Sheepdogged
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 300
I meant that as a rhetorical question and I've mentioned this before, but since I am on a Smith & Wesson forum, I don't think it's inappropriate to revisit this point after nine months.
The SIG P365 is a great gun, and I am a big SIG fan and have loved my SIG pistols, but in January of this year, instead of adding a P365 to my collection, I instead bought another M&P Shield and M&P Subcompact (I upgraded my 1.0 Shield to an M2.0 and my old "Compact" to an M2.0 Subcompact in lieu of jumping on the P365 bandwagon after reviewing the pistol). I'm not even a huge M&P fan (though I've owned a half dozen of them). Sometimes I need a thin pistol, and even though the P365 is plenty thin for most applications, I recently put on some weight in this quarantine (like so many according to my doctor), and my Shield suddenly became the thickest pistol I could carry in some ways and with some clothing until I bought some new cloths to get me by as I work off this extra weight (over 20 lbs.!). In this picture you can see what 0.11 inches in width can make (the difference in width between a Shield and a P365). Moreover, the Subcompact is just as short in the handle as the P365 (both are exactly 4.3 inches), and I can conceal it OWB at 3 or 9 o'clock perfectly well under a t-shirt.
So why am I bringing this up? The popularity of the P365 has virtually eclipsed everything over the last couple of years for a lot of people, but depending on a variety of considerations (such as how often an individual shoots, hand size, body shape, etc.), just because SIG did a good job cramming 10-rounds into a small package doesn't mean that's the right gun for everyone and his brother. For me personally, the P365 design reminds me of that line in the original Jurassic Park, but instead of scientists, SIG engineers were "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should." Okay, that's a little over the top, after all, it's an enormously successful selling pistol, but I didn't buy into the hyper personally for good reason (as subjective as my decision was/is).
In my opinion, the Shield shoots better. What isn't so subjective, however, is that the Subcompact is definitely softer shooting than both. If the Subcompact conceals well enough (and it does for me), it also shoots better (so one is likely more likely to enjoy practicing with it). It also holds two more rounds over the P365 in its 4.3" configuration. So why don't we hear more about the M2.0 Subcompact which didn't even exist when the P365 came out? Some will argue that point (that it's new), but I carried the original 1.0 Compact for almost 8 years, and although it's a great gun and almost identical in dimensions (though not strictly so), the grip texture really made a big difference for my hands.
Again, the SIG P365 is a great gun, so I am not trying to talk anyone out of the gun especially if they already have it. It's a really great compromise between a Shield and a M&P Subcompact. But for many people who might appreciate a fuller grip, more aggressive texturing, a few more ounces to tame recoil, a little more velocity/energy, and a couple more rounds in a gun with an abbreviated handle, they might enjoy a M&P M2.0 Subcompact over the P365 (I do). They can also get the benefits of a Shield which, if it has enough rounds to do the job, might also fit the hand and shoot better for many compared with the P365. The SIG does a great job marrying the benefits of both of these guns, but ultimately I think having the pair does everything better if you can afford to have both. Personally I can't imagine replacing my Subcompact with a P365. With the ML size backstrap/side panel I even solved the short reach problem.
The SIG P365 is a great gun, and I am a big SIG fan and have loved my SIG pistols, but in January of this year, instead of adding a P365 to my collection, I instead bought another M&P Shield and M&P Subcompact (I upgraded my 1.0 Shield to an M2.0 and my old "Compact" to an M2.0 Subcompact in lieu of jumping on the P365 bandwagon after reviewing the pistol). I'm not even a huge M&P fan (though I've owned a half dozen of them). Sometimes I need a thin pistol, and even though the P365 is plenty thin for most applications, I recently put on some weight in this quarantine (like so many according to my doctor), and my Shield suddenly became the thickest pistol I could carry in some ways and with some clothing until I bought some new cloths to get me by as I work off this extra weight (over 20 lbs.!). In this picture you can see what 0.11 inches in width can make (the difference in width between a Shield and a P365). Moreover, the Subcompact is just as short in the handle as the P365 (both are exactly 4.3 inches), and I can conceal it OWB at 3 or 9 o'clock perfectly well under a t-shirt.
So why am I bringing this up? The popularity of the P365 has virtually eclipsed everything over the last couple of years for a lot of people, but depending on a variety of considerations (such as how often an individual shoots, hand size, body shape, etc.), just because SIG did a good job cramming 10-rounds into a small package doesn't mean that's the right gun for everyone and his brother. For me personally, the P365 design reminds me of that line in the original Jurassic Park, but instead of scientists, SIG engineers were "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should." Okay, that's a little over the top, after all, it's an enormously successful selling pistol, but I didn't buy into the hyper personally for good reason (as subjective as my decision was/is).
In my opinion, the Shield shoots better. What isn't so subjective, however, is that the Subcompact is definitely softer shooting than both. If the Subcompact conceals well enough (and it does for me), it also shoots better (so one is likely more likely to enjoy practicing with it). It also holds two more rounds over the P365 in its 4.3" configuration. So why don't we hear more about the M2.0 Subcompact which didn't even exist when the P365 came out? Some will argue that point (that it's new), but I carried the original 1.0 Compact for almost 8 years, and although it's a great gun and almost identical in dimensions (though not strictly so), the grip texture really made a big difference for my hands.
Again, the SIG P365 is a great gun, so I am not trying to talk anyone out of the gun especially if they already have it. It's a really great compromise between a Shield and a M&P Subcompact. But for many people who might appreciate a fuller grip, more aggressive texturing, a few more ounces to tame recoil, a little more velocity/energy, and a couple more rounds in a gun with an abbreviated handle, they might enjoy a M&P M2.0 Subcompact over the P365 (I do). They can also get the benefits of a Shield which, if it has enough rounds to do the job, might also fit the hand and shoot better for many compared with the P365. The SIG does a great job marrying the benefits of both of these guns, but ultimately I think having the pair does everything better if you can afford to have both. Personally I can't imagine replacing my Subcompact with a P365. With the ML size backstrap/side panel I even solved the short reach problem.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
. If a new potential cc firearm comes out I personally have a need to know about it and sometimes I’ll pick up one. Imo the one you will carry and train with is best. Capacity, size, shoot ability etc is always a consideration.
