I don't know that I get what you're saying here. Any weapon I carry I will be proficient with. Period.
Ok, what I mean is that most shooters with some experience find that certain guns are easier to shoot well than others. It is generally accepted that compact guns, and especially subcompact guns, are more difficult to shoot accurately, especially at speed and under stress.
Therefore, a trade-off is usually at least tacitly accepted between a shooter's maximum proficiency with his/her "range" guns and their much reduced proficiecny with their "carry" guns. That sounds acceptable to most folks because it is widely believed that full-sized or "duty" sized guns are more difficult and bothersome to carry concealed every day.
The problem with this thinking is made apparent when a shooter is put through a dynamic shooting test with their small "carry" gun and turns out a distressing performance. The usual reply is something like, "Well, this is
just my carry gun. I'm better with the full-sized range guns." As if our proficiency with the gun we might use in public, to defend our (or someone else's) LIFE isn't FAR MORE critical than our skill with a paper-punching weapon.
Now, I'll even be so bold as to say, if your proficiency with a very compact gun is just as good as with a larger gun, you're either practicing quite a lot with that compact weapon (which is GREAT!) or your level of mastery of practical shooting must not be terribly advanced. (It is possible to be unskilled enough with guns that you can't shoot any well. I assume that's not the case here at all!)
So that's where I'm coming from when I say worrying about fashion over mastery of the deadly weapon on your hip might be a case of misplaced priorities.
Taken to an extreme, you seem to have been saying, "I shouldn't have to dress around the gun. My clothes are more important than how well I can shoot my defensive weapon."