Shield 9mm and Glock 26

[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....