I’m getting bored with all of the coronavirus stuff over in the Lounge, so I thought I would make good use of my home confinement by putting together a report on the long-term use of my M&P semi-autos. It may be of little interest to anyone but myself, but preparing it has at least given me a few hours of something to do. Any other members who want to tell of their M&P experiences, feel free to post.
I have three M&Ps. More accurately, three and a half, because my 40 compact has a Storm Lake conversion barrel that allows me to shoot it as a .357 SIG. I have shot all three extensively, so my experience with each is considerable. My main shooting statistic is an accuracy score from the last 15 range sessions combined for each gun. The score is the percentage of shots that I’ve placed in a 4”x4” square at 15 and 20 yards. The square is marked by the four small red dots that surround the bullseye of a Birchwood-Casey sight-in target (see photo) that I’ve used exclusively for the past four years. All shots were taken standing unsupported, with a two-handed grip.
M&P 40 Compact v1.0
Purchased December, 2014
Round Count: 15,916 (13,388 .40 S&W; 2,528 .357 SIG)
Accuracy Scores for .40 S&W: 15 yards, 348 shots in square/540 shots taken = 64%; 20 yards, 316/680 = 46%
Accuracy scores for .357 SIG: 15 yards, 394/630 = 63%; 20 yards, 329/650 = 51%
Comment: As you can see, there is little difference in accuracy between the two rounds at 15 yards, but at 20 yards the .357 SIG has a clear advantage. My 40c has been my carry gun ever since I bought it, and I now carry it as a 357. The Storm Lake barrel was a perfect drop-in fit. My 40c is not only accurate, it has been very reliable, with only two failures to eject and two failures to feed, over its 15,916 rounds while shooting two handed. Shooting one handed, I had several additional FTEs and FTFs early on, but those were due to limp wristing, which I don’t count against the gun. As I approached 10,000 rounds, I started getting failures to fire. When a new striker did not help, S&W took it back and completely rebuilt it, replacing every moving part except the extractor, at no charge. (Love that S&W lifetime service policy!) It has functioned flawlessly ever since. While I’m always on the lookout for a better carry pistol, I have yet to find one that has the combination of accuracy, reliability, capacity, portability, and hitting power that my 40c/357 has. It’s a keeper.
Shield 9 v1.0
Purchased June, 2015
Round count: 5,850
Accuracy Scores: 15 yards, 527/1184 = 45%; 20 yards 22/78 = 28%
Comment: I bought this because of the many favorable reviews on the Forum. Guess what? Sometimes you guys are wrong! It was defective right out of the box, with a bent recoil spring assembly (RSA) that contributed to numerous FTEs early on. The replacement RSA flew apart after one use. Its “replacement” was a rifle sling assembly. (An RSA is an RSA, right?) It took 3 ½ months to get a proper replacement, but my Shield 9 never really recovered, and continued to have problems with jams. It had a wobbly ejector, which earned it a trip back to the factory, but S&W pronounced its wobble to be within spec, and it was returned unrepaired. It continued with the occasional malfunction and mediocre accuracy, and after 18 months, 4,900 rounds, and 28 FTEs and FTFs (way too many for a carry gun), I was exasperated enough to give up on it, and I laid it aside.
Eight months passed, and I decided to undertake a rejuvenation project. I bought a bunch of self-defense ammo, and decided to see if my Shield 9 could fire any of them at least 200 times with no failures. If that project worked, then I would have a reasonably reliable back-up carry gun. Fortunately, two rounds made it past 200 firings with zero failures: Hornady Critical Duty 135g +P (387 rounds), and Federal HST 147g (225 rounds). I also discovered that the Shield 9 was significantly more accurate with Winchester NATO target rounds than with any other. While the overall accuracy rate at 15 yards is 45%, it is nearly 60% with Win NATO. So now, after a long journey, my Shield 9 has become an acceptable carry pistol. However, it has fallen to third place in the rotation because of my Shield 45.
Shield 45
Purchased February, 2017
Round count: 7,661
Accuracy scores: 15 yards, 404/565 = 72%; 20 yards, 369/728 = 51%
Comment: Once again, I bought a Shield because of the many favorable reviews on the Forum. Guess what? This time you guys were right! I love this gun. It’s easy to carry, its recoil is surprisingly mild, and its 15-yard accuracy is astonishing. (The attached target photo shows one of my better days at 15 yards with my Shield 45.) I can’t believe that it is so accurate with such a short barrel. It outshoots ever other pistol I have, including my SIG P320 compact. The only exception is my FNX 45 Tactical with its 5.25” barrel and Vortex red dot.
I did have the original magazine followers, so I had a bunch of failures to feed initially, but after I received the redesigned followers, the FTFs went away, and it has been very reliable since. I added a Hogue grip which has helped to improve my accuracy. My main challenge is shooting one handed. The combination of a small gun and a big round means you need a very firm grip and a firm trigger pull, or you’ll limp wrist it into a failure to feed. But those have diminished with practice. Overall, however, I have no reservations about carrying my Shield 45. Even though my 40c usually gets chosen for my daily carry, it’s because of its greater round capacity, not because of its greater ability. Anyone considering the purchase of a Shield should consider the 45 first. It is superior to the 9 in every way, except capacity. And to me, it’s worth giving up one extra round for the superiority of the 45.
Triggers
I haven’t said anything about the triggers, because everyone has individual preferences for what they’ll tolerate in a trigger, but here’s my take. The triggers in both Shields are just fine with me. They were stiff initially, but smoothed out nicely by 1,000 rounds. I’ve never had any desire to replace them. The 40c situation is more complex. It’s had three triggers. The original factory trigger was rough initially, but became very smooth with use. At 6,000 rounds, I replaced it with an Apex DCAEK set, just because. The factory trigger had smoothed out so much by then that the improvement from the DCAEK was barely noticeable. The gunsmith even commented on how smooth the original trigger was. When I had to send the 40c back to S&W, they of course removed the Apex stuff (which they kindly returned), and replaced it with a new M&P trigger system. It was horrible, the worst I’ve experienced, though it’s smoothed out somewhat in the 5,000 rounds since. I could stick the DCAEK back in, but haven’t for two reasons: 1. The DCAEK was in the gun when the failures to fire developed, and I’m not sure what role (if any) it may have had in those failures. 2. I’m shooting as well or better with the current trigger than I did when the DCAEK was in it, so why mess with a semi-good thing.
So that’s my M&P story. What’s yours?
I have three M&Ps. More accurately, three and a half, because my 40 compact has a Storm Lake conversion barrel that allows me to shoot it as a .357 SIG. I have shot all three extensively, so my experience with each is considerable. My main shooting statistic is an accuracy score from the last 15 range sessions combined for each gun. The score is the percentage of shots that I’ve placed in a 4”x4” square at 15 and 20 yards. The square is marked by the four small red dots that surround the bullseye of a Birchwood-Casey sight-in target (see photo) that I’ve used exclusively for the past four years. All shots were taken standing unsupported, with a two-handed grip.
M&P 40 Compact v1.0
Purchased December, 2014
Round Count: 15,916 (13,388 .40 S&W; 2,528 .357 SIG)
Accuracy Scores for .40 S&W: 15 yards, 348 shots in square/540 shots taken = 64%; 20 yards, 316/680 = 46%
Accuracy scores for .357 SIG: 15 yards, 394/630 = 63%; 20 yards, 329/650 = 51%
Comment: As you can see, there is little difference in accuracy between the two rounds at 15 yards, but at 20 yards the .357 SIG has a clear advantage. My 40c has been my carry gun ever since I bought it, and I now carry it as a 357. The Storm Lake barrel was a perfect drop-in fit. My 40c is not only accurate, it has been very reliable, with only two failures to eject and two failures to feed, over its 15,916 rounds while shooting two handed. Shooting one handed, I had several additional FTEs and FTFs early on, but those were due to limp wristing, which I don’t count against the gun. As I approached 10,000 rounds, I started getting failures to fire. When a new striker did not help, S&W took it back and completely rebuilt it, replacing every moving part except the extractor, at no charge. (Love that S&W lifetime service policy!) It has functioned flawlessly ever since. While I’m always on the lookout for a better carry pistol, I have yet to find one that has the combination of accuracy, reliability, capacity, portability, and hitting power that my 40c/357 has. It’s a keeper.
Shield 9 v1.0
Purchased June, 2015
Round count: 5,850
Accuracy Scores: 15 yards, 527/1184 = 45%; 20 yards 22/78 = 28%
Comment: I bought this because of the many favorable reviews on the Forum. Guess what? Sometimes you guys are wrong! It was defective right out of the box, with a bent recoil spring assembly (RSA) that contributed to numerous FTEs early on. The replacement RSA flew apart after one use. Its “replacement” was a rifle sling assembly. (An RSA is an RSA, right?) It took 3 ½ months to get a proper replacement, but my Shield 9 never really recovered, and continued to have problems with jams. It had a wobbly ejector, which earned it a trip back to the factory, but S&W pronounced its wobble to be within spec, and it was returned unrepaired. It continued with the occasional malfunction and mediocre accuracy, and after 18 months, 4,900 rounds, and 28 FTEs and FTFs (way too many for a carry gun), I was exasperated enough to give up on it, and I laid it aside.
Eight months passed, and I decided to undertake a rejuvenation project. I bought a bunch of self-defense ammo, and decided to see if my Shield 9 could fire any of them at least 200 times with no failures. If that project worked, then I would have a reasonably reliable back-up carry gun. Fortunately, two rounds made it past 200 firings with zero failures: Hornady Critical Duty 135g +P (387 rounds), and Federal HST 147g (225 rounds). I also discovered that the Shield 9 was significantly more accurate with Winchester NATO target rounds than with any other. While the overall accuracy rate at 15 yards is 45%, it is nearly 60% with Win NATO. So now, after a long journey, my Shield 9 has become an acceptable carry pistol. However, it has fallen to third place in the rotation because of my Shield 45.
Shield 45
Purchased February, 2017
Round count: 7,661
Accuracy scores: 15 yards, 404/565 = 72%; 20 yards, 369/728 = 51%
Comment: Once again, I bought a Shield because of the many favorable reviews on the Forum. Guess what? This time you guys were right! I love this gun. It’s easy to carry, its recoil is surprisingly mild, and its 15-yard accuracy is astonishing. (The attached target photo shows one of my better days at 15 yards with my Shield 45.) I can’t believe that it is so accurate with such a short barrel. It outshoots ever other pistol I have, including my SIG P320 compact. The only exception is my FNX 45 Tactical with its 5.25” barrel and Vortex red dot.
I did have the original magazine followers, so I had a bunch of failures to feed initially, but after I received the redesigned followers, the FTFs went away, and it has been very reliable since. I added a Hogue grip which has helped to improve my accuracy. My main challenge is shooting one handed. The combination of a small gun and a big round means you need a very firm grip and a firm trigger pull, or you’ll limp wrist it into a failure to feed. But those have diminished with practice. Overall, however, I have no reservations about carrying my Shield 45. Even though my 40c usually gets chosen for my daily carry, it’s because of its greater round capacity, not because of its greater ability. Anyone considering the purchase of a Shield should consider the 45 first. It is superior to the 9 in every way, except capacity. And to me, it’s worth giving up one extra round for the superiority of the 45.
Triggers
I haven’t said anything about the triggers, because everyone has individual preferences for what they’ll tolerate in a trigger, but here’s my take. The triggers in both Shields are just fine with me. They were stiff initially, but smoothed out nicely by 1,000 rounds. I’ve never had any desire to replace them. The 40c situation is more complex. It’s had three triggers. The original factory trigger was rough initially, but became very smooth with use. At 6,000 rounds, I replaced it with an Apex DCAEK set, just because. The factory trigger had smoothed out so much by then that the improvement from the DCAEK was barely noticeable. The gunsmith even commented on how smooth the original trigger was. When I had to send the 40c back to S&W, they of course removed the Apex stuff (which they kindly returned), and replaced it with a new M&P trigger system. It was horrible, the worst I’ve experienced, though it’s smoothed out somewhat in the 5,000 rounds since. I could stick the DCAEK back in, but haven’t for two reasons: 1. The DCAEK was in the gun when the failures to fire developed, and I’m not sure what role (if any) it may have had in those failures. 2. I’m shooting as well or better with the current trigger than I did when the DCAEK was in it, so why mess with a semi-good thing.
So that’s my M&P story. What’s yours?
Attachments
Last edited:
