I am not much of a pistol shooter, or better I prefer rifles but there have always been a few pistols in our safe here, so recently I started shooting them at the range, and soon they will be opening a tactical range nearby too so...
I have been shooting mostly with a S&W .357 and I quite like it, and can shoot pretty well with it. I also use a Colt double eagle 90 series, but it just doesn't "feel" right, the grip feel thin and the results on my targets are not as good either. So I am tempted to trade it in for another auto. I have played with a few Glocks, and quite like they way they sit in my hand, but am unsureI can't say there is anything wrong with the Colt, we just dont seem to click. So questions; would the accuracy from a Glock subcomp�act be even worse than the full size colt? is there generaly a noticeable difference in accuracy between compact and larger autos?
If the gun is to be used for home defence, and for range use, is a compact worthwhile?(I just seem to like the subcompact)
Thanks for any help I can get..

Express

It has been my experience in 30 years of mostly handgun shooting that each person needs to shoot what they like. If one finds a gun that "fits" chances are they will shoot better with it. I grew up with my father shooting an old High Standard .22 revolver. It seemed that my father simply couldn't miss with that old gun. When he finally let me take it to the range on my own and I put lots of ammo on paper I found out to my shock and surprise that the gun wasn't really accurate at all. It was a simple matter of my father being comfortable and used to that particular gun.

About the Colt Double Eagle. I haven't met a 1911 gun that I like as much as the Kimber. Any model they make will out shoot everything but custom pistols costing much more. I have one and it is my favorite gun.

About using a compact, again go with what feels best and what you can shoot well. At combact (self-defense) ranges the compact isn't going to give up too much accuracy.

You might want to try a double stack 1911 or a Glock as both have a wider and "blockier" feel.

The only thing I could add (I think reverendan did a great post) is that compacts are not nessecarily less or more accurate than a full profile pistol. The shorter sight radius makes it more difficult to be accurate on paper (or whatever you are shooting at). From the defensive standpoint the short sight radius is not an issue.
There is nothing wrong with having one gun, which in your case sounds like you want a sub-compact for all purposes. Each gun is unique and has certain limitations/advantages. As long as you are content with that, buy a quality gun that fits you and burn lots of powder. But this can be a dangerous disease. It seems like one is not enough.
xphunter

You owe it to yourself to check out the H&K USP compacts. I have full size and compact H&Ks, as well as others from S&W, Colt, Para Ordnance and Ruger and the H&Ks simply knock my socks off. I bought my son a 45 USP Compact, shot one mag through it and bought myself one, and have a third on lay-a-way as I type. Never misfeed, need no tuning out of the box, feed anything. I've put over a thousand rounds through my H&K Expert and the two Compacts and there has never been a malfunction of any kind in any gun. I cannot say the same about the others.

I like the way the Glocks shoot. I have shot more than a few of them and everyone of them have shot well for me. They seem to be a natural pointer for me. I just can't bring myself to buy an auto, I am a wheel gun and single shot shooter most of the way. I really really like my brothers Gold Cup though. I would buy that one if he were to sell it to me. For what it's worth. Slim