Other than it makes a great CCW due to it's size and weight, what other features may make it better as compared to my M&P 9FS, for an example? I'm just wondering what the lure and "gotta have one" factor of the Shield is all about.
What is the lure of the Shield?
- Thread starter avigar
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
SMMAssociates
Member
avigar:
Well, it's a heck of a lot smaller than your 9FS, which makes for a good backup or any sort of concealed carry.
It's nominally the same gun as the 9C, which is already good for the above, but a little more chubby.
It's an S&W, with their reputation for quality (as in the rest of the M&P line) behind it. Very few problems reported that aren't "growing pains", IMHO.
I have a 9C and 40C (and a 40FS). I still would like a Shield in 9mm or .40, but decided to wait. I think the .40 version may be a little punishing. FWIW, I had a Walther PPS40, which is similar in size, and had to get rid of it. I could almost tolerate the narrow grip, but the tiny trigger was such that my chubby fingers would wrap around it and pinch me too much to tolerate. The M&P's (including the Shield) all have a wider trigger. The .40 M&Ps are no problem at all for me, and the 9C is just a popgun
....
(I'm basically a 1911 guy, so the .40 isn't much more than a .45 in a single stacker. The PPS40 was a little much, but not all that terrible in that respect. I expect the Shield 40 would be a tad punishing, too, but nothing I couldn't deal with.)
I shot a PFS-9 the other week. Not a lot of fun on the grip, but nothing to really get upset about. I just don't care for KelTec much - my P3AT, which is no fun at all, needed way too much repair work to suit me. It's working now, but originally wouldn't get through a single magazine. .380's mostly aren't fun anyway, but this one's really bad.
Regards,
Well, it's a heck of a lot smaller than your 9FS, which makes for a good backup or any sort of concealed carry.
It's nominally the same gun as the 9C, which is already good for the above, but a little more chubby.
It's an S&W, with their reputation for quality (as in the rest of the M&P line) behind it. Very few problems reported that aren't "growing pains", IMHO.
I have a 9C and 40C (and a 40FS). I still would like a Shield in 9mm or .40, but decided to wait. I think the .40 version may be a little punishing. FWIW, I had a Walther PPS40, which is similar in size, and had to get rid of it. I could almost tolerate the narrow grip, but the tiny trigger was such that my chubby fingers would wrap around it and pinch me too much to tolerate. The M&P's (including the Shield) all have a wider trigger. The .40 M&Ps are no problem at all for me, and the 9C is just a popgun
....(I'm basically a 1911 guy, so the .40 isn't much more than a .45 in a single stacker. The PPS40 was a little much, but not all that terrible in that respect. I expect the Shield 40 would be a tad punishing, too, but nothing I couldn't deal with.)
I shot a PFS-9 the other week. Not a lot of fun on the grip, but nothing to really get upset about. I just don't care for KelTec much - my P3AT, which is no fun at all, needed way too much repair work to suit me. It's working now, but originally wouldn't get through a single magazine. .380's mostly aren't fun anyway, but this one's really bad.
Regards,
zotzer
Member
Well, it's size IS a main factor. I have both the FS and the Shield, and love both.
Small guns can be absolutely brutal to shoot. By nature of their small size and lesser mass, they can be more difficult to control (particularly follow up shots) and some just plain hurt your hands.
Being female, the grip on the Shield feels like it was custom made for my hand. I just love even holding it, it is so comfortable. Even men with large hands have reported similar....that it just feels good.
Lastly, it is very accurate for such a short barrel, and incredibly reliable. Every time I have pulled the trigger with a round chambered, the pistol has gone "bang".
Some people shoot their carry guns at the range out of necessity, to stay "tuned up", but they prefer shooting their larger firearms for pleasure. Not the case for me with the Shield. It makes me smile every time!
Tracy
Small guns can be absolutely brutal to shoot. By nature of their small size and lesser mass, they can be more difficult to control (particularly follow up shots) and some just plain hurt your hands.
Being female, the grip on the Shield feels like it was custom made for my hand. I just love even holding it, it is so comfortable. Even men with large hands have reported similar....that it just feels good.
Lastly, it is very accurate for such a short barrel, and incredibly reliable. Every time I have pulled the trigger with a round chambered, the pistol has gone "bang".
Some people shoot their carry guns at the range out of necessity, to stay "tuned up", but they prefer shooting their larger firearms for pleasure. Not the case for me with the Shield. It makes me smile every time!
Tracy
I like the M&P line anyway, but S&W has put the most gun into the flattest, most shootable package with the Shield. It hits where I point with unsighted fire-much better than my J-frame, and is very accurate in sighted fire. I can't explain why a gazillion people want one, but it has sure been spot-on for me.
Avigar
If you look at all the single stack 9 mm on the market today most have either reliability issues especially with range ammo or lousy triggers.
I have either owned or shot most mentioned weapons and before the Shield came along I was seriously giving up on single stack 9 mm and picking up s Ruger LCR because it would go bang everytime. Thank goodness the ballistics of the 38 in a 2 inch barrel was a turnoff otherwise I would have missed out on the first single stack that is reliable with all ammo, excellent trigger and ergonomic. (My hand is on the large size and weapons like the Diamond Back felt awkward and not natural when I reached for the trigger)
To be completely objective there is a new single stack that is worth owning in addition to the Shield and that is the Sig 938. However, for me two things prevent me from buying. The retail cost is almost double a Shield and I can't bring myself to pocket packing a weapon with the hammer in firing position especially when my holster of choice has no means of securing the hammer in my pocket.
I like the design of a striker fire weapon which has a passive firing pin when in the ready to fire mode.
Russ
If you look at all the single stack 9 mm on the market today most have either reliability issues especially with range ammo or lousy triggers.
I have either owned or shot most mentioned weapons and before the Shield came along I was seriously giving up on single stack 9 mm and picking up s Ruger LCR because it would go bang everytime. Thank goodness the ballistics of the 38 in a 2 inch barrel was a turnoff otherwise I would have missed out on the first single stack that is reliable with all ammo, excellent trigger and ergonomic. (My hand is on the large size and weapons like the Diamond Back felt awkward and not natural when I reached for the trigger)
To be completely objective there is a new single stack that is worth owning in addition to the Shield and that is the Sig 938. However, for me two things prevent me from buying. The retail cost is almost double a Shield and I can't bring myself to pocket packing a weapon with the hammer in firing position especially when my holster of choice has no means of securing the hammer in my pocket.
I like the design of a striker fire weapon which has a passive firing pin when in the ready to fire mode.
Russ
SpinControl
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 11
I don't have mine yet, but what lured me to the Shield were:
1. size for EDS as my CCW
2. larger caliber than a .380 (cheaper ammo in the 9mm, too)
3. S&W name (and warranty)
4. price (compared to Sig/XDs) - in addition to the initial cost of the firearm, there are accessories (holster, extra mags, laser, etc) that need to be purchased, so $800 total is a lot for some people (vs. $600).
5. Matches my FS in caliber (unlike the XDs previously)
I inquired about the Shield in mid-July, but still had no luck in finding one (until last week), so to buy time for the wait, I grabbed the S&W Bodyguard (BG) over Thanksgiving. The thinking was the same except for reasons 1, 3, and 4 above. The BG is a nice little gun but has a nasty habit of pounding my palm - not a pleasant gun to plink with. Nevertheless, I really like the ergonomics of it, and the Shield is very similar (if not better). In addition, there are similarities in disassembly of both for cleaning, so that's nice. I plan on carrying the BG in the Summer when the Shield is just too large to carry. But the Shield will be my ED CCW, so I have high hopes that the issues people report are not existent with mine. Nevertheless, I have a lot of faith in S&W's warranty to get it right if it isn't. They are dealing with peoples' lives, so I'm sure they feel the same.
1. size for EDS as my CCW
2. larger caliber than a .380 (cheaper ammo in the 9mm, too)
3. S&W name (and warranty)
4. price (compared to Sig/XDs) - in addition to the initial cost of the firearm, there are accessories (holster, extra mags, laser, etc) that need to be purchased, so $800 total is a lot for some people (vs. $600).
5. Matches my FS in caliber (unlike the XDs previously)
I inquired about the Shield in mid-July, but still had no luck in finding one (until last week), so to buy time for the wait, I grabbed the S&W Bodyguard (BG) over Thanksgiving. The thinking was the same except for reasons 1, 3, and 4 above. The BG is a nice little gun but has a nasty habit of pounding my palm - not a pleasant gun to plink with. Nevertheless, I really like the ergonomics of it, and the Shield is very similar (if not better). In addition, there are similarities in disassembly of both for cleaning, so that's nice. I plan on carrying the BG in the Summer when the Shield is just too large to carry. But the Shield will be my ED CCW, so I have high hopes that the issues people report are not existent with mine. Nevertheless, I have a lot of faith in S&W's warranty to get it right if it isn't. They are dealing with peoples' lives, so I'm sure they feel the same.
The Shield is definitely a gun that has lured many people. It's size & all the other attributes already posted is a great selling point plus the price isn't outrageous (yet). As soon as my M&P 40C is delivered I plan on waiting until availability of Shield is better & buy one. I have most of the money saved up. I've had almost a 3 month wait for the 40C & don't plan on waiting for another handgun. My gun store told me it could be a year before they get a Shield in. My alternate plan is to get a full size M&P 40 but not necessarily for concealed carry. My son has no trouble concealing his PD - issued full size so that's not an entirely off the wall decision & I'd use it if I ever got back into armed security.
I'd sure like to have a Shield, though.
I'd sure like to have a Shield, though.
What I posted back in June 2012:
Shield – New Owner and new member to this forum
I have had my name on a waiting list for a 9mm S&W Shield with no idea when it will arrive. About a week ago, at a different sporting goods store, I asked if they had a Shield. A Shield in 40 S&W just arrived and had been in the case for only 45 minutes.
While I was interested in a 9mm, I bought it anyway. I generally shot 9mm, 45 ACP, 357Sig, 357Mag and 44Mag. I had very limited experience with 40 S&W. From a past experience I recall that the recoil was my issue. That seems odd since I like 44 mag.
On Sunday, I shot a box each of Am Eagle & Blazer Brass through the Shield. Wow, was I impressed. Recoil was very manageable in 40S&W, trigger was excellent and best of all accuracy was outstanding. I printed probably my best targets ever with a new pistol. It was the best overall experience I have ever had with a new handgun. I would never have considered 40S&W in such a small pistol. I guess I got lucky, 40S&W will now be a favorite round.
A few months later I got a Shield in 9mm. Not a big difference in recoil. Best of all, the accuracy is good enough for my needs.
Shield – New Owner and new member to this forum
I have had my name on a waiting list for a 9mm S&W Shield with no idea when it will arrive. About a week ago, at a different sporting goods store, I asked if they had a Shield. A Shield in 40 S&W just arrived and had been in the case for only 45 minutes.
While I was interested in a 9mm, I bought it anyway. I generally shot 9mm, 45 ACP, 357Sig, 357Mag and 44Mag. I had very limited experience with 40 S&W. From a past experience I recall that the recoil was my issue. That seems odd since I like 44 mag.
On Sunday, I shot a box each of Am Eagle & Blazer Brass through the Shield. Wow, was I impressed. Recoil was very manageable in 40S&W, trigger was excellent and best of all accuracy was outstanding. I printed probably my best targets ever with a new pistol. It was the best overall experience I have ever had with a new handgun. I would never have considered 40S&W in such a small pistol. I guess I got lucky, 40S&W will now be a favorite round.
A few months later I got a Shield in 9mm. Not a big difference in recoil. Best of all, the accuracy is good enough for my needs.
Denversteve
Member
I don't know and I sell them. It's the same size or larger than a dozen other guns out there that are just as nice - including the Beretta Nano 9mm. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine pistol.
I chalk it up to the (pick your description) anti-Glock or pro-M&P fervor. I would rather (and do) carry a sub-compact (3") 1911. However, I can see how the size coupled with the price of the Shield is alluring. I do have a list of people waiting to get a shield.
I chalk it up to the (pick your description) anti-Glock or pro-M&P fervor. I would rather (and do) carry a sub-compact (3") 1911. However, I can see how the size coupled with the price of the Shield is alluring. I do have a list of people waiting to get a shield.
Last edited:
More comfortable to shoot than all the others in its class... PF-9, LC9, DB9, Nano, etc., etc. Those others can have punishing recoil. I've shot them all and know what they feel like. More accurate too (basically due to the same difference in recoil, which could increase the time needed to get back on target for follow-up shots). Many of the contenders in the 3" Single-Stack Subcompact class are DAO hammer fired, where the Shield is Striker Fired... Big difference when it comes to length of trigger press and reset.
The Debate about going Double-Stack Compact vs Single-Stack Subcompact has been going on for years with every brand who makes both. The 'winner' is purely Subjective to the needs of the buyer.
I used to carry a PF-9 and only shot it enough to keep proficient with it, then move on to my 'range pounders'. The Shield, as already mentioned by others, is pleasant enough to shoot all day if I want to... and sometimes I do.
If you want a slim, 3" subcompact for concealed carry that's as comfy to shoot as a larger Compact, the Shield is the way to go (at least until the XD-S comes out in 9mm). If you don't NEED a slim Subcompact, by all means, stick with a FS or C.
The Debate about going Double-Stack Compact vs Single-Stack Subcompact has been going on for years with every brand who makes both. The 'winner' is purely Subjective to the needs of the buyer.
I used to carry a PF-9 and only shot it enough to keep proficient with it, then move on to my 'range pounders'. The Shield, as already mentioned by others, is pleasant enough to shoot all day if I want to... and sometimes I do.
If you want a slim, 3" subcompact for concealed carry that's as comfy to shoot as a larger Compact, the Shield is the way to go (at least until the XD-S comes out in 9mm). If you don't NEED a slim Subcompact, by all means, stick with a FS or C.
Wee Hooker
Member
I've had both and sold the shield. It was nice enough, just not WOW inspiring for me. I personally felt that the 9C had it all over the shield for my tastes and usage. Size/footprint was nearly a wash and the Shield was actually a little taller in the grip. The Shield had a slight width and weight advantage but nothing I noticed in a good belt holster. I also felt the grip on the shield was too thin for good "feel". In the end the 9c just had better ergonomics and shot more accurately for me.
Lastly, I also found the Shield too big for comfortable pocket carry ( which i do when dressing lightly) and continued with my BG380 for that.
If you search here, you'll find several discussions on this comparisons.
Last edited:
I purchased my Shield 9mm. in April and it was my first M&P. The Shield's performance inspired me to purchased a FS M&P 9mm. w/safety. My Shield has tighter fits and a better trigger than the FS I just bought. However, the trigger on the new FS M&P is no slouch. It has a good reset and let off.
My wife loves the Shield and it's her fav. pistol of all we have including high end 1911s. She enjoys shooting the Shield because of it's grip and trigger.
The Shield is my pocket and summer carry however I'm also OK with carrying the FS when I need to. With these two M&Ps I have no need for a 9c.
My wife loves the Shield and it's her fav. pistol of all we have including high end 1911s. She enjoys shooting the Shield because of it's grip and trigger.
The Shield is my pocket and summer carry however I'm also OK with carrying the FS when I need to. With these two M&Ps I have no need for a 9c.
Last edited:
feelinlucky
Member
As the OP said, the Shield is compact and light enough to easily conceal under everyday clothing.
It has a very reasonable trigger weight, pull length, and reset, that makes it easy to shoot accurately, and yet the trigger is not so sensitive that it could be dangerous to carry loaded.
It has good ergonomics. The distribution of weight, the grip contours, and the overall shape fit the hand well, making it easy and comfortable to grip and fire. It feels balanced.
It has an unobtrusive safety.
It is affordable.
It comes from a company with a long history of building reliable quality firearms, and supporting its customers.
IMHO, there are lots of good guns out there with nice features, but the Shield offers a unique combination of desirable attributes all brought together in one package.
It has a very reasonable trigger weight, pull length, and reset, that makes it easy to shoot accurately, and yet the trigger is not so sensitive that it could be dangerous to carry loaded.
It has good ergonomics. The distribution of weight, the grip contours, and the overall shape fit the hand well, making it easy and comfortable to grip and fire. It feels balanced.
It has an unobtrusive safety.
It is affordable.
It comes from a company with a long history of building reliable quality firearms, and supporting its customers.
IMHO, there are lots of good guns out there with nice features, but the Shield offers a unique combination of desirable attributes all brought together in one package.
JNewell
Member
If there were a choice, I'd got for a single-stack version of the G19 twice any day and five times on a Sunday, but there isn't...so the Shield it is.
dullh
Member
Everything in that picture combined is worth more than my car!
I've carried a CW9 for a while. I wanted to replace it with a shield, but after putting a loaner Shield up against my CW9 at the range one morning, I decided to keep the Kahr and spend that money on a couple cases of ammo instead. The Kahr felt better and I did not like that tiny little thumb safety on the Shield, which I think is pointless on a striker-fired pistol. That's my own personal opinion...
I've carried a CW9 for a while. I wanted to replace it with a shield, but after putting a loaner Shield up against my CW9 at the range one morning, I decided to keep the Kahr and spend that money on a couple cases of ammo instead. The Kahr felt better and I did not like that tiny little thumb safety on the Shield, which I think is pointless on a striker-fired pistol. That's my own personal opinion...
