Hi all,


I am the proud owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm (1.0). I have recently started considering the Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 9mm Subcompact. I'm really interested in the fact the subcompact has 12+1 capacity versus my Shield which is 8+1. For those of you that have both at some point, what are your thoughts? Like one over the other? Advantages and disadvantages?

Maybe jump up to the compact 4" since you have the shield.

I have a 9c, which is the older version of the 2.0 subcompact. It's not much wider than the Shield and you get quite a bit more capacity. Plus I carry a 17 round spare. So that, plus 12+1, I have 30 rounds on me which should me more than enough. The subcompact is small and light and comfortable for me to carry. Of course, all body types are different. But I love mine

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

I've had a 9mm Shield for a couple years and just don't shoot it that well.
#1 it is just a little thin for my hand size. I stippled the frame and that helped with the gun squirming around but it still is a little too thin for me. I have added a Hogue Grip Sleeve and it does feel a bit better, but then it starts to encroach on the 1.0 Compact/2.0 Sub Compact grip size. #2 My particular 9mm Shield has not proven to be particularly accurate no matter what ammo type or weight I have put through it, unlike my 45 Shield which is a tac driver.
Just before the weather here turned bitter cold, I bought a 2.0 9mm Sub Compact and had a chance to take it out 1 time to confirm function and just get a feel for it. The 2.0 Sub Compact is just a better fit and shooter for me than the 9mm Shield. I also have a 2.0 Compact with the 4 inch barrel, but for my body build, the longer barrel/slide tends to pinch my fat parts when I sit down and the longer grip tends to print out the back a little more noticeably.

Even though I have carried and still carry a Micro 1911 every day. I am a big fan of the M&P line and have accumulated 8 different models which I enjoy shooting a great deal.

I have both the Shield 1.0 and the compact 1.0 (now called a sub-compact) and I prefer the sub-compact. For the minimal extra width of the compact I don't feel it makes any difference in concealability and you get four extra rounds, or 7 extra round when you use the 15 round magazines from the compact 2.0.

I agree with raisin. ^^^

I have a shield 1.0 also and just recently built a compact 2.0 with a 4.25” slide and barrel. I love the bugger gun and capacity. I also put a hogue grip on my shield and extended the mag so if i were you i would buy the subcompact 2.0 3.6”. Really it comes down to printing/concealing which Between the two isnt much different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I started with the Shield 9 thinking it would be more concealable but never really shot it as well as I'd like. Even though I'm a small guy I don't like small guns. I never seem to shoot them well. I can't see how anybody shoots the really small pocket pistols that you see everywhere now.

I then bought a 2.0 Compact 9 and shoot it way better, and since I found that it's really no harder to conceal for me, it's now my carry gun. I also have a 2.0 Compact 45 and it shoots as well as the 9, but I still prefer the 9 for EDC. I have thousands of rounds through it and it's very reliable and accurate.

It's an individual thing. My son who's a lot bigger than me shoots the Shield better than the Compact. The Shield looks really small in his big hands but he shoots it better than I can.

I too have been considering the same thing, albeit chambered in a different cartridge. I have an M&P40 Shield, but I keep looking at the M&P40c.
Why a Gen 1 M&P40c rather than the Gen 2 M&P40 2.0 Subcompact, you ask? Because for some unfathomable reason, Smith & Wesson discontinued the M&P40 2.0 Subcompact, but not the 1.0 M&P40c. Just as well, the Gen 1 model is significantly cheaper, looks better in my opinion, and I'm not a fan of the 2.0 grip texture.

Granted that the Subcompact models only hold a few rounds more than the Shield, but I like the utility of being able to expand the capacity even further while simultaneously extending the grip surface by using full-size M&P magazines with spacers.

Personally, my decision has been made, and as soon as the Biden Bucks roll in, I'll be using a portion to purchase an M&P40c.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

I would skip the 2.0 Subcompact and get the 2.0 Compact (3.6" or 4" model. The 3.6" model is almost identical to the Subcompact except carries 15 rounds.

Smith & Wesson M&P 9 M2.0 3.6" Subcompact vs M&P 9 M2.0 3.6" Compact size comparison | Handgun Hero

I had a 1.0 Compact 9mm; was a solid gun but I never could shoot it well with the stock mags. Did not like or feel comfortable with its shorter grip. Using my Full size mags then I had no trouble with it; but that defeated the purpose to me.
So grabbed a 1.0 Shield (PC9) and really liked it over the Compact. It felt better and I shot it better and was more consistent. For me, the Shield was better overall; obviously personal preference really comes into play on comparison questions like in this thread.

Said above: “ Personally, my decision has been made, and as soon as the Biden Bucks roll in, I'll be using a portion to purchase an M&P40c.”

Well Biden is also threatened to charge $30 for each mag that holds over 10 rounds. So keep that in mind!

I have 1.0 shield and 2.0 9c in 3.6” barrel.

I shoot the 9c more accurately. I also found it is nearly identical size as the shield with the 8 round mag, except for the 1/2” barrel. It is wider and MUCH heavier.

I also found on the SHIELD, that even my smallish hands, the lad of my hand restricts the mag from easily ejecting on fast tactical reloads. Because the bottom of the grip is so short, still some of the lad of my hand is on the bottom of the mag. This is NOT the case with the standard 2.0 9c with 15 round mag. As the palm lad of my hand ends at the bottom of the grip and the mag is free to drop/eject easily.

Yes I have found a way to move my hand in a way so that the shield mags are not an issue. But it is not needed on the 2.0 9c.

If capacity is an issue, may want to spend the money for +2 shield mag springs and base plate. This puts you at 10+1 in the shield for a smaller thinner and lighter gun than the 9c or 2.0 9 subcompact. For WAY less money. But you do give up having a second gun and the ability to run 12,15and 17 round mags.

Personally I may consider a P365XL and replace both the shield and 2.0 9c. But that really isn’t likely, as I seem unable to ever sell a gun once I own it!

I do really like the feel and how easy the 2.0 9c shoots. But it is a heavy brick to carry. I normally resort to a small beretta 25acp to carry as it just slips into any Jean or whatever pocket. Yes it is anemic. But better than nothing and I seem to reach for it 8 or 9 times out of 10. And the other time it I reach for and carry the shield.

The M&P40c only holds 10 rounds in a flush magazine. One of the reasons why I got a Shield and plan on getting an M&P40c is due to all the support there has been for the reinstatement of the AWB.
I'd like to think that won't happen, but seeing as so many recently elected politicians are pro gun control, my faith is in short supply.

However, that's the beauty of the M&P40c, regardless of what happens, I'm covered.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.