The USP Compact holds 13 rounds in 9mm as standard. 10 round mags are used in places that have laws limiting magazine capacity. If I understand your post correctly, I believe you might have been mislead into thinking an extended mag that sticks out below the grip is required to get the 13 round capacity. That is not the case. The USP Compact does have a lower round count than similarly sized pistols, such as the Glock 19, which holds 15 rounds.

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood the meaning of your post related to magazine capacity.

No Shawn you are correct I was getting the USP Compact confused with the H&K P2000SK and the Glock 26 both of which hold 10 rounds and the M&Pc which holds 12 rounds. I have found the discussion very informative and have come to the conclusion that if I was carrying a small gun for duty I'd go with one of the sub-compact handguns, but as a civilian I'd go with my P938 or similar.
Anyway going shopping for a birthday present this weekend who knows what I'll come back with. Any suggestions gratefully received. My shortlist is another P938 but Equinox model, P226 Equinox I've found one in 9mm, H&K P2000SK for a car gun and am also intrigued by an UZI Eagle Poly Compact I saw a couple of weeks ago. I'm only allowed one more gun before Christmas. The Sigs may swing it because I have plenty of mags

I sold my full size 9mm as I too am a smaller framed guy and concealeability was a factor after my impulsive decision to get something right away... So I went with my Shield, which I am really enjoying... I have not carried much YET as I am still getting over the shock of being armed and ready to defend family and self.

Anyone who carries a self defense weapon that is not as close to 100% reliable as possible is a fool. Given that the vast majority of gunfights are over in 5 seconds or less with 5 rounds or less, if you have a malfunction, you have for all intents and purposes missed most of the fight by the time you consider the initial draw, the failure, and the immediate action to get back into the fight. It won't matter how fast you tap, rack and bang, you are far better off with a pistol that is unlikely to fail in the first place.

On that basis alone a 9mm sub compact pistol is a poor choice.

It gets worse when you consider that most shooters won't practice enough with them to ever get good with them. As you allude to with "Struck in the same spot", shot placement is what wins a gunfight, and the person who can score the first critical hit is generally going to win. Between the small grip surfaces, the short sight radius, the poor ergonomics and the stout recoil, getting shots on target rapidly and accurately with a sub compact 9mm is much more difficult than it is with a compact 9mm.

I regard the sub compact 9mm as mostly a fad. They are very popular with people who want to be trendy, with people who don't want to carry a larger, heavier pistol (but who will seldom shoot it) and perhaps people who like the manly aspect of firing an uncomfortable to shoot pistol.

Personally, I'll stick with a 9mm compact (I carry a CZ 75 Compact) as it's the sweet spot in terms of size, magazine capacity, terminal performance and the ability to accurately get rounds on target quickly. Given that it's also comfortable to shoot with hotter self defense loads, it also encourages practices with those loads or loads with a similar recoil impulse.

These two statements are diametrically opposed. Are you trying to say that all sub compact 9mm guns are unreliable? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. There is absolutely no reason a sub compact can't be every bit as reliable as any other handgun.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

There are only two reasons I now carry a sub-compact in .380 rather than a 3913. That is ease of concealment and light weight. I can just slip it in my pocket and go and I don't have to bother with putting a holster on and off my belt. If I had bigger pockets, I would carry the 3913 instead as it is certainly a better self-defense gun.

There you have it folks , the core of the whole discussion , all summed up in the space of three posts, not counting Rastoff's in the middle . ( No slam and good comment , just didn't fit in with my summing up .)

School A - Carry a medium size pistol , so as to optimize shooting qualities.

School B - Carry a subcompact .380 , because it fits easily into any pocket , . Don't have to dress around the gun, or fool with those pesky holsters. Maxium comfort and mininum inconvience. As long as that carrys thru to actually carrying all the time when a larger one wouldn't have , a positive argument.

While I have my thoughts and preferences , I can't say either is objectively wrong. Heck have a effortless pock gun as BUG to a midsize belt gun , but that would start another debate w/o end.

And yes , there is also a School C - a sub compact 9mm is easier to conceal than a midsize ( and a small CZ-75 is a midsize in the absolute sense ) , yet signifigently more horsepower than a .380 .

That's a curious measure of a fool from someone who carries an autoloader.

I think that the 9mm compact has a long road ahead of it. I've had the pleasure of shooting a CZ 75 RAMI, a Glock 19, and a Bersa compact 9mm, and they were all great guns. I think that if any 9mm pistol is doomed, it's the subcompact. I've tried both Ruger's and Kahr's offerings, and I just don't care for them. They kick like mules, their accuracy is lacking, they're tempermental, and neither of them is truly capable of being carried in a pocket. They carry great in an IWB holster, but so do the afore mentioned 9x19 compacts if you get a decent IWB rig. I had the LC9, and I wound up giving it to my son cuz he liked it... well, he liked it then. He now keeps it for a spare, and has gone to carrying the Glock 19. I suspect that quite a few other people have also grown disenchanted with the subcompact 9x19.

The 9mm subcompact doesn't really offer anything that a good snubby, Walther PPK, Glock 42, or Bersa Thunder doesn't already offer. The three .380ACP pistols I just mentioned may be chambered for a slightly less potent round, but they're uber controllable. Just about any shooter who bothers to put in the range time like he/she should will be able to cut the center out of the center out of any target with any of them at 5 - 7 yards, and be able to it really fast- and I think that two or three 9x17 rounds delivered fast and accurately to center mass is gonna get the job done. A snubby in .38spcl will group quite nicely at that range as well, assuming the shooter bothers to go to the range once a month - and snubby's have been getting the job done for about a century now, and are even more potent with good self defense ammo like the FBI load or the NYPD Load. Thus, I'm not convinced that most of the 9x19 subcompacts will still be around in 10 years. I think that most people are gonna come to the conclusion that they were mostly an answer looking for a problem.

If I want really tiny and discrete, then I'll just slip a couple of NAA .22wmr minis down my pockets. A .22wmr round, especially the newer .22wmr self-defense rounds like the Hornady Critical Defense, at room distance is a nasty little beasty - and room distance is all I really concern myself with.

I like full size and compact autos. The baby sized autos don't do it for me. My only "subcompacts" have cylinder thingies that go 'round.

The only reason I'd shoot my sub compact is either in training, testing or in an emergency. It ain't no 'fun gun'. A model 9c would be one heck of a lot more comfortable to shoot than this little Kel Tec P 11.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

They are a disappearing breed............

I took home a 3" Kahr.........
and a 3.5" C9.

As long as a model is making profits it will stay on the assembly line.

Case in point the ubiquitous .38 spl. S&W Model 10; it's been going strong since introduced as the HE in 1899.

__________________
NULLI SECUNDUS

My Glock 42 begs to differ, but my S&W 642 says "Preach on, brother"! (Then again, the 42 has an identity crisis, and chaffs when you call it a subcompact).

Yes, the official term for a gun of that size is "mousegun."

I really like my XDs 45.

Maybe another question-- Are the days of the subcompact 9mm numbered when a 45ACP is comparable in size?

Shield 9mm vs XDs 45.
The guns are very comparable in size.

Length SW 6.1 / SA 6.3
Width SW .95 / SA .9
Hieght SW 4.6 / SA 4.4
Weight SW 19 / SA 21

I think that's probably a whole new thread but you're right the only difference is only a couple of rounds but you're packing a lot more horsepower in .45JHP.

Wait. Fully loaded there i believe there is a big difference in 45 vs 9 mm. Anywyaa. I heard glock is coming out with 9mm single stack. Kinda excited. Ill be selling off my g42 if this is true.

This what Glock should have done in the first place. The G42 is bigger than most .380's and mini 9mm's and it's been less than perfection in the land of perfection. A single stack 9mm Glock will be a big hit whoever was responsible for the G42 definitely wasn't Austrian

This. Eventually I think the compact single stack 45 will cut a huge hole in the compact and SC 9 mm market. For me it's a perfect size, easy to conceal and easy to shoot. Never did like double stacked nines.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

If the FBI goes with 9mm. Why do we feel the need to go with .45? Dont mean to start an argument as your caliber choice is your choice. But id rather save the weight and get more bullets

How many bullets do you need?

The FBI is a government organization. Their caliber choice is driven by bureaucrats not self-defense or ballistics experts. The same goes for the military. Pick the caliber you feel you are able to be most effective with and become an expert with that.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

How big of a bullet do you need? All tradeoff. I believe and im sure you know the 9mm decision was more scientifically based than bureaucratically, atleast from what i understand.

I see continued interest in both compact and sub-compact pistols for the forseeable future, not to mention full-sized pistols or in between.

A typical "compact" or "sub-compact" pistol is about 4.5" tall at the grip, compared to about 5.5" for a full-sized pistol. A "compact" barrel is typically about 4", compared to about 3" for a "sub-compact". A shorter grip is somewhat easier to conceal in a belt holster than a full-sized pistol, regardless of barrel length. My personal favorite for easy concealment is a SIG P239, with a 3.9" barrel and a 5.1" grip height - in between.

A sub-compact pistol is more likely to be suitable for pocket carry. In my experience, a Springfield XDs (3.3") is about as large as practical for pocket carry. A Glock 36 is nearly 1/2" longer, and too big for pockets in casual or dress pants.

You must be careful selecting an holster for a sub-compact, so that the grip extends high enough above the belt to allow a quick, reliable grasp. You need about 2" clearance. The longer frame of a compact or larger pistol moots this particular objection.

A short grip is no harder to shoot, in general than a longer one. The main disadantage is lower capacity. Most of the recoil is taken up by the web of the thumb. The lower fingers help in recovery from muzzle flip, and in heavy calibers, torque control. In that regard, I can shoot a short handled (boot grip) .44 Magnum, but notice that the gun twists 30 degrees to left. A lesser effect occurs with .45 ACP (noticeably an XDs), and much less with .40 or 9mm, or even a .44 Magnum with a full-sized grip.