Can Smith & Wesson compete with the SIG P365?

an argument for more capacity

LEO's in gunfights hit their targets 20-30% of the time. These are people who actually train for armed encounters. Average Joe is probably going to be less accurate than a professional, and would be well-served to have more, rather than less shots at his disposal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LCC
I, like many here have gone through numerous pistols trying to find the absolute best CCW for me.
My quest is over! I have exhausted my efforts only to find that once I've decided that I now have the latest and greatest carry pistol, someone introduces the next "latest and greatest" carry pistol.
I have finally decided on a PC Shield 9mm and this is what I carry everyday for last two years.
My Shield shoots where I point it, functions 100% and carries well, both IWB and on a belt holster.
I believe that many, myself included like to be able to have the next best but to what end??....bragging rights!
We all justify our choices differently but I am extremely happy with the Shield and will spend my gun funds on other gun stuff!!
 
I don't care whether S&W makes a direct competitor to the P365 or Hellcat. What I want is a 9mm the same size as my Bodyguard .380. Six shot capacity would be plenty. That way, when I can't carry my J frame, I'd have a tiny 9mm to stick in my pocket. Yes, my J frames fit in my pocket, but not well, and I'm not willing to wear baggy cargo pants. As snappy as my BG is to shoot, I can only imagine how unpleasant it would be in 9mm. It might even be un-shootable for me.
 
I don't care whether S&W makes a direct competitor to the P365 or Hellcat. What I want is a 9mm the same size as my Bodyguard .380. Six shot capacity would be plenty. That way, when I can't carry my J frame, I'd have a tiny 9mm to stick in my pocket. Yes, my J frames fit in my pocket, but not well, and I'm not willing to wear baggy cargo pants. As snappy as my BG is to shoot, I can only imagine how unpleasant it would be in 9mm. It might even be un-shootable for me.
Kahr CM9. Similar trigger feel to a J-frame, and not snappy at all.
 
One of my main carry guns is 34.2 ounces (my SIG P229 chambered in .357 SIG which has a heavier slide than the 9mm). I use it with a minimalist carry belt from Langdon Tactical Technology that only has support where it's needed. It is thus the lightest belt I've used to conceal carry over the last 15 years, and it supports that weight of my pistol just fine (as an aside, my body weight can and does change more than that in a single day). Everyone is different, but that's why I personally can't take serious complaints against weight. It just doesn't affect me. I am sure it affects others, and that must be rough, but I am happy I can carry the weight because, all things being equal, a heavier gun is going to handle and shoot better than a lighter one. I'm not saying that extra performance is necessary in a concealed carry gun, it's not, but it's just one more example of how the P365 is a great gun, but there are better choices for some people like me as a G26, M&P Subcompact, P229, etc. are better shooters in my hands (as are most of my carry guns). I also know how it stacks up to carrying lighter guns because I also carry a much lighter gun than a P365 (my Ruger LCP II which is only 10.6 ounces). I don't carry it as much, but I have it for comparison.



I totally agree that if they change the Shield Smith & Wesson does not sacrifice reliability (which is never worth the extra capacity in my opinion). Personally, since I prefer carrying appendix, I wouldn't want anything shorter either. In fact, I prefer carrying larger guns because the longer barrels tend to work better with the wedges I put on my holsters to mitigate flagging myself.

As an aside, I doubt the geometry of the P365 magazine was lost on pistol manufacturers. That's a whole other matter, but it is too simple a technology for manufacturers to have not been sitting on it for years (if not decades), but manufacturers work together in my opinion to...well, I am going off on a tangent. All I will say is that if I owned a company like Glock, Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, etc., I would have fired my engineers thirty years ago if they couldn't bring me a magazine design that could fit that many rounds in that size of a magazine. It's not like some new super strong thinner metal was invented, and of course it's no coincidence that "Springfield Armory" (if that's what we want to call it) came out with an even better magazine design within a year or so. I wouldn't be surprised if Smith and Glock come out with higher capacity magazines that change their key subcompact pistols little (if at all).

Anyway, like I said, the P365 is a great gun, but as you alluded to, there are always sacrifices made in pistols, and while the S&W Subcompact and Glock 26 are bigger and heavier, they are noticeably better shooters in my opinion, yet they're small enough for me to conceal in any way I'd conceal a P365, and even better for the reason I mentioned. That said, everyone is different. Some people really need a smaller gun than the M&P Subcompact or the G26, and in those cases the P365 is a godsend that prevents them from having to give up little or anything in terms of capacity.

anyone know if the magazine design of the P365 is patented?

i have two P365 MS's and they are an amazing pistol. apparently not for everyone.
 
To those that carry handguns similar in size and weight to an M&P SC I say kudos to you. But the few times I carried my M&PC V1 it felt like an anchor had been strapped to my waist. Love shooting it - just not carrying it. I have several M&P products and would have gotten a Shield if it wasn't for their right hand bias (at least they finally supply an option without the frame safety). I originally got a Beretta Nano that I liked a great deal until after many rounds, became unreliable. So I opted for a 365 that is actually smaller than my Nano. I find it to shoot accurately and reliably, plus it isn't as right-hand centric as some other pistols. On top of that, it came with night sights. The 10+1 capability was simply icing on the cake. The Shield was certainly on the list to replace the Nano, but size, night sights, no frame safety (now no longer an issue), and reversible magazine release tipped the scales in favor of the P365. It's not always capacity, but all things considered it doesn't hurt either.
 
I posted this in another Shield thread.

"Carried a Shield with 8 round magazine for six years. Went to a 43x and love it. Same size as a Shield with 8 rounder, but you get 10. Now there is a flush-fit 15 rounder for the 43x. It's amazing having 16 rounds in that size gun. Fits my hand perfect like my Shield did."

I rented a 365 at the range. Just doesn't fit my hand as nice or as easy to shoot. I'm 6'1" and just under 200lbs. I have no issue concealing a 43x OWB under just a t-shirt.

Finally sold my Shield 1.0 but still have a 2.0 that is going no where. Such a great easy to shoot gun! S&W needs a 10 round magazine for the 3.0!
 
Why are people OBSESSED with magazine capacity? Do they feel with the 9mm they need a dozen or more rounds? This has gone on since the 9mm craze started. I'm perfectly happy with 6 in a revolver or 8 in a 1911 or Shield. It's where you put the bullet that counts. Not a dozen sprayed around the country side.




"The Fudds will still buy them":D


A really funny video!, Heck I even like SIGS but have enough guns to carry. Think it is from Dirty Rotten ...........



[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTDhIOaxk4E[/ame]
 
Never understand these threads......I remember when American's were real men .......who could conceal carry real guns like a 3.5" S&W 27 ( or in some cases a 6 1/2" 29 "the most powerful handgun in the world") or a Colt commander all day long. God I miss my Dad.

In the late 70s gunsmiths started chopping perfectly good Model 39s, 59s and Browning High powers....... for James Bond want-a-be's

My generation started the slide into softness carrying factory copies in the form of S&W 3913s and 6906s or guns called "Shorty-9s" from the Performance Center. Guns that have served me well for 30 years.... replacing my 2 1/2" 19 and Lightweight Commander.............

Ya I carried a Walther PPK as my suit gun.... while wishing Walther had made a alloy frame version like their new Sig 230.

Today folks want guns that have more in common with the "squirt guns" of my youth than the 3rd Gen Smiths of my 30s......................

"Come on man".... man up..... get out there and find yourself a 4566...or at least a Sig 245 !!!!!!


:D
 
Last edited:
Kahr CM9. Similar trigger feel to a J-frame, and not snappy at all.

Longer, taller, wider, and heavier than my BG. Although not by a lot. I was surprised at how small the CM9 is. I am not familiar with Kahrs at all, so thank you for the suggestion.

It may not be physically possible to have a 9mm semi auto the same dimensions as my BG, given the longer OAL of the cartridge.
 
After shooting a LC9 (too easy to disable bumping mag release) & having a new Glock blow up in my hand I chose a 365. Shield was a close 2nd choice but I don't like the unneeded trigger-flipper safety. My 365 is as reliable as a revolver & will feed even sideways (an attacker can knock you down). Extra magazine capacity is a plus when things go bump in the night, 1 hand has a light & there's no place to tuck a spare mag. For the record I used a gun in defense twice (don't ask) a .38 spl. worked fine & didn't need a 2nd shot. I'm confident a hollow point 9 would serve just as well.
 
I posted this in another Shield thread.

"Carried a Shield with 8 round magazine for six years. Went to a 43x and love it. Same size as a Shield with 8 rounder, but you get 10. Now there is a flush-fit 15 rounder for the 43x. It's amazing having 16 rounds in that size gun. Fits my hand perfect like my Shield did."

I rented a 365 at the range. Just doesn't fit my hand as nice or as easy to shoot. I'm 6'1" and just under 200lbs. I have no issue concealing a 43x OWB under just a t-shirt.

Finally sold my Shield 1.0 but still have a 2.0 that is going no where. Such a great easy to shoot gun! S&W needs a 10 round magazine for the 3.0!

Me too, sold my 1.0 Shield, shot low; was serious about the 4" Sig 365 XL, didn't fit my hand well while shot shorter version, while I heard so much about their accuracy wasn't impressed. I shot 2 other 365's, still not impressed plus grip in my palm upon recoil. I solved the problem with a 2.0 Shield, improved accuracy, 115 & 124 share POI and if the grip feels good you will shoot it well. The 8 rounds is fine for me ...........

I like the 4" 9 mm shield but like the thumb safety which they don't offer so another S & W stupid mistake.

As I have said before Shield out sells the others sub compacts so they hope higher mag capacity will sell theirs over the Shield, time will tell?

Another SIG complained, have any of you read or seen accuracy reviews on the SIG M-17 or M-18 ? Best 3 or 4 or 5 inch group I have seen @ combat ranges, hope the target 300 lbs.
 
A lot of people, not incorrectly, want the most round count they can get in the smallest size (in all dimensions, but particularly height/grip length and width.) When someone actually needs the gun to defend themselves, they won't know before the fact how many rounds they need. I've never heard anyone who's been in a shootout complaining about having too much ammo. On the flip side, the smaller the gun, the easier it is to carry, which dictates the likelyhood of it being carried. So a gun that can carry a lot of rounds in a small package is highly desirable (as the market has reacted to the P365.)

Looking at your six round revolver or 8 round 1911, the P365 is no bigger than the smallest of the former (and signficantly smaller than most), and is significantly smaller than the latter, while having significantly more capacity than either. objective advantages by using those over other guns likeSo you may feel comfortable with those, but you're giving up the P365.

Getting back to the original subject of the thread. Smith really accelerated the single stack subcompact market with the Shield. But was dinged by the smaller G43, and really eclipsed by the P365 and now the Hellcat. The Shield is not a dated also ran. If they want to be at the top of the market, Smith needs to make a gun no bigger than the Shield, and maybe smaller, in all dimensions, that carries at least ten rounds in a flush fit magazine.

Right now, any one that makes guns is selling all they can make. At some point that will end. When it does, the Shield is going to by a 3rd or 4th place gun in the market, with lackluster sales. For people who like it, that isn't an issue. For Smith, that will be a HUGE issue.

Shootability is somewhat subjective. but I hear a lot of good things about the accuracy and shootability of the P365. There are the normal tradeoffs for a small gun, but that's not specific to the SIG.

I'm not giving up anything.....You are obsessed with magazine capacity. And I stated that's OK. But will never prove that a 9mm round(or 3) is better that a 357 mag/41 mag/44 spl-mag/ 45 acp or 45LC. I rest my case. Go forth and be happy...........I am.

Oh. You predict Shield sales going in the dumper.........Ain't gonna happen.
 
It is amazing how just a slight difference in thickness can make such a difference in how it feels carried ISWB, though the difference is less pronounced carried OWB. Better trigger as well, though the 26 isn't bad.

As far as magazine capacity goes, all else being equal, more is always better.

A lot of folks quote the statistic the average gun fight is something like "2.7 shots at 3 to 5 feet". That means 49% of armed encounters are going to involve more shots at longer ranges.......

Larry

That's a great point about IWB. I carried several G26's for years, but personally, I never carried them IWB. In my opinion, the shortness of the grip (even shorter than a P365) negates the need for IWB in my opinion. With my body type, a G26 does not print at all wearing a t-shirt so long as I don't have to tuck it in. If I have to do that, I'm going with my thinner Shield or my Ruger LCP II. OWB is so much more comfortable that I don't carry my M&P Subcompact IWB either (in fact, I use the same Mitch Rosen UPL holster that I carried my Gen4's & Gen5 G26's in). So not only do I have a bigger yet better shooting gun with the M&P Subcompact than the P365 (in my hands, and, to a lesser extent, this goes as well for the M&P Shield), but like I said earlier, the extra weight and dimensions do nothing to hurt concealment, so that's why I passed on the P365 and bought the two M&P M2.0 Smiths instead (i.e. I gain nothing with the P365 but lose a bit of shootability and capacity in the case of the Subcompact).

I did, however, also gain something with the Shield. Most of my pistols do NOT have manual safeties (and I prefer it that way), but when building my current cache I did purposely get one on my Shield so I have at least one gun that provides that extra layer of protection as an option. I thought about the safety on the P365, but the one on the Shield is better for how I use it. For example, I never carry with a manual safety engaged. I only holster it appendix with the manual safety on and then disengage it once it is seated, and because the manual safety on the Shield does not protrude from the frame (it is flush) I have little to no chance of accidently actuating it in my opinion (and never have).

You're also exactly right about capacity. If you're not giving up anything, the extra capacity is a no brainer. Although in my experience that is seldom the case, when it is, more is more, and that's a good thing. The Smith & Wesson M&P Subcompact is 4.3" in height just like the P365 (which is the more critical dimension for me), but it adds two rounds for a total of 13! (Again, that's a no brainer in my case).

As far as the average number of shots in a gunfight is concerned, again, you're right; however, we also have to consider that that, despite the occasional outlyer, the 49% is going to still be within the capacity of even a Shield with a flush magazine (which is still twice the capacity as the alleged average gunfight). And that's why I chose the Shield because its still thinner and it's enough rounds, so for me, and my fluctuating weight, there was no upside for me having a P365 when you think about the statistics (only a slight loss in performance and comfort as it doesn't fit my hand as well either). But that's not true for others, and for those people the P365 is a better choice.
 
After shooting a LC9 (too easy to disable bumping mag release) & having a new Glock blow up in my hand I chose a 365. Shield was a close 2nd choice but I don't like the unneeded trigger-flipper safety. My 365 is as reliable as a revolver & will feed even sideways (an attacker can knock you down). Extra magazine capacity is a plus when things go bump in the night, 1 hand has a light & there's no place to tuck a spare mag. For the record I used a gun in defense twice (don't ask) a .38 spl. worked fine & didn't need a 2nd shot. I'm confident a hollow point 9 would serve just as well.

I'm sorry to hear that, but why did the Glock blow up in your hands??? As good as the P365 is, if you're concerned about safety, the P365 doesn't even come close to a Glock in terms of track record (they're not even in the same league). That may not be the case in 10-20 years, but as of now it is regardless of arguments surrounding chamber support in my opinion (though the P365 is likely overall safe enough, but only time will tell). If it was a bad round, I doubt the P365 would have fared any better, but that doesn't mean I'm right either. If anything, however, Glocks are slightly stronger using carbon steel for their slides. The extra chromium in stainless steel makes it technically more malleable which I imagine is the cause behind some of the slide peening that was reported in P365's early on. In my opinion the P365 design could have benefitted from the use of carbon steel. I don't mind the stainless in the Shield as it's likely a heftier slide and certainly proven (or my P229 for that matter). In fact, I had an M&P rust on me whereas none of my other stainless slides have done that (which only suggests S&W may mix in less chromium in their stainless steel). I also had a problem with the stainless steel slide of my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact Inox (it comes in stainless or carbon steel). I've never seen any such issues with slide marring in Glocks (though I have seen the video of someone hammering nails with a Glock slide). Perhaps SIG considered economies of scale and chose to keep all their pistols stainless as a result (like Glock only using carbon steel), but I think because the P365 rides the line of slide mass vs. power so closely as someone mentioned earlier that SIG would have been better off with a carbon steel version that was also an ounce or two heavier in my opinion.
 
I'm sorry to hear that, but why did the Glock blow up in your hands??? As good as the P365 is, if you're concerned about safety, the P365 doesn't even come close to a Glock in terms of track record (they're not even in the same league). That may not be the case in 10-20 years, but as of now it is regardless of arguments surrounding chamber support in my opinion (though the P365 is likely overall safe enough, but only time will tell). If it was a bad round, I doubt the P365 would have fared any better, but that doesn't mean I'm right either. If anything, however, Glocks are slightly stronger using carbon steel for their slides. The extra chromium in stainless steel makes it technically more malleable which I imagine is the cause behind some of the slide peening that was reported in P365's early on. In my opinion the P365 design could have benefitted from the use of carbon steel. I don't mind the stainless in the Shield as it's likely a heftier slide and certainly proven (or my P229 for that matter). In fact, I had an M&P rust on me whereas none of my other stainless slides have done that (which only suggests S&W may mix in less chromium in their stainless steel). I also had a problem with the stainless steel slide of my Beretta PX4 Storm Compact Inox (it comes in stainless or carbon steel). I've never seen any such issues with slide marring in Glocks (though I have seen the video of someone hammering nails with a Glock slide). Perhaps SIG considered economies of scale and chose to keep all their pistols stainless as a result (like Glock only using carbon steel), but I think because the P365 rides the line of slide mass vs. power so closely as someone mentioned earlier that SIG would have been better off with a carbon steel version that was also an ounce or two heavier in my opinion.


The Glock 43 blew up on the 3rd round using factory ammo because Glocks have unsupported chambers. Drop a round in a barrel sometime & look @ the bottom. Ever wonder where the the terms "Glock kaboom" & "Glock leg" come from? I owned a gunsmithing business for over 30 years (now retired). My hand, although hurt, still functions. Using a Glock to drive nails is retarded. Glock fanboys continue to spout the glories of their chosen but to me & several others I know they're a ***. Buy what you want, I will do the same.
 
I wish S&W had a higher capacity micro 9mm to compete with the P365 or Hellcat.

Or, I wish the current Shields were still a value, but they’re not. Local store selling 2.0’s for $479 and 1.0’s for $369.

I got tired of window shopping and waiting for prices to normalize, so I ordered a Hellcat OSP today.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top