Perhaps my question has been asked before, however, I was wondering how many folks here have both the 9mm Shield and the Glock 26, and if so, why, from a pragmatic viewpoint?
Thanks for your thoughts, and a Very nice Thanksgiving Day to all the great folks here.
Steve

g26 is wider, heavier, and holds 10 rnds. I still like the shield better for conceal carry.

__________________
M&P 9, Shield9.

Have both. Like both. Like the Shield better because they just fit better, mainly because trigger reach is shorter and more natural like all M&Ps

Glock trigger reach is always too long

I have a Glock 26 and 43 as well as a Shield.

The Glock 26 I purchased probably 15-16 years ago. Carried it as an ankle gun for a bit but mainly off duty. Still an excellent handgun that I don't shoot much due to the new single stacks and going back to a J Frame for other purposes.

I then purchased a Shield about 3 years ago because the price was right and Glock hadn't came out with the 43 yet. Love it to shoot. Very accurate and natural to shoot with ease.

The Glock 43 came out and I picked one up when they first hit the market. Have had better reliability with it than the Shield, the Shield has hiccuped on a couple of rounds and the Glock has eaten everything fed to it, so I now carry the 43 when going with a semi-auto.

All great platforms! All great weapons and you can't go wrong with any of the three.

Glock 26/M&P compact
Shield/Glock 43.

I prefer the Glock 43

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I like both guns. As you can see, the guns are about the same height and length. The Glock 26 is wider and heavier than the Shield. I have +2 extensions on most of my Glock 26 magazines for the capacity. I carry the Shield when the weather is warm, the Glock when it cools off. Summer just ended here in Georgia.

Here is one of my Shields on top of my Glock 26.

Both are excellent choices. The Shield is a little more one dimensional, IMO. The Shield does the slim, easily carried and concealed job very well. The magazine compatibility of the Glock is a large bonus, however. The standard 10 (or 12) round magazine makes an excellent (if a bit thicker) CC option. The ability to take 15,17 or even the 33 round options opens up more uses. A Glock 26 "could" serve as my only handgun if I had to. CCW, range, home defense.

Thankfully, I don't have to choose only one. Pragmatism is overrated.

Thank you for your responses. I purchased my G26 along time ago, but really like the shield. Didn't know if it might be better to go with the Shield 45 instead of another subcompact 9mm.

I like the 45 better than the 9 shield.

I have both and have no trouble concealing either.
Both are excellent pistols and shoot incredibly well for 3" barreled handguns.

I bought the Shield because I prefer Front Pocket carry and with the proper cut of slacks/jeans/shorts, I can front pocket carry the Shield easily.

Had them all and still have the Shield in 9 and just got the 45. The Glock 26 was accurate, the 43 not so much... but both Shields are the most accurate for me.

My shield fits my hand better and conceals better for me than the Glock. Most importantly, I shoot it better than my G26 or even my G23, and for me it comes right back on target faster for follow-up shots than either Glock. I sold the Glocks and kept the Shield.

I have both, If I had to choose one it would be the Glock26. Mag capacity being the number 1 factor. The G26 IMHO is just as easy/ comfortable to carry as the shield. The ability to reload with a higher capacity magazine is another plus.
I shoot my G26 better (Slightly better) than my Shield.
Have a G43 as well, Totally unreliable IMHO, malfunction just about every magazine decent accuracy and fairly easy to conceal, The Shield wins Hands down in the single stack dept, The 43 just cant measure up (Again IMO). Push comes to shove I'd take the G26 over the Shield and the 43. I try to stay away from the 9mm, as a defensive round, I do sometimes carry one. My usually carry pieces are either my G23 with the Surefire XC1 or the Shield 45. Just not a big fan of the under powered 9mm

I have a Glock 19, 26, and 43. Considered a Shield when they first came out. Tried to warm up to it but couldn't. Primarily carry the 19 and 43. So much so that I'm considering selling the 26.

They are all good guns and it's nice to have options. I certainly would not get rid of your G26. I would add a Shield to your carry stable.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Not sure why you are comparing a single stack from one company to a double stack from another. I own a Glock 27, shield 9mm and M&P 9c. I replaced the Glock with the 9c because I hate the snappiness of .40 and prefer the round count of 9mm. My Shield was my first S&W and it led me to buy the 9c. I love my 9c and the stock round count over Glock and light rails on the front swayed me to the 9c. I plan on buying a 4.25" M&P Pro in the future. Before this I was almost exclusively a Sig guy.

For me its more than width. I find the length of the 26 grip to be a plus. The next time I go to the range I have intentions of running these two and hopefully clearing it up for me. I shoot my Shield more accurately than I ever shot my 9C.

To get in late on this one:

I found your follow-up interesting. If you're looking for diversity in the armory then you can't go wrong. And the cool thing about the 45 is you're only losing one round. For me it's about the different size and weight. The 9c is just a little bigger than the 26, I'll use it to compare.

I LOVE my shield and am actually on my second one. For me it's all about what I'm doing in a day. If my day will have a ton of heavy lifting, or a lot of stairs I don't want the extra weight. If I have a day with a ton of meetings I'll wear the heavier gun. If it's summer and I'm rocking the khaki shorts I'm going to opt for my Shield, if I'm wearing my favorite polo and jeans I'll opt for more rounds.

Before I got my shield I'd have plenty of friends tell me how easy it was to conceal their g19. But, when I dug deeper I found most didn't need to dress professionally. The ones who did tended to leave their g19 in the glove box or at home. If your lifestyle would be easier with less weight on the hip with a reliable (and amazingly fun/comfortable) gun to shoot go for it!

I have both the G26 and the Shield 9. The advantages of the G26 are the ability to use a higher capacity magazine, as well as higher basic capacity. The advantage of the Shield is it is easy to conceal due to it's slimness. Both are very accurate and completely reliable. Both are excellent pistols. Mine just get carried according to perceived need for circumstances or situation.

__________________
Dave Frost

26 and Shield 9 and .45(no safety on the .45).

Shoot all equally well, for me that is.

IWB, shorts and t-shirt year round.

Include a Ruger LC9s Pro from time to time.

124 gr+P Ranger T-series RA9124 in the 9's.

All good.

My double stacks subcompacts are the G26 and FNS 9c. My single stacks are the Shield 9 & 45 and the Walther PPS M2. I have them because they are all outstanding guns. I never got the G43 because it didn't feel right so I went with the Shield & PPS. I like to carry all of them just depends on where I'm going or going to do. Sometimes I just pick one for the heck of it. You can't go wrong with either the Shield(s) or the G26.

__________________
Shield 45

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm definitely keeping my G26. My plan is to add the LC9S pro because of its size, and the Shield 45, because I really like the Shield, and I think it will be a good match for the 45acp round.

Have had a Glock 27 for years because our dept. requires we carry a Glock in 40 S&W.
Got the Shield 9 and carried it off duty, but now have the Shield 45 and it is my EDC most days. I like the Shields because they are more comfortable to carry IWB, but sometimes I go places I want a little extra firepower, just in case.

I have both.I find the shield is better to conceal slightly do to being thinner.But if you like more capacity the 26 is great.Both are rock solid dependable guns.

I have medium sized hands, and the shield works better for me than my baby glocks did. Trigger reach was better for me as it was for others who posted replies, but the biggest selling points for me were concealability and how quickly and naturally the shield points and returns to target for follow-up shots in my hands.

I found that I can shoot my Shield 40 much better than my Glock. Ended up getting rid of the Glock and now have the VTAC and Shield


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I had a Shield 9MM and loved it, but kept shooting it low and to the left no matter what I tried to correct it. I now carry my Glock 26 with the Gap Finger Extension base plate and the Talon granulate grip and this is an awesome combo for me! For the days I need something slimmer, I grab my Walther PPS M2.

Attached Images

2016-10-08 20.30.11.jpg (115.3 KB, 79 views)

I've had the shield, LC9s, and 26; only have the 26 now. The shield and LC9s were more concealable than my 26. However, I can shoot the 26 more accurately, rapidly, and at various distances vs the latter two. To me this was more important, and the 26 conceals just great for me now.

Glox are great and all, no argument, but as a pocket toter, I much prefer the thinner,lighter,less blocky Shield. It's also more ergonomic, and, I really like having a safety on a pocket-carried striker pistol.

Agree 100%....if could only have 1 it would be G26 or 9C. Both fantastic weapons

Yeah, I could never get my head wrapped around a Glock. The boxy look reminds me of the wooden rubber band pistols we used to make as a kid.

If they'd just smooth them out a little, I could see me owning a few. They have a great reputation and history of acceptance but for EDC, I like the smooth Shield and lifetime warranty.

I don't have either, but I do have a Glock G33 (.357 subcompact) and a Smith M638. I am intrigued with all the great single-stack 9mm offerings, but I have not been compelled to buy one yet because I have been so satisfied with my J-Frame. It is a little down on capacity and reloading speed, but I have worked out the tactics and my 638 has been light's out good. I like the immediate action for FTFs better (just pull the trigger again) and I have a holster for every occasion since I've been using these little gems for years. I expect that I'll get a skinny nine at some point, but there's no real urgency for me...

I own a Glock 26 and it's a fine, reliable weapon. Standard 10 round capacity with the option of using larger, higher round count magazines.

The Shield feels nice in the hand, but it's limited capacity is it's greatest weakness IMO. Carrying extra mags doesn't make up for it since reloads simply do not happen with any regularity in civilian defense encounters due to the quick, close, reactive dynamics. The situation will almost always be settled with what's in the gun.

IMO, the reasoning in this comment sort of stumbles over itself a few times. You allude to the realities of typical self defense encounters ( very quick with limited shots fired, usually cited as averaging just shy of 3 rounds, IIRC), but then take issue with supposed "limited capacity" of the Shield.
The 9 rounds of 124gr +P HST's that are in my Shield more than triple the statistical amount of ammo fired in an armed confrontation (again, IIRC).
In a situation that is as "quick,close and reactively dynamic" as you describe, and one that is too close and brief for spare mag reloads to be beneficial, how exactly is 9 rounds insufficient?

I have always generally favored an enclosed hammer revolver for carry due to it's advantages in ECQ scenarios and the only reason I would choose a semi-auto is for greater capacity. The Shield does carry more rounds, but it simply doesn't offer enough additional capacity IMO to make me choose it over a snub and give up it's close-quarter strengths.

Civilian encounters are generally very brief, but remember that a great number of rounds can be fired in a few seconds and I am aware of numerous cases were a high number of rounds were fired in civilian defense cases. Available stats on civilian encounters do trend toward the 3/3/3 average you mention, but it must be taken into consideration how that average is established. The majority of civilian encounters are resolved with no shots being fired(simply presenting the weapon is enough deterrent) or as soon as shots are fired, the bad guys scatter or choose to cease hostilities.

Almost any gun will work in such cases.

Although comparatively rare, of the greatest concern is the determined attacker(s) who will simply not be deterred no matter what. You will have to physically stop him. This can result in a high number of rounds being required to stop the assailant(s). Even more so if it's multiple attackers.

If there is a contradiction, it is this... In an ECQ scenario, the auto is more likely to experience malfunctions. This can be mitigated a great deal by proper training, but it cannot be completely eliminated and the hammerless snub is inherently more reliable in such situations. However, having only 5 rounds could be a serious liability against one or more determined assailants. There is no way of knowing the specifics dynamics or what type of scenario you will be involved in and why there isn't an absolute clear cut right or wrong answer or a single best self-defense weapon. My research on this issue is a work in progress since I don't have all the answers.

Carry two snubbies....