Why the Shield?

[M&Pmeister]

First M&P I bought was a 40C and I just picked up a 40 Shield. There is a time and place for carrying either. For me, the 40C is easier to CC in the colder months, less than ideal with just a T-shirt and jeans/shorts.

For me, pocket carrying the Shield is awkward at best. I have P938 and M&P Bodyguard for that.

Why argue? No pistol is perfect for everyone on every occasion in every attire. Just because you think it works best for you doesn't mean it applies to everybody else.

 

[C/O]

Why did you buy the M&P shield over the compact when their weight and dimensions are negligible, but you get so much more with the 9c? IYHO, was the 0.06 inch length, 2.7oz weight, and 0.2 frame width difference enough to push you into buying the Shield?

Yes, yes it was. I had the 40c, and those subtle differences made a world of difference.

 

[serpentine]

Why did you buy the M&P shield over the compact when their weight and dimensions are negligible, but you get so much more with the 9c? IYHO, was the 0.06 inch length, 2.7oz weight, and 0.2 frame width difference enough to push you into buying the Shield?

Have you held, shot and holstered each? On paper it may not look like much, but they are different animals. Also the difference in width, according to the below linked specs, is .07 which is about a 16th.

To answer your question, I chose for better comfort and concealment. If I had already owned the compact and was happy with it, I likely would not had purchased the Shield, however.

 

[GKC]

I've owned both, and to me, the Shield just is better in every way than the 9c. I don't worry about the capacity difference...I don't think I'll be in an extended gun fight anyway. If I ever am, I want an armored tank battalion, not a compact 9mm handgun!

The grip of the 9c just wasn't that comfortable to me, even with the small back strap and the extended base plate. I just didn't feel like I was getting a good grip. With the 8-round mag in the Shield, it feels perfect in my hand. (I do get a good, comfortable grip on a 45c with a small back strap and the extended base plate.)

I don't like rails on handguns...and I was delighted to see that the Shield doesn't have one. That is entirely personal preference, but it's my preference and it's one more reason I like the Shield.

I don't pocket carry...if I did, I'd probably get an LCP or a BG380, but any of the compact or subcompact 9mm guns that I know of are just too big for me to pocket carry.

 

[sonofthebeach]

As the side-by-side picture posted by serpentine shows, the numerical difference in width might not seem like much, but for a person like me, who has shorter fingers, that width (and increased circumference) of the c's grip made my ownership of a 9c short-lived.

What good are adjustable backstraps to me if all of them are too large for my hands?

My 9c was fun to shoot (except for the small-hand thing), perfectly reliable, and fit the Crossbreed hybrid holster very well for carry.

I own a Shield 9, and am waiting on a .40 Shield to arrive. The fit in my hands is extremely good, and for the shorts and jeans I wear, pocket carry is very do-able with the Shield.

I fluff/buffed the heck out of a PF9, removed the striker pin and cleaned the striker pin channel numerous times in an attempt to get the cursed pistol to hit primers near the center and with sufficient force to ignite various primers, and after running over 500 rounds through the thing, I got rid of it.

I had an older LC9 which after the factory replaced the front sight that flew off with the first shot, was reliable, but with a trigger that had such a long travel it made me nervous.

I'm on the fence about my extremely out-of-the-box reliable CM9, mainly because I can't get used to curling my pinky under the grip, while there's just enough extra grip length on the Shield 9 to hold the pistol with 3 fingers, even with the 7rnd mag.

The above-mentioned picture comparison of the width profiles of both the compact and Shield show the one thing that made holster carry of the 9c very easy for me...the short double-stacked magazine.

I'm convinced that we're all extremely blessed to have the freedom to choose from such a large variety of pistols, revolvers, and long guns. And I'm sure there will be no end to the occasional "debates" about which guns are better, and why, and the caliber "wars" will no doubt pop up from time to time, and that's part of why this forum is so much fun.

The reality is that we are all different, and there's likely a gun that will fit each of our needs and wants. I have to admit that I really enjoy the visits to the local gun shops and shows, even if I don't buy anything...that's how much I've enjoyed gun ownership since my father bought me my first Single Six 50 years ago as a birthday present.

Sorry for this extremely long post, and wishing you all a great day.

 

[M&Pmeister]

I've often wondered why no mfr has yet married the narrow top end of a single-stack like the Shield, with a short double-stack lower end like the M&P Compact. That would be a perfect CC gun. Or BUG that takes magazines from the FS M&P.

For IWB carry, the width of the slide is what determines comfort and "wear-ability", whereas a short stubby grip is ideal for anti-printing and concealability.

How about it, S&W? How about an M&P Shield Hybrid?

 

[hokiefyd]

I'll bite here...

I have to agree on some of your points, and disagree with others. Unless you can not have a mag. that can have more than 10 rounds, I can not see why having a gun with a higher capacity, the ability to change grips, an ambidextrous mag release, and a rail which gives more options to mount a flashlight, lasers, etc, would be a reason way people would choose the Shield over the M&P9. I maybe wrong, but I don't hear to many people complaining about having those options and features.

All of the benefits of the 9C come with attending drawbacks, and as one person said earlier, those attending drawbacks are often the very reasons to choose a Shield.

Sure, more rounds would be great, if they were "free". But they're not free...you pay for them in the width of the gun's grip. Because the grip is wider to accommodate the double-stack magazine, the slide is also wider to match. It's not wider by a lot on paper, but it's a significant difference when it's in your pocket or in your waist.

The ability to change grips and ambidextrous magazine release, you would think, could be added to the Shield, sure. It likely wouldn't "cost" anything other than cost, as in money. To me, the ability to change grips is nullified if the gun fits your hand. It's a great marketing point to say that your firearm fits may different hands, but what matters to any given buyer is if it fits HIS hand, or HER hand. If it doesn't, they're likely not a Shield buyer. If it does, great...no need for different grip panels.

On the topic of a rail...many probably see it as unnecessary on a gun that is purpose-built for concealed carry. Unlike the 9C, which is a shorter and stockier version of the full-size 9, the Shield was designed from scratch for concealed carry use. Smith also partnered with Crimson Trace to launch a laser product with the gun's debut, so those who like lasers are covered here. Additionally, a rail adds girth to the lower part of the frame. Where the Shield has a nice smooth tapered contour, a rail "squares the corner" off and adds material that will likely never get used on a carry gun.

(I'm actually considering adding a Kel-Tec PF-9 to my carry arsenal, and it has a rail. I'd file it right off. I don't need it, and wouldn't want it.)

If all of the attributes of the 9C that are "more than" the Shield came with no penalties, then sure, nobody'd say no to that. But they do come with penalties. It's up to each buyer to weigh those out with what they're looking for in a gun.

I do agree that, in most cases, having the features and options that the shield lacks may not have been as important as to Shield buyers, but other than the size difference, I still believe the the M&P9c has more to offer.

Yes, the 9C has more to offer, in the sense that a Ford F-350 has more to offer than an F-150. More payload, more towing, heavier suspension, heavier frame, etc. There are a lot of things about an F-350 that are "more than" the F-150 in terms of quantitative measurements, but not necessarily "greater than" in terms of qualitative measurements. The penalties for the increased capability include things like a stiffer ride, poorer handling, higher price, greater fuel cost, etc.

I agree with you that the 9C could be said as having "more to offer", but it's really an academic discussion because that only applies to someone who values those particular qualities (round count, rail, etc). For someone who values compactness and ease-of-carry, the 9C has "less to offer", because to someone looking for a smaller carry piece, less really is more.

You could extend this discussion to comparing the 9C to the full size 9. "Why would anyone buy the 9C, right? I mean, yeah it's a little shorter, but it's just as wide and it holds a lot more rounds, right? Doesn't the 9 have more to offer than the 9C?" To some, it does. And to others, it does not.

 

[MX5Fan]

I have both and carry the Shield in the warmer months for better conceal-ability and the Compact in the cooler/colder months when I can wear a sweater, sweatshirt, jacket, etc....

 

[Jersey James]

I struggled for months with the compact VS shield, until I went to a local gun store and held them BOTH. I purchased the SHIELD...Great for EDC during the hot Florida summers.

 

[ditto1958]

On paper, it's .2".. IWB, it might as well be 2".. There's just no comparison to the shield and the compact when carrying IWB..

You hit the nail on the head, Mike.

 

[gunny4053]

I've often wondered why no mfr has yet married the narrow top end of a single-stack like the Shield, with a short double-stack lower end like the M&P Compact. That would be a perfect CC gun. Or BUG that takes magazines from the FS M&P.

For IWB carry, the width of the slide is what determines comfort and "wear-ability", whereas a short stubby grip is ideal for anti-printing and concealability.

How about it, S&W? How about an M&P Shield Hybrid?

I hate to say this, especially here, but that is exactly what Glock did with their 30S. They took the slide from the single stack 36 and mated it to a slim frame version of the Glock 30. 10 plus 1 capacity, shorter grip, slender top end, and with the addition of an X grip and a Glock 21 mag, it makes a good carry, range, and HD pistol. It'll never replace the Shield as a slim carry pistol, but it's not a bad carry option.

Good Luck and good shooting.