Full Size VS Compact

File: sks.jpg (37KB, 986x242px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 986x242px

cool first gen brah

>>29508044
lighter weight guns recoil more too. that plays a factor.

In most cases a compact will be harder to shiot, but not all cases.

The combination of a shorter barrel, shorter sight radius, more felt recoil, and often a less comfortable grip are the reasons.

That being said, some small guns can be shot really accurately, like say a Makarov with a fixed barrel.

The recoil between the 17/19/26 is negligible to the point of it mattering between them.

I own all three and can hit the same groups with all three.

You generally want the largest you can get for home defense and the smallest you can get for carry.

>>29508109
I've heard the cycle reset on the G26 is like it didnt even shoot and the sights reline up perfectly. Whats your experience?

>>29508092
>shot really accurately, like say a Makarov
tried that. Thing was scary accurate and extremely mild in recoil.

>>29508310

The G26 is my favorite gun and has been my daily carry for over a year now.

It just feels very smooth and easy to manage the realignment

>>29508076
I too like the first gen.

Take care of her, OP.

>Shoot a pop can with a .357 magnum 2" snubbie at 25 yards.

>Shoot a terrorist with a 155mm M177 at 26,400 yards

Bigger is more accurate. Ok, lemee see if I can find a holster for it.

File: DSCF0440.jpg (629KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1600x1200px

Whoever you talked to is a crack whore.

>>29508044
>Is the gun inherently less accurate if smaller?
It's not the gun, it's your hands. No matter how hard you hold it, they're inherently soft, and the linear play determined by that will be the same for a big gun and a small gun. However, the smaller it is, the more angular motion it'll get because of recoil (just because there's less leverage), and you'll have hard time reacquiring the target with it.

At least that's the story for me. I can get 50 rounds within a 3" target shooting a full size twice a second, half as accurate if I shoot a compact 9mm, and if I shoot compact .380 - it's all over the place.

File: 6GayFcR[1].jpg (562KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1600x1000px

>>29508044
>Is the gun inherently less accurate if smaller?
The answer is yes...slightly. However, the limitations of a smaller pistol will be far outweighed by the limitations of the shooter.

Less contact with the weapon means lower friction on the weapon. That typically translates to less control over the pistol. So, yeah it might take some shooters a bit more time to learn how to master a small pistol over a big one.

Grandpa Glawk can pretty much do the exact same thing with a Glock 26 as he can with a Glock 17. He is of course a highly skilled shooter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddP7IHHnM4A

>>29508355
Same here, that gun is the perfect mix of small and firepower. Though I do need a pocket gun for the occasions I wear a suit.

>>29510453
I just bought one, but I haven't shot it yet.

I'm kinda surprised how little the pinky matters in shooting. I already got kinda used to this concept with my LCR.

>>29508044
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMEg4y54Dk
>Subcompact 40 shooting 230 yards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tied-t1fFsk
>snubnose revolver shooting 200 yards

The answer is to your question op is, "NO". They are not inherently less accurate. If anything the barrel is stiffer and more accurate. They are harder to aim well and to not anticipate recoil.

>>29510775
>If anything the barrel is stiffer and more accurate
Uh, you're retarded.

>>29510790
>I don't understand barrel harmonics
He's technically correct though for essentially all pistol length barrels the differences will be too small to measure.

>ITT: Don't talk to me or my Son again.

>>29508076
what AK model is that?

>>29510803

That's a Walther G43 ya dingus.

File: if anything.png (52KB, 888x926px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 888x926px

>>29510790
>>29510796

File: dont.jpg (143KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 640x640px

>>29510802

>don't talk to me or my Son again.

File: DSC_0809.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

I believe there is an ideal size and that it is "compact". Nothing meaningful is gained by going larger or smaller.

>>29510806
ty anon

>>29508044
its all about preference. Some fund full sized to be too big and bulky, others cant get a proper grip on compacts. Im the former, I prefer full sized because I have larger hands, but could suck it up with a 19 if I had to.
That's why guns come in different sizes instead of "one should fit all":

A lot of it comes down to hand geometry rather than large vs small guns.

I can clamp my G26 down without thinking about it, but the larger PPQ I used to have just never sat right in my hands. My support hand was never able to really get enough purchase on the gun with any of the backstraps to make it work for me. I wanted to love it but it just never felt comfortable in live fire, so I sold it.

Bare frame, my G34 is actually more work for me to shoot well than my G26 is. With the right backstrap (large), that goes away. I shoot my 26 without a backstrap and it's fine.

Gun needs to fit your hands well more than it needs to be fullsize vs compact vs subcompact for you to get full potential out of it IMO.

>>29510828
>Nothing meaningful is gained by going larger or smaller
...yeah, unless you have smaller or larger hands.

>>29508044

The compact glocks are a pubic hair shorter than the full size, I CC a 19 and shoot it at the range just fine.

I should also state that my experience includes graduating top of my class in the navy seals, with over 300 confirmed kills.

File: rotary motor.jpg (6KB, 168x90px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 168x90px

>>29510970
>theres no point to going larger
>but what if you go larger

>>29510430
Damn that pic needs a 43 now

Hey guys, don't mean to hijack the thread but

I daily carry a full size 1911. 5"11 170lb. It's a little cumbersome and I'd like to go smaller.
I've narrowed it down to two seemingly random choices
>Makarov
>Glock 19
Mak for that cool factor and super easy concealability, G19 for that compact high capacity death machine. I'd really rather not get both because I am trying and failing to limit how many calibers I own (already at 9 different calibers to stock up on)

>>29511310

>G19
This is a great gun but the handle isn't much shorter than your 1911. It would make a better plinker but you are buying a second gun for more comfortable carry correct? This gun will feel slightly better if the handle is slightly shorter but it's not a enough of a difference to justify the expense IMO.

>Makarov
I would highly recommend the Shield over this one.
I'd recommend taking a serious look at the S&W Shield 9mm. The thin profile and compact design is fantastic for concealability but the handle is shaped appropriately for getting a great grip on it even with large hands. The trigger is good in them too and they shoot really well.

>>29510430
You have TFO sights on the 19. They're garbage and here is the primary reason. The front sight is very long but the guide hole for the slide is not. There is the tiniest bit of play in the front post when you make the sight that long, meaning it can swing very very slightly side to side. It's enough to throw the sight picture windage off by as much as an 1" at 21'.

>>29511367
I'm actually hanging on to a Shield for a buddy who left for the AF recently. I've shot it and it's OK, its definitely a lot smaller and lighter than my 1911. The weight is the primary thing I have an issue with; I have my holster at about 430 so sitting down is comfortable. I just have to tug my shirt down when I stand up because it gets caught behind the grip. The weight of it pulls my belt down on my bony little hips and the belt on my hips gets uncomfortable after a bit. I'll see if my friend will be ok with me putting a few rounds through his gun.

>>29511310
Appendix carry or adjust the ride height and cant. I also carry a full-size 1911, behind my hip(sights at 4 o'clock, grip at 5 o-clock and have no problem. Can't see I'm carrying unless I bend over or am wearing a tight shirt.

I am going to get an LC9s so I can be more descrete. I'd consider getting a bobtail commander if I could find one I like.

>>29511529
I used to carry at about 530 at medium ride but I could hardly sit. Now it is about 430 at the highest ride and it is much more comfortable. I would like something smaller and lighter though, perhaps with more capacity. I've never had an issue hiding it, even in some T- shirts that are pretty fitted, it's just the weight starts to get to my hips because of the belt after a while

>>29511380
I agree the TFOs are finicky... I've had the fiber optics fall out 3 times. So now I fill my TFO crevices with clear silicone gel. It really helps, and now I love them.

>>29510802
Don't you mean:
>don't talk to me or my wife's son again

File: 1453439497614.gif (3MB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x168px

>>29511380
>I have TFO sights
>some picture I copied off of google

>>29508044
full

>>29511818

If you look at the S&W M&P and Sigma, Sig P320, H&K VP9, Canik 55 TP9, Walther PPQ and PPX, Springfield XD, Steyr M9, FN FNS, and Beretta APX, clearly Glock is the one making babies with other guns' wives.

>>29511844
>under rated post