Shield 40 vs 45acp

[DHart]

Not sure where the Glock and 40 is an issue. The only one I know for a fact that was designed around the 40 was HK. Their USP and P2000. Thousands of G22/23 out there with no issues. Early on they had so.e problems but that was what...25 years ago? Been shooting my G22 for years. Took it to many classes. Don't see an issue

Recoil and loads are different to each person. I find no problems with 155/165/180. They all shoot and feel about the same TO ME. On Sunday I took a brand new gun to the range and for comparison brought a 40. The new gun was a USP45c and the 40 was an HK P2000. Both fairly easy to shoot, recoil was about the same....to me! Ammo was a mix of stuff. Did 250 rounds of 45, 200 rounds of 40 and finished of with 500 rounds of 9 from my carry gun.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

There's nothing so "wrong" with Glocks in 40, except that they are not as soft-shooting as platforms that were designed for forty, like the M&P, P320, PPQ, VP40, USP, etc.

The G22, being larger and heavier, isn't as bad as the smaller Glock forties - but it still doesn't compare to the same-size pistols that were designed specifically for forty. The G23, though, especially with 155 GR and 165 GR loads, is well-known for being "snappy" in a way that many people don't generally enjoy.

You may have heard reports about forty being uncomfortably "snappy" for some people? This generally comes from people who have shot G23 and G27 pistols with 155 GR and 165 GR loads. Put a 180 GR. Load in an M&P40, for example, and there is no snappiness whatsoever - just a nice, smooth shooting, enjoyable experience.

Having a G23, G23 G4, and a G22 G4, I have a little experience with this. I also have 2 Browning HiPowers, STI Edge, M&P40, two M&P40C, two Sig P320s, and a VP40 - ALL of these chambered in 40. The Glocks are not nearly as enjoyable to shoot in .40. I do enjoy my Glocks in 9mm and .45, however.

 

[Arik]

There's nothing so "wrong" with Glocks in 40, except that they are not as soft-shooting as platforms that were designed for forty, like the M&P, P320, PPQ, VP40, USP, etc.

The G22, being larger and heavier, isn't as bad as the smaller Glock forties - but it still doesn't compare to the pistols designed specifically for forty. The G23, though, especially with 155 GR and 165 GR loads, is well-known for being "snappy" in a way that people don't generally enjoy. Having a G23, G23 G4, and a G22 G4, I have a little experience with this. I also have 2 Browning HiPowers, STI Edge, M&P40, two M&P40C, two Sig P320s, and a VP40 - ALL of these chambered in 40. The Glocks are not nearly as enjoyable to shoot in .40. I do enjoy my Glocks in 9mm and .45, however.

So basically ..... Personal preference and not fact.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[DHart]

So basically ..... Personal preference and not fact.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Selecting firearms is ALL about personal preference, shooting and comparing pistols, and drawing your own buying conclusions from that. No facts are missing from this equation.

Choose what you like. But don't offer any opinions to anyone! No no. They're worthless and not allowed on gun forums, now are they, skippie! ;-)

 

[Arik]

Selecting firearms is ALL about personal preference, shooting and comparing pistols, and drawing your own buying conclusions from that. No facts are missing from this equation.

Choose what you like. But don't offer any opinions to anyone! No no. They're worthless and not allowed on gun forums, now are they, skippie! ;-)

Absolutely nothing wrong with your opinion. You like what you like... awesome! Keep shooting! However, you didn't say that.

"Where people go wrong with the .40S&W is in choosing a platform that handles forty poorly (Glock)."

"And when it comes to choosing a platform, pass on the platforms that were initially 9mm then modified to accommodate .40S&W (like the Glocks)"

These aren't statements of opinion, the are stated as if fact.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[CoMF]

Something to consider, also... The results for the .45 ACP tests on Lucky Gunner were all achieved with a Kahr Arms CW45, which has a reasonably comparable 3.6" barrel.

We're not fanboys. We do pay attention to things like the science of terminal ballistics.

I do agree one should stick with what "works" best for them and with their particular launching platform. HST is but one of the better choices, and there are quite a few on the Lucky Gunner data tables. Incidentally, some of those also happen to be DocGKR's "top picks" in .45 caliber by virtue of being all around robust expanders through myriad test barriers, and I don't believe that's a coincidence.

Stay safe.

 

[DHart]

Arik- Yes, I should amend and clarify what I said about the Glock 23 and Glock 27.

I'll do that now.

I know that some people do like them. But I know of a number of people, including myself, who when comparing shooting a G23 or G27 with M&P40, M&P40C, or P320 40 Compact come away much preferring how softly and enjoyably the latter two models handle forty caliber.

One often hears people saying the forty caliber is very "snappy" and they say that in an uncomplimentary way. What I've found is that the G23 and G27, especially when firing 155 gr and 165 gr premium defense ammo is indeed very snappy - and not very enjoyably so. Shooting 180 gr ammo helps soften the snappiness some, but the end experience is still not as enjoyable - for me and friends that I know - as shooting different platforms in forty caliber.

But when shooting 180 gr premium defense loads in the Browning HiPower, M&P40, Sig P320, HK VP40... the experience is significantly different - not "snappy" at all, but quite enjoyable, actually. The combination of that bullet weight along with platforms that were designed originally for forty caliber contribute to the pleasure of shooting this caliber.

So that's my direct experience owning and shooting all of these guns over a period of years. And while it is my opinion, it counts no less than anyone else's.

It has been widely reported that the FBI used a lot of Glock 40s (I believe Glock provided them at little or no cost) and found that some of their agents (probably the more desk-oriented of them) had some difficulty handling that choice of pistol and cartridge. That reason, and the objective of reducing ammunition expense, led them to move from 40 caliber Glocks to 9mm G17s.

My belief (and this is only speculation on my part) is that had the agency selected the M&P40 platform, they would have had a much better experience and success with the caliber. My view on this is based on me owning and shooting all of the pistols and calibers that I'm mentioning.

 

[DHart]

Something to consider, also... The results for the .45 ACP tests on Lucky Gunner were all achieved with a Kahr Arms CW45, which has a reasonably comparable 3.6" barrel.

We're not fanboys. We do pay attention to things like the science of terminal ballistics.

I do agree one should stick with what "works" best for them and with their particular launching platform. HST is but one of the better choices, and there are quite a few on the Lucky Gunner data tables. Incidentally, some of those also happen to be DocGKR's "top picks" in .45 caliber by virtue of being all around robust expanders through myriad test barriers, and I don't believe that's a coincidence.

Stay safe.

I've been a fan of Gary Robert's work on ballistics for some time. In fact it was Doc Roberts who gave me such a strong recommendation to try the M&P40 that I bought one and have forever LOVED the gun and even more firmly cemented my appreciation for .40S&W caliber. It is my favorite caliber for mid-size and full-size defense pistols now - along with .45auto.

As for HST, Gold Dot, and Ranger - those have been my top picks ever since reviewing Gary's published data a good number of years ago. It's good stuff, indeed.

 

[Smitty357]

I've had my share of the shield .45 here lately. IMO, I will gladly keep my shield .40 over it. I find the .40 to be much easier to handle. Or maybe it's because I'm use to the .40 soo much. Then again, I also like the .40 because the 9mm barrel is a direct drop in. If u can't handle the .40, u can't handle the .45. Get a 9mm and be happy.

After a few thousand or so rounds through the shield .45 lately. I can honestly say the XDS in .45 is better, hands down. At least from my experience. It's the only 1 I can shoot that comes even comes close to hanging with my shield .40.

Shield .45 is a nice addition to the m&p family. Other then that, it's long past due. And isn't at all what most of us hoped it would be.

 

[DHart]

Physics are physics and .45auto is a stout caliber. There are plenty of people who have difficulty handling .45auto in a Lightweight Commander.

Stuffing .45auto into near the size of a pocket pistol isn't an idea that has any appeal to me. That's a category where 9mm really shines.

But the manufacturers know that there are a lot of people to whom the idea of a tiny .45auto has a lot of appeal. (Tiny guns are the rage-du-jour and .45auto is a legendary caliber.) The idea may sound appealing on the surface, but the reality of it isn't quite so rosy. But the manufacturers are cashing in on the .45auto small pistol chimera. To each his own. At least these folks are packing something.

Personally, I think 9mm makes a lot of sense in sub-compact pistols. I think .45auto makes a lot of sense in mid-size and full size pistols. And as for forty, I think it makes good sense in full-, mid-, and some compacts (like the M&P40C).

 

[LAA]

Physics are physics and .45auto is a stout caliber. There are plenty of people who have difficulty handling .45auto in a Lightweight Commander.

Stuffing .45auto into near the size of a pocket pistol isn't an idea that has any appeal to me. That's a category where 9mm really shines.

But the manufacturers know that there are a lot of people to whom the idea of a tiny .45auto has a lot of appeal. (Tiny guns are the rage-du-jour and .45auto is a legendary caliber.) The idea may sound appealing on the surface, but the reality of it isn't quite so rosy. But the manufacturers are cashing in on the .45auto small pistol chimera. To each his own. At least these folks are packing something.

Personally, I think 9mm makes a lot of sense in sub-compact pistols. I think .45auto makes a lot of sense in mid-size and full size pistols. And as for forty, I think it makes good sense in full-, mid-, and some compacts (like the M&P40C).

You talked a lot about this last week. And as I remember, you don't own a Shield 45. However, you do keep insisting on how you feel the re-coil is. Your assumption is incorrect. I didn't take my full size M&P 40 this weekend, but I think the Shield is actually easier on the hand. Won't know for sure, until I shoot them side by side. Never the less, the Shield 45 ACP is almost a non-event re-coil wise. My wife, who has hands much smaller than mine, has no problem. I really just don't like the 40 that much....

I think you should actually shoot one, before making so many comments on the subject.

edit..........PS, when I first heard of the Shield 45 being crammed into a pistol not much larger than the 9mm, I thought exactly the same as you. No appeal at all. I figured I'd much prefer my XDM 45 with it's 5.25" barrel. I really do like that gun! However, after some reading on the subject, I changed my mind. Really glad I did. I take the 45 Shield with me now, and leave the 9 home. Just too wimpy, at least in my mind.....

 

[kthom]

I guess I'm not in the "most" crowd, as Smitty says. I am also not in the inexperienced crowd. You'll have to take my word for that, I guess. I am very pleased and somewhat surprised by the Shield .45. I have fired a good many .45ACP semi autos, mid sized and full sized. My Shield is more pleasant to shoot than several of those, and I can shoot it with more than enough accuracy and speed to do the job I want it to do. And it carries, for me, like a dream!

One thing I do know ... we are all different, and I also know that what works for me may not be anyone else's cup of tea. That's why it's good that we have so many choices, but I hope I will never be found talking down someone else's choice. If I have found a particular gun to be a bad choice mechanically or is not well made, then I'll say so and I'll also say it's my opinion and personal experience. Anyone listening must make up their own minds about it. A person should shoot what they can shoot the best and what fits their hands the best and what they have full confidence in because it has been reliable in their experience with several hundred rounds down range. I will also say what works well for me for whatever that may be worth, but you gotta try 'em and decide for yourself. If you can find one that's different from what works for me and it works very well for yourself, I congratulate you! That's exactly what we are all looking for (or should be), not what might be the most popular for the most at the time. Pretty is as pretty does, and if it doesn't work for you, it ain't worth a hardly for you!

My life and my family's life depends on what I carry and use. I'm going make the best choice I can for me to do that job, and I'm not going to expect it to be the best choice for anyone else! Ain't it grand that there are so many choices! I'll tell you what I like if you ask, but please don't buy one on just my recommendation!!

 

[snowman.45]

180 gr. .40S&W loads are not harsher than 230 gr. .45auto loads - assuming the same platform. You will feel more recoil from that 230 gr. .45 than you will from the 180 gr. .40S&W. I shoot both of these on a regular basis.

While recognizing that recoil is somewhat subjective, I'll have to disagree. I, too have shot both the .180 gr. .40 and the 230 gr. .45 ACP from the Shield platform. IMHO, the .40 is noticeably snappier in the recoil department. Now, don't take this to mean that it can't be handled. I have no problem with it, and as a retired LEO and rangemaster in two different departments over my 37 years, I've had plenty of opportunity to shoot both calibers in a number of platforms. I've never been a .40 fan, but that's only because I find 9mm and .45 ACP take care of my needs. If I find that a .45 round does not have sufficient energy for penetration and/or expansion in a 3.3" barrel at 230 gr., I can still go to a 200 gr., 185 gr. or 165 gr. round and achieve my goals.

I'll agree that the Glock 22, 23, and 27 do exhibit considerably more felt recoil in .40 S&W. As someone who carried Glocks for duty and off-duty use, my initial impressions regarding the .40 came from shooting these guns. Additionally, the additional pressure and recoil developed by the .40 in the Glocks tended to result in pistol damage and breakage at a much higher level than in the other available calibers. The Glock, originally designed for 9mm, is not nearly as durable in the .40 S&W as in the 9mm (although it's longevity is still pretty amazing).

This is really all a matter of perception and opinion, and there is no definite right or wrong; only how we feel about it based on our own experiences and prejudices. So, I'll continue to be satisfied with .45 ACP and 9mm with proper bullet configurations.

 

[DHart]

Good post, Dave.

I'm in no position to tell anyone else what they like. We each make those decisions for ourselves.

Everyone has such dug in hard opinions that many of us aren't going to see eye-to-eye. Ever. That's the nature of mixing it up with a diverse general public crowd.

I prefer somewhat larger pistols for carry (for controllability, higher capacity, and larger caliber - all three elements which I place high value on). The trendy movement du jour is toward very small, low capacity, single stack pistols. My view is that if that is truly ALL that one can carry, so be it. But for most people, under many/most circumstances, I think people can make much better decisions to prepare for what would probably be the darkest day of their life - the day when they will have to produce a firearm in defense of life. God forbid that day should ever come for me, but if it does, I would hope to have a lot more pistol in my hand than a Shield. And judging by how it's going for me now, it will be a lot more gun than a Shield. But if only a Shield it should be, I say that's FAR better than a sharp knife! ;-)

I don't view CCW as a recreational activity that needs to be as convenient and unobtrusive as possible. I view it as a more serious endeavor that calls for doing one's best effort in terms of training, thought, mind-set, preparation, and equipment. I'm sure that I am not a mainstreamer in this view, where pocket .380s are the "hot ticket" for so many.

Anyway, I am certainly at odds with many here and that's fine by me. I'm of enough age and experience to not give a damn what anyone else thinks about my views. And I refuse to run for public office! ;-)

The best anyone can do in this topic of carry guns is gain wide and deep direct personal experience... Then decide for yourself. I don't have anything else that I'm willing to spend the time and energy to expend here. We should all be grown up enough and smart enough to figure it all out for ourselves.

 

[SwflG17Guy]

I have 14 shots rtg. (6+1 and 7)If thats not enough to get away from the problem I screwed up. I dont plan on a large scale offense.

 

[MP1SG]

KThom nailed it down pretty well. Very good advise from a bad *** West Texas Cop and veteran.

If a 5 shot chief special works for you then so be it, Maybe its a G22 with a few spare mags or anything in between. I have friend thats been carrying a Charter arms Bulldog pug in 44 special for years, and is laser accurate with it. Today I play on running my Shield 45 through its paces, It feels good and If its up to par with my Shield 9 i will be pretty happy

 

[Arik]

Arik- Yes, I should amend and clarify what I said about the Glock 23 and Glock 27.

I'll do that now.

I know that some people do like them. But I know of a number of people, including myself, who when comparing shooting a G23 or G27 with M&P40, M&P40C, or P320 40 Compact come away much preferring how softly and enjoyably the latter two models handle forty caliber.

One often hears people saying the forty caliber is very "snappy" and they say that in an uncomplimentary way. What I've found is that the G23 and G27, especially when firing 155 gr and 165 gr premium defense ammo is indeed very snappy - and not very enjoyably so. Shooting 180 gr ammo helps soften the snappiness some, but the end experience is still not as enjoyable - for me and friends that I know - as shooting different platforms in forty caliber.

But when shooting 180 gr premium defense loads in the Browning HiPower, M&P40, Sig P320, HK VP40... the experience is significantly different - not "snappy" at all, but quite enjoyable, actually. The combination of that bullet weight along with platforms that were designed originally for forty caliber contribute to the pleasure of shooting this caliber.

So that's my direct experience owning and shooting all of these guns over a period of years. And while it is my opinion, it counts no less than anyone else's.

It has been widely reported that the FBI used a lot of Glock 40s (I believe Glock provided them at little or no cost) and found that some of their agents (probably the more desk-oriented of them) had some difficulty handling that choice of pistol and cartridge. That reason, and the objective of reducing ammunition expense, led them to move from 40 caliber Glocks to 9mm G17s.

My belief (and this is only speculation on my part) is that had the agency selected the M&P40 platform, they would have had a much better experience and success with the caliber. My view on this is based on me owning and shooting all of the pistols and calibers that I'm mentioning.

I have no experience with the G26/27. Both feel awkward in my hand. Despite the fact that I like the 19/17/23/22. Its got to be the lack of grip. Anyway, my experience with the G23 is limited. I shot one years ago, dont remember anything good or bad about it. I own the G22 and HK P2000. I've shot them back to back and don't see much difference in felt recoil or snappiness. The Glock feels just a little sharper in the hand. I can't say I remember the 155 and 160 feeling any different than the 180. There's probably a little more impulse in the hand but barely noticeable.

Years ago I owned a M&P 357sig and HK USP 40 full size. Those two I thought were snappy. Add to that my lack of experience at the time and the crazy heavy trigger pull of the USP and I couldn't get a group for anything. Have since sold them both.

FBI does what FBI does. There is always a major switch every so many years. Whether it's the platform, the caliber or both. Many LE agencies are moving back to the 9 after almost two decades of 40. My police department moved from the Sig 2340 .40s&w to the G22 a few years ago. The major city near me has issued G17 since 1989. Today they still issue the G17 but now allow officers to purchase Glocks in other calibers but the gun and ammo is now the officer's expense. There will be another shift sooner or later. My state police went from Beretta 96 to Glock 45gap, to Glock 21 45acp to Sig P227 45acp within a matter of 20 years. 4 guns 3 calibers. They had their reasons even though some of them were flawed.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[snowman.45]

Good post, Dave.

I'm in no position to tell anyone else what they like. We each make those decisions for ourselves.

Everyone has such dug in hard opinions that many of us aren't going to see eye-to-eye. Ever. That's the nature of mixing it up with a diverse general public crowd.

I prefer somewhat larger pistols for carry (for controllability, higher capacity, and larger caliber - all three elements which I place high value on). The trendy movement du jour is toward very small, low capacity, single stack pistols. My view is that if that is truly ALL that one can carry, so be it. But for most people, under many/most circumstances, I think people can make much better decisions to prepare for what would probably be the darkest day of their life - the day when they will have to produce a firearm in defense of life. God forbid that day should ever come for me, but if it does, I would hope to have a lot more pistol in my hand than a Shield. And judging by how it's going for me now, it will be a lot more gun than a Shield. But if only a Shield it should be, I say that's FAR better than a sharp knife! ;-)

I don't view CCW as a recreational activity that needs to be as convenient and unobtrusive as possible. I view it as a more serious endeavor that calls for doing one's best effort in terms of training, thought, mind-set, preparation, and equipment. I'm sure that I am not a mainstreamer in this view, where pocket .380s are the "hot ticket" for so many.

Anyway, I am certainly at odds with many here and that's fine by me. I'm of enough age and experience to not give a damn what anyone else thinks about my views. And I refuse to run for public office! ;-)

The best anyone can do in this topic of carry guns is gain wide and deep direct personal experience... Then decide for yourself. I don't have anything else that I'm willing to spend the time and energy to expend here. We should all be grown up enough and smart enough to figure it all out for ourselves.

Well said, and I like the way you think. In retirement, I usually carry something on the smaller side around town, depending on my planned activity and location. That's usually a 340 M&P with two speed loaders and two strips, or my Shield with two (or more) spare magazines. If I believe there will a greater potential for problems, I'll carry a G26 or G19 with spare G17 magazines. While the basic capacity of the platform I'm carrying may be low(er), I always carry sufficient reloads in this day and age. I do make it a habit to dress around my carry gun, LOL.

 

[kannonvaggon]

I've used all three flavors of the Shield. I like the 9mm just fine. I don't particularly care for the .40sw and it's just mostly the way the round works in the little pistol. It's not that it's brutal in any way, but I myself just don't care to shoot it as much as the 9mm.

The one I like most is the 45. You can study the ballistics all day long, but in the real world I pretty much like the way that a 45 JHP will stay in the intended target and not over penetrate so as to deliver the largest cross section and the greatest retained energy as a defensive close-in belly gun.
Secondly, I just like the way the 45 Shield feels when shooting it. A very satisfying and enjoyable experience in my own opinion.

I like the 45 enough that I decided not to keep my 9mm Shield. Going to the range again tomorrow to turn money into holes. I still need some practice with the 45 but so far it is my hands down favorite.
We can all argue esoterica but only actually shooting the pistols tells the tale to any individual potential purchaser. Don't rely just on the ergonomics although that is important. How does it FEEL to you when you are shooting and operating the pistol? Just holding it is indeed an indicator but the best decisions are made with at least some range time. Rent one. Rent a different model. What do you truly think? Don't rely on the math alone. Either you like the pistol and the round or you don't. Very personal.
ALL of these calibers will do the job at close range in any M&P model.

YMMV

 

[LAA]

Check out Mas Ayoob's thoughts on the Shield 45. Very impressed. Tighter group than the standard considered normal for full size 45's at 25 yds. Recoil more than the 9, but similar to the 40.

 

[kannonvaggon]

I did go back to the range today and went through another hunnert bucks of various ammo in the 45 Shield....

The pistol is just an absolute keeper. Runs like warm butter. Eats everything I've fed it. Ejects crisply. Easy to hold on target for multiple shots. Slide is easier to operate than the 9MM. Recoil is very light.
Slide locks back after last round every time. Slide lock releases nicely. Mag release works nicely. Safety is larger and works great. Grip, size, and ergos are pretty much perfect for a small cannon.

What's not to LIKE ?

Remember: The 9MM will usually expand nicely, but for SURE a .45 ain't gonna SHRINK ANY.

JMHO

I declare the .45 Shield to be my new most favored EDC and I think probably my favorite semi-auto. Period.