As you’ve no doubt noticed, it’s a long running industry tradition to cut barrel/barrel-slide length off of more-or-less standard guns. It even happened before the Colt Commander – Fitzgerald and his revolvers that ran up to the Detective Special, as well as snubbed M&P revolvers came after the “Sheriff’s” or “Shopkeeper” models of the Colt M1873 Model P.

The current wise guys will tell you that you need that longer barrel/slide because (1) it’s easier to hide than the butt and (2) it’s easier to shoot due to reduced recoil and longer sight radius.

I believe I bored you with my opinion on these matters before. I think that concealment is more a function of holster and attire than of the gun. Reduced recoil with heavier guns is a thing until you have a Browning-inspired delayed blow-back semi-auto; when you reduced the weight of the barrel and slide, you just reduced muzzle flip – without a compensator.

What about the “increased accuracy” due to longer sight radius?

If you’re a really good shot, it could well make a difference. For many of us, we can’t shoot well enough to get the good of it.

I opined that the shorter top end was just a little quicker out of the holster and that splits should be a little less with the shorter gun.

Looking back, I can report “it doesn’t matter.”

Shooting the Compact 4" (left) and the 3.6" from the same holster on the "Transtar" target from ten yards, timed singles tended faster from the short gun -- but sloppy hits. The shorter gun's hits are marked on the target

The primary point of comparison was the time for a single hit from the holster. To tip the favor to the gun longest in my custody, I set the federal-type Transtar target at 10 yards. The holster, for both guns, was the length-neutral GalcoTac Slide, an “outside-the-waist” belt holster.

To bias in favor of the Truncated Compact, I did the test after I “warmed up” with the longer Compact 4”. To say it was a wash is an understatement. The average for five draws was 1.9 for the 4”, 1.8 for the 3.6” – but that doesn’t tell the story. The hits with the 4” were solid – three in the pale “X” ring and two just outside in the slightly darker ring. They were well centered on the target, as the photo shows. Using the same target, I proceeded to the shorter analog to the original Compact. While the times were slightly quicker – 1.8 seconds average – the hits were miserable. One nicked the “X,” two others were in the second ring out and one – for the “quickest” hit was out in the fourth ring almost to the left side of the target.

Dropping that figure as a “miss” and recalculating lead to a 1.84 second average – hardly enough to be decisive.

So, I was wrong. Up very close, it could be a thing but the difference is microscopic.

Dropping the whole comparison thing – I don’t think losing a fraction of a second in split times will be decisive on the street even if it is on the range – the next trip saw only the Compact 3.6” going along. I started by just shooting the Wizard Drill on a smaller target – the “you print it” internet-available FPS-1 Target from First Person Safety. Printed on 11” x 17” (ledger-size) paper, the face area is 5″W x 4″H with an inner oval that is 4″W x 2.5″H.  The chest area is 7″W x  7″H with an inner heart box that is 3″W x 5″H.

I knew I’d go long on the pair from 10 yards – I did – but the hits were all in. I was thoroughly satisfied with the handling. Fact is, it was indistinguishable from the Compact 4” gun.

I posted an IDPA analog paper target, loaded with Federal “Aluminum” 115 FMJ and paced pack to fifty yards. I fired four singles from the holster. Stepping up to 25 yards, I paused and fired a pair at the smaller ‘head’-zone part of the target.

Results on the IDPA-analog target from 50 yards ("chest") and 25 yards ("head") were promising.

Two of the fifty yard attempts were in the low “-0” and the others tended right still inside the “-1.”

Not at all bad. The 25 yard attempts had one that sailed just over the head box with the other just over the “-0” head triangle but solidly in the head.

I’m thinking that shooting that longer-distance Asym drill would be pretty easily passed with the M&P9 M2.0 Compact 3.6” – with very little preparation.

I noticed no difference when shooting the slightly shorter gun. When using a belt slide holster – open on the end letting the longer slide-barrel protrude – you face the risk of an arm on a chair pushing the gun up and out of the holster when you sit. That won’t happen with the 3.6” “Truncated Compact.” It’s just past flush, as opposed to the earlier Compact.

If I was in a gun shop looking at these guns and had to decide which I’d buy, I’d likely tend to the Compact 3.6” – just because there’s no reason not to. I shot it close for speed and shot it from distance – and find that it does just as well as the slightly bigger brother.

- - Rich Grassi