I looked into a compact .45 a couple of years ago, and I came across comments from 1911 experts that the design was compromised by shortening the barrel to 3 inches, comments from high end builders that they would not produce one with a barrel length of less than four plus something inches, and comments from users that their compacts worked fine as long as they replaced recoil springs periodically. This, and comments from others that they had no problem concealing longer pistols, caused me to choose an STI Guardian. The Guardian has 4 inch barrel and an Officer grip frame.
I found out two things: the grip frame is the real issue in concealment, and with IWB carry, the four inch length was no problem at all--in fact, I could easily sit with a Commander length, if the grip were of the right size.
The longer pistol is obviously better for shooting.
If one looks at both types of pistol, one sees that the "useable" part of the barrel--the total length with the length of the loaded round subtracted--is substantially shorter on the compact than on the Guardian or Commander.
That is no doubt the geometric reason for the design issues noted above, but for me, it also poses the question of why I would want to give up that much of the barrel, if I can carry the firearm comfortably without doing so.
I would suggest handling, shooting, and concealing and drawing both types before choosing.
The range where I shoot sells STI products, but they had none in the rental inventory. I tried out the most comparable Kimber models before making my selection.
