M&P Shield 40 Safe?
- Thread starter Well Armed
- Start date
bronconagurski
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2014
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 48
!You mean... It may NOT be true, if it's on the internet???
So if it may not be true if it's on the internet, then your post may not be true. I am so confused!
yeah I am in the same pickle as the OP. I fell inlove with the shield. I love the .40 cartridge, and have a safe full of thestuff to shoot, so if its a shield, its gonna be in .40. My problem is that there DOES seem to be something wrong with the gun, that is why I did not purchase one yet.
1) an injction process barrel may not be strong enough
2) with the injection process barrel, there may be some "weak" barrels with microcrcks from the poor injection process. Hence the "I've shot 7 million rounds out of my shield" where the next guy almost gets his hand tanken off after 20 rounds.
3) the unsupported barrel theory. This one irks me the most. If S&W were serious about safety, why stone wall these failures or blame the ammo. Hey, it is not that hard to reengineer the barrel support of the full cartridge...why has that not happened yet?
4) not sure if they are troll posts or not, but it seems that instead of replacing a gun that went kabloom in the overnight mail, they offer to sell you one for $330? Jeez, whoever is running their marketing department probably failed to graduate highschool. So much bad will there. Millions of dollar in bad publicity.
5) a big recall of guns made before august 2013, means getting a used one is not advised.
I am starting to think it is not worth the grief. Looking at bigger guns, like the HK P2000sk now, maybe ruger, xps, walther.
IF S&W came out with a believable report on what is going on, and outlined their corrective action to fix the problem...maybe with independent lab corroboration....I would feel differently.
I guess its time to stop thinking about the shield 40
1) an injction process barrel may not be strong enough
2) with the injection process barrel, there may be some "weak" barrels with microcrcks from the poor injection process. Hence the "I've shot 7 million rounds out of my shield" where the next guy almost gets his hand tanken off after 20 rounds.
3) the unsupported barrel theory. This one irks me the most. If S&W were serious about safety, why stone wall these failures or blame the ammo. Hey, it is not that hard to reengineer the barrel support of the full cartridge...why has that not happened yet?
4) not sure if they are troll posts or not, but it seems that instead of replacing a gun that went kabloom in the overnight mail, they offer to sell you one for $330? Jeez, whoever is running their marketing department probably failed to graduate highschool. So much bad will there. Millions of dollar in bad publicity.
5) a big recall of guns made before august 2013, means getting a used one is not advised.
I am starting to think it is not worth the grief. Looking at bigger guns, like the HK P2000sk now, maybe ruger, xps, walther.
IF S&W came out with a believable report on what is going on, and outlined their corrective action to fix the problem...maybe with independent lab corroboration....I would feel differently.
I guess its time to stop thinking about the shield 40
Last edited:
Bkreutz
US Veteran
Well, you've made 3 posts and in 2 of them you say you should buy something else. Maybe you should.
xcutter
Member
I have not had any trouble with my Shield 40. But I am going to take precautions. Not just for the Shield 40, but shooting any handgun. I just ordered Revision Military Sawfly Military Kit protective eye glasses. Any gun or ammo may cause a Kaboom.
Perhaps a 3rd Gen 4013 would be a better choice.......many also love their M&P .40 C as well if you insist on .40 S&W......or the ULTIMATE CCW...... a 3913!! (9mm)
You obviously have no trust in the Shield....
Randy
PS. If it is on the internet is HAS to be true doesn't it?
You obviously have no trust in the Shield....
Randy
PS. If it is on the internet is HAS to be true doesn't it?
I was hoping someone would talk me into it. I initially loved the gun. But I guess I have decided now.
OP
Well Armed
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 1,389
Same here... No one has addressed the accusations other than to imply that because it's on the internet. Not worth the risk to me.
Hidden Danger
While a student at the S&W Academy, I was called upon to try to disassemble a Glock .40 kaboom where the owner alleged was caused by S&W ammunition. At the time, I was a certified Glock armorer.
Once we got it apart, we discovered the cause of the kaboom: the owner was using warm hand loads with all-lead bullets, thoroughly fouling the bore. He thought he could clean out the lead by then firing some jacketed ammo. The leading provided sufficient resistance to raise pressures with the result that the gun blew up. The Shield did not exist at the time but I'm sure that any polymer-frame handgun would have failed. Also, the Glock has polygonal rifling and Glock warns not to use all lead bullets in their products.
I offer this to advise anyone using all lead bullets that you need to inspect and clean the bore before switching to jacketed bullets.
My S&W M&P .45 leaded up using commercially cast bullets loaded to modest velocities. I know to watch for it and to clean it before loading up with SD ammo.
While a student at the S&W Academy, I was called upon to try to disassemble a Glock .40 kaboom where the owner alleged was caused by S&W ammunition. At the time, I was a certified Glock armorer.
Once we got it apart, we discovered the cause of the kaboom: the owner was using warm hand loads with all-lead bullets, thoroughly fouling the bore. He thought he could clean out the lead by then firing some jacketed ammo. The leading provided sufficient resistance to raise pressures with the result that the gun blew up. The Shield did not exist at the time but I'm sure that any polymer-frame handgun would have failed. Also, the Glock has polygonal rifling and Glock warns not to use all lead bullets in their products.
I offer this to advise anyone using all lead bullets that you need to inspect and clean the bore before switching to jacketed bullets.
My S&W M&P .45 leaded up using commercially cast bullets loaded to modest velocities. I know to watch for it and to clean it before loading up with SD ammo.
mustangman
Member
If you've read every post on this issue, and that's the only conclusion you came to, then you have blinders on, and cant be helped. Since probably none of us work for S&W, how do you suggest we address the accusations made at S&W? The only way I can think of is to point out how few there are, pose questions to the OP concerning every little detail, bring up that fact that some people in this world are less than honest sometimes, and highlight all the success that other people have had. Every one of these things has been done, done, done and done ad nauseam. If you like the Shield, but still have concerns about the .40, get a 9mm.
Last edited:
bronconagurski
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2014
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 48
I naively started to call Smith and Wesson and air my concerns about what I am reading on some threads about the kabooms. But that will not get me anywhere as they have their canned answers guided by the legal eagles. I get all that. I am not so concerned about whether there is an epidemic of Shield 40 kabooms, as I don't think there are. My concern has been about S&Ws response. IMO, they have responded in a way that appears like they don't care, OR, they have something to hide. If there aren't that many kabooms, then just give someone another Shield and be done with it. Also, getting the Shield 9mm over the .40 isn't my only option. I am considering the Ruger 40C and the M&P 40C, as well as the XD 40 subcompact. Granted, I lose the thinness, but my body and wardrobe that I can wear (semi retired) will let me consider something thicker. That being said, I still would rather have the Shield 40 because of the way my wife's Shield 9 performs. There is no easy answer here and each person must be persuaded in their own mind. I am glad we still live in an America where the pointed opinions on both sides of an argument are still allowed and we don't need a nanny state to decide things for us. When common sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.
Last edited:
andrewcdub
Member
How can we address the accusations? It seems there is a problem with a few 40 shields. What more do you want people to say? You are saying that people with the 40 shield are pretty much jaded (what I'm guessing you're trying to say) into thinking that its the person that made it blow up when on a few occasions the ammo might be suspect and that we, people with shields that haven't blown up, don't want to believe it? What exactly are we supposed to say/do? You also can't add "the shields that may have had failures that people don't post about". Since we don't know about them it's just speculation at that point.
Am I going to sell my 40 shield? No. If it happens it happens and not much is going to be able to be done about it if it does. The minute you start to second guess a purchase before you have even left your house proves that maybe you shouldn't get the pistol. There are plenty of 40 shield owners that are happy with the purchase. Me included. I intend to keep shooting it until I either get tired of it or it "blows up" on me. YMMV
Bkreutz
US Veteran
So you came to this forum hoping someone would talk you into buying a certain gun???? Are you easily influenced by others? Maybe another hobby is in order.
yeah, about 30 threads online on how the shield sucks, and a few reviews from 2012 before all the trouble happened saying its a good gun. I guess I should just ignore those 30 threads?
It is what it is, a cheap mass produced gun that was marginally designed. I was taken by the cheap price and the really thin body, but now realize you get what you pay for, and also that I would gladly tradeoff a few more ounces of steel vs. getting fingers blown off (maybe).
I think it is the injection molded barrel that worries me....sounds like it would be hard to get that to be as strong as a steel blank turned on a gun lathe.
It is what it is, a cheap mass produced gun that was marginally designed. I was taken by the cheap price and the really thin body, but now realize you get what you pay for, and also that I would gladly tradeoff a few more ounces of steel vs. getting fingers blown off (maybe).
I think it is the injection molded barrel that worries me....sounds like it would be hard to get that to be as strong as a steel blank turned on a gun lathe.
mustangman
Member
JeffShrugged
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 41
Personally, I had to really dig to find negative threads about the wildly popular and hard to find Shield. Yes, there are four or five complaints about truly catastrophic failures in the .40 cal model, and those few incidents have been linked to in a number of places around the internet (particularly Glock forums). Yes those incidents did sway me toward the 9mm (which has had no kabooms). But to call the Shield a cheap, mass produced gun of marginal design really stretches credulity. That being said, it sounds like the Shield is not the gun for you. Fortunately, there are plenty of other ones out there.
