Jody,

I can shoot nearly hte same score with a 2.5" revolver or 6" in a 50 foot PPC match..move it out to a 50 yard match and yea it will change a little.

I carry my glock 26 with a standard flat base plate, I don't need the pinky to have a secure grip and a 10+1 capacity works for me, having a glock 19 or 17 mag as a reload and a j frame as a BUG soon.