My question is does the 4 inch PC Shield with optics have a plate to cover the optic cutout if you had to remove optic sight. I haven't seen anything that states if it does or not.

Thanks,
tbird

It comes with a plastic cover plate like the 1.0 CORE models do.

In fact my pistol came with the plastic cover installed instead of the optic like I assumed.

VoOBWxZS16,
Thanks that answers my question. I was wondering if it was like the 1.0 CORE. I was debating just getting the non optic 4 inch and having it milled . Looks like I would be better off money wise just getting the one with the sight. From what I have read it is a version or copy of the shield RMSc but I haven't seen any thing the 100% saying for sure who makes the sight.
I have been waiting for a 4 inch shield now to just make up my mind which one. If you don't mind how do you like yours . Between the wife and I we have three 1.0 shields. Does the 4 inch shoot better than the standard shield?
I apologize for all the questions , but no one around my area even knows anything about them and how to get one.

Thanks again,
tbird

If I have posted this wrong or in the wrong way or place I apologize to the monitors. Please move if need
tbird

The lack of clarity from S&W is obnoxious.

I believe the optic is a Shield Mini Sight. The paraphernalia that came with the sight all has the Shield Co. logo on it and it looks exactly like the pictures of that sight. If you're willing to use that sight in that mounting location or you're like me (would never work up the courage to send a gun off to be cut up) then go for it.

I ordered mine from SOSS sight unseen. None of the local gun shops had one until after I bought mine.

The short version is that it shoots like an M&P Shield: http://smith-wessonforum.com/140475042-post717.html. (Give the Challenge a try; it's harder than it sounds.) I've only had mine for a couple of weeks and less than a couple hundred rounds. In comparison to my 1.0 Shield it is louder (due to the ports) with a slight-feeling reduction in muzzle flip and recoil. I hope I can get the chance to shoot them side-by-side on a timer. The Apex flat trigger and DCAEK in the 1.0 are better than the M2.0 PC trigger and it will eventually end up with the same upgrades. I just bought an M2.0 Shield that I haven't even shot yet. By comparison the PC trigger is lighter with a less creepy break. There is a slight amount of gunk on the front of the lens after the shooting I've done. The M2.0 grip texture is much grippier than the 1.0. I do not have a holster for it and cannot comment on that front yet.

The only problem I've had (with all of my M2.0s) is that they will not cycle Freedom Munitions 147gr, which is the cheapo plinking ammo I've been using for a while. Regular factory ammunition, including a few rounds of HST, is noticeably hotter and works great and the guns seem to be breaking in and cycling the FM better.

VoOBWxZS16,
Thanks for the information. Yeah kind of leary of having one of mine cut and can only use that sight. I will have to find someone who has that size sight "localy" and see it it works for me. I have a as the optometrist said a "wacked up " vision problem. Yep his exact words. I have scar tissue from a flash burn to my eyes that occured years ago and now astigmatism and bifocals. That is why I am considering the red dot. The shield and 9C 1.0 are my favorite edc it is my " goldi locks " polymer gun. 1911 or S&W 66 the other two. I may just have to get the non optic version and put the big dot express sight on it. About the challenge, I must have missed that one. I take from your pictures ( by the way not bad shooting at all if you ask me) is it a timed and distance challenge.? I would be interested in trying it.
Where I live not to much to choose from. Have to drive 100 miles which ever way to shops that have any selection. The few around me give the old " I can order that for you or my distributor doesn't carry it" . I would have to do like you and order sight in seen. With the information you gave me I know I will have to try and take a trip and see if I can find one. I forgot I know what you mean about debris from the ports. I have a PC f comp that my wonderful wife got me that peppers me with burnt powder flakes if I am not careful. Oh well there is a gun show in Little Rock in a couple of weeks . It will be a good excuse for dad and I to get away for a little while.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions it really helps.
tbird

I have owned mine for about a month and have about 200 rounds through it so far. The sight is made by Shield and is not installed but it is easy to attach. The red dot is a little smaller than I would have liked but the 4” barrel length does seem to point a little better. Accuracy is the same as my 3” Shields. No better and no worse. Made up my mind to have one when they were first announced and it didn’t take too long for mine to come in.

Holsters May still be an issue but I bought an IWB from Dara Holsters that fits like a glove. A Winthrop universal belt slide holster does fine.

Will it replace my early pc model with a number of upgrades? Probably not for the foreseeable future.

When carried inside the waistband concealed, especially at the appendix position, short barreled guns and their exact fitting holsters tend to tip out. A longer holster, even for a short barrel, makes the gun more stable.

For that reason JM Custom Kydex has been making extended length holsters for short guns for the last couple of years. I have two AIWB 1.0 Shield Kydex holsters from him and the extra length is just right and does ride better.

AIWB Holster: JM Custom Kydex

Lots of options. Easy to work with. Call or email with specific questions, like if the longer frame profile fits. He will also do a cut out for the optic, although you can do it yourself.

The optics-ready Shield is cut specifically for the SMS. It does NOT come with adapter plates like the CORE pistols.

IMHO, small dot express sights are okay, but big dots are too much. If you can, try these out before you buy them. I've gone back to conventional notch and post sights.

Ratoff's Challenge (#1)
The challenge is untimed and shot from an unsupported standing position. The goal is to put 20 rounds within the x-ring of a B-27 target (a 2"x3" racetrack shape and breaking the line does not count.) The course of fire is 4@3 yards, 6@5 yards, 6@7 yards, and 4@10 yards.

Why is there velcro on the clip of your holster?

I wear a nylon belt with a Velcro closure. The tail comes over the holster worn AIWB.

I must be living under a rock, when did the 4" Shield come out? Better Question, Why? My 2.5 " 500 sw is equal to the 4, 6,8" @ 21 feet. So is my 3" 629, 3" m65, 3" Speed Six, and a few other 3" handguns that feel better in the hand, point better than 4" models. Be Safe,

__________________
I BACK OUR BLUE

The 4in Shield is lighter, thinner, and shorter, even with a 4in barrel, and can carry 5 more rounds, and your extra energy on 44 and 357 is mostly wasted if being used for protection against people. It translated to greater recoil, and likely slower follow-up.

Here are some minor advantages to 4” Shield vs. a 3.1” Shield. Each alone may not be persuasive, but all added together will give a measurable advantage for most shooters.

Knowing that most handgun rounds are designed to burn all their powder in 4-5” of barrel length, the extra flash and blast of short barrels is no real advantage. Some modern loadings address this issue with low flash and/or faster burning powder, but there is no free lunch. Something has to counterbalance these characteristics and velocity is often sacrificed.

There is velocity loss of about 50/FPS/“ in shorter barrels. That typically translates to poorer terminal performance. Pistol rounds have a rather slow velocity to begin with and require velocity both to open and penetrate. The difference between 1000 FPS and 1050 FPS can make a significant performance difference.

Most people admit that a gun carried anywhere other than in a pocket is not harder to conceal with a 4” barrel vs. a shorter barrel.

A shorter barrel is not inherently less accurate than a longer barrel, but it is a lot harder to shoot accurately and quickly.

A 23% longer sight radius in a 4” vs. a 3.1” Shield is usually considered an advantage.

More weight out front balances better and helps reduce muzzle flip.

A 4” barrel in a belt mounted holster, especially IWB, has less tendency for the gun to tip outward. It is more stable. It can actually conceal better than a shorter barrel because the longer barrel tends to hold the grip in closer to the body.

There are probably a few other advantages I haven’t thought of that others may add. I don’t believe offering a 4” model makes the 3.1” model obsolete. However, the stacking of these characteristics can give a defender a small margin of advantage, and some of us will take any advantage we can get, especially if we get to buy a new gun.

Ports? PORTS? I had never heard or seen any sign that the Optics ready model had ports. Are there two versions, one with and one without?

I am planning to look at one; the optic may not be the absolute best, but I suspect that for most of us and looking to a price point, it is a better deal in most ways than a more expensive optic. I am, frankly, much more bothered by the fiber optic sights; I dislike those intensely in general and will have to replace them quickly with a more conventional set. I am planning at this time to use an XS standard size tritium front with a wide notch rear (roughly .160") of some type; maybe the rear of a set of Ameriglo sights.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Shield options, including ported:

Pistols | Smith & Wesson

- April-ish this year, IIRC.
- Because people will buy them.
- I still haven't deciphered this statement.
- Do any of those CCW better than a 4" Shield?

You made me curious so I measured my pistols. I got 150mm for the FO sights on the 4" PC vs. 132mm on an M2.0 Shield for a ~13% increase.

The 4" PC Shield comes in 3 configurations (times 3 calibers.) (Links go to the 9mm versions.)
- No RDS, No Ports
- RDS, No Ports
- RDS & Ports

I'm slightly confused. Are you considering the optic or non-optic version?

Since I have the RDS version someday I will replace the FO sights with plain black irons

RDS. I made a dumb typo or got hosed by auto-correct. I loathe fiber optic sights under almost all conditions; as much as I would hate to spend the money to replace them right away, they are a solution in search of a problem, especially with the RDS.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Thanks everyone for all the great responses.
I do not know how to use the quote function so I am unable to respond individually.
I shoot my 1.0 9 c well( I know it is only a little bit longer than the Shield) but the thinner Shield is so much easier to carry on my smaller frame. I have also found out just recently that with my vision issues I can focus on the sights on a four inch or longer barrel much easier. It really makes a big difference. Since the wife and I already have multiple Shields , holsters and magazines for them the logical choice would be the four inch Shield. That is why I was asking anyone with experience with one with or with out the red dot.

Once again the great people on this forum have helped me out.

Like I mentioned no one around me has one,most haven't even heard of one and thought I was crazy. I plan on going to the regional gun show in Little Rock this weekend and hope I can find one to put my hands on.
Thanks,
tbird

I recently purchased the 4” with optic and ported. So I have one issue with the gun I’m having a hard time to release the slide using the slide lock. Is anyone else having this problem? I like using the slide lock when I do my reloads.

Not meaning this as flippant but the slide lock, especially a Smith Shield, is just that. Slingshotting is the way to go. I own 4 Shields and can occasionally get the slide to drop using the lock but only rarely.

New Shields are known to be stiff. It should improve significantly as it breaks in.