I posted previously about the Shield Plus trigger seeming too light for my back pocket or small-of-back behind the belt carry, so I bought a new Original Shield (harder to find for sure these days). The trigger was heavier than the Shield Plus I handled at the gun store: 6.5# measured and averaged over 6 pulls. There was also some of that grit for which the Original Shield is famous, which was eliminated immediately with 1500 grit sandpaper applied to the trigger bar hump that engages the striker block. Now the trigger is 6.5 with a clear wall and very clean break. I elected not to apply the “gunsmith’s secret” to the sear/striker interface: lithium grease and automotive polishing compound mixed 1:1, and used with dry firing 15-30 times. This maneuver can further smooth pull and drop it by up to 3/4# but I don’t want it any lower for my style of land carry.
Other findings: actual weight with 7 rd magazine is 20.2 ounces/23.7 ounces loaded +1 in chamber with 124 grain FMJ practice ammo. With 8 rd magazine 20.5/24.3. These loaded weights are about the upper end for me as far as comfortable land carry the way I do it.
Accuracy trials: I only fired the gun for two groups at targets. 7 shots at 35 yds standing shot all the way to the left of the Amazon box I was shooting at. With 1 miss the group was 5.5”. I adjusted sights to R, and fired 5 shots at 100 yds standing: 14 3/4” centered. By way of comparison my 2 Gold Cups print 9–12” at 100, so this is promising from a short pistol. Obviously more testing is needed.
Chronograph results: Winchester 90 grain Super Clean lead free 4” 1330 advertised velocity/ 1230 actual over 5 shots with sample sd around 25. Aguila 124 grain 4” 1115 fps advertised / 1030 actual with nearly same sd. Around 7% velocity loss.
Recoil: MUCH less than the Glock 43 9mm I sold. Very little snappiness with these moderate loads, and no separation of my two hands with a loose target hold as the gun jumps, unlike the Glock. Smith’s dual spring system together with the grip angle seems very effective. I also found the stippling of the Original Shield just right for 9mm. The 2.0 full size I have is so rough that I had to reduce its aggressiveness with 1000 grit sandpaper. To be fair, the Shield Plus has improved the grip texture as compared to the 2.0 models but I think the spectacular thinness of the Original Shield grip is sacrificed by the accommodation necessary for extra capacity magazines in the Shield Plus.
Minor complaints: the grip length with 7 rd flush-fit magazine is barely enough to keep my pinkie placed, but it fits great in the back pocket or small of back. Also, the recoil and magazine spring tensions are definitely not EZ! Worse racking effort than my 10mm Delta Elite with 22# springs, but the standard new automatic break-in procedure of leaving slide locked back /all magazines filled for 48 hrs did set the springs noticeably.
It’s back to the future for me with this Original Shield; I wish I’d bought it when it came out years ago. A great design, whose heavier but excellent trigger, fantastic thinness, mild recoil and promising accuracy make it a better pistol for me than the second or third generations.
I hope these thoughts may be of help to someone.
Other findings: actual weight with 7 rd magazine is 20.2 ounces/23.7 ounces loaded +1 in chamber with 124 grain FMJ practice ammo. With 8 rd magazine 20.5/24.3. These loaded weights are about the upper end for me as far as comfortable land carry the way I do it.
Accuracy trials: I only fired the gun for two groups at targets. 7 shots at 35 yds standing shot all the way to the left of the Amazon box I was shooting at. With 1 miss the group was 5.5”. I adjusted sights to R, and fired 5 shots at 100 yds standing: 14 3/4” centered. By way of comparison my 2 Gold Cups print 9–12” at 100, so this is promising from a short pistol. Obviously more testing is needed.
Chronograph results: Winchester 90 grain Super Clean lead free 4” 1330 advertised velocity/ 1230 actual over 5 shots with sample sd around 25. Aguila 124 grain 4” 1115 fps advertised / 1030 actual with nearly same sd. Around 7% velocity loss.
Recoil: MUCH less than the Glock 43 9mm I sold. Very little snappiness with these moderate loads, and no separation of my two hands with a loose target hold as the gun jumps, unlike the Glock. Smith’s dual spring system together with the grip angle seems very effective. I also found the stippling of the Original Shield just right for 9mm. The 2.0 full size I have is so rough that I had to reduce its aggressiveness with 1000 grit sandpaper. To be fair, the Shield Plus has improved the grip texture as compared to the 2.0 models but I think the spectacular thinness of the Original Shield grip is sacrificed by the accommodation necessary for extra capacity magazines in the Shield Plus.
Minor complaints: the grip length with 7 rd flush-fit magazine is barely enough to keep my pinkie placed, but it fits great in the back pocket or small of back. Also, the recoil and magazine spring tensions are definitely not EZ! Worse racking effort than my 10mm Delta Elite with 22# springs, but the standard new automatic break-in procedure of leaving slide locked back /all magazines filled for 48 hrs did set the springs noticeably.
It’s back to the future for me with this Original Shield; I wish I’d bought it when it came out years ago. A great design, whose heavier but excellent trigger, fantastic thinness, mild recoil and promising accuracy make it a better pistol for me than the second or third generations.
I hope these thoughts may be of help to someone.
