Currant Sheild 1.0 VS 2.0 trigger is it worth $100.

[fish hunter]

Hello, I do not like the grip texture of the 2.0 shield so I am wondering if the currant run of 1.0 shield triggers is that much different to warrant the extra dollars?
Thanks in advance for you input.

 

[sheepdawg]

No, I have a 1.0 and the trigger is fine for what I need the Shield for.

 

[Marshal Tom]

I have a 1.0 that I had a trigger job done on and changed out the sights. I would suggest an Apex flat faced trigger. I am going to put one in mine.

 

[oink]

I agree, I think the 2.0 texture is unnecessarily aggressive and will likely hang on and abrade clothing. I actually like the trigger on the 1.0 better for the type of gun it is and the purpose I use it for. The 1.0 trigger is really not bad at all and is way more than adequate for the distances the gun should be used at. The long pull is a very reasonable safety feature. I also like the manual safety mine has. I don't carry it with the safety on but I do use appendix carry which can involve stuffing the gun in a collapsed holster in my waistband. I like being able to engage the safety while holstering and then disengaging it for carry.

I'f you're going to be involved in a long range gun fight you need more gun, period. It is not a gun for offence, if any handgun really is. It's a gun for personal defense. If your obligations are greater, then carry more gun. I do.

If I'm out with my wife and we encounter a threat at more than belly gun distances, we're going the other way because any shield is a belly gun and I'm looking after my wife.

If I'm going to church, I'm carrying more gun as I'm known by the leaders to be one of the retired LEO members, I'm assumed to be carrying, and it's assumed I will take some responsibility for defending the "flock", should the "nut job, etc." show up. An AR would be nice if it was practical, which it isn't. I've found I can carry a Glock model 40 MOS with red dot and co-witness irons, concealed (without a suit or jacket) and acceptably comfortably, but not IMHO an EDC setup. That setup seems to me the best compromise I can currently think of between performance requirements, as directed by obligation, concealability and practicality.

That's obviously just my opinion and I diverged from the original question of the OP. My point, I think, is that the Shield 1.0 is pretty near perfect for what I think that class of gun should be considered for. But it isn't a gun that it isn't.

 

[coachcash86]

I agree with it being a personal preference for what you want to do with it. I have the FS 2.0 in 9mm and 1.0 shield in 9mm. The difference in the trigger is significant, and for me would be worth the $100. If all you're interested in is the practical aspect of carrying something to go bang at close range, by all means save some money. I personally love the aggressive texture on the 2.0 for shooting, but I've never carried it IWB.

Now, with all that being said, you couldn't pay me to trade my 1.0 shield for anything else because it just fits me perfectly. It's my baby, and I literally trust me life with it.

 

[CB3]

I have had three 1.0's and just shot my grand sons brand new version 2.0.

The grip texture is of no consequence. If it's too aggressive simply sand it down a little bit. The trigger on the 2.0 is better than the 1.0 out of the box. There are other newer features with a 2.0 that would make the extra $100 worthwhile in my opinion.

However the 1.0 is a great gun and can be made to do what you need it to do for conceal carry with a simple trigger polishing job. An Apex trigger replacement is even better (even than a 2.0) but needing that depends on your requirements.

 

[gwmac]

IMO the 2.0 is worth the extra money, regardless. The extra texture in the grip, particularly below the beavertail I adjusted with a grinder. I tried the Shield 1.0 and couldn't get passed the factory trigger.

 

[wnderr]

Hello, I do not like the grip texture of the 2.0 shield so I am wondering if the currant run of 1.0 shield triggers is that much different to warrant the extra dollars?
Thanks in advance for you input.

Why not just keep the 2.0, and put a piece of bicycle inner tube on the grip? Very secure, and even "feels" sticky! Makes for great handgrip covers, and free from your local bike shop - just ask for wrecked old tubes.

 

[Ranger17]

I went with a PC Shield as i liked its trigger setup over the std 1.0 Shield. Though i did install a Hogue grip sleeve as I prefer a little thicker grip.
So if i didnt have my PC i would consider a 2.0 but only if i added a sleeve. I do not care at all for the aggressive 2.0 feel on any of the MP line.

 

[MochaJoe]

1.0 is superior IMO.
Talon Grips on everything. Black rubber to be precise. As precise as the cuts on Talon Grips. I had a Shield 45 which was 2.0 before 2.0 existed and the grip texture was awful for CC IWB until I put Talon Grips on it. Now I carry a manu 4/2018 Shield 9, which had a nice trigger to begin with, then I smoothed out some internals so I can't complain.

 

[NewToGuns17]

Buy for the grip not the trigger. You can throw an Apex in it later on. I personally like the 2.0 overall better than the 1.0 but I have an Apex in my 1.0 so I can't complain. Id do the same to the 2.0

 

[Execpro]

Go with what is comfortable for you. Having read many many comments on the 1.0 trigger it seams to be a 50/50 split on like vs dislike. Many said the trigger smooths out after shooting it a few hundred rounds.
You can get a APEX Duty/Carry kit for $90 or so that you can put in anytime if the trigger does not meet your satisfaction.
I put one in mine but found the factory had bound a spring that caused a rough trigger pull. I put in the APEX parts anyway but used all the factory springs for a smooth 5.5lb trigger pull.

Be SAFE and shoot often!

 

[Bamabred]

I haven't shot the 2.0. Only dry fired it. I have the 1.0 and I thought the trigger was decent out of the box. Would've probably smoothed out over time. With that said, I put an Apex trigger in it because it was on sale for $60 bucks and I like gadgets. So, I don't think it's worth $100 more for the trigger. Now if it somehow shoots better or something, then that's a different story.

 

[Wee Hooker]

All My M&P's get Apex sears (only) and rubber Talon grips anyway so the 2.0 brings nothing to the table worth the price difference.

 

[BigDog48]

All My M&P's get Apex sears (only) and rubber Talon grips anyway so the 2.0 brings nothing to the table worth the price difference.

Same here!

 

[marinedoc69]

For some time I carried my Glock 43 highly customized and Shield with Trijicon sights and Apex trigger as my daily carry guns. Took a course from Rob Pincus a month or so ago and it was suggested higher capacity magazines due to the large volume of firing and a good holster for a lot of practical exercises involving drawing and several shots on target learning "Intuitive Shooting". I took my Glock 19 Gen 5 which was shipped by Glock with Ameriglo sights and it functioned perfectly out of the box. Over 500 rounds in the day with no misfires, stovepipes or failure to eject. I had fired only about 50 rounds with this gun prior to the course. I find it easy to carry and it is now my ECG in IWB Appendix. This Gen 5 19 is incredible and an improvement over prior models as I'm pretty sure the S & W M& P 2.0 is. My point is that the manufacturers are finally getting around to shipping guns that really don't need the modifications that we used to have to pay extra to get. It took Harley Davidson a while to learn that also. On occasion due to clothing I may be wearing I still carry my Shield, but am liking the larger capacity magazine of the 19, like insurance.

 

[CB3]

Today I polished the trigger system components in my grandson's new Shield 2.0. The trigger is now excellent—smooth and crisp. Better than any stock 1.0 trigger I have tried, and that is a bunch.

I don't like the sharp curve of the trigger, but that is the same between models. I have an average size trigger finger. If my finger were larger, the 1.0 curve would be very uncomfortable.

The Apex trigger components change the trigger stroke for the better, as well as providing a better shape on the actual trigger. The components come more highly polished than stock components. I like them and think they are worth the money.

A stock Shield is an economical gun to buy. Adding some expense to make it a gun better for my use is not a big deal for me. It may be for others.

I see no downside to buying the 2.0 even at $100 difference.

BTW, being the impatient person I am, I strongly dislike the advice of firing a gun hundreds and hundreds of rounds to wear it into what I wanted in the beginning. Judicious polishing, by myself or a gunsmith, produces such results immediately without the time, expense and frustration of waiting for a gun to mature. Since I'm going to use a Shield for personal defense, I want it at peak performance right away, not at some unknown point in the future.

 

[NewToGuns17]

My point on the matter was, which grip do you like more? Buy that grip. After that, get the Apex kit and if you have a preference on sights, that too. At the time I bought my shield the 2.0 line wasn't out. I got an Apex trigger for it and it came with night sights. After the trigger kit it was my favorite gun. If it were now, id get the 2.0 since I like the grip. But money wise it's not smart since the only difference is grip. I bought a hogue grip and I'm happy.

 

[wnderr]

My Shield 2.0, and my Compact 2.0 have great triggers. If they come out with a 9c 2.0, the original will be on the auction block. MHO, it is worth the extra money, and I love my 9c!

 

[Popeye77]

1.0 is superior IMO.
Talon Grips on everything. Black rubber to be precise. As precise as the cuts on Talon Grips. I had a Shield 45 which was 2.0 before 2.0 existed and the grip texture was awful for CC IWB until I put Talon Grips on it. Now I carry a manu 4/2018 Shield 9, which had a nice trigger to begin with, then I smoothed out some internals so I can't complain.

+1 on the talons