Originally Posted by David McCarroll
Well, I played a mixture of Strats and Les Pauls for many years (by the way, if anything I am a bit of a shortass), and found exactly the opposite - shorter scales just simply get harder to play as you get higher up the fretboard - even the relatively tiny difference between Gibson's 24 3/4" scale length and PRS's 25" scale seems to make a world of difference to the feel of the guitar. I don't have huge hands (the girls don't stare and wonder ......), but I have never had any problem with Fender's standard scale length, and if anything, the extra fretboard real estate makes complex chord patterns easier to play, not harder.
Shortest scale length I am aware of on a supposedly full scale guitar is the Gibson Byrdland at 23" - they are TINY!
It's really a subjective thing and depends a lot on your playing style and technique. If you play straight form scales and melodic bends, etc then it'd probably not make much of a difference. Yet, if you are doing a lot of wide stretches and string skipping I feel it would definitely make a difference.
I don't find that regular scale 25.5 is "harder" per se. It's not at all. I've been playing that scale guitar my whole life and its what I learned to play guitar on. I started on Strats and switched to Ibanez RG's, Jacksons and played a few S's. I just feel that for my playing style the shorter scale is easier.
Yngwie, Vai, Gilbert have a clear advantage with their height and hand size. So It donned upon me one day, "Hey, a shorter scale guitar would give me the same advantage!" So I went and bought a couple of Caparisons and the rest is history. I personally found my hypothesis to be validated as soon as I picked it up. I can't put the thing down and I haven't felt like that since the first time I played a wizard neck after years on a C neck.
Ultimately, you should do what feels best and not worry about what is "supposed" to work in theory.