Any pistol can fail. Most NANOs will function flawlessly with thousands of rounds. If you read other blogs, you'll see plenty of SHIELDs fail for various reasons far BEFORE 1000 rounds were fired.
The fact is, both pistols are very well made designs.
The Nano failures occurred primarily with low serial numbered pistols and they have been corrected.
Combat Handguns Magazine after having tested the NANO said it's design is LIGHT YEARS AHEAD of other makes. P 95 Nov. 2012. I may not go that far, but I admit that there are a number of innovations and it is not, like its competition, a 20th century pistol. It is really a 21st century pistol that is competitive size wise with any other and better than some costing quite a bit more. It is not merely an evolutionary design, but one can reasonably argue, it is revolutionary...and safer!
Regardless, the Smith is a fine, modern handgun, has initially better pointing ergos, however it is too large for pocket carry - and I'd add, even for most daily or home carry. While I own the BG380 that I bought for such use, I decided that a 9 is more appropriate for defense.
The NANO fits the bill over the others I had considered, the Kahr was a problem from the get go and Kahr could never cure the issues with its two decades old design. Also, the three dot Trijicons from Beretta are very easy to instal. Because two thirds of defense gun fights occur at night, these sights are mandatory. Lastly, regardless the comments made by a few, most failures to feed are due to limp wristing, not bad ammo.
I've used 115 gr. almost exclusively...the only FTF I had was during the first magazine set, none after. DPX works fine and it is a great, high penetration combat ammo.
My take on the NANO is Thumbs Up!
