shawn mccarver
SWCA Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,981
- Reaction score
- 7,022
Just got a new 9mm Shield. I am not shy about making critical comments about S&Ws when it is warranted. Likewise, when compliments are called for, I try to be as free with those as with criticism.
S&W has a winner here, assuming this pistol continues to work at the range. The first outing consisted of 200 break-in rounds, and the pistol functioned flawlessly. I am not a fan of the thumb safety, but like the Ruger LC9, it has a very positive click operation, so the operator can just ignore it.
Initial thoughts are very positive. In no particular order, I wanted to share my thoughts about the Shield.
The Shield is the same price as LC9, but you get, in addition to the lightweight polymer M&P frame, features not available on the LC9, such as stainless slide and barrel, both with melonite treatment making corrosion highly unlikely, two stainless magazines, and a much shorter and lighter trigger.
For all practical purposes, the two pistols are the same size. The S&W does not have a mechanical loaded chamber indicator, but the viewing port works just fine in the day, and the traditional method will work in the dark, although I have not used this pistol at night.
The M&P line has been a winner for Joe Bergeron and his team at Smith & Wesson. They might as well have named this pistol the Chief's Special because it is the first professional grade auto offered by S&W that truly fills the same market need. The 3913 was close, but just too heavy and large for pocket carry, at least for me. The Shield is the same size as a J-frame, but much thinner since it lacks a cylinder. The Shield is so much better in all respects than the earlier autos called Chief's Specials that there is no comparison.
S&W now has a very viable alternative to the J-frame revolver for pocket carry. I found the M&P Compact just a tad too big for pocket carry, and sold it to a friend. The 9mm version of the Shield, when the correct ammo is used, packs more punch than the best 38 Special loads, and the Shield holds more rounds than a J-frame and is easier to shoot, having less perceived recoil and a more manageable trigger than any J-frame. It also disappears into a pocket.
The Shield fills a void in the S&W line. Other manufacturers still have this glaring void. The Shield offers more features than the LC9, and Glock does not offer any single stack in either 9mm or .40 S&W. The Shield is much thinner than the smallest Glock, and it fills a need that Glock has not as yet chosen to fill. The Shield feels better in the hand, to me, than the Walther PPS.
S&W has not been afraid to buck the trend with their M&P offerings. The duty-size M&Ps in 9mm and .40 S&W offer features not found on similar Glocks, such as the use of stainless for slides and barrels and a hardening treatment (melonite), steel sights, steel guide rod, interchangeable backstraps with palm swells, available thumb and magazine safeties if desired, reversible magazine releases and ambidextrous operation.
The .45 M&P also fills a void not filled by Glock despite begging from customers for 20 years - a .45 that feels like a single stack. By staying with a reasonable thickness, the .45 M&P is leaps and bounds ahead of even the new SF versions of the Glock .45s.
The Shield is the same, offering something that is not found elsewhere. I vividly recall that great picture in the 1970s of the three Model 19s: The 2 1/2, the 4 and the 6 inch revolvers. I believe that picture is in Roy Jinks' book, if I recall correctly.
The same can now be shown with the M&P line: the Shield, the Compact, the duty-size, and the M&P 9 Longslide/Pro/Competition versions. S&W truly has an integrated line on which users can be instantly familiar with a different size if already trained on one size, provided the pistols are similarly equipped.
A department or agency, once having selected caliber of either 9mm or .40 S&W, could authorize the Shield for back-up, the Compact for off-duty or plainclothes, the M&P standard size for duty and the Longslide for either the pistol team or the SWAT Team. All uses would be filled with one caliber. Another department or agency could issue the M&P in .45 and the 9mm Shield as back-up. You get the idea.
S&W has been improving the M&P line of pistols, and this latest seems to have a more positive trigger re-set, but then again, I had read that others think this, so it could just seem that way. But, it does seem that way, and that is a good thing.
To S&W, Joe Bergeron and all those making the Shield: I think you have a winner on your hands!
Congratulations!
UPDATE: I have now fired an additional 120 rounds and the pistol is still 100%. These additional rounds were "boomers," consisting of 50 rounds of Federal 9BPLE 115 grain JHP +P+, 50 rounds of Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ and 20 rounds of the Winchester 124 grain PDX1 load. Still flawless. Recoil is non-existent, even with the boomers, and the pistol is surprisingly accurate for its relatively small size.
S&W has a winner here, assuming this pistol continues to work at the range. The first outing consisted of 200 break-in rounds, and the pistol functioned flawlessly. I am not a fan of the thumb safety, but like the Ruger LC9, it has a very positive click operation, so the operator can just ignore it.
Initial thoughts are very positive. In no particular order, I wanted to share my thoughts about the Shield.
The Shield is the same price as LC9, but you get, in addition to the lightweight polymer M&P frame, features not available on the LC9, such as stainless slide and barrel, both with melonite treatment making corrosion highly unlikely, two stainless magazines, and a much shorter and lighter trigger.
For all practical purposes, the two pistols are the same size. The S&W does not have a mechanical loaded chamber indicator, but the viewing port works just fine in the day, and the traditional method will work in the dark, although I have not used this pistol at night.
The M&P line has been a winner for Joe Bergeron and his team at Smith & Wesson. They might as well have named this pistol the Chief's Special because it is the first professional grade auto offered by S&W that truly fills the same market need. The 3913 was close, but just too heavy and large for pocket carry, at least for me. The Shield is the same size as a J-frame, but much thinner since it lacks a cylinder. The Shield is so much better in all respects than the earlier autos called Chief's Specials that there is no comparison.
S&W now has a very viable alternative to the J-frame revolver for pocket carry. I found the M&P Compact just a tad too big for pocket carry, and sold it to a friend. The 9mm version of the Shield, when the correct ammo is used, packs more punch than the best 38 Special loads, and the Shield holds more rounds than a J-frame and is easier to shoot, having less perceived recoil and a more manageable trigger than any J-frame. It also disappears into a pocket.
The Shield fills a void in the S&W line. Other manufacturers still have this glaring void. The Shield offers more features than the LC9, and Glock does not offer any single stack in either 9mm or .40 S&W. The Shield is much thinner than the smallest Glock, and it fills a need that Glock has not as yet chosen to fill. The Shield feels better in the hand, to me, than the Walther PPS.
S&W has not been afraid to buck the trend with their M&P offerings. The duty-size M&Ps in 9mm and .40 S&W offer features not found on similar Glocks, such as the use of stainless for slides and barrels and a hardening treatment (melonite), steel sights, steel guide rod, interchangeable backstraps with palm swells, available thumb and magazine safeties if desired, reversible magazine releases and ambidextrous operation.
The .45 M&P also fills a void not filled by Glock despite begging from customers for 20 years - a .45 that feels like a single stack. By staying with a reasonable thickness, the .45 M&P is leaps and bounds ahead of even the new SF versions of the Glock .45s.
The Shield is the same, offering something that is not found elsewhere. I vividly recall that great picture in the 1970s of the three Model 19s: The 2 1/2, the 4 and the 6 inch revolvers. I believe that picture is in Roy Jinks' book, if I recall correctly.
The same can now be shown with the M&P line: the Shield, the Compact, the duty-size, and the M&P 9 Longslide/Pro/Competition versions. S&W truly has an integrated line on which users can be instantly familiar with a different size if already trained on one size, provided the pistols are similarly equipped.
A department or agency, once having selected caliber of either 9mm or .40 S&W, could authorize the Shield for back-up, the Compact for off-duty or plainclothes, the M&P standard size for duty and the Longslide for either the pistol team or the SWAT Team. All uses would be filled with one caliber. Another department or agency could issue the M&P in .45 and the 9mm Shield as back-up. You get the idea.
S&W has been improving the M&P line of pistols, and this latest seems to have a more positive trigger re-set, but then again, I had read that others think this, so it could just seem that way. But, it does seem that way, and that is a good thing.
To S&W, Joe Bergeron and all those making the Shield: I think you have a winner on your hands!
Congratulations!
UPDATE: I have now fired an additional 120 rounds and the pistol is still 100%. These additional rounds were "boomers," consisting of 50 rounds of Federal 9BPLE 115 grain JHP +P+, 50 rounds of Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ and 20 rounds of the Winchester 124 grain PDX1 load. Still flawless. Recoil is non-existent, even with the boomers, and the pistol is surprisingly accurate for its relatively small size.
Last edited:
