So in a bit of future-planning, I've been giving some thought to what my next primary EDC might be. Currently I carry a SW40VE, a Compact, 14 round semiautomatic pistol chambered in .40 S&W. However, I'm thinking something smaller with a bit less magazine capacity may be in order in the not-too-distant-future, so I'm currently considering either the M&P40c 1.0 or the M&P45 Shield.

Before anyone asks, "Why 1.0?" The answer is because the M&P40c 2.0 is equal in size and even heavier in weight compared to the SW40VE, whereas the M&P40c 1.0 is smaller and lighter.

I have somewhat larger hands, and I want something that will fit them comfortably with a full-finger grip. I think the M&P40c 1.0 will fit my hand just fine with the standard magazines, and I know that I can carry it just fine since I've been carrying the larger SW40VE for over a year now, but at the same time, the M&P45 Shield is lighter, thinner, and only holds a few less rounds.

I'm in no hurry to decide since neither is really available at the moment and in the current climate I have no immediate reason to rush regardless.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I own an early (2010) M&P 40C. I find it rather soft-shooting compared to other .40's of similar, or even larger size. (On the other side of the coin, I find the much thinner Shield 40 to be even better, as the thinner backstrap doesn't transfer the felt recoil over quite so much of my palm. It's odd, but felt recoil is entirely subjective. )

Now, to the Shield 45 ...

I don't own one because I didn't care for the felt recoil impulse compared to my 4513TSW and CS45.

In that regard, I much prefer the "1.0" 40C to the Shield 45. (Recoil management, recovery, etc.)

It's just that my older 4513TSW and CS45 offer me less muzzle whip and less felt recoil.

To show how subjective these things can be, even for experienced shooters, a close friend (another senior LE firearms instructor) was waxing poetic about his Shield 45 one day. He said it didn't recoil any more than his Shield 9's (plural). I asked him if he'd used them during the same range sessions, and he said no.

The next time I spoke with him, he said he'd used his Shield 9 & 45 side by side ... and realized that comparatively, the 45 really did have more muzzle whip than the 9. He was surprised he'd not noticed how much more before, but then he works where people carry 9's, .40's and .45's, and as an instructor he uses them all at one time or another, so after a while they all start to blend together in his memory. It took shooting the Shield 9/45 back-to-back for him to realize the comparative difference.

Now, if we were to break out the timer, or put the computer targeting system on variable timed presentation of random multiple threat targets ... I wouldn't be surprised if he might notice an advantage to the pistol that has a bit less muzzle whip and less "brisk" recoil. Sometimes timers (whether portable or computer controlled) are unforgiving in that way.

That's pushing the envelope for demanding drills, though, and it might not matter for most folks for less rigorous (and more pleasurable) target shooting conditions.

Different strokes.

Why not try to rent both and see what tickles your fancy.

FWIW, I've decided I don't really like my 40C nearly as much as my 4013TSW, 4040PD or even my G27 ... except ... it's such an easy-shooting and accurate not-too-small but not-too-large .40, that I haven't traded it off after owning it for 10 years. Blah ... but it works. Go figure. Give me another 10 years and I'll make up my mind if I like it enough to really want to keep it and use it.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

In 2.0 speak, you should look at the M&P Subcompact. It’s the same size as the 1.0 compact.

Yeah, but while you can get a 3.6" barrel (close enough to 3.5), you have to accept the longer grip for the 15rd mag.

Might be just the ticket for someone with really large hands, though, and the right carry method for the slightly tall grip.

Then again, sometimes labels (i.e. compact v.subcompact) can be a bit less "precise" than we might wish.

My original 40C and G27 (subcompact, but with similar size and comparable barrel lengths).


But, the 40C is a bit taller at the rear.


My 40C & 4013TSW



Fatter grip of 4103TSW, and it holds 1 less round in the mag.


And now the 4013TSW is taller


My choice of them all, if I were going to star thinning the herd? The 4013TSW. Controllable, tack-driver and the TDA trigger I like for "working" guns.

Different strokes folks. We only need to suit ourselves, right?

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

As much as I would love to carry a fine DA/SA hammer-fire 3rd Gen S&W auto, the only one that I own is a CHP 4006TSW which weighs a good 39oz unloaded, holds a mere 11 rounds in the magazine, and is practically my grail gun, so no way would I risk losing it should I need to call upon it to defend myself.
So yeah, I have to settle for the newer, less expensive, and more easily replaceable firearms which are more comfortable to carry anyway.

That being said, I'm really leaning towards the M&P40c for the higher capacity. I prefer the aesthetics of the 1.0 to the 2.0 Subcompact, and just as well, they appear to run a bit cheaper.
Still, there's just something about the Shield 45 that just keeps me coming back to it. I think I just like the idea of a gun so small and thin that launches such a big chunk of lead.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I own a 40c 1.0 and a Shield 45, and I've shot them extensively. They are both fine pistols, and they've been my carry guns for years. Back in March, I wrote about my experiences with them in a thread I started. Here's the link:

Long-Term Report on M&P 40c, Shield 9, & Shield 45

__________________
What, me worry?

I get that.

While I've run some thousands of rounds through the 40C and G27 (close to 19K with the G27), I don't have much of any "emotional investment" in either of them. They work, they're fine for their intended roles ... and I'd not lose much sleep if I had to replace them tomorrow.

First of all, I could get Gen3 G27 and call it a day. I'm on my second set of night sights on the G27, and this newest pair was a gift, so even better. The factory night sights on the 40C are just beginning to seem a bit dimmer. (At just over 10 years that's unsurprising.)

Or, I could get a Shield 40 to replace the 40C. I really liked the T&E Shield 40 we had at the range for a while. Other instructors claimed it had a lot more recoil than the Shield 9 (which is a real favorite among folks), but when I took it downrange for an afternoon, I was really wishing it had been out when I'd bought my 40C. Sure, it's only a 6+1 & 7+1 capacity gun compared to the 40C's 10+1 ... but it's slim, slick and handy. Not disagreeable for felt recoil and muzzle snap at all. (To me) It also ran our 180gr duty loads with aplomb and felt "just right" in my hand.

Going back to that whole "subjective" thing again, the day I was trying out the Shield 40, I'd have sworn it was snapping less in my hand than my G27 or 40C (less slide mass decelerating and bottoming out against my hand?), and it was slimmer, and had a much more agreeable grip profile and girth.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Sorry but not correct. The M&P 2.0 Subcompact has a 3.6" barrel and grip is sized for 12 rounds. It's essentially the same as the 1.0 Compact but in 2.0 trim.

Comes in 9mm and .40 with or without thumb safety.

M&P(R)40 M2.0™ SUBCOMPACT Manual Thumb safety | Smith & Wesson

Thanks. I was thinking of the 15rd mag for the original M&P 40 I was last issued. My friend's 3.6" Compact uses a standard 13rd magazine, and the new Subcompact also has a 3.6" barrel, but has the shorter 10rd magazines, like my 3.5" 40C.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

If you carry with gun directly against your skin. Any of the 2.0 including the shield 45 may not be an option. Many people feel the aggressive texture of the grips are too abrasive and uncomfortable without a t-shirt. Others have taken sand paper to the texture to make it less aggressive.

If that is not an issue I don’t see how you can go wrong with any of the shields. Or the 1.0 compacts or the 2.0 SUB compacts for what you are looking to accomplish.

There is one thing however I have noticed between my 9 shield and my 2.0 9 compact. With my 1.0-9mm shield. The palm of my hand adds just enough resistance to sometimes not allow the mag to drop consistently. With my 15 round 2.0 9c. The grip is just enough longer that the pad of my palm does not cause this resistance.

Even though the 8 round shield mag and the 15 round 9c mag are overall the same length. It is where the bottom of the grip meets the mag, or mag xgrip extension.

I never noticed this phenomenon until I had been shooting my 9c extensively in timed drills and then used my shield on the next outing. And I had repeated failed drops of the shield mags. Perhaps my shield mag springs are getting weak. But when I looked closely it was the interference of the pad on my palm.

I HAVE found a way to move my hand for ejection of the mag release to prevent it. But it is a differnt movement that os NOT required for my 9c.

This MAY be a unique situation for my personal body/hand build that no one else has.

If I were to buy my compact over. I would have gotten the 40c so I could buy a conversion parts for 9mm. Buying the 9 doesn’t allow upgrade to 40. With the availability of ammo now. It would be nice to be able to have two options rather than one. And can buy whichever ammo that might become available.

Just my thoughts. YMMV.

No worries. My mistake too as I quoted capacities for the 9mm when the OP asked about .40. The 2.0 Subcompact is 10 rounds vs 12 for the 9mm.

I have a 1.0 9C so I "autocorrect" to 9mm.

An easy solution for the abrasiveness problem is to get the much smoother Talon rubberized grips. They are inexpensive, easy to install, and they have held up very well on my Shield 9. And no sanding or filing is necessary.

If you want a smoother grip with some extra heft, I can also recommend Hogue rubber grips. They are much thicker and meatier than the Talons. I installed one on my Shield 45 to give me better control of the recoil, and it has worked perfectly for that purpose. Hogues are well made, and absolutely will not move once they are in place. As an added bonus, you will get a nice aerobic workout installing one. (Ask anyone who's done it!)

__________________
What, me worry?

Which 45 Shield? I have had the PC version for the past 3-4 years. It’s the softest shooting 45 besides my Lea Baer Prowler III 1911. I only own 1 40cal, and that’s because it was the first pistol I ever purchased. I’m down to 5 45’s, so my vote is for the Shield 45, but spring for the PC version. Much better sights and trigger.

If I'm going to get the Shield, then it's either going to be the standard model of the Performance Center model with a 4" Barrel.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Have a Sheild 45 first generation apexed the trigger and Trijicon HD’s great pistol!

__________________
Take it easy. Chris

The more I've looked into it, the more I'm pretty much sold on the M&P40c or the M&P40 Subcompact 2.0, which are actually more or less the same gun. I like it because it holds 10rds in a standard magazine, but can also take standard 15rd M&P40 magazines as well. That way, one way or another, I'm covered.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.