Yep, some observations are hardly surprising.
The very attributes that make smaller guns attractive also tend to make them harder to shoot, and especially so under even moderate stress.
This is one of those instances where compromises
are going to be made, and it's up to the individual to determine if any/each compromise is acceptable regarding serving the larger goal and anticipated task.
Lesser or moderately skilled shooters using big guns may often be observed to have less skills when going to smaller guns.
Not a surprise, right? Whether it's complacency or laziness, or simply someone who decides to rely upon the advantage (and convenience) of using a larger gun, and therefore doesn't improve their skillset to effectively use a smaller gun ... the end result may be the same. Less demonstrable skill when the smaller gun is selected ... but which also includes when/if it may desperately be needed. Sure, skillset development aimed at increasing skill using a smaller gun is a good thing, but if complacency & laziness are involved, how likely is it
that sufficient skillset development is going to happen? or even if it does, how long will the work be done to maintain it?
Highly skilled shooters using larger guns may not do as well when going to smaller guns.
Again, a high level of skill using a larger gun may allow incremental complacency to creep in. Even in the days of longtime 6-shot revolver shooters who were able to use standard size revolvers (think medium & large framed/barreled) fast and accurately, there wasn't any guarantee that those skills would automatically translate to using the little pocketable snubs as well as the larger wheelguns. That took dedicated effort to master the littler snubs, and not every full-size revolver shooter might wish to put in that sort of effort.
Then, there's the way that some smaller guns are chosen for their ability to be pocket-holstered.
Okay, that's going to present an inherent disadvantage in accessing and drawing at speed ... but ... also a potential advantage in the respect it might also allow someone to surreptitiously grasp the butt of the little gun without anyone being the wiser, which is something that can't typically be done with a belt-holstered weapon. Also, even if carried belt-holstered, smaller grip frames can make it harder, and less 'sure', to get a solid initial grip on the gun during a draw. When you see some folks having to 'readjust' and 'retighten' their grip at the end of the draw, but before they fire a round, you're likely seeing that sort of issue. It may not be the result of an actual problem with the initial grip, though. It might be an unconscious 'reaffirming' to provide confidence that a grip has been established. Not a good habit. Flip a mental coin and determine which side of the coin is going to matter most to you, for your anticipated needs.
Ankle carry? A topic for another time, but suffice to say for now that it puts the little gun as far from your hand as it's possible to put it and still have it on your body. Handy for seated access, sure, and even for crouched/kneeling access. However, and there's always a
however, it also puts it within easier grasp of an attacker if you find yourselves going to the ground, and your legs may put that ankle closer to an attacker's hands than planned. Or, an attacker gains control of the leg with the ankle-holster because a kick goes wrong. Anyway ...
Using a smaller gun presents challenges and difficulties ... advantages and disadvantages ... and just about always demands much more of the shooter. Make your own best informed choice.
Me? My position is long known in the forum threads.
As much as I've invested many years of carrying, using, training with and instructing others in the use of compact and full-size handguns ... and I own quite a number of them ... even before I retired I found a suitable role for carrying subcompact pistols and snub revolvers. After my retirement, but when I was still serving as a reserve and a firearms trainer, I surprised myself by discovering the diminutive LCP .380 could fill an occasional role for my needs. That was odd, as I'd not owned a .380 pistols for going on 25 years at that point. Imagine my surprise.
However ... (again) ... my decision to continue using 5-shot snubs, and then acquiring a couple LCP's, came along with the choice to invest sufficient training and practice time to make sure my ability to use them was up to speed, and wasn't compromised. That meant running them through the same qual courses-of-fire used for our duty pistols (which changed frequently), which is what we required for folks deciding to carry approved Secondary on-duty (backup) weapons. Sure, the usual off-duty & retiree LEOSA qual courses were usually simpler and somewhat less demanding, and I used those as basic drills, but I wanted to make sure I could still run my smaller guns right along with the big guns.
'Comforting versus comfortable'? Might be prudent to apply it to more than just the size of the gun chosen ... meaning taking a closer look at whether one's skillset is up to the task of using whichever gun is selected. Keeping in mind, of course, that smaller guns are easier to carry, but usually harder to use.
Harder to use might mean less assurance in handling and manipulating them, as well as shooting them and making accurate and effective hits ... at speed, and under stress and duress.
Choose wisely. Don't make the mistake of thinking that a conveniently carried diminutive handgun is going to be as easy to run, even though it's easy to carry ... or that a larger handgun, which is easier to shoot, is still going to make the different when the rubber meets the road. Awareness, knowledge, skillset, experience, tactics and good judgement & decision-making don't come out of a small or large box or holster.
Just try not to make it all harder on yourself by choosing the wrong gun, carry method and practice regimen. Thus hope we all, right?
