ok im trying to decide between a shield in .40 cal. or an M&P compact in .40.
As of now i have a shield in 9mm, which i love, and is used for a carry gun, wanted to get a little more punch for winter carry, so wanted to see what peoples opinions are.
I know the biggest difference between the two is round count, is there anything else im missing????
And why a forty is because I have a chiefs special in .40 that im going to be getting rid of, to big for iwb carry for me, and have alot of .40 ammo.
Thanks for any info

I had a compact and now have a .40 shield. For me the shield with the extended magazine is much easier to shoot well, even when I used the pinky extension mag with the compact. This is because the REAR of the compact grip is too short for a handgun of this size and weight. The rear of the shield (with the extended magazine) fits my full palm perfectly.

I don't mind short grips on small pocket pistols, but it just doesn't work on larger guns IMHO.

I have a .40c,and it's a nice pistol, but if you're going to carry it concealed, get the Shield. The .40c is a much bulkier piece than the Shield. Granted, it holds more ammo, but look at the two side by side if possible before you buy. As a range gun, there's no contest, but for concealed carry the Shield wins.

Thanks guys, figured i wasnt only one with this dilemma, have a great day

Before you choose, try to find a way to shoot both and base your decision on which feels better to shoot for YOU.

Yes... The Shield would be easier to conceal IWB, but if it doesn't perform as well as the Compact (ie: if you need to constantly readjust your grip with the Shield, but not the Compact) the C is not THAT much more difficult to conceal.

In short... Try not to buy a model that you haven't first tried (Rented, borrowed, or tried one that someone at the range was shooting).
Don't make a $300 - $500 mistake based on what OTHER people like.

Size, while not completely irrelevant, shouldn't be the main consideration for a carry gun. You must be able to use the gun effectively.

The Shield is one of, if not the, best small guns. However, I constantly see people struggle with guns of this size. They have a hard time getting a consistent grip and a hard time reloading. The compact M&Ps tend to be easier to grip and manipulate.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I've never owned a Shield, but it's a no brainer that it will conceal better than my 40c. That said, I am 5'8" 175 lbs. My 40c conceals fine IWB with a N82 pro, or OWB with a Black Dog concealment kydex. With a proper "Gun Belt" the extra bulk and weight are not a problem. In winter, under the right jacket, I can even hide it with a full size mag.

I've got the Shield 9mm and a 40c. Both are great guns. I purchased the Shield first and carry it anytime warmer weather dictates lighter clothing. It conceals well with just a t shirt and shorts. I purchased the 40c a few months ago and carry it whenever I can wear a little more clothing. I'm 6'3" and 190lbs and just can't hide the 40c quite as well. With a good quality leather gun belt both carry equally well. I carry both in an N82 or an Alien Gear holster.

In the 40S&W, I would definitely go with the compact over the Shield simply due to the extra capacity. Those 3 extra rounds could come in handy in a really bad situation.

I have a 40c, I don't have a Shield so I can't compare the two.

I carry my 40c IWB in a White Hat holster and I can conceal it under a t-shirt with no problems. I'm 6', 200....ok, 210.

I love shooting the 40c...it's a great pistol and easy to shoot for me.

Fox

The 40c will soak up more of the 40 punch vs. the Shield.

__________________
9/40FS, 9c, 9 Shield, MP22

You could sell the ammo with the gun or sell it separately or schedule a range session and burn it up before selling the gun. Use the money you saved for training or to upgrade your carry ammunition to something that will expand through winter clothing. If you're still interested in another gun get an M&P9 in compact, full size, or long slide.

I do not believe the marginal increase in wounding potential of the .40 is worth the increase in recoil and reduction in ammunition capacity. I just got another chance to fire a .40 Shield and it just reinforced that belief.

While I certainly can't argue the wisdom of the basic premise that one should be able to use their gun effectively, I would argue that size is often a prime consideration by necessity.

We all have different lifestyles and professions, the common thread in this case being an interest in concealed carry. But those differing lifestyles and professions mean that there are also different "costs" of having our concealed weapon noticed by those around us.

For example, if you work in a gun store, the "cost" of having a customer notice the Desert Eagle you have tucked under your shirt is very low; the customer smirks and congratulates themselves on having noticed your gun. On the other hand, if you are a pharmaceutical rep visiting a metropolitan hospital you are likely to alarm and possibly alienate your customers if they notice your Desert Eagle.

The smaller gun you'll actually carry is a heck of a lot more effective when the SHTF than the big gun back home in the safe. In general, the larger and heavier the gun, the more difficult and uncomfortable it becomes to carry concealed. The M&P Compacts aren't really big guns, but they are a quarter inch thicker and significantly heavier than a Shield once you fill up a 12 round magazine. Only dersa73 (the OP) can decide if the extra round count and better ergonomics of a wider grip are worth the trade-off in ease of concealment. For me, the Shield is on the upper limits of what I want to carry.

__________________
Jim - M&P Pro 40L/Shield 40