This thread is a couple of years old but I was interested in the topic and it has to still be relevant. I own a CM9 and a shield and once owned a CW9. Let's first look at the specs. CM9 and shield have same barrel length. The shield is 1/4 pound heavier. The shield is a little over 1/2 longer. And the shield is a bit over 1/2" taller. They serve 2 entirely different roles. What you say? Absolutley. The CM9 is a superb pocket gun, the shield, not so because of its larger heavier everything. The shield is a better side hip carry gun. They are entirely different. Yea you can carry a shiled in your pocket but it's not as comfortable as the CM9. You can hip carry a CM9 but why not carry a pistol with a full size grip when the longer mag is used with the shield. The CM9 handles recoil so well i shoot it as well as the longer grip CW9. The trigger pull is long but smooth and for a pistol of it's size, it is the best. It is close to the lightest of all pocket carry 9mms, has the best trigger pull and handles recoil the best because ot he low bore axis to the grip. I had the keltecs before the CM9 and there is no comparison. They are no fun to shoot. When you go to the CW9 the shield is probably superior because of its short pull and reset. The you can add an apex trigger and there's no contest. However lets look now at the CW9 and the shield. Something no one mentions. Shield oal is 6", the CW9 about the same. Barrel length is 3.5" for the CW9, 3" for the shield, same as the "pocket carry" CM9. Long before the M&P's existed, professionals all over the world: police and security bought up Kahrs as backup and secondary guns. Why, because they were utterly reliable, had the best trigger pulls, and they were of the highest quality. These are guys who's lives depended on these guns. If you go to the Kahr forum, the kahrs edge out the shield. I carry both a shield for hip carry and a CM9 for pocket carry. I'd also rather have a 9mm in my pocket than a .380.