Future of 9 Compact?

[greeenteeee]

What's more important is how well the pistol works for you.

 

[BlueArch91]

Shoot those three back to back to back and then decide where you want to put your money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MichiganScott]

I had a 9c when the Shield came out and decided the Shield was not enough smaller to dump the 9c when I would lose the double stack capacity.

Now the 2.0 Compact comes out and I compared it to my old 9c and have decided that the new compact offers nothing but increased size and a couple more rounds. If I want increased size, I will pull out my old 9FS.

After looking at the complete list of current S&W M&P's, I was reminded of their old "gun of the month" back when they had small runs of almost any configuration revolver that the engineers could dream up.

 

[Out West]

I think S&W will get around to updating the M&P compact line. It may not sell like the Shields - they've sold over 2 million of those. But the compacts have been strong sellers in that category. I don't see them giving up on any market segment just because it isn't the largest segment. If it were otherwise S&W would have walked away from revolvers a long time ago.

The compact segment is large and its significant to many shooters. The following is a list of competitors for share in this market. Can you see S&W letting go of market share to any of these? I don't think its likely.

FNS-9 Compact

Beretta Px4 Storm Subcompact

Glock 26 Gen4

Glock 30 Gen4

Kel-Tec P-11

Ruger SR9c

Sig Sauer P224

Sig Sauer P320 Subcompact

Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 3"


Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 3.3"


Taurus Millennium PT-140 G2

 

[Lead Pipe]

The old 9c will be replaced by the 2.0 sub-compact. My guess is around SHOT show or early summer. The 2.0 compact was an addition to the line, not a replacement for the 9c which has always been a sub-compact any ways.

 

[jejb]

The old 9c will be replaced by the 2.0 sub-compact. My guess is around SHOT show or early summer. The 2.0 compact was an addition to the line, not a replacement for the 9c which has always been a sub-compact any ways.

Not sure that would make much sense. What are they doing to call the Shield then?

I know you're probably talking about some class made up by some competition organization. I'm talking about real world. To me, the new compact is a full size, in all but name. Gen 1 9C and 40C are compacts, Shield is sub-compact, smaller than that is micro.

I do understand why S&W is doing this, so they have a gun to compete in that made up classification. And I'm sure we'll all get used to whatever the names are. It's just going to be confusing for a while.

 

[Lead Pipe]

Not sure that would make much sense. What are they doing to call the Shield then?

I know you're probably talking about some class made up by some competition organization. I'm talking about real world. To me, the new compact is a full size, in all but name. Gen 1 9C and 40C are compacts, Shield is sub-compact, smaller than that is micro.

I do understand why S&W is doing this, so they have a gun to compete in that made up classification. And I'm sure we'll all get used to whatever the names are. It's just going to be confusing for a while.

Shield is a single stack sub-compact, 1.0 9c is a double stack compact. I don't understand the confusion. A lot of other manufacturers follow this same model. Glock has the 17 fullsize, 19 compact, 26 sub-compact and 43 single stack sub-compact.

 

[comiskeybum]

It's simple. Look at Springfield and that's exactly what Smith should do.

Shield = Single stack/ thin conceal carry

The 4.6 inch barrels = full size

Compacts = G19 competition with 4 inch barrels and full grips

The new 40c/9c 2.0 = 13+1 sub compact. 3 inch barrel and two finger grip. Much like a XD MOD.2 Sub compact.

I'd be all over a new 9c if they actually do it this way.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Rastoff]

I'm curious, why should S&W follow what other manufacturers do?

 

[Cheapskait]

I'm curious, why should S&W follow what other manufacturers do?

 

[jejb]

Shield is a single stack sub-compact, 1.0 9c is a double stack compact. I don't understand the confusion.

Yep, that's what I said. There was no confusion until S&W introduced the new 2.0, almost full size, compact.

 

[CA Escapee]

I have both the M&P 9c and the 40c. Size wise I've always thought they were closer to a Glock 30 than a Glock 26/27.

Bill

 

[micocyco]

I have had both the M&P9c & the SD9ve for some years they are both great guns. I have gone to smaller pocket carry so I don't shoot them as much as I used to. With gun sales down S&W was trying to spark interest with the new line.
I wonder when they are going to introduce a new 380 2.0 to their new line.
Ruger is leaving them in the dust with their new LCP II a pocket pistol that shoots much like my M&P9c ?

 

[fallhunter]

.380 is useless. I petsonally feel safer with a pointy stick. I hope there is no 2.0 coming out in a .380.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

[iPac]

What I don't understand is why in CORNBREAD H ELL would anyone want to pay that much money for a Glock? Just to show you own a Glock?

This is why I bought my PX4 compact. I wanted a super reliable semi auto 9mm. Glock fits that role, but I feel they charge too much. Pushing $600 when I was buying. Ended up getting the Beretta for $450 I think. Every bit as good as a Glock, but more attractive and a better design.

I checked the PX4 compact specs to compare to the 3 you had listed, and the PX4 compact version is another close competitor in this category. Another good option for those who like "compact" versus full size or subcompact, like me. I find the compact size to be the "goldilocks" choice, at least for me.