MICRO-COMPACT PISTOLS THE GOLDILOCKS SIZE FOR EDC?

Are micro-compact pistols such as the Springfield Hellcat and the M&P Shield Plus the Goldilocks size for everyday carry (EDC)? With the release of the Sig P365 in 2018, gun manufacturers had no choice but to take notice of the growing demand for higher double stack capacity while maintaining a slim, single stack width profile. Nearly every major manufacturer now offers a micro-compact 9mm or .380 pistol that features a double stack magazine. When I started carrying concealed, the options were great, but it was only going to get bigger, and in a short amount of time.

THE STANDARD

The common practice for everyday carry, when I was getting into civilian concealed carry, was to have a firearm that was concealable, shootable, durable, and reliable. You had to choose between your pistol being small with little capacity but extremely concealable like the single stack M&P Shield, or big with less concealability and more ammo like the Glock 19. You had manufactures scrambling to offer pistols in between these two size categories. It was hard to find that perfect balance between capacity, concealability, and shootability.

GET SOMETHING BIG?

Companies made significant efforts to match the size profile of the Glock 19, but often fell short when it came to balancing compactness with capacity. Many people, including myself, comfortably carried pistols such as the full-size 1911 chambered in .45 ACP. Others preferred options like the Browning Hi-Power or the Sig P229. While these pistols were on the larger side, they were still relatively easy to conceal beneath a hoodie or a loose-fitting summer shirt. This combination of size and concealability met the needs of those who valued both capacity and discretion.

The Tisas M1911A1 in a Clinger Holsters IWB Holster

The issue with these firearms was in their weight and the fact that you had to dress around the gun a bit. This is the same issue people are experiencing today with throwing lights, lasers, red dots, and extended mags on their guns. The gun loses it’s concealability because you want all these extra doodads, and now the pistol is bigger and heavier, and less attractive to throw on at all times.

HEIGHT

When trying to conceal a pistol, you need to make sure that the height of the pistol is managed first because that is the dimension that is going to stick out and print first. As human beings, our midsections are contoured and a tall pistol will print on a small framed individual like myself. With the help of holsters utilizing the FBI cant, I was able to manage and successfully conceal my full size Remington R1 inside the waistband for many years.

WIDTH

This thickness of your pistol was the second part about a larger pistol that made it print. I found that a pistol thicker than an inch was going to start printing. The thicker the pistol, the worse it got. At one point I tried to carry the Glock 30, which was more akin to the size of the Glock 19, but a bit thicker. This made it hard to conceal. It was like trying to conceal a 2X4 on my hip, and I quickly lost interest in trying to carry double stack .45 ACP pistols.

WEIGHT

Pistols being light or heavy was not a very big deal back when I started carrying concealed. The idea was to get a decent holster and just deal with the burden of carrying. You are going to have other things to carry around such as a wallet, keys, phone, a knife, etc. With the pistol against your person, you would hardly notice it on you. When this would become an issue was when you started using holsters with a single point of attachment, much like the current designs that have one massive clip. This design puts all the weight on one particular part of the belt and allows the pistol to rock back and forth during the day. In general, the bigger the gun, the more it will necessitate that you spread out the load a bit with something like a hybrid holster from www.clingerholsters.com.

GET SOMETHING SMALL?

I remember when single stack pistols were not frowned upon and capacity was secondary to skill and caliber/bullet selection. Believe it or not, revolvers with just 5 rounds of 38 Special were common to see being carried. The M&P Shield was considered the standard by which all other single stack pistols were based. Companies released ultra slim pistols that were affordable, reliable, and as shootable as a full size pistol. The Keltec PF9 with 7+1 capacity was the smallest and lightest 9mm single stack, and held its own in the concealed carry market. The PF9 was punishing to shoot, but could be managed with some dedicated time behind the gun.

Other pistols like the Walther PPS, Sig 938 and the Springfield XDS were loved by those who used them frequently. I personally found the Walther PPS to be one of the nicest single stack Micro-compact pistols. The thing that set these pistols apart and made them slightly less popular to the Shield was the availability of holsters, night sights, and other aftermarket accessories that started becoming popular in the early 2010’s.

CAPACITY

The single stack pistols of the era were suffering from having roughly half the ammunition capacity compared to their double stack cousins. It was widely accepted among users and experts alike that you would almost always need to carry a spare magazine whenever you relied on these low capacity pistols. Despite this limitation, many people were willing to make this sacrifice because it meant they could carry a slim, easily concealable, and reliable pistol that would serve them well in an emergency situation. This trade-off between capacity and concealability defined the practical choices for self-defense during that time.

SHOOTABILITY

The single stack offerings of the day were really hoping to make their money by shedding weight and still making their small guns easy and pleasant to shoot. The Walther PPS was one of the most shootable pistols in 9mm in it’s size class. The Shield hit a fine balance between being tiny and being shootable. It still kicked and had tough springs, but it did a good job of not beating your hand up during sustained range time.

RELIABILITY

The biggest problem of tiny pistols back in the day was having one that could handle being shot. The Shield and the PPS were renown for their reliability, and the XDS was respected as well, but had some teething issues. You can reliably shoot hot +P loads or mouse fart loads in all these pistols. This was huge, and it made these pistols the example that all companies followed when developing micro-compact pistols. When the Glock 42/43 came out, they were not reliable, and they still are known to have issues with cycling.

DURABILITY

As you shot your tiny carry pistols more, you would have to worry about part durability. Physics was still a thing back then, and people were concerned about parts lasting under the aggressive cycling. The three pistols I mentioned had a great track record for being able to withstand neglect like a duty pistol. James Yeager took an M&P Shield and fired over 10,000 rounds through it just to see if he could get it to fail. I think this early YouTube test really helped boost the M&P Shield into legend and cement it as the baseline for reliability in a tiny carry pistol.

GET SOMETHING JUST RIGHT?

The Glock 26/27 effectively prevented many competing companies from gaining a strong foothold in the concealed carry market. For those who found carrying a Glock 19 too large but still wanted more capacity than what a Shield offered, the Glock 26/27 was the ideal choice. It hit that perfect, Goldilocks-sized balance for many years, serving as the go-to option—up until 2018, when new developments began to shift the landscape.

Glock 27 next to the M&P Shield Plus

Keltec produced the P11 from 1995 to 2019, offering a 10+1 capacity pistol that featured a compact 1” width and a 4.3” height. This size matches that of the popular P365, although the P11 has a thicker grip designed to fit the hand more comfortably and securely. The trigger mechanism is double action only, providing a consistent trigger pull each time. Additionally, the P11 weighed just 14 ounces unloaded, a remarkably light weight that remains unmatched by many modern pistols. For comparison, both the Hellcat and the P365 pistols weigh in at approximately 18 ounces when unloaded, making the P11 notably lighter and easier to carry for extended periods.

The SCCY CPX 2 that my wife got years ago is actually the same size as my M&P Shield Plus in many respects.

The magazine is nearly the exact same size, with the main difference being the slight taper at the neck near the top of the SCCY magazine.

When comparing overall dimensions, the height of the Shield Plus is exactly the same as the SCCY, while the width of both pistols favors the shield by a slim margin.

One noticeable aspect is that the grip of the SCCY could be made a bit slimmer and more contoured, which would likely improve the grip comfort and ergonomics for a wider range of users. This subtle design change could make a significant difference in how the gun feels during extended use.

With the exception of the grip size, the SCCY CPX was essentially what the Sig P365 is today, offering similar functionality but having been available for a longer period and at a lower cost. Although the company eventually went under, their DVG-1 model—which was the striker-fired version of the CPX—appeared to be a strong contender in the budget pistol category. It featured all the key micro-compact characteristics enthusiasts look for, all while maintaining an incredibly affordable price point of around $200. In conclusion, the concept of a micro-compact pistol designed to be as slim as a single-stack model yet offering the capacity of a double-stack magazine had been explored and in circulation at least two decades before the Sig P365 entered the market.

ARE ALL OTHERS NOW OBSOLETE?

The question now, since the micro-compact capacity standard is the P365 or the Shield Plus, is whether any of these other pistol designs and sizes are legitimate and worthy of your time and dime, or if they are now in a realm of obsolescence. Now that we can get ten rounds in a pistol the size of the Shield, what more could we ask for? Well, it may not be that simple.

SHOOTABILITY

You can have a small gun that carries a significant amount of ammo, but if the shooter cannot effectively place those rounds on target, the pistol isn’t really serving you very well. The sight radius of these micro-compact pistols is quite short, making precise aiming more challenging, and the recoil can still be fairly unpleasant for those who are unfamiliar or inexperienced with shooting small pistols. Proper training and practice are essential to maximize their effectiveness in a self-defense scenario.

DURABILITY

Even though metallurgy and polymer design have significantly improved in recent years, I have noticed that we still cannot completely escape the fundamental laws of physics. Springs have the potential to fail over time, and certain parts can become brittle or wear down. Quality control remains a substantial challenge for Sig, and this has become increasingly apparent in their recent products.

If you put a large number of rounds through your Shield, it is essential to be diligent about regularly changing springs and ensuring you have spare parts readily available. I always recommend keeping extra firing pins or strikers, extractor springs, and recoil springs on hand, just in case one breaks or wears down to a level that could affect your firearm's reliability and performance.

WRAPUP

The micro-compact pistol is often hailed as the perfect balance for concealed carry—small enough to be easily concealed yet powerful enough to be effective. However, it may not be the “Goldilocks” option for everyone. While these pistols excel in concealability, they frequently sacrifice grip comfort, magazine capacity, and recoil management. For some users, especially those with larger hands or slower shooting experience, a slightly larger pistol with better ergonomics and control could prove more reliable under stress.

In contrast, some may still feel like a slightly smaller pistol may be necessary for their specific situation. Typically, the smaller pistols will be best run by experienced shooters who are up to the challenge of shooting a stout recoiling pistol that are willing to sacrifice shootability and capacity for concealability. Ultimately, the best concealed carry firearm should be tailored to the individual’s size, skill, and daily carry needs rather than defaulting to the micro-compact as a one-size-fits-all solution.