Full-size pistols for new shooters: why the internet gets this backwards

The internet argument mostly doesn't hold up — let me break it apart.

You'll read that compact pistols are "easier to carry" so new shooters should start there. You'll read that subcompacts are "more concealable" so they're the real choice. What actually matters gets buried: **what fits your hand and lets you shoot straight?**

**Why does grip size matter most?**

A full-size Glock 17 has a grip circumference of 4.65 inches. A subcompact G43X is 3.72 inches. That's not a small difference when you're learning to manage recoil, index your trigger finger, and build a consistent grip. Most new shooters have average to large hands. A full-size gives you leverage, a three-finger grip that doesn't feel pinched, and real estate to manage the gun under stress.

Smaller grip = smaller margin for error. You're fighting the gun's design while also fighting the learning curve.

**Why do people buy compact first?**

Carry culture. They imagine a future self who carries daily before they've even qualified on one gun. They buy small because "duty size" sounds tactical in a forum post. They buy what they see in concealed-carry videos. None of that has anything to do with learning.

**What actually happens in training?**

I've run hundreds of new shooters through live-fire courses. The ones with full-size pistols establish control faster. They dry-fire more — because they're not uncomfortable during practice. They shoot acceptable groups at 7 yards in their first session. The ones with subcompacts often don't. They blame the gun. They blame themselves. They quit.

Then six months later they buy a full-size.

**What's the honest tradeoff?**

Yes, a full-size is larger. You'll notice it at the range. You won't carry it daily — most new shooters don't for the first two years anyway. If you do carry, you'll carry a full-size exactly the same way you carry a compact: in a proper holster, inside the waistband, at 3-4 o'clock. Appendix carry? Same. The difference is negligible once you own the right rig.

Smaller isn't always harder, but in the first 500 rounds, a full-size eliminates a variable you don't need to manage.

**My recommendation:** Start with a Glock 17 (or Glock 19 if your hands run small). Shoot it every week for three months. Then — and only then — decide if you want something smaller for daily carry. You'll have the skill to manage a compact without fighting the fundamentals. And you'll have something that works. Keep the 17 for training and skill maintenance. You'll use both.

9mm (9x19)Grip Glock 17

4 replies

@new_shooter_questions13d ago
I appreciate the detailed breakdown, but I need to push back a little here because I'm kind of the counterexample to your argument.
I have small hands—like, legitimately small. I'm a woman with short fingers, and when I picked up a Glock 17 at a store last year, it genuinely felt unwieldy. The grip circumference matters, sure, but so does trigger reach. I ended up with a Glock 43X because my finger could actually find the trigger cleanly without adjusting my whole grip.
The thing is, I've put maybe 300 rounds through it now, and I'm not struggling with control. I dry-fire regularly—not because I'm comfortable *avoiding* discomfort, but because I actually *am* comfortable. My groups at 7 yards are consistent. I'm not blaming the gun or myself.
My question is: does the grip-size advantage you're describing apply equally to people who fall outside the "average to large hands" bucket you mention? Because I'm wondering if the real issue is that the internet *does* bury nuance—just in the opposite direction. Everyone says "buy what fits your hand," and then the advice immediately assumes that means a full-size.
I'm not disagreeing that fundamentals matter more than carry culture. That part rings completely true. But I'm genuinely curious whether the training data you're pulling from skews toward average-handed shooters. Does hand size actually shift the calculus here?
@counter_rat8d ago
You're not the counterexample—you're the reason I sell more 43X frames than 17s to women who walk in here knowing what they want.
The problem isn't the OP's advice. It's that the OP gave advice *to everyone*, and then I spend half my day talking someone out of a full-size they don't fit because they read that post, or one like it, and figured they should tough it out. "Isn't that just the learning curve?" Nope. That's just a gun that doesn't match their skeleton.
What actually happens on the sales floor: person comes in, says they want to learn to shoot. I ask what fits their hand. Small hands? We pick up a 43X or a P365. Average hands? Probably a 19 or a 17. Large hands? Yeah, go full-size. Takes maybe five minutes. But I see a lot of people who've already decided *before* they get here that they need "the real gun" to learn on, because that's what the internet authority told them.
You did the work—you held the gun, tested it, put rounds downrange. That's the actual test, not the spec sheet. The OP's data probably does skew toward people whose hands match the grip circumference baseline. That's not a flaw in their experience; it's just incomplete coverage.
Keep the 43X. You're not learning despite it—you're learning *with* it, which is the whole point. And yeah, in a couple years if you want a duty gun for the range, grab a 17. But nothing says you have to.
@southpaw_095d ago
Both of you are seeing real things, and honest — I think the OP and @counter_rat are actually describing the same problem from different angles.
The grip-surface piece matters more than the spec sheet suggests. It's not just circumference; it's how your hand *contacts* the frame under recoil. A 43X in small hands gets three solid points of contact. A 17 in the same hands gets two, maybe, because your pinky either dangles or fights for purchase. That's a control problem — not a "learning curve" problem. You can't dry-fire your way out of geometry.
But here's where I'd push back on the OP's framing: the argument assumes you're choosing between two identical learning environments. You're not. @new_shooter_questions putting 300 rounds through a gun that *fits* is doing better learning work than someone white-knuckling a 17 because an internet post said to tough it out. Discomfort isn't the same as challenge.
What I'd add: the real variable isn't full-size vs. compact. It's "does this gun let your hand do the work?" For average-to-large hands, yeah, the 17 wins that test. For small hands, the 43X does. For the middle territory — and there's a lot of people there — a 19 splits the difference and solves the problem before it starts.
The sales floor data matters here. @counter_rat sees the failures *after* the purchase. The OP sees the successes during training. Neither dataset is complete without the other.
I'm curious, OP — in your 500-round cohorts, did you track hand size against control timeline? Or is that something worth running going forward?
@gulfcoast_ops3d ago
Let me break this apart, because the thread is circling around something real without naming it directly.
**What's actually being debated here?**
Not whether full-size or compact is "better." That's an internet argument that mostly doesn't hold up. What's being debated is whether *discomfort during learning* is a feature or a bug. The OP frames it as acceptable cost. @new_shooter_questions and @counter_rat are saying: no, it's an obstacle disguised as character-building.
They're right.
**Here's what I see in my courses:**
I don't track hand size the way @southpaw_09 asked — I should — but I do track something more useful: dropout rate correlates with "I'm struggling with this gun." Not "I'm struggling with trigger control." Gun-fit problems feel identical to skill problems to a new shooter. Both feel like failure. One is. One isn't.
The OP's data from people *who stayed in training* is selection bias. That's not a character flaw in the post; it's just incomplete. You're not seeing the person who quit after session two because the gun didn't fit their hand, decided shooting "wasn't for them," and bought a Nintendo instead.
**What actually matters:**
Fundamentals first — grip, sight picture, trigger press — *only if the gun lets your hand execute them.* Geometry isn't a fundamental. It's a prerequisite. @new_shooter_questions didn't work around her 43X. She worked *with* it. That's the model.
**My recommendation if you're deciding now:**
Hold the gun. Dry-fire it cold. Can your hand reach the trigger without adjusting your grip? Can you get three solid points of contact under recoil? If yes — buy it and train it hard for three months. Don't wait for someone online to validate your fit. Your hands know the answer better than spec sheets do. Then, after 500 rounds, decide what's next. Not because the internet said so. Because you know what you need.