Handguns: How small is too small and how light is too light?

Currently, Micro Compact 9mm Pistols such as the SIG P365 and Springfield Armory Hellcat are all the rage, leaving other companies to play catch-up. Recently, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have released their own entries to the market in the form of the Max-9 and M&P9 Shield PLUS, with many criticizing them for not being as small/light as the P365 or Hellcat, despite the fact that both are still lightweight, slimline micro compact pistols.

To put this is perspective here, both the Max-9 and Shield PLUS are roughly the same size/weight as the LC9S and standard single-stack Shield, just slightly thicker, which if you ask me is an impressive feat of engineering considering that both of them hold almost twice the ammo in the magazine, but apparently to many folks, they're just not small enough nor light enough, which begs the question; How small is too small, and how light is too light?

Granted that I have medium sized hands, but the M&P Shield fits them perfectly, even with the flush-fitting magazine, so for me at least, the Shield PLUS being larger than the P365 would be, well...a plus.

The smallest, lightest pistol that I own is the Ruger LCP, which is hard enough to shoot in .380 ACP, so I can't imagine why I would want a firearm that's nearly as small as the LCP, but chambered in 9mm.

What is your take on this?

Every gun has a purpose. Every purpose has ideal requirements. Compromise is usually part of the final equation. I tend to carry smaller guns if just bopping around the homestead and power up when leaving if the mood strikes me. I often say I carry a handgun because a shotgun won’t fit on my belt comfortably.

329pd - too light

I think a lot of the frame cracking issues are due to the obsession to go light. This is, of course, conjecture on my part but clearly the cracking issues with the newer (lighter) guns is an issue.

I'd rather have a heavier steel frame gun that is less susceptible to cracking vs a space age material light gun who's recoil is so bad and frame cracking an issue that I don't want to shoot/practice with it.

Small enough for a controllable grip, light enough to enjoy practicing.

Im personally not a fan of the "smallest" or "lightest" gun thing.

I know most people want to carry the "most comfortable" small gun they can but I fall in line with Clint Smith in that I dont see the "comfort" being the priority. Im comforted by the fact I carry, I dont need to be ultra comfortable.

I certainly understand most people who carry a gun dont want to pack a Desert Eagle or S&W 500 mag daily however smaller guns are harder to shoot well, especially under stress. So I personally see carrying an "ultra" compact gun as a disadvantage if I can take a bigger one.

Edc ccw guns are usually small, light and easy to conceal as opposed to medium to full sized handguns which are easier to shoot but bigger and harder to conceal. You have to decide on the biggest caliber and the smallest gun that you’re comfortable with. They are carried a lot but seldom shot. I alternate between a Jframe .38 with Critical Defense ammo and a .380 Mustang also with Critical Defense ammo. Both are lightweights. As Breakaway said everything’s a compromise.

I have an LCP and a P-365. Even though a small gun for a 9mm, the SIG is much much easier to shoot fast and accurately at any distance compared to the LCP. I do not feel handicapped with the SIG compared to a full size gun when it comes to self defense.

Now a gun that really pushes the limit is my little Freedom Arms mini 4 shot .22 magnum. I can only grip it with one finger and my thumb, and it recoils the barrel straight up with each shot, along with a muzzle blast you would not think a .22 could produce. But when you have to go small, it serves its purpose as a get off me gun.

Larry

fmflorida said:

Im personally not a fan of the "smallest" or "lightest" gun thing.

I know most people want to carry the "most comfortable" small gun they can but I fall in line with Clint Smith in that I dont see the "comfort" being the priority. Im comforted by the fact I carry, I dont need to be ultra comfortable.

I certainly understand most people who carry a gun dont want to pack a Desert Eagle or S&W 500 mag daily however smaller guns are harder to shoot well, especially under stress. So I personally see carrying an "ultra" compact gun as a disadvantage if I can take a bigger one.

Click to expand...

Yep. Comfort for me rarely has anything to do with weight. One would argue that I feel more "comfortable" with a gun with a bit of heft vs light.

I think it depends a lot on the caliber and design.
One of my regular carry guns is a Colt Mustang XSP .380. Small, extremely light, accurate and easy to shoot. But its a locked breech design. I have no desire what-so-ever to fire a similar size and weight blowback design.
In .45acp I own a Springfield Ultra-compact. I don't carry it because its a little too small for the caliber, recoil is pretty nasty, accuracy suffers and follow up shots are slow. OTOH, My primary EDC is a Colt Lt Wt Commander. Not much bigger or heavier, but much easier to shoot.
I've never been much for plastic guns and really ain't interested in the current tread of small, light 9mms. My choice in a compact 9mm is the Sig P239. Easy to carry, easy to shoot and wonderfully accurate.

My little NAA 5 shot 22 Mag is My walking the dog gun and I am quite comfortable with it. When I power up I carry My 1911 that I have been shooting for 30 years. Really comfortable with it.

Fishinfool said:

... Now a gun that really pushes the limit is my little Freedom Arms mini 4 shot .22 magnum. I can only grip it with one finger and my thumb, and it recoils the barrel straight up with each shot, along with a muzzle blast you would not think a .22 could produce. But when you have to go small, it serves its purpose as a get off me gun.

Larry

Click to expand...

Years ago one of my buddies brought one of those to the Range (IIRC in .22LR) and it was so small (& my hands are so large) I declined to shoot it. In fact, that was the revolver that came to mind when I read the title of this thread.

I find the North American Arms mini-22LR too small to effectively shoot. I *can* hit a target, just not in a hurry, or while running, or from the ground, etc.

The Taurus View is too light. Painful with target wadcutters.

Basically I don't want to go any lighter than an airweight J for a 38 or 9mm. 45 had better be heavier than that.

If you're gonna compromise on bullet, a Beretta 950 is easy to hold and shoot, and hides lightly in a pocket real well.

The Universal Answer: It depends.

Every user is different. Carry guns can fill different roles.

I don't have a problem carrying airweight J-frames. A reasonable balance between size, weight, and power, and I can shoot them well enough for defensive purposes. But I can't shoot more than about 75-100 rounds at the range. Fortunately, I have no intention of getting involved in a protracted gunfight with one.

One of the reasons I switched to a Beretta PX4 Compact was that it was easier to shoot than my snub, but still light and compact enough to conceal easily.

I recently switched again to a steel 5" 1911 for a variety of reasons. Larger and harder to conceal than either my PX4 or my snub, and in-between them with regard to capacity. But I have had a few days where my hand issues extended to my index finger. I can still manipulate the guns, but a DA pull, even on my PX4, which is relatively light and smooth, is difficult. The 1911's SA trigger allows me to shoot reasonably well on those bad days.

And I still want to get a small, pocket .380 to round out my carry options for times when I want to carry gun, but can't (legal, but in a "non-permissive environment"...oooh...I can speak "tacticool"... ), and want something more discreet than my snub.

But I would say, for me, the limitations would be balancing shootability, reliability, and concealability. They exact shape of that triangle may change depending on the circumstances in which I carry a gun, so it'd be nice to have options available.

Just my opinion.

Forte Smitten Wesson said:

Handguns: How small is too small and how light is too light?

Click to expand...

An excellent question.

First thing that must be said is it is an individual thing. No two people are alike.

So, what makes a gun too small? You can't hold it adequately to operate it. My pinky doesn't fit on the frame of my P238 or P938, but I still have no problem shooting them. Rather well, actually. But I have heard others say they can't handle a pistol without their pinky.

I have heard discussions of how too small a frame results in the finger not fitting on the trigger correctly. I'm sure that's true, but I think it is esoterica.

Too light? Recoil can't be managed. But that can be a function of ammo. My 642 is fun to shoot with 130 gr factory FMJ. It hurts with +P ammo.

One other critical aspect of small/light pistols: the smaller the gun, the tighter you need to grip it. The frame may not have enough mass to resist the recoil of the slide, making the gun into a jam-o-matic. Take reports of a small pistol not being reliable with a grain of salt; it could be the operator.

Diamondback used to make an ultra small 11oz 9mm 6+1 pistol. (Think very slightly larger than a Ruger LCP) I sold one to a customer and he equated firing it to holding onto an M80 when it went off. He said you might get 2 shots off but beyond that your hand would be stinging sooooo bad he didn't think you could convince your trigger finger to pull the trigger again.

Forte Smitten Wesson said:

Currently, Micro Compact 9mm Pistols such as the SIG P365 and Springfield Armory Hellcat are all the rage, leaving other companies to play catch-up. Recently, Ruger and Smith & Wesson have released their own entries to the market in the form of the Max-9 and M&P9 Shield PLUS, with many criticizing them for not being as small/light as the P365 or Hellcat, despite the fact that both are still lightweight, slimline micro compact pistols.

To put this is perspective here, both the Max-9 and Shield PLUS are roughly the same size/weight as the LC9S and standard single-stack Shield, just slightly thicker, which if you ask me is an impressive feat of engineering considering that both of them hold almost twice the ammo in the magazine, but apparently to many folks, they're just not small enough nor light enough, which begs the question; How small is too small, and how light is too light?

Granted that I have medium sized hands, but the M&P Shield fits them perfectly, even with the flush-fitting magazine, so for me at least, the Shield PLUS being larger than the P365 would be, well...a plus.

The smallest, lightest pistol that I own is the Ruger LCP, which is hard enough to shoot in .380 ACP, so I can't imagine why I would want a firearm that's nearly as small as the LCP, but chambered in 9mm.

What is your take on this?

Click to expand...

The current rage is for tiny pistols that are the most comfortable to carry.

Personally, I can't shoot them well and prefer large carry guns. For me, a G19 is absolute minimum and even with that I can't drop the mag on it reliably unless I change my grip. My favorite carry guns are full size 1911s or a Beretta 92.

My guess is that a lot of people that think they need a micro pistol and everything else is too big don't shoot them much. They see the benefit of them when carrying, but are pretty unaware at how much they give up when actually shooting them.

smithra_66 said:

The current rage is for tiny pistols that are the most comfortable to carry.

Personally, I can't shoot them well and prefer large carry guns. For me, a G19 is absolute minimum and even with that I can't drop the mag on it reliably unless I change my grip. My favorite carry guns are full size 1911s or a Beretta 92.

My guess is that a lot of people that think they need a micro pistol and everything else is too big don't shoot them much. They see the benefit of them when carrying, but are pretty unaware at how much they give up when actually shooting them.

Click to expand...

You give up nothing in carrying a small, light, gun IF you take the time to learn to shoot it well. No one knows how many actually do this, but I suspect those that think J-frame revolvers or small automatics are only good at very close distances haven't practiced with them enough to know otherwise.

Small guns are far more difficult to shoot well than bigger ones. That's not a secret. If the guns really don't shoot well beyond a few yards, or the shooter with sufficient practice can't shoot them well, then the shooter needs to look elsewhere.

You don't have to practice at 25 yards regularly if you don't want to, but that's a good distance to use for quickly determining things mentioned above. Fifteen yards or closer won't tell you much.

As an aside, I see people at a private gun club range regularly shoot handguns at 5 -15 yard yard targets, never beyond. That may be an ego booster but it won't help much in developing good shooter skill.

Please allow me a slightly different perspective.

Back in October during the Adaptive Defensive Shooting Summit, I had the opportunity to fire a P365 in the demonstration bay. At about 12 yards, I was able to knock down all of the plates consistently, using a 2 handed hold. The next day I ended up winning one.

Fast forward to this past weekend. I had taken possession of my P365 earlier in the week. When I went to the range, I was 3 weeks post-op from hand/arm surgery on my left arm, and 3 months post-op from surgery on my right arm, so I was forced to shoot strong hand only. I would like to think that my hand condition replicated that of your typical senior with hand strength issues. Let me preface, I had no discomfort shooting a Glock 17 strong hand.

With the P365, I had to be creative in order to rack the slide. I did experience palm discomfort, which I attribute to the post-op tenderness due to carpal tunnel surgery. I had less control of the pistol at distances beyond 15 yards. Recoil felt a little sharp.

In short, in my current condition, shooting the P365 was a bit unpleasant. I vowed to not do any extensive shooting with the little Sig until my hands toughened up. Prior to the last 2 surgeries, the little P365 was manageable. With "tenderized" hands, the little P365 would probably be viewed as too small/light a pistol for serious social encounters.

What is too small or too light really depends on the individual doing the shooting. Honestly, I don't see myself considering something smaller or lighter than the P365. However, until my hands heal, I may find that my 9mm 1911 Commander would be the smallest/lightest pistol for serious social encounters.

mckenney99 said:

Diamondback used to make an ultra small 11oz 9mm 6+1 pistol. (Think very slightly larger than a Ruger LCP) I sold one to a customer and he equated firing it to holding onto an M80 when it went off. He said you might get 2 shots off but beyond that your hand would be stinging sooooo bad he didn't think you could convince your trigger finger to pull the trigger again.

Click to expand...

That's good to know. I have long wished for a 9mm the size of my BG380 for pocket carry but suspect it would be unshootable, especially in my XL size hand. The little BG is very unpleasant, as was the LCP it replaced.

Well it all depends.........kind of like some folks hate IWB carry as uncomfortable.....me a 3913 in a Sparks summer special on a good Bianchi B-12 belt..... after 30 years it is a thing I quickly forget I'm wearing.

NO problem carrying a S&W PC Shorty-9 or a Beretta 92 Compact..... both 25 years old.

I started concealed carry when my options were a 21/2" 19 , Colt Commander or Browning HP...............

That said I've got a 337PD and a Colt Mustang pocket lite...... if I need ultra small and light.....