Ported Shield 9mm vs Shield 9mm

[Mister X]

I know for sure Magtech is fine to use in ported barrels.

From Troy at Magtech:

There is no problem using our ammunition in your ported barrel, but please be aware that the ports will generate both significantly more muzzle flash and more critically, serious blast from the barrel directed upwards. This can be an issue if the gun is fired in a close to body defensive manner. It would be best to take care to extend the pistol away from your body, always wear proper eye protection and cant the pistol outboard if a close to body technique is being employed.

Some companies load a plated bullet (vs a true jacketed bullet) in some lower cost products. This thin plating can be shaved by the ports and possibly be directed back at the shooter. I have also heard some concerns with lower pressure ammunition not having sufficient energy to cycle a ported pistol, though I have not experienced issues with any of our ammunition.

Thank you for choosing Magtech. Please let us know if you have any further questions.

That's funny... Don't practice defensive shooting with your defensive handgun.

This is why the PC Shield just doesn't make sense. Its intended purpose is as a concealed carry self-defense weapon, yet S&W, the ammo companies and every reputable defensive shooting instructor tell you to avoid shooting a ported gun from compressed and retention positions.

Practicing from these positions is vital considering the distances in which the majority of civilian armed self-defense scenarios occur The Thinking Gunfighter: Self Defense Findings, but with the PC Shield, you can't even practice this necessary skill safely.

 

[Mildew]

Here's a YouTube vid of a Standard vs Ported Shield.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnKa-OXJJsM[/ame]

 

[Steved13]

That's funny... Don't practice defensive shooting with your defensive handgun.

This is why the PC Shield just doesn't make sense. Its intended purpose is as a concealed carry self-defense weapon, yet S&W, the ammo companies and every reputable defensive shooting instructor tell you to avoid shooting a ported gun from compressed and retention positions.

Practicing from these positions is vital considering the distances in which the majority of civilian armed self-defense scenarios occur The Thinking Gunfighter: Self Defense Findings, but with the PC Shield, you can't even practice this necessary skill safely.

That's a good article you linked to. It says "The shooting distance in the vast majority of cases was slightly in excess of arm's length". That would mean the shooters arm was extended. It also says "The range of most incidents appears to be short but in excess of touching distance. It appears that most defenders will make the shoot decision shortly before the criminal comes within arm's length. "

I agree the ports add another safety consideration and should be taken very seriously, just not sure your link is as damning as you make it out to be. Seems to me it says more that the ports won't come into play in the vast majority of cases. I would also agree 100% if porting makes you uncomfortable, don't own a ported gun....you shouldn't own any gun that you are not comfortable with.

I thought this was worth mentioning "For those who do not practice, a revolver is far preferable to the autoloader because of the revolver's simpler manual of arms. Eighty per cent of gunshot wounds are self-inflicted. Guns are handled many times more than they are shot and so safe gunhandling qualities are much more important characteristics than its ability to be shot accurately and reloaded quickly. Revolvers are much less likely than autoloaders to AD in the hands of novices. " Isn't there quite an escape between the cylinder and barrel on many revolvers? Probably a need to be careful with all guns.

 

[xdmshooter59]

That's funny... Don't practice defensive shooting with your defensive handgun.

If you were commenting on my email from Troy at Magtech, I don't think he said that.

That's a pretty broad statement as defensive shooting encompasses more than just shooting from retention.

However, I agree that if you intend on shooting a ported gun from in close and tight to your body you are taking risks. At the very least as Troy explained canting the gun outward would be the smart thing to do.

 

[Mister X]

That's a good article you linked to. It says "The shooting distance in the vast majority of cases was slightly in excess of arm's length". That would mean the shooters arm was extended. It also says "The range of most incidents appears to be short but in excess of touching distance. It appears that most defenders will make the shoot decision shortly before the criminal comes within arm's length. "

I agree the ports add another safety consideration and should be taken very seriously, just not sure your link is as damning as you make it out to be. Seems to me it says more that the ports won't come into play in the vast majority of cases. I would also agree 100% if porting makes you uncomfortable, don't own a ported gun....you shouldn't own any gun that you are not comfortable with.

I've read it numerous times. The same with the Givens and Spaulding studies and anything else I've come across.

Irregardless of the article, Do you feel practicing from compressed and retention positions is necessary or not?

I know how quickly folks can close those distances. And that's if they not moving at the time, which I have to assume they will be. If someone is advancing quickly on you from 3 yards, I wouldn't recommend sticking the gun out in full extension. It's either compression and defensive tactics or movement/GOTX.

And one thing to remember remember about the armed citizens stats is that it only documents cases were the defender was successful. Disarms and the like are not included. You have to understand what is being presented and put it into proper context. To borrow another instructors quote...

"The problem with using "The Armed Citizen" as a database is it only recounts the tales with happy endings, never the ones where people got their head stove in by a tire iron while their derringer was still in their purse."

It's like stating that automobile crashes are rarely fatal since 100% of the people you interviewed survived them."

 

[Mister X]

If you were commenting on my email from Troy at Magtech, I don't think he said that.

That's a pretty broad statement as defensive shooting encompasses more than just shooting from retention.

However, I agree that if you intend on shooting a ported gun from in close and tight to your body you are taking risks. At the very least as Troy explained canting the gun outward would be the smart thing to do.

You have to cant it anyway for the slide to cycle, but I believe with the Shield that would actually make it worse since the ports vent out at an angle.

 

[Mildew]

You have to cant it anyway for the slide to cycle, but I believe with the Shield that would actually make it worse since the ports vent out at an angle.

Agreed. Instead of a 45 degree cant as typically recommended, a 90 degree cant would be better for a ported Shield.

 

[Steved13]

I've read it numerous times. The same with the Givens and Spaulding studies and anything else I've come across.

Irregardless of the article, Do you feel practicing from compressed and retention positions is necessary or not?

I know how quickly folks can close those distances. And that's if they not moving at the time, which I have to assume they will be. If someone is advancing quickly on you from 3 yards, I wouldn't recommend sticking the gun out in full extension. It's either compression and defensive tactics or movement/GOTX.

And one thing to remember remember about the armed citizens stats is that it only documents cases were the defender was successful. Disarms and the like are not included. You have to understand what is being presented and put it into proper context. To borrow another instructors quote...

"The problem with using "The Armed Citizen" as a database is it only recounts the tales with happy endings, never the ones where people got their head stove in by a tire iron while their derringer was still in their purse."

It's like stating that automobile crashes are rarely fatal since 100% of the people you interviewed survived them."

HMMM, I only quoted you? You used the armed citizen to try and make a point. I read the article and didn't see where it made your point at all...in fact more the opposite.

Again, I have no problem for anyone who doesn't want to carry a ported gun, I get it. But S&W makes the gun, It isn't as death defying as some people want to make it out to be...if it were common sense tells us S&W wouldn't open themselves up to the liability.

You need to be careful with any gun, a little extra care with a ported gun. To blow it out of proportion is just not honest. And you need to apply the same care to a revolver...and because the escaping matter between cylinder and barrel are even closer and not directed it could be argued harder to train for and with. Revolvers are widely accepted as a good self defense choice.

If you want the argument against porting for a self defense gun, I will give it to you. The argument is...It will add next to nothing for self defense (I would even give you nothing at all) and you need to be careful of where the ports are in addition to all other safety concerns. What gets posted instead, sounds like everyone telling you, you'll shoot your eye out kid...and then they post an article where nobody ever shot their eye out.

 

[Valueman]

I have a Shield and a PC Shield. Love both of them. Carry both of them regularly.

These threads really amuse me. If you don't want ported, don't get ported. I love everything about my PC Shield. But it is not religion - I am not trying to "convert" anyone.

 

[Ranger17]

I can appreciate both sides (yes i have a PC Shield) and can pull some info from the various posts on this thread.
But I view it somewhat similar to us owning a convertible mustang that is a daily driver. In certain potential crashes a hardtop model could be safer, yet in many others the convert is just fine. We prefer the drop top for various reasons, and we keep in mind everything pro and con that goes with it. Yes that's a car not a gun, but i'd go out on a limb and say for myself there's more opportunity for something to go bad in a car than with a carry gun.

my .02 only

 

[Mister X]

HMMM, I only quoted you? You used the armed citizen to try and make a point. I read the article and didn't see where it made your point at all...in fact more the opposite.

In the distances described in the article("slightly in excess of arms length" or "short but in excess of touching distance" in the original AC text, so approximately 3-6 feet), I probably would not likely fully extend the gun.

I used to do a reaction drill with new LEO students where we would face off at approximately that same distance. I would have them extend and point their weapon(an sim or airsoft) at me while I was in a neutral stance. They were instructed to shoot as soon as I moved. There may have been a couple, but I don't specifically recall any officers getting a round on target in more than two and a half decades.

The cases outlined by the armed citizen actually document some of the farther ranges, which I don't see as being long or being situations where I would likely go into full extension. Most are described as there being adequate lead time.("It appears that most defenders will make the decision to shoot shortly before the criminal comes with arms length. Defenders frequently communicate with their attackers before shooting.") There doesn't appear to be many really purely reactive or ECQ scenarios documentary. Why? The quote I used was to illustrate that what is not covered in those stats is the people who were never able to access and use their weapon or possibly had it taken away and in such cases, the distances are obviously even closer. Most people don't train at all for those scenarios and would subsequently be woefully unprepared.

Irregardless of dissecting available stats, my main point is this....

If you carry a gun for self-defense and are interested in being well prepared to effectively respond to the most probable self-defense scenarios a civilian is likely to encounter, practicing shooting from compressed and retention positions is a very prudent thing to do. A gun that doesn't allow you to practice that aspect of defensive shooting is not an appropriate defensive firearm. I don't think any well known, reputable defensive shooting instructor would disagree with this last paragraph, but if one has expressed a different take, I'd like to see it.

 

[xdmshooter59]

Again, I have no problem for anyone who doesn't want to carry a ported gun, I get it. But S&W makes the gun, It isn't as death defying as some people want to make it out to be...if it were common sense tells us S&W wouldn't open themselves up to the liability.

You need to be careful with any gun, a little extra care with a ported gun. To blow it out of proportion is just not honest. And you need to apply the same care to a revolver...and because the escaping matter between cylinder and barrel are even closer and not directed it could be argued harder to train for and with. Revolvers are widely accepted as a good self defense choice.

If you want the argument against porting for a self defense gun, I will give it to you. The argument is...It will add next to nothing for self defense (I would even give you nothing at all) and you need to be careful of where the ports are in addition to all other safety concerns. What gets posted instead, sounds like everyone telling you, you'll shoot your eye out kid...and then they post an article where nobody ever shot their eye out.

Well said.

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Ported S&W J frame test

Ported M&P Performance Center Shield from Smith & Wesson includes live fire from retention.

I have not found any head-to-head velocity tests between a standard and ported Shield and consider any statements on the velocity loss to be pure speculation.

 

[xdmshooter59]

Good find. I would still error on the side of caution like the 2nd video depicts and try and redirect the ports away from my body.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[ThrowinRocks]

I don't disagree with the post above. However, the metal piece would have to make it though one of the two barrel ports (one on each side) and then make it through one of the six slide ports (three on each side). I could happen, but maybe not.

That being said, perhaps I could modify my retention shooting position to take care of the potential problem.

I bought a Shield 45 PC and took it to the range for the first time last weekend. It's not perfect, but I'm happy with it.

Shooting from retention in most cases you won't be holding the gun at a straight angle so I have to disagree with his statement. There are several videos of people proving there's little to no danger of this happening and I'm sure the incident he references was not caused by a Shield PC.

The only other complaint I've heard from other owners is the front sight fiber optics falls out.

 

[rwsmith]

Probably this is due.....

The increased muzzle flash and noise is all hype. I've shot mine in the dark and couldn't tell any difference from a non ported gun as far as muzzle flash. You shoot a handgun in a defensive situation the last thing I'm concerned about is my hearing, either one is going to ring your ear drums without hearing protection. Anyways the difference is definitely worth the upgrade!

Many powders have flash suppressants added to them nowadays.

Also, a defensive posture for an SD situation may not be an optimal 'stand slightly crouched, arms out' deal. In case I'm not in the best position to fire, i want all of the muzzle blast and burn residue going toward the perp.

 

[Mister X]

Ported S&W J frame test

Ported M&P Performance Center Shield from Smith & Wesson includes live fire from retention.

I have not found any head-to-head velocity tests between a standard and ported Shield and consider any statements on the velocity loss to be pure speculation.

I've never heard of Chris Cerino, but kudos on actually finding an apparently somewhat prolific instructor who actually would advocate for a ported defensive weapon. He is definitely in the minority however.

I don't know Mr.Cerino's background or what his training and experience is in regards to ECQ/Extreme Close-Quarter shooting is, but there are a few points with his video to consider. Contrast what he presents as a "correct" retention position with that of the #2 position as taught by Shivworks Craig Douglas(aka Southnarc) who I view as being the foremost authority on ECQ shooting. I have no clue how to post a picture on here, but a quick google image search will bring up numerous examples if interested. Craig Douglas has probably done more ECQ FoF/Force on Force than anybody on the planet. He understands contact shooting very well.

There are default positions, but retention shooting is very much fluid and why I usually use the term positions with an s. Shooting at a static paper target is one thing whereas I see some very unorthodox firing positions in ECQ FoF. I imagine you would see similar examless in some of Mr.Douglas' ECQC videos on YouTube.

In all honestly, the odds probably are that you would most likely shoot a PC shield or any ported gun from any retention position without any negative effects during an actual confrontation, but there is still a chance of it causing catastrophic problems. I don't understand taking that chance. If you were getting something incredibly advantageous in return, it might make sense. You trade bullet velocity, have to adapt retention positions and can't safely practice contact shooting realistically all in exchange for slightly less muzzle rise. To me, that simply isn't worth it. But I guess others feel differently, so YMMV.

This is a video by the late Paul Gomez. I hope it effectively illustrates the possible positions you could get in during a contact shooting. He has other videos on YT demonstrating proper retention posture. Keep in mind, it's just one example among of many possibilities. I also like his philosophy regarding odds.


[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ytwieEQpmco[/ame]

 

[ThrowinRocks]

Chris Cerino is a well known instructor. He is on a few gun shows but is battling cancer right now.

 

[jkasch]

Ported S&W J frame test

Ported M&P Performance Center Shield from Smith & Wesson includes live fire from retention.

I have not found any head-to-head velocity tests between a standard and ported Shield and consider any statements on the velocity loss to be pure speculation.

While not Shield vs PC Shield, this test compared velocity of an LC9 (same length barrel) to a PC.

Smith & Wesson M&P9 Performance Center Ported Sheild Review: Part 4 -
Range Tests

One criticism that I have seen on the internet on a ported short barrel (3.1") is that you are already losing velocity (energy) with the short barrel and the ports only worsen this situation. To get an idea on how much reduction in velocity you get from the ports, I compared the velocity against my Ruger LC9s which has the same barrel length and has no ports. The average velocity for the LC9s was 1036 ft/sec and 994 ft/sec for the Hornady Critical Defense and Critical Duty, respectively. Based on the values in the table above, this means that the velocity for the Critical Defense ammunition in the Ported Shield only dropped 12 ft/sec (1.16%) and the Critical Duty 53 ft/sec (5.33%). From this, I can say there is a drop in velocity due to the barrel ports, but I don't consider the 1.16% drop in velocity for the Critical Defense ammunition to be significant and worth fretting over.

 

[Steved13]

Chris Cerino is a well known instructor. He is on a few gun shows but is battling cancer right now.

Yup, I've seen him on the Sportsman's channel on Thursday nights.