compacts should be designated full size and...

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

anyone thing that compact guns should be called full size and full size guns should be called duty sized or large size?


it seems the average person can get a full 3 finger grip on compact guns, whereas with full size there's often some grip left over. it seems the traditionally "full size" guns are actually meant for people are abnormally large hands



i think compact guns should never have been called compact, they should have never been distinguished from full size. instead full size guns should have slowly evolved to be smaller from the 1911 form factor. glock 19 should have been what the glock 17 was, and the glock 17 should have been the glock 19 for large hand users.

 

[Smoke]

It's not something I ever spent a whole lot of time worrying about.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Does that mean I can't call this Kahr my Runt 9mm?

 

[Smoke]

Seriously, as long as there is no industry standard the terms are meaningless. I owned a first-generation M&P9C several years ago. the same gun is now a Sub-compact. and we have a GLOCK 19 sized M&P that they're now calling the compact. Even though there's no appreciable difference between it and an M&P full size.

 

[LVSteve]

I'll throw in "duty size" and then retire to my bunker.

 

[DTH]

Are "subcompacts" Fun size?

 

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

Are "subcompacts" Fun size?

from my observation sub compacts are compact double stack guns with 4 inch barrels or less, that have an abbreviated 2 finger grip and optional extended magazine with a spot for the pinky.


the single stack versions of these guns with a thinner frame and slide are called micro compacts. recent advances have allowed slightly wider versions of these guns to hold double stack magazines.

smaller caliber versions of the micro compacts can get even smaller, like the p238.

 

[coltle6920]

I've been arranging firearms in my safe by caliber.

I didn't realize I was doing it wrong.

 

[sodacan]

You should be buying based your requirements, not what the marketing department calls it.

 

[Pisgah]

I am just thankful I have no OCD...

They can call them Manny, Moe and Jack, it'll be OK by me.

 

[Tu_S]

Guess this post is something you can reference in your application for a job with the ATF, just try to bring some common sense into the process of classifications if you get the job

 

[CajunBass]

I'll spend almost as much time worrying about this, as I did over why other people buy Glocks.

 

[kbm6893]

The definition of "compact" has changed. The Glock 19 used to be considered a compact gun and I carried it. Time goes on and it feels enormous to me and that and the M&P Compact 2.0 never gets carried. Even the Glock 26, which used to be referred to as the Baby Glock, seems big now.

But S&W taking the M&P Compact 1.0, and remaining the 2.0 version as the subcompact, was ludicrous.

But I don't care what they call them. For carry I want small and light, and no compact model of any manufacture fits that category for me. When you can get as many rounds into a Shield Plus as you can a Compact 1.0 or Subcompact 2.0, there is no reason to carry them.

 

[M29since14]

I'm still slightly peeved that the new-thinkers can't just call a Commander a Commander, which is what it IS. (A steel-frame gun is a Combat Commander!) There is no such thing as a "Lightweight Commander," but Cxxx is/was selling them. And S&W calls their current-production Model 69 .44 Magnum a "Combat Magnum," when we all know a Combat Magnum is the Model 19 .357, and the present gun they're making is not the Model 69 we used to call the "Mini-gun" way back when.

There's no accounting for this nonsense and it's nothing new. "Forget it and drive on!"

 

[Telecaster]

Should they all be FDE, too? Asking for a friend.

 

[CH4]

Are "subcompacts" Fun size?

Yeah, I always wondered how Glock determined the G26 to be a sub-compact. Although much smaller than a 21, it's still a tank, especially when compared to the Sig 365.

 

[ColbyBruce]

Yeah, I always wondered how Glock determined the G26 to be a sub-compact. Although much smaller than a 21, it's still a tank, especially when compared to the Sig 365.

The Glock 26 was developed 20+ years before the Sig P365. Here is a Glock 26 with a Walther PP. The Walther is slightly slimmer than the Glock; however, the height, length, and weight are close to the same.

 

[Smoke]

from my observation sub compacts are compact double stack guns with 4 inch barrels

4 inch barrel meets the criteria for security carry in Colorado springs.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

A full-size pistol (including roundguns) is one that is optimum size for bullseye shooting. The reason for this is because that's the way I think, and anyone who believes that it can be justified further is probably mistaken. One might hope that it is needless to say that others may have differing opinions which are equally valid and unsupported.

Note that the above definition doesn't even tell you how big the gun is. Is the .22 barrel 5"? 5.5'? 6"? 7"? I had a .45 ACP (not service pistol) which was 6", courtesy of James Clark.

BTW, a C*** Commander could probably be called a full-size pistol, but not by my definition.

I think we need a better count on those angels (dancing on the head of a pin).

 

[LVSteve]

This being the "Other firearms" forum, we are allowed to say Colt.