Would a "micro compact" (Shield plus, Ruger Max-9, Sig P365) be a bad choice for a first non-rimfire handgun? I know that smaller handguns are said to be more difficult to shoot well and not as fun to shoot and therefore not as likely to get practiced with. With the capacity of these small guns getting so large, it is awfully tempting to make my first handgun one that I can comfortably concealed carry.

I shoot my Sig P365 as well as my larger pistols. A P365 XL would be a good choice for a concealable micro. Both the barrel and grip are slightly longer. I like the 12 round mags in my 365 and that is the standard grip length on the XL version.

I don't know why not. My first handgun, in 1980, was a Ruger Speed Six in .357 Magnum. Of course, I started shooting target wadcutters through it.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Sig P-365's are as easy to shoot well as a full size pistol

When you say 'Micro' I think of Kahr PM sized guns. I see the general class of Hellcat/P365 pistols as subcompacts.

I do expect the class of pistols being discussed here will eventually divert sales away from the G19 and its close competitors.

I have a P365 standard size. I have smallish hands so the 10 round magazines aren't too short for me. I just got two 12 round magazines and they come with the grip extensions for the standard size 365s. I found my pistol points better with the longer grip of the 12 rounders. It all depends on how you plan to carry your pistol. Using the 12 rounds mags pocket carry won't work well for me. I plan to get a paddle holster for my 365. My primary carry pistol is a S&W EZ 9 and I carry it in an OWB holster. The EZ 9 is the same length and over all height as a Glock 19 but has a thinner grip (8 rounds) and the mags are easy to load without a magazine loader and the slide is far easier to pull back than may other pistols. The Glocks with staggered column mags are to fat for my hands. Since it's your first pistol I suggest one with a manual safety.

Unless you are super serious about concealed carry, you'd be much happier with a full-sized pistol.
A lot of folks "talk", "dream" of carrying concealed. But all they really do is go to and from the range. The fact is that a guy can easily conceal a full-size pistol - you don't need a girly gun.

If I can’t get three fingers on the grip, I don’t feel like I have control of the gun.

A G19 is easy enough to conceal for me, but I’m seldom in shorts and tank top, even in summer.

I love my P365's, but let's not kid ourselves here. Get yourself a Glock 19.

I have a 365XL and a Shield Plus. I will be the odd man out here and pick the Shield. I like the 365XL but I shoot the Shield better

I usually think of micro as Ruger LCP or kel tec type size

Didn't mean to throw anyone off with the "micro compact" thing. It's just the term I've seen used for these pistols most often in magazines and on youtube.

"Pocket Guns" to my age group LOL. Creating new terminology is a marketing strategy to get people interested in buying something a little different than they already have. In this case they seem to have actually offered a package that a seasoned shooter can use about as well as the midsize pistols.

In my mind, this and the LC9 class of pistols is where the 9mm really makes sense.

Known as an “ubercompact” in some circles. 🤣

Gopherit....

Like has already been said the only reason to own a small gun is to carry concealed. Take a class to learn proper handgun fundamentals and with regular practice you can shoot any handgun effectively. I do own a G43 which I like OK but is only used in the backcountry to save weight. My EDC is a G19. which I wear aiwb summer and winter.


mike r

Why not just train harder and carry a full-size or the aforementioned G19?

My SIG P938 is very small, but it shoots nicely too. Maybe not as nice as my current "service-sized" Security 9, but it's pretty good. Seems like some smallish guns just don't recoil badly. Then there's the Kel Tec P9...

Not surprised that you didn't comprehend my post. To simplify, if you master the fundamentals you can shoot any hand gun competently. Small guns are for those willing to compromise which I will do in the backcountry to save weight. When around humans I maximize my potential.

you are welcome



mike r

lol Exactly what do you think I didn't understand? It seems more like you didn't understand my question. If you think a full-size or compact (Glock 19) is significantly better, wouldn't it be better to have that backpacking if there is no downside? If you can "train the downside out", why not do that rather than carry an inferior choice?

EE, for the 3rd time, the G43 is more than 8oz lighter than the G19. This is of value for some when spending a day moving on your feet in an environment mostly free of humans. I shoot both like a boss. When the threat level increases w/ population density I prefer the higher cap gun and carry more reloads. Pretty simple in concept and execution.


mike r

If smaller gips of those guns are comfortable fit your hand then I see no reason not to buy one of the guns you mentioned. The gold standard is Glock 26.

A Speed Six is not a micro compact handgun.

I understand that, but you're contradicting yourself because you're advocating another gun for higher threats when you could just train into walking with the "better option" and have that all the time as opposed to when you think the threat increases.

I'm not sure you're wrong about needing less ammo in the outback, but I'm not sure you're right either.

I wasn't condemning your thought process, just offering up an alternative.

Certainly not, but in 1980 it was one of the smallest, most compact 357 Mag's and in 1980 the switch to Wondernine's by LE, from revolvers was not well underway. In fact, I'm not sure it was even underway. Nothing like 357 J frames even existed then.

it probanly depends on your hands, forearms, balance and the caliber.
I picked up a little pocket pistol that I shoot better with my dumb hand...
but its not what I would choose in a bad situation...

Go S&W, either Compact 2.0 or Shield Plus. Glock is a slab in hand.