Are the Days of the 9mm Compact Numbered?

I don't think a subcompact 9 ought to be a primary go-to. They are hard to shoot well, the sights are generally virtually useless, and a fast double tap is almost impossible. They are good as belly guns, or up the bad guy's nose guns. They have their place, but too many people are buying them for comfort rather than self defense in the real world.

Lt JL said:

I don't think a subcompact 9 ought to be a primary go-to. They are hard to shoot well, the sights are generally virtually useless, and a fast double tap is almost impossible. They are good as belly guns, or up the bad guy's nose guns. They have their place, but too many people are buying them for comfort rather than self defense in the real world.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. I carry a Ruger LC9. It had real three dot sights and shoots like a gun much larger than it is. Mine has a Galloway trigger but the newer LC9s guns have a great trigger right out of the box. Either way it's quite easy to get accurate shots off and quickly also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No way! My compact 9's are great shooters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My edc is a 9c and I love it. The smith who just worked on it (light primer hits due to the candy cane loop) was impressed with how nicely it shot and how accurate it was (Apex DCAEK kit plus Apex polymer trigger installed). However, sometimes it is too heavy (1lbs. 15.2 oz. loaded). That is why I just put a deposit down on a Sig p938. The recoil was a concern with such a light gun in 9mm. But after lots of reading and shooting 5 mags out of a friends 938, I decided to go for it. The recoil felt a little stronger than my 9c, but easily controlled.

AGoyette said:

My edc is a 9c and I love it. The smith who just worked on it (light primer hits due to the candy cane loop) was impressed with how nicely it shot and how accurate it was (Apex DCAEK kit plus Apex polymer trigger installed). However, sometimes it is too heavy (1lbs. 15.2 oz. loaded). That is why I just put a deposit down on a Sig p938. The recoil was a concern with such a light gun in 9mm. But after lots of reading and shooting 5 mags out of a friends 938, I decided to go for it. The recoil felt a little stronger than my 9c, but easily controlled.

Click to expand...

AGoyette this is exactly the reason I started this thread. I can now hit 6" steel targets at 50-60 yds virtually every other shot with my P938. It slips into the front pocket of my Levi's without a holster and doesn't print at all and a spare mag is easy to carry in the small right hand Levi's pocket. I'll still keep a compact or sub compact in the car but the P938 is superb. Congratulations on your new purchase

And the imeadate snappy comeback is that the .40 subcompact are even harder to control.

The "subcompact penalty" depends on the specific gun, the specific shooter, and what does or does not get classified as a subcompact. The real world result can vary from no difference to belly only.

And yes , I experemented carefully with this before deciding what my subcompact was good for , *for me* .

Going by usual exercises and drills , I deterined that *I* could perform up with P11 at 15yds what I could with a normal semiauto at 25yds. Not saying I couldn't hit a barn at 16yds , just quantifing a variation involving a standard at least somewhat relevant to real world requirements. And the limiting factor was the trigger , not the recoil.

For Me , that earned it a rating of substitute standard primary gun. Plenty of people swear that they can shoot a Shield or G26 if not 100% of a full size , then well with Qualification standards intended for duty guns. Practice with your baby boomer, and evaluate your personal results, and use it as aproprate. Even if only suited as a BUG , a 9mm BUG has the obvious advantage over a .25acp or .380acp BUG.

As an interesting aside , the degradation in shooting ability between a duty and subcompact bottom feeder is less than that between a service size revolver and a 5-shot snubbie ( and I have observed enough (same) people attempting to qualify with both to have an informed opinion.

And this coming from Me , an unabashed revolver fan, but just telling like I see it. And snub revolvers have their own set of unique advantages , so I'm not slamming them per se.

ATF said:

They are all full sized just some have longer barrels than others. The Glock 26 is the compact 9mm.

Click to expand...

The glock 19 is a compact. The G26 is a sub compact 9 mm. Check out their website.

Iwant2shootlikehickock45 said:

The glock 19 is a compact. The G26 is a sub compact 9 mm. Check out their website.

Click to expand...

If you read the thread from the beginning you can see that different manufacturers size their handguns differently. For example a M&P or H&K compact is sized as Glock sub-compact. The jury is still out on what to call the P938, PM9, LC9 etc. The whole point is whether a few extra rounds in a larger handgun is worth the effort. Some think it is others don't. Each side has valid points to consider when making a decision which is how it should be.

Biggfoot44 said:

And the imeadate snappy comeback is that the .40 subcompact are even harder to control.

Click to expand...

Again, this all depends on the individual shooter. I shot my G27 better than my G22. Go figure.

This is an interesting topic. I had been looking for an alloy or steel frame subcompact 9 for some time. Back before the premiere of the Remington R51, I was pumped, as it looked as though I had found what I was looking for. Well, the R51 turned out to be a dud, and I didn't want any of the current crop of polymer mini-9's (the Shield is great, but I just can't...).

I came to realize that I would have to come to terms with a compact instead of a subcompact if I wanted an alloy or steel frame. After looking around, I settled in on a Sig 239 in 40sw. I LOVE this gun. Its the perfect size, fits my hand perfectly, and looks great. The proverbial "Gorilla in a silk suit".

Well, I recently stumbled upon another gun at my LGS that is almost identical in size to my Sig. A Smith 6946 (9mm). Another GREAT gun that fits my hand perfectly. As it turns out, I wasn't looking for a subcompact 9 at all. What I needed was a compact. It was a long and winding road, but it ended happily, and so I answer your original question (at least for me) as a resounding "no".

ATF said:

Checking out some guns on the weekend and I was passed a H&K 9mm USP Compact and loved the feel except for the mag release and was almost sold. Asked how many rounds and was told it was 10 with an extended mag to 13.

Click to expand...

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

getoff said:

the Shield, PPS, LC9s, and the like are here to stay. they are not for me, but an awful lot of people love theirs. I'm a full size kind of guy myself. my G17 does most of the EDC duty. when i want a little less size, i go to the G19. if I must, a 337, or 442 does the job. my father in-law is a smaller man and a G19 is just to big for his hand and body frame. got him a shield and he LOVES it. I'll stick to the full size...

Click to expand...

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.

mc5aw said:

For individuals who actual practice with their carry guns ... NO ... based on the cost effectiveness of 9mm over .45ACP, .380, .40, etc.

For individuals who simply carry lots and shoot little ... YES ... as ammo economics are not part of the equation, while aesthetics (size, concealability, etc.) are the driving factors.

Click to expand...

hkcavalier said:

I rarely suggest subcompacts to rookie shooters, not only because of recoil but because there is just less room for error --- they malfunction more often. People that don't practice failure drills (95%+ of gun owners, and I'm being kind) need something that's dead-nuts reliable, even if it's a bit bigger and heavier.

In my experience, nearly all people who carry couldn't care less about the velocity loss or gain from one model to the next. Struck in the same spot, a 9mm 124gr @ 1150fps will have the same real-world effect as one @ 1050fps. It's all about comfort, ergonomics, price, and ability to control the weapon.

Click to expand...

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.

BB57 said:

Anyone who carries a self defense weapon that is not as close to 100% reliable as possible is a fool.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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 .

BB57 said:

Anyone who carries a self defense weapon that is not as close to 100% reliable as possible is a fool.


Personally, I'll stick with a 9mm compact (I carry a CZ 75 Compact)

Click to expand...

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.