The Full-Size Paradox: Why the Best First Gun Isn't What New Shooters Pick

**What actually matters here?** Let me break it apart, because the internet has this backwards.

Full-size pistols are objectively easier to shoot well. Longer sight radius, more grip real estate, lower bore axis relative to hand — all of that is *real*. Recoil management, trigger reset speed, follow-up accuracy. The math doesn't lie. A new shooter will print tighter groups and recover faster on a Glock 17 or M&P9 Full-Size than on a compact or subcompact.

**So why doesn't this matter in the real world?**

Because nobody carries a full-size gun as their first concealed-carry piece. And that's rational, even if it's suboptimal for learning.

A beginner walks into the range thinking: *I need to carry this.* Not: *I need to optimize my skill acquisition.* They're right, by the way. A gun that doesn't get carried is a gun that doesn't matter. A Glock 17 under a light jacket in August is a different kind of problem than poor trigger control.

Here's what I see in the real teaching environment: new shooters who pick a full-size gun at the counter do shoot better during their first session. Then half of them don't carry it consistently because concealment is harder than they thought. The gun sits in a nightstand, and they carry a Shield instead—which is fine, but now they're training with a different platform and getting less out of practice.

**What actually holds up?**

The person who walks in with a clear answer: *I'm going to start with a full-size at the range for training. I'll build fundamentals there. Then I'll add a compact when concealment becomes the priority.* That person gets the physics advantage *and* the carry comfort later. Training stack that way works.

The person who picks the fullsize because they think it's "better" and then tries to conceal it with a three-o'clock IWB in a t-shirt? They become inconsistent. Inconsistency kills more rounds downrange than trigger geometry ever will.

**My recommendation:** If you don't have a gun yet and you're serious about training—get the full-size. Shoot it a lot. Learn on the easiest platform. Then add a compact for carry. That's not internet theory; that's what works for people who train regularly and stay in the fight long enough to need a backup gun.

If you're already trying to juggle concealment with learning, pick one problem at a time. Consistency matters more than physics. Keep a medical kit in your range bag either way—most people don't, and that's the real oversight.

EDC (Everyday Carry)Recoil Management 9mm (9x19)Grip

5 replies

@new_shooter_questions8d ago
This resonates with me, but I want to push back on one thing based on what actually happened when I bought my first gun last year.
I ended up with a Sig P365 because I knew—*knew*—I wasn't going to carry a full-size. I live in a one-bedroom apartment in a warm climate, work in an office where printing is a real concern, and I was honest with myself that "I'll just carry it anyway" was a lie I'd tell myself. So I picked the compact first.
Here's what surprised me: my accuracy didn't suffer as much as the internet suggested it would. My groups aren't as tight as they'd be on a 17, obviously. But I shoot *consistently*. I'm at the range twice a month because the gun actually lives in my nightstand—not because I'm forcing myself to train with something I won't carry. I've been dry-firing at home, too, which I probably wouldn't do if I'd bought the full-size and felt less connected to it.
Your point about inconsistency killing more rounds than trigger geometry stands. I just think the inconsistency doesn't *have* to come from picking a compact first. It comes from picking *anything* and then not carrying it.
Maybe the real question isn't full-size versus compact. It's: are you actually going to use this gun? Because I've seen the reverse of your nightstand scenario too—someone buys the "correct" training gun, shoots it great once, and then it becomes range-only because it doesn't fit their life.
I'm not saying skip the full-size forever. I'm genuinely considering adding one for dedicated range time. But I'm glad I didn't start there.
@southpaw_095d ago
You nailed the actual problem, and I want to push on the OP's framing a little from the carry angle.
Honest take: new_shooter_questions has the stronger argument here. The inconsistency doesn't come from choosing a compact first—it comes from choosing *anything* and then discovering your life doesn't support carrying it. That's real.
But here's where I think the OP's two-gun pathway actually wins, and it's not about groups at 7 yards. It's about AIWB carry training and draw path.
If you start on a P365 and that becomes your only gun, you're training your draw stroke, your draw path, your concealment footprint around a 3.1-inch slide from day one. That's fine. It works. But when you eventually want to add that full-size for range time, your draw ergonomics don't transfer cleanly. Different sight picture, different grip angle relative to your body, different clearing angle from concealment. You're relearning the draw.
The opposite sequence—start full-size at the range, *then* add a carry gun—lets you learn the fundamentals on the easiest platform, then adapt those fundamentals down to a harder one. Your draw stroke compresses; your trigger control stays the same. That transfers.
Honest caveat though: this only matters if you're actually going to train the draw and carry position regularly. If you're range-only, it's academic. And if your life is genuinely incompatible with carrying a full-size—like your situation—then optimizing for consistency with what you'll actually carry beats optimizing for transfer efficiency.
What's your plan if you do add that full-size? Range only, or are you thinking about training draws with it?
@kept.simple3d ago
Both of you are working around the real problem: home defense doesn't care about your carry compromise.
I'm going to be direct. If this is your first gun and you live alone or with people you trust, the full-size argument isn't about training efficiency or some internet ladder you're supposed to climb. It's about what you're actually defending.
Full-size guns—17, M&P9, whatever—run softer. Lower bore axis, more grip surface, longer sight radius. In the context of home defense, that translates to faster follow-up shots and easier shot placement in low light when you're half-asleep and your hands are shaking. That's not theory. That's what defensive ammunition testing and actual home-defense shootings show.
Here's what gets glossed over in the carry-first argument: most people don't need to carry every day. New shooters especially shouldn't feel obligated to. But almost everyone benefits from having a capable home-defense gun that shoots like it means something.
So the honest pathway? Get a full-size for your nightstand. Shoot it well. It lives there. It's not a compromise gun—it's your actual job gun. Then, if carry becomes part of your life, add the P365 or whatever compact makes sense for your body and wardrobe. You're not choosing one; you're picking the right tool for the right job.
The inconsistency problem both of you mentioned is real. But it usually comes from picking something that doesn't fit *either* job—treating the carry gun like a training platform or the training gun like carry insurance. Start with what actually works for home defense. Everything else builds from there.
@g19.gospel2d ago
Stop. You're all overthinking this.
Glock 19. That's the answer. Full-size frame, compact slide. Carries like a P365. Shoots like a 17. This is not complicated.
You don't need two guns to figure out what you're doing. You need one gun that actually works for both jobs. The G19 does both jobs. It's been doing both jobs for thirty years. It does them better than anything else you're going to pick.
The whole argument here—carry versus training, full-size versus compact, inconsistency versus transfer—collapses the second you stop treating the gun like a compromise. The G19 isn't a compromise. It's the actual answer. Fits your hand. Fits your holster. Shoots fast. Carries fast. You train on it. You carry it. You defend with it. Done.
You want a full-size at the range? The G19 is full-size where it counts—grip and trigger. You want something that carries? The G19 carries. You want something that works? The G19 works.
Every word in this thread about picking between platforms or buying two guns or worrying about draw ergonomics—that's what happens when you picked wrong the first time. Pick the G19. Shoot it. Carry it. Stop adding guns to your life to fix a gun problem you already solved.
That's it.
@gulfcoast_ops1d ago
Let me break this apart, because this is an internet argument that mostly doesn't hold up once you separate what people *think* matters from what actually matters in training.
**What's actually breaking down on a small grip?**
Not accuracy. Not consistency. What breaks down is *foundational trigger control*—and that's the only thing that matters in month one through month six.
A P365 has a short trigger reset, a small grip circumference, and trigger reach that forces you into a specific finger position. None of that is wrong. But if you're building the trigger press from scratch, you're building it around constraints. You learn to make it work. That's fine for *that gun*. But when you add a full-size later—or when someone hands you a different platform—your fundamentals don't transfer clean because you didn't build them on the easiest baseline.
That's not an internet theory. That's what I see when a student who trained exclusively on their carry gun picks up a 19 at a class and suddenly their press falls apart until they retrain it.
**But here's what actually matters:**
Every person in this thread is correct about one thing: you will not train consistently with a gun you won't carry. That's real. new_shooter_questions proved it. If you bought a full-size, hated concealing it, and now it lives in a drawer—you failed at training not because the gun was wrong but because you picked your job *after* you picked your gun.
So. **What actually works:** Get clear on your job first. Home defense only? Full-size lives there; problem solved. Carry required? Then you pick the carry piece you'll actually use, and you train on that. You don't need two guns to start. You need one gun that matches your actual life.
If that's a P365, shoot it well. If that's a G19, shoot it well. The platform doesn't matter. Consistency and trigger control matter.
g19.gospel isn't wrong about the G19 being a reasonable split. But the argument that one gun solves everything collapses the same way this whole thread does—when you pretend the gun fixes human behavior. It doesn't.
**What I'd ask you:** What's your actual job? Home defense, occasional carry, regular carry? Answer that first. Then pick one gun that fits that job and train on it until you're boring yourself with how consistent you are. Trigger control wins. Everything else is gear.