Shield 9mm and Glock 26

[stmry]

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm definitely keeping my G26. My plan is to add the LC9S pro because of its size, and the Shield 45, because I really like the Shield, and I think it will be a good match for the 45acp round.

 

[Gomez93]

Have had a Glock 27 for years because our dept. requires we carry a Glock in 40 S&W.
Got the Shield 9 and carried it off duty, but now have the Shield 45 and it is my EDC most days. I like the Shields because they are more comfortable to carry IWB, but sometimes I go places I want a little extra firepower, just in case.

 

[ranvette]

I have both.I find the shield is better to conceal slightly do to being thinner.But if you like more capacity the 26 is great.Both are rock solid dependable guns.

 

[dr. K]

I have medium sized hands, and the shield works better for me than my baby glocks did. Trigger reach was better for me as it was for others who posted replies, but the biggest selling points for me were concealability and how quickly and naturally the shield points and returns to target for follow-up shots in my hands.

 

[Kruzen]

I found that I can shoot my Shield 40 much better than my Glock. Ended up getting rid of the Glock and now have the VTAC and Shield


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garman]

So I had a Shield 9MM and loved it, but kept shooting it low and to the left no matter what I tried to correct it. I now carry my Glock 26 with the Gap Finger Extension base plate and the Talon granulate grip and this is an awesome combo for me! For the days I need something slimmer, I grab my Walther PPS M2.

 

[osilva40]

I've had the shield, LC9s, and 26; only have the 26 now. The shield and LC9s were more concealable than my 26. However, I can shoot the 26 more accurately, rapidly, and at various distances vs the latter two. To me this was more important, and the 26 conceals just great for me now.

 

[Mark IV]

Glox are great and all, no argument, but as a pocket toter, I much prefer the thinner,lighter,less blocky Shield. It's also more ergonomic, and, I really like having a safety on a pocket-carried striker pistol.

 

[Maxshield]

Both are excellent choices. The Shield is a little more one dimensional, IMO. The Shield does the slim, easily carried and concealed job very well. The magazine compatibility of the Glock is a large bonus, however. The standard 10 (or 12) round magazine makes an excellent (if a bit thicker) CC option. The ability to take 15,17 or even the 33 round options opens up more uses. A Glock 26 "could" serve as my only handgun if I had to. CCW, range, home defense.

Thankfully, I don't have to choose only one. Pragmatism is overrated.

Agree 100%....if could only have 1 it would be G26 or 9C. Both fantastic weapons

 

[Tinhack]

Glox are great and all, no argument, but as a pocket toter, I much prefer the thinner,lighter,less blocky Shield. It's also more ergonomic, and, I really like having a safety on a pocket-carried striker pistol.

Yeah, I could never get my head wrapped around a Glock. The boxy look reminds me of the wooden rubber band pistols we used to make as a kid.

If they'd just smooth them out a little, I could see me owning a few. They have a great reputation and history of acceptance but for EDC, I like the smooth Shield and lifetime warranty.

 

[Blackshirt]

I don't have either, but I do have a Glock G33 (.357 subcompact) and a Smith M638. I am intrigued with all the great single-stack 9mm offerings, but I have not been compelled to buy one yet because I have been so satisfied with my J-Frame. It is a little down on capacity and reloading speed, but I have worked out the tactics and my 638 has been light's out good. I like the immediate action for FTFs better (just pull the trigger again) and I have a holster for every occasion since I've been using these little gems for years. I expect that I'll get a skinny nine at some point, but there's no real urgency for me...

 

[Mister X]

I own a Glock 26 and it's a fine, reliable weapon. Standard 10 round capacity with the option of using larger, higher round count magazines.

The Shield feels nice in the hand, but it's limited capacity is it's greatest weakness IMO. Carrying extra mags doesn't make up for it since reloads simply do not happen with any regularity in civilian defense encounters due to the quick, close, reactive dynamics. The situation will almost always be settled with what's in the gun.

 

[Mark IV]

The Shield feels nice in the hand, but it's limited capacity is it's greatest weakness IMO. Carrying extra mags doesn't make up for it since reloads simply do not happen with any regularity in civilian defense encounters due to the quick, close, reactive dynamics. The situation will almost always be settled with what's in the gun.

IMO, the reasoning in this comment sort of stumbles over itself a few times. You allude to the realities of typical self defense encounters ( very quick with limited shots fired, usually cited as averaging just shy of 3 rounds, IIRC), but then take issue with supposed "limited capacity" of the Shield.
The 9 rounds of 124gr +P HST's that are in my Shield more than triple the statistical amount of ammo fired in an armed confrontation (again, IIRC).
In a situation that is as "quick,close and reactively dynamic" as you describe, and one that is too close and brief for spare mag reloads to be beneficial, how exactly is 9 rounds insufficient?

 

[Mister X]

IMO, the reasoning in this comment sort of stumbles over itself a few times. You allude to the realities of typical self defense encounters ( very quick with limited shots fired, usually cited as averaging just shy of 3 rounds, IIRC), but then take issue with supposed "limited capacity" of the Shield.
The 9 rounds of 124gr +P HST's that are in my Shield more than triple the statistical amount of ammo fired in an armed confrontation (again, IIRC).
In a situation that is as "quick,close and reactively dynamic" as you describe, and one that is too close and brief for spare mag reloads to be beneficial, how exactly is 9 rounds insufficient?

I have always generally favored an enclosed hammer revolver for carry due to it's advantages in ECQ scenarios and the only reason I would choose a semi-auto is for greater capacity. The Shield does carry more rounds, but it simply doesn't offer enough additional capacity IMO to make me choose it over a snub and give up it's close-quarter strengths.

Civilian encounters are generally very brief, but remember that a great number of rounds can be fired in a few seconds and I am aware of numerous cases were a high number of rounds were fired in civilian defense cases. Available stats on civilian encounters do trend toward the 3/3/3 average you mention, but it must be taken into consideration how that average is established. The majority of civilian encounters are resolved with no shots being fired(simply presenting the weapon is enough deterrent) or as soon as shots are fired, the bad guys scatter or choose to cease hostilities.

Almost any gun will work in such cases.

Although comparatively rare, of the greatest concern is the determined attacker(s) who will simply not be deterred no matter what. You will have to physically stop him. This can result in a high number of rounds being required to stop the assailant(s). Even more so if it's multiple attackers.

If there is a contradiction, it is this... In an ECQ scenario, the auto is more likely to experience malfunctions. This can be mitigated a great deal by proper training, but it cannot be completely eliminated and the hammerless snub is inherently more reliable in such situations. However, having only 5 rounds could be a serious liability against one or more determined assailants. There is no way of knowing the specifics dynamics or what type of scenario you will be involved in and why there isn't an absolute clear cut right or wrong answer or a single best self-defense weapon. My research on this issue is a work in progress since I don't have all the answers.

 

[WVI]

Carry two snubbies....