I meant that as a rhetorical question and I've mentioned this before, but since I am on a Smith & Wesson forum, I don't think it's inappropriate to revisit this point after nine months.

The SIG P365 is a great gun, and I am a big SIG fan and have loved my SIG pistols, but in January of this year, instead of adding a P365 to my collection, I instead bought another M&P Shield and M&P Subcompact (I upgraded my 1.0 Shield to an M2.0 and my old "Compact" to an M2.0 Subcompact in lieu of jumping on the P365 bandwagon after reviewing the pistol). I'm not even a huge M&P fan (though I've owned a half dozen of them). Sometimes I need a thin pistol, and even though the P365 is plenty thin for most applications, I recently put on some weight in this quarantine (like so many according to my doctor), and my Shield suddenly became the thickest pistol I could carry in some ways and with some clothing until I bought some new cloths to get me by as I work off this extra weight (over 20 lbs.!). In this picture you can see what 0.11 inches in width can make (the difference in width between a Shield and a P365). Moreover, the Subcompact is just as short in the handle as the P365 (both are exactly 4.3 inches), and I can conceal it OWB at 3 or 9 o'clock perfectly well under a t-shirt.

So why am I bringing this up? The popularity of the P365 has virtually eclipsed everything over the last couple of years for a lot of people, but depending on a variety of considerations (such as how often an individual shoots, hand size, body shape, etc.), just because SIG did a good job cramming 10-rounds into a small package doesn't mean that's the right gun for everyone and his brother. For me personally, the P365 design reminds me of that line in the original Jurassic Park, but instead of scientists, SIG engineers were "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should." Okay, that's a little over the top, after all, it's an enormously successful selling pistol, but I didn't buy into the hyper personally for good reason (as subjective as my decision was/is).

In my opinion, the Shield shoots better. What isn't so subjective, however, is that the Subcompact is definitely softer shooting than both. If the Subcompact conceals well enough (and it does for me), it also shoots better (so one is likely more likely to enjoy practicing with it). It also holds two more rounds over the P365 in its 4.3" configuration. So why don't we hear more about the M2.0 Subcompact which didn't even exist when the P365 came out? Some will argue that point (that it's new), but I carried the original 1.0 Compact for almost 8 years, and although it's a great gun and almost identical in dimensions (though not strictly so), the grip texture really made a big difference for my hands.

Again, the SIG P365 is a great gun, so I am not trying to talk anyone out of the gun especially if they already have it. It's a really great compromise between a Shield and a M&P Subcompact. But for many people who might appreciate a fuller grip, more aggressive texturing, a few more ounces to tame recoil, a little more velocity/energy, and a couple more rounds in a gun with an abbreviated handle, they might enjoy a M&P M2.0 Subcompact over the P365 (I do). They can also get the benefits of a Shield which, if it has enough rounds to do the job, might also fit the hand and shoot better for many compared with the P365. The SIG does a great job marrying the benefits of both of these guns, but ultimately I think having the pair does everything better if you can afford to have both. Personally I can't imagine replacing my Subcompact with a P365. With the ML size backstrap/side panel I even solved the short reach problem.

Attached Images

	IMG_4486.jpg (92.4 KB, 219 views)
	IMG_4484.jpg (123.7 KB, 281 views)

Once the gun market stabilizes, S&W can evaluate whether it’s losing market share and take whatever action it deems appropriate.

Maybe a 4” Shield with an extended grip, holding 12 rounds? Or a whole new design? Or nothing?

My P365 is a small gun that handles and shoots like a large gun. I carried a Kahr PM9 for years. It was a small gun that handled and shot like a small gun. The P365 was a game changer, at least for me.

In other words, it is hard to beat.

__________________
Only a cold warrior

Sadly, there are a few people on the planet who still go from day to day and do not own a Sig and have to make do with Rugers, Remingtons, Walthers, Stars, RIAs, Berettas, Marlins, Rock Islands and (gulp) Smith & Wessons. Help end this needless tragedy today and send your money to: More Guns For Rick.

365 with XL frame and 12 round mags with hand filling Hogue sleeve for XL mitt's. Accurate, 5 mins to convert back to stock 365. Until a Phazer is available, this will due.

Attached Images

IMG_20200810_095353624.jpg (94.5 KB, 182 views)

Both great guns. I have both but I still prefer to carry the Shield. The Sig serves as a house gun mainly for the wife while I'm away. It's all about personal preferences.

doesn't magguts offer a 2 round adapter that fits on the shield 8 round magazine? Would they both be 11 rounds then? how much longer would the shield be with those 10 rounds in the mag?

Why are people OBSESSED with magazine capacity? Do they feel with the 9mm they need a dozen or more rounds? This has gone on since the 9mm craze started. I'm perfectly happy with 6 in a revolver or 8 in a 1911 or Shield. It's where you put the bullet that counts. Not a dozen sprayed around the country side.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

A lot of people, not incorrectly, want the most round count they can get in the smallest size (in all dimensions, but particularly height/grip length and width.) When someone actually needs the gun to defend themselves, they won't know before the fact how many rounds they need. I've never heard anyone who's been in a shootout complaining about having too much ammo. On the flip side, the smaller the gun, the easier it is to carry, which dictates the likelyhood of it being carried. So a gun that can carry a lot of rounds in a small package is highly desirable (as the market has reacted to the P365.)

Looking at your six round revolver or 8 round 1911, the P365 is no bigger than the smallest of the former (and signficantly smaller than most), and is significantly smaller than the latter, while having significantly more capacity than either. So you may feel comfortable with those, but you're giving up objective advantages by using those over other guns like the P365.

Getting back to the original subject of the thread. Smith really accelerated the single stack subcompact market with the Shield. But was dinged by the smaller G43, and really eclipsed by the P365 and now the Hellcat. The Shield is not a dated also ran. If they want to be at the top of the market, Smith needs to make a gun no bigger than the Shield, and maybe smaller, in all dimensions, that carries at least ten rounds in a flush fit magazine.

Right now, any one that makes guns is selling all they can make. At some point that will end. When it does, the Shield is going to by a 3rd or 4th place gun in the market, with lackluster sales. For people who like it, that isn't an issue. For Smith, that will be a HUGE issue.

Shootability is somewhat subjective. but I hear a lot of good things about the accuracy and shootability of the P365. There are the normal tradeoffs for a small gun, but that's not specific to the SIG.

They watch to many TV shows and movies!

Remember the old revolver guys mantra?

"If ya kant get er done with 6 shots, your something something?"

This is what is called a no brainer. I don’t assume since someone carries more rounds they’re just going to wing them everywhere.

Carry what you like.

__________________
Sure you did

I love my SIGs. I have a P320 compact 9mm. It is a fine gun, especially with the upgraded trigger. Then I converted it to .357 SIG, and it got even better. My brand new P229 .40/.357 was showing signs of becoming a great gun for me until the plague shut down my visits to the range. However, both of these are too big to easily carry concealed. Mrs. swsig's P250 subcompact .380 12-rounder is also an excellent (and underappreciated) gun. It is quite accurate and easy to conceal, but it is a .380, and I prefer a stouter round.

I sound like a good candidate for a P365, but I feel the same about the 9mm round as I do about the .380: I prefer something stouter. Until SIG comes out with a .40 or .357 version of the P365, which seems unlikely, I'm sticking with my long-term EDC, my trusty M&P 40c .357 SIG conversion. It's just as accurate as my P320, and it's easy (for me) to carry concealed, so I feel no pressing need to replace it. As always, YMMV.

__________________
What, me worry?

Given the thread title, I opened it to see what the heck a SIG 265 was. Life is full of disappointment.

The Sig265 is for people who only carry weekdays and not weekends. (Of course then it would need to be called the Sig261.)

__________________
Only a cold warrior

Lol, that's true, but I only think of the classic P series when that thought comes to me...

Attached Images

IMG_4454.jpg (93.5 KB, 944 views)

I agree, we often do have an obsession with magazine capacity. Over the years after owning dozens of carry guns I've learned a great way to find the best ones for me. I merely think of the most critical features of a firearm that I think I am looking for, then I decide to be open to losing them, and capacity is certainly one of the first things that tends to get sacrificed (e.g. my Shield). Other times it's another feature I think I can't live without. I have a Langdonized Beretta PX4 Storm Compact that has grip texturing smoother than a baby's ***. I love the aggressive grip texture on my M&P M2.0's, but I found that living without that gun feature gave me the compact hammer gun that I really wanted, and if necessary I look for a workaround (e.g. the new Talon Pro TalonGrips). Nearly ten years ago I passed on the PX4 storm because the grip texturing was so smooth (ten times more so than say my Gen3 Glock 19). Now it's one of my favorite guns. In my opinion, it goes beyond the fact that no gun is perfect. If we choose to live without certain highly desirable features, we can often find the perfect firearm (relatively speaking). I chose my Shield because, aside from the capacity, it's great after merely changing the sights which I usually do on guns anyway. Every gun is a trade off, so if 6, 7, or 8 rounds can do the job, is it really worth giving up on a gun that otherwise excels? Not usually in my opinion.

Attached Images

	IMG_3889 (2).jpg (151.8 KB, 80 views)
	IMG_4426.jpg (140.1 KB, 106 views)

If someone made a belt fed from a fanny pack 9mm......People would buy it. As to BBMW. My six shot revolvers and .45acp will do the job. Revolvers have done the job for over 150 years. In fact some of my revolvers will shoot through an automobile sideways. You are apparently hung up on hi-capacity and that's OK. As far as the Shield series I predict they have and always will sell well. Not everyone seems to want a gazillion shot 9mm. Most people will never face more than 1 or 2 antagonist at most. An in a cool hand 99% of all handguns will work.
Iffen I had to face or stand off a crowd it would be my 12 ga semi auto with a couple pocket fulls of buckshot. Not a handgun.
In other words we all like different things.......And THAT's what freedom to choose is.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I keep thinking I need to try a 365. Then I go to the range with my Shield 1.0 and it shoots great and feels like a larger gun.
Mine seems to have exceptional accuracy and that was the one reason I would have considered a 2.0. I got lucky on this one as many say the accuracy is a weak point.
The capacity with the 8 round mags plus one I normally carry seems to be enough that I don't feel at a disadvantage.

The Shield is still a great gun. It changed the game when it came out and the sales went through the roof. I bought one. Sold it some time later and then got another when the crazy rebates were offered. A 1.0 version. All I’ve done with it is add Talon grips. I carry it sometimes. The Ruger LC9S gets carried more. Lighter gun and for me every ounce matters when carrying.

But if I was buying today, I’d get the 365. Smaller is better for the role this gun plays. Still, I don’t feel the need to dump the Shield or the Ruger. They both work and I’m not gonna take a loss on 2 guns to buy one.

But I agree Smith better get in the ball and put something out there to compete with the Sig and Springfield.

Ever heard the term GAS? In the case of guns, it’s gun acquisition syndrome:-). If a new potential cc firearm comes out I personally have a need to know about it and sometimes I’ll pick up one. Imo the one you will carry and train with is best. Capacity, size, shoot ability etc is always a consideration.

I happen to own a shield 1.0, a sig 938 and a 365 that’s new to me lol. The 365 on my first and only range trip thus far performed flawlessly with two brands of range ammo and a few mags of federal hst. It was accurate, very. Great sights, higher cap than most. I prefer the 12 rd mags for grip. End of the day I need more time with it. Overall, I prefer the feel of the shield in hand but I’ve got fairly big mitts. The 365 is in rotation now and time will tell.

To me, the SIG P365 is an interesting firearm in a "It's cool that they could make a 9mm that small that holds so many rounds" sort of way, but it's not a firearm that I would ever choose for carry. Yes, it fills a niche for those who specifically desire the smallest, lightest, highest capacity 9mm pistol around, but personally I'd sooner opt to carry a Ruger LC9s or a Glock 19. To me, the P365 just falls into a size category which is basically too big to pocket carry yet too small for IWB carry or to fit my hand nicely.

When it comes to EDC, I carry a Smith & Wesson SW40VE which is a compact pistol about the size of a Glock 19 and a Ruger LCP as a backup. If I wanted something inbetween, then I would get a Ruger LC9s or an M&P40 Shield.

Ultimately, the P365 strikes me as a firearm offering a compromise between a Compact and a Subcompact, which I've honestly never heard anybody ask for.
Is it popular, of course it is, but is there significant enough demand for Smith & Wesson to design such a thing? Frankly, I don't think so. Folks request all manner of different firearms from Smith & Wesson on the Wish List Subforum, but never for an answer to the P365.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

The 365 is virtually the same size and weight as the LC9S. Almost identical. It weighs a bit more loaded, but it also holds 3 more rounds. I think the 12 round mag for the 365 is as pointless as the 9 round one for the LC9S. Takes away from the whole point of the gun. Like all Sigs, I think the 365 is overpriced, especially the $50 or more mags, but it’s popular for a reason. And it is surely taking sales from S&W. Maybe not enough sales to get them to invest in a whole new gun, but who knows?

I DO know that the choices in subcompact 9’s seem endless, now. And none of them really do anything better than the Shield, except for a few more rounds that in all likelihood, none of us will ever need. Before COVID, Shields could be had for $200 less than the 365. That’s reason enough to choose it.

I agree, and personally I think—capacity aside—I like the Shield better, but I have to admit, my M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact shoots even better than the Shield and is shorter in the grip holding 12 rounds with a flush magazine. Aside from a slightly longer reset, I also think the trigger is better than my Performance Center Shield. I assume having more surface area and the dimensions of my hand have something to do with that.

I already own a Glock 26. Sure the P365 is smaller and lighter. Perhaps if I had to do it all over again I would go that route. But I'm happy with the last-gen subcompact 9mm. Someday my arguments will sound like those who still carry a 66 snub or 1911.

I agree with the general sentiment that training and attitude > firearm choice. My sis-in-law carries a P365, is well-trained by her LEO husband, but I know I can both outshoot her and hesitate less. Not to toot my own horn, but I'd take me with anything from a J frame .38 on up over her and her new SIG.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

Yeah, but the new subcompact is wider and heavier. For me, every ounce counts. I used to carry a Glock 19 and I now have an M&P 2.0 Compact. Same size as the 19. I never carry it. It just seems huge now. With cooler weather arriving I might carry it OWB but the Shield is still lighter so I’d probably still carry that. If I knew I was going into harms way I’d carry more but I just don’t live that life anymore.

Fixed it for you.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I have a S&W 2.0 Compact, a Glock 43 and this January purchased a Sig P365. The compact is so much heavier it never gets carried. Its not the size,its the weight. The subcompact would be a couple of ounces lighter than the compact but still heavier than the P365. The Sig is close to the limit for how heavy a gun can be before I have to switch from a comfortable belt to a stiff, uncomfortable gun belt.

The Sig is hopefully going to replace my Glock 43 as my carry gun but is still on probation. Despite buying it in January 2020 after all the problems were supposedly corrected I had a few RTB failures the first range session that cleared up with use, cleaning and lubrication but started have FTE failures around the 500 round mark. Sig replaced everything except the slide and it has worked flawlessly since but it is going to take more than the two range trips and 200 rounds I have put through it before I trust it.

There is a limit to how light a slide can be on a reliable and durable semiauto and the guns like the P365 are real close to the limit. I bought a Kahr PM9 right after they came out and it ran great for about 500 rounds, started dropping magazines until Kahr sent me a metal mag catch to replace the plastic one, ran great for another 500 or so before it started having stovepipe and other FTE problems. A new recoil spring reduced but did not eliminate them. My Glock 43 has been reliable unless I try increasing the magazine capacity but it has a slightly (13 ounce vs 12 ounce) slide compared to the P365.

No gun make is perfect but Shields have a great reputation for being reliable and durable. A smaller, lighter higher capacity but finicky and less reliable P365 competitor would be a mistake. If S&W does make a gun like that I hope they take the time to make sure it is every bit as reliable and durable as the current Shield. Given the problems I have had with my P365 I would buy one even if it was an ounce or two heavier.

I need to purchase a carry pistol within the next week or so. The cheapest price I see online for a Shield 2.0 is $392 plus shipping, tax, and FFL transfer. Most places are selling it higher.

A couple of local gun stores have P365’s in stock for $500. I was planning to purchase a Shield, but now I’m not sure. For another $100 I can gain a smaller pistol with more capacity.

If I’m going to pay $500, then I’ll consider the Hellcat as well.

The Hellcat is a good choice if you "need" 13 + 1. I have 2, one with the optic. Neither of them are close to the Shield, not as easy to carry but just as accurate for me. Both versions have a little more recoil than the Shield.
I have had 2 P365s, I just couldn't adjust to the "broom stick" grip, both are now with my friends. I am back to carrying my M.2 Shield. I also have converted a Shield to .357 Sig, a bit of a handful but fits in the 9mm kydex holster. Just as reliable as the 9.
I now truly think I am finished with "GAS".
I think if you can find one, a Shield M.2 is the right choice.

Because Tweakers hunt in packs

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

What do you mean by the Hellcats are not close to the Shield?

And how are they not as easy to carry? Because loaded they are heavier perhaps?

Not familiar with the “GAS” reference.

If confident in the weapon accuracy and capacity, $ already invested, good to go. If in the market for a new EDC that is accurate, compact and carries 10 rounds, disregarding brand loyalty the 365 is a fine choice.
And to quote an oldie about capacity..you're only armed for as long as your ammo holds out.

If I couldn't get my Shield in my front pocket in a holster I'd look at the 365 but I can with pants with a vertical pocket design.

As far as capacity...I can keep all 8 rounds in the vitals at 25 yards slow fired with normal heart rate. I need to try sprinting for a couple hundred yards at max heart rate to see how I fair. In a life or death scene I know I'd be at max heart rate.

The dimensions between the two are just enough to make the LC9S fit more comfortably in the hand and point more naturally as a result. Also, the 3 additional rounds aren't enough to justify the massive difference in price.

Furthermore, while I like having more rounds in the magazine, all things considered, I'd rather carry a Compact pistol like the SD40VE which weighs only a few ounces more than the P365, but still conceals easily in an IWB Holster, has a longer sight radius, and holds 14+1 rounds of .40 S&W. Compared to the SD9VE, the gap only increases as it holds 16+1 rounds of 9mm.

Even if I wanted something in it's size-range, I'd rather carry a Shield in .40 S&W or .45 ACP which as far as I'm concerned, makes up the difference in capacity.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome

I see it in both gun and photography forums. Probably applies to lots of others too.

Before the Covid insanity got going I was thinking about picking up a double stack sub-compact 9mm. I have been carrying a 2.0 Compact for about a year & a half. I have a Kahr CM9 to carry when I can't carry anything bigger but in all honesty I don't like it as there just isn't much there to hold on to. It is a good gun I would just like more grip.

Is the 2.0 Subcompact as thick as the compact (I really like my Compact but I would like something slightly thinner)? Before the gun market went insane I was looking at the Ruger American Compact pistol because I had found it for around $300 or less. Now those are selling for much more. If I have to spend $500 to get anything I am going to be more particular. I guess I need to find a P-365 to handle & see if I like how it feels or not.

I was always partial to FN, I know of their accuracy and reliability so I went with a FNS 9c...easy to carry and conceal but each to his own.

I currently own the 365XL, PC Shields, and a Hellcat. I now carry the Hellcat (capacity is the factor) and still carry a Shield on occasion. The Hellcat and Shield are far more accurate for me than the 365 (now a safe gun). For me the only thing the 365 has on the Shield is capacity. I shoot the Hellcat and Shield really close on the accuracy point and reliability has been outstanding on both so I felt comfortable using capacity as my deciding factor. Another nice "Little Gun" is the Walther PPS M2. I will say the Shield not only competes with the 365 but outperforms as well, my opinion only.

__________________
Is that a gun No a lifesaver

One of my main carry guns is 34.2 ounces (my SIG P229 chambered in .357 SIG which has a heavier slide than the 9mm). I use it with a minimalist carry belt from Langdon Tactical Technology that only has support where it's needed. It is thus the lightest belt I've used to conceal carry over the last 15 years, and it supports that weight of my pistol just fine (as an aside, my body weight can and does change more than that in a single day). Everyone is different, but that's why I personally can't take serious complaints against weight. It just doesn't affect me. I am sure it affects others, and that must be rough, but I am happy I can carry the weight because, all things being equal, a heavier gun is going to handle and shoot better than a lighter one. I'm not saying that extra performance is necessary in a concealed carry gun, it's not, but it's just one more example of how the P365 is a great gun, but there are better choices for some people like me as a G26, M&P Subcompact, P229, etc. are better shooters in my hands (as are most of my carry guns). I also know how it stacks up to carrying lighter guns because I also carry a much lighter gun than a P365 (my Ruger LCP II which is only 10.6 ounces). I don't carry it as much, but I have it for comparison.

I totally agree that if they change the Shield Smith & Wesson does not sacrifice reliability (which is never worth the extra capacity in my opinion). Personally, since I prefer carrying appendix, I wouldn't want anything shorter either. In fact, I prefer carrying larger guns because the longer barrels tend to work better with the wedges I put on my holsters to mitigate flagging myself.

As an aside, I doubt the geometry of the P365 magazine was lost on pistol manufacturers. That's a whole other matter, but it is too simple a technology for manufacturers to have not been sitting on it for years (if not decades), but manufacturers work together in my opinion to...well, I am going off on a tangent. All I will say is that if I owned a company like Glock, Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, etc., I would have fired my engineers thirty years ago if they couldn't bring me a magazine design that could fit that many rounds in that size of a magazine. It's not like some new super strong thinner metal was invented, and of course it's no coincidence that "Springfield Armory" (if that's what we want to call it) came out with an even better magazine design within a year or so. I wouldn't be surprised if Smith and Glock come out with higher capacity magazines that change their key subcompact pistols little (if at all).

Anyway, like I said, the P365 is a great gun, but as you alluded to, there are always sacrifices made in pistols, and while the S&W Subcompact and Glock 26 are bigger and heavier, they are noticeably better shooters in my opinion, yet they're small enough for me to conceal in any way I'd conceal a P365, and even better for the reason I mentioned. That said, everyone is different. Some people really need a smaller gun than the M&P Subcompact or the G26, and in those cases the P365 is a godsend that prevents them from having to give up little or anything in terms of capacity.

I own a 2nd gen Glock 26, and have carried it since new. It is accurate and has been reliable thru thousands of rounds. If I had a complaint, it is a little thick for ISWB carry.

Was not really in the market for a new carry 9mm, but when a friend bought a new P-365, and I got to try it, and it really got my attention. Distinctly thinner than the Glock, and that small grip actually felt better in my hand. Bought one myself, and after about 500 rounds with no issue, it now has replaced the 26 as my every day carry, barring any future reliability issues. It is amazing how just a slight difference in thickness can make such a difference in how it feels carried ISWB, though the difference is less pronounced carried OWB. Better trigger as well, though the 26 isn't bad.

As far as magazine capacity goes, all else being equal, more is always better.

A lot of folks quote the statistic the average gun fight is something like "2.7 shots at 3 to 5 feet". That means 49% of armed encounters are going to involve more shots at longer ranges.......

Larry

LEO's in gunfights hit their targets 20-30% of the time. These are people who actually train for armed encounters. Average Joe is probably going to be less accurate than a professional, and would be well-served to have more, rather than less shots at his disposal.

I, like many here have gone through numerous pistols trying to find the absolute best CCW for me.
My quest is over! I have exhausted my efforts only to find that once I've decided that I now have the latest and greatest carry pistol, someone introduces the next "latest and greatest" carry pistol.
I have finally decided on a PC Shield 9mm and this is what I carry everyday for last two years.
My Shield shoots where I point it, functions 100% and carries well, both IWB and on a belt holster.
I believe that many, myself included like to be able to have the next best but to what end??....bragging rights!
We all justify our choices differently but I am extremely happy with the Shield and will spend my gun funds on other gun stuff!!

__________________
Regards
Paul

I don't care whether S&W makes a direct competitor to the P365 or Hellcat. What I want is a 9mm the same size as my Bodyguard .380. Six shot capacity would be plenty. That way, when I can't carry my J frame, I'd have a tiny 9mm to stick in my pocket. Yes, my J frames fit in my pocket, but not well, and I'm not willing to wear baggy cargo pants. As snappy as my BG is to shoot, I can only imagine how unpleasant it would be in 9mm. It might even be un-shootable for me.

Kahr CM9. Similar trigger feel to a J-frame, and not snappy at all.

15 yards.....

Attached Images

Sig p365 2.jpg (57.4 KB, 47 views)

anyone know if the magazine design of the P365 is patented?

i have two P365 MS's and they are an amazing pistol. apparently not for everyone.

To those that carry handguns similar in size and weight to an M&P SC I say kudos to you. But the few times I carried my M&PC V1 it felt like an anchor had been strapped to my waist. Love shooting it - just not carrying it. I have several M&P products and would have gotten a Shield if it wasn't for their right hand bias (at least they finally supply an option without the frame safety). I originally got a Beretta Nano that I liked a great deal until after many rounds, became unreliable. So I opted for a 365 that is actually smaller than my Nano. I find it to shoot accurately and reliably, plus it isn't as right-hand centric as some other pistols. On top of that, it came with night sights. The 10+1 capability was simply icing on the cake. The Shield was certainly on the list to replace the Nano, but size, night sights, no frame safety (now no longer an issue), and reversible magazine release tipped the scales in favor of the P365. It's not always capacity, but all things considered it doesn't hurt either.

__________________
M&PC FS BG Shield+ 642 686+

I posted this in another Shield thread.

"Carried a Shield with 8 round magazine for six years. Went to a 43x and love it. Same size as a Shield with 8 rounder, but you get 10. Now there is a flush-fit 15 rounder for the 43x. It's amazing having 16 rounds in that size gun. Fits my hand perfect like my Shield did."

I rented a 365 at the range. Just doesn't fit my hand as nice or as easy to shoot. I'm 6'1" and just under 200lbs. I have no issue concealing a 43x OWB under just a t-shirt.

Finally sold my Shield 1.0 but still have a 2.0 that is going no where. Such a great easy to shoot gun! S&W needs a 10 round magazine for the 3.0!

"The Fudds will still buy them"


A really funny video!, Heck I even like SIGS but have enough guns to carry. Think it is from Dirty Rotten ...........

Never understand these threads......I remember when American's were real men .......who could conceal carry real guns like a 3.5" S&W 27 ( or in some cases a 6 1/2" 29 "the most powerful handgun in the world") or a Colt commander all day long. God I miss my Dad.

In the late 70s gunsmiths started chopping perfectly good Model 39s, 59s and Browning High powers....... for James Bond want-a-be's

My generation started the slide into softness carrying factory copies in the form of S&W 3913s and 6906s or guns called "Shorty-9s" from the Performance Center. Guns that have served me well for 30 years.... replacing my 2 1/2" 19 and Lightweight Commander.............

Ya I carried a Walther PPK as my suit gun.... while wishing Walther had made a alloy frame version like their new Sig 230.

Today folks want guns that have more in common with the "squirt guns" of my youth than the 3rd Gen Smiths of my 30s......................

"Come on man".... man up..... get out there and find yourself a 4566...or at least a Sig 245 !!!!!!