I don't know about a .45 acp, but it would seem to me that one in .357 sig would be next.
Shield .45
- Thread starter Rudy40
- Start date
Shielded
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 538
- Reaction score
- 98
The Sig would be the next easiest step as it's a bottle-necked .40, it surely would be snappy then. Just don't know if the demand would warrant.
Nakanokalronin
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,071
- Reaction score
- 369
I have a Shield on order but not in hand so I'll ask those who do own one a question. Is the semi-double stack 9mm magazine as thick as a 45acp magazine like from a 1911? It looks like it could be from pictures I've seen, but I can't be sure. If so, a 45acp version may be possible without the need to change too much in the frame area, meaning all 3 calibers would use the exact same thin frame.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
SMMAssociates
Member
Just off the top of my head, the 9mm, .40, and .357 Sig are nominally the same size cartridge & gun if you start with something that'll fit the slightly larger .40 case....
A single-stack .45 magazine has to be at least wide enough to hold the rounds
, and the grip and a few other parts may have to be larger, too. Sounds like a whole other gun to me, even though there would be a lot of common parts. I think the 9mm being a semi-double-stack (I hadn't heard of that) is just because the slightly wider .40-ish frame allows it, and that should add one or two rounds. The .45 magazine has to be the same thickness, more or less, as a 1911.
Just me, but making a .45 in this design might be a bridge too far - IMHO, the .40 as an SD round is quite good enough without the extra size issues. But who knows.... I originally thought the .40 was a little silly until I started research (and playing with them). Just seems to be reasonable now.
Regards,
A single-stack .45 magazine has to be at least wide enough to hold the rounds
, and the grip and a few other parts may have to be larger, too. Sounds like a whole other gun to me, even though there would be a lot of common parts. I think the 9mm being a semi-double-stack (I hadn't heard of that) is just because the slightly wider .40-ish frame allows it, and that should add one or two rounds. The .45 magazine has to be the same thickness, more or less, as a 1911.Just me, but making a .45 in this design might be a bridge too far - IMHO, the .40 as an SD round is quite good enough without the extra size issues. But who knows.... I originally thought the .40 was a little silly until I started research (and playing with them). Just seems to be reasonable now.
Regards,
shooter1911
Member
Finally a good carry gun I will be able to double tap with accuracy. Yea!
shooter1911
Member
I personally have found .40 recoil to be snappier than .45.
Nakanokalronin
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,071
- Reaction score
- 369
I second this.
Jim PHL
Member
I'd love a .45 Shield. It would be, and should be, slightly larger than the 9mm/.40 version but still probably among the most compact of compact .45's, yet controllable - possibly even fun - to shoot.
The only thing close to a complaint I've heard about the Shield is that it's not as small as a PM9 or PF9. I don't mind it because, like my favorite gun, the 3913, it's both small enough for comfortable carry and large enough for comfortable shooting. Pocket gun? No. But I wasn't looking for it to be one.
The only thing close to a complaint I've heard about the Shield is that it's not as small as a PM9 or PF9. I don't mind it because, like my favorite gun, the 3913, it's both small enough for comfortable carry and large enough for comfortable shooting. Pocket gun? No. But I wasn't looking for it to be one.
BoringGuy45
Member
Ok, I'm coming a little late to this discussion, but I'd like to add my two pesos:
I think it's inevitable that a single stack .45 in the M&P line will come out sometime in the next year or two. I don't see it being quite as small as the 9 or 40 obviously, but perhaps something with a grip about the length of the M&P45c but and with a shorter barrel. You could easily get 6 rounds in a gun that size.
I tried the XDs this past Saturday and let me tell you, I LOVED it. It's going to be extremely popular and S&W would be foolish to not try and cash on that market.
I think it's inevitable that a single stack .45 in the M&P line will come out sometime in the next year or two. I don't see it being quite as small as the 9 or 40 obviously, but perhaps something with a grip about the length of the M&P45c but and with a shorter barrel. You could easily get 6 rounds in a gun that size.
I tried the XDs this past Saturday and let me tell you, I LOVED it. It's going to be extremely popular and S&W would be foolish to not try and cash on that market.
I like that my Shield 9mm in my pocket holds 8 rounds. If S&W makes a single stack 45 acp in a conceal platform small enough for the average size pocket it will be a 5+1 which in my opinion is a trade off not worth the larger caliber.
In my opinion, if a person is going to sacrifice 2 rounds in order to pocket conceal a 45 acp they may as well pack a more reliable revolver.
Russ
In my opinion, if a person is going to sacrifice 2 rounds in order to pocket conceal a 45 acp they may as well pack a more reliable revolver.
Russ
kisportolt
Member
I agree, looking at the specs of the 45c, which is only 1.2in wide, I feel like you're going to have trouble shaving much more off while keeping the round count where people will want. And if you keep it similiar to the 45c but make it with a shorter barrel, is it really a Shield?
With as demanded as the 9 and 40 still are, why would they spend the money on developing another gun until they can catch up with the ones they have.
M_E_
Member
Never happen. It will take an entirely NEW pistol. You cannot get the 45 into the length of a Shield frame, it's too long. They will have to build a special gun to hold the 45 or 10mm.
Besides, you don't need the 45, just the right 9 or 40 ammo.
Besides, you don't need the 45, just the right 9 or 40 ammo.
magtf388
Member
Having had the XDs in 45 I much prefer the Shield in 9mm. This gun in 9mm is the best of both worlds. A good 9mm round is a breez to shoot and the modern 9mm bullet is proven to get the job done.
Both guns are about the same size, weight and close in round count. But holding on and shooting the 9mm is simpler. For this size pistol the 9 is much better shooter. I don't thing S&W will go down this road but I could be wrong.
Both guns are about the same size, weight and close in round count. But holding on and shooting the 9mm is simpler. For this size pistol the 9 is much better shooter. I don't thing S&W will go down this road but I could be wrong.
Skeptic 9c
Member
Dare I mention .45 GAP??
Geoff
Who is an obnoxious fellow at times.
Geoff
Who is an obnoxious fellow at times.
Murphy's Law
Member
I have two Colts (Govt. & Defender) and a M&P Shield in 40. Let me say anyone of these three weapons will give you one hell of a bad hair day! I doubt very seriously if S&W will even attempt to manufacture a shield in 45 acp. The present dimension are just not compatible and a monstrous re-tooling would have to be done. Just not cost effective IMHO.
alphie
Member
S&W can't keep up with the demand for the 9mm and .40. Why would they need to create another one nobody can buy?
I have both a Shield 9mm and an XDs in 45acp and thet are very close size wise. If Springfield can do such a small 45 so can S&W so I think it is inevitable. I'm a big M&P fan but have to say that I really like the XDs. I also agree that a Shield in 22LR would be very neat.
