S&W M&P's new single stack?


PDA






danez71
April 7, 2012, 08:23 PM
I think this is the the new rumoured M&P single stack 9mm.

They say they're releasing something big on April 12th with marketing uing the term SHIELD

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eD0-TZLnxgM/T4BBwa-J5FI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/mQ-x4fAbFpg/s1600/MP9Shield.png



Found here. Posted a couple hours ago.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-m-p-pistols/243219-m-p-shield-pic-cant-wait-arrive.html

If you enjoyed reading about "S&W M&P's new single stack?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wild cat mccane
April 7, 2012, 10:46 PM
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopfamily.html

mgmorden
April 8, 2012, 09:49 AM
Photo shop might not be a bad idea for this :). S&W has been releasing "puzzle pieces" for a few days for this item which apparently you can join together to get a picture of the item (not complete yet, but probably eventually).

Pieces so far:
http://monderno.com/news/smith-wesson-shield-clue-1/
http://monderno.com/news/smith-wesson-shield-clue-2/
http://monderno.com/news/smith-wesson-shield-clue-3/

Boanerges57
April 8, 2012, 10:57 AM
Its a single stack sub compact m&p specifically aimed at the concealed carry market

wild cat mccane
April 8, 2012, 12:11 PM
S&W needs to get over itself.

We already have a PF-9, Ruger LC9, Walther PPS, Bersa's BP9, Kimber Solo, R9, Kahr PM9/CM9, Diamondback DP9, Beretta Nano...

Essentially they are the last manufactures making a single stack. Why build excitement over being last?

PabloJ
April 8, 2012, 12:15 PM
I can understand single stack with large/long cartridge like .45 or 10mm but see no point in making one in 9mm especially since most are too large/heavy for all around pocket carry. The only exception seems to be Rohrbaugh R9 which is very pocketable.

Deaf Smith
April 8, 2012, 12:17 PM
Hey, I've been wanting Glock to make their 26 with a single stack for years.

If S&W will do that, well great! They, like Glock, are top companies and it's about time they made their excellent sub-compacts slimmer.

Deaf

wow6599
April 8, 2012, 01:31 PM
I bet it will look like a PPS, just like S&W did with the S&W99 (Walther P99). Aren't they also coming out with an "improved trigger" in the M&P line? Probably be just like a PPQ trigger.

S&W loves to take what Walther does and stick their name on it, sell it for 10% less, sell accessories (mags, sights, etc.) for 25% less - all to retain market share and screw Walther.

They probably went to Germany 8 years ago and begged Walther to build the M&P for them.......and not tell anyone ;)

Goomba
April 8, 2012, 01:58 PM
S&W needs to get over itself.

We already have....

Even though S&W may be last to capitalize on the CCW 9mm boom, I think this is absolutely awesome! Competition is great for us as the consumers. And even though my primary CC is a PPS, I am still very excited to see this pistol.

Quack
April 8, 2012, 02:18 PM
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6971/mp9shield.png

Its been shown already.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

batex
April 8, 2012, 02:27 PM
Too bad it's not something original. As noted, this is the same concept that many other companies already have out. At least Springfield's small single stack is in 45acp. In fact, I bet that's why S&W delayed release...didn't want to be embarrased by the XDS. Now, can we get on with the M&P in 10mm? Or how about a M&P AR style rifle in 308/7.62!

PabloJ
April 8, 2012, 02:28 PM
It's hard to get excited about "1cm" grip thickness reduction at cost extra rounds lost in pistol that can not be carried in your average pocket.

mgmorden
April 8, 2012, 03:05 PM
It's hard to get excited about "1cm" grip thickness reduction at cost extra rounds lost in pistol that can not be carried in your average pocket.

Personally, I'd disagree. That bit of grip thickness reduction for me is the difference between carryable and not.

Try as I might, I cannot comfortably carry a double-stack gun IWB. I know I'm picky (I don't even like having a wallet or cell phone in my pockets - every time I sit down I empty them), but little single stacks bring it down to a tolerable level of discomfort. Apparently, I'm not alone, as these single-stack 9's are selling pretty well.

Pilot
April 8, 2012, 05:52 PM
Its not only grip width reduction, it is the loss in weight of the extra rounds that also helps carry.

PabloJ
April 8, 2012, 06:08 PM
If compact 9x19 needs a holster I would want 10 round out the barrel before re-laoding.

W.E.G.
April 8, 2012, 06:26 PM
...also for states that never got over the "Assault Weapon Ban" 10-round magazine limit. :barf:

Water-Man
April 8, 2012, 06:35 PM
If its as good as the PPS they'll have a winner.

danez71
April 8, 2012, 07:00 PM
S&W needs to get over itself.

We already have a PF-9, Ruger LC9, Walther PPS, Bersa's BP9, Kimber Solo, R9, Kahr PM9/CM9, Diamondback DP9, Beretta Nano...

Essentially they are the last manufactures making a single stack. Why build excitement over being last?

But how many double stack 'compacts' are already out there? And they keep coming out with more every year.

Every time a single stack glock 9mm gets mentioned there are tons of people that want it.

All of those you listed are either looong triggers, or DA/SA and/or have too many reliability issues for a lot of people.

The only one you listed that compares would be the Kimber Solo with a consistant trigger pull and a thumb safety.

buckeye8
April 9, 2012, 01:56 AM
Um, excuse me... but is that a (stupid, pointless) thumb safety I see there??

Count me out. :rolleyes:

allaroundhunter
April 9, 2012, 01:59 AM
Why build excitement over being last?

The fact that they are S&W will get me to buy one of their guns before I buy a Kel-Tec or DB, regardless of who was building them first. Do you think that Glock should just give up on making a single stack because others have "beat them to it"?.....Brand name sells products just as well (if not better) than performance....

Um, excuse me... but is that a (stupid, pointless) thumb safety I see there??

Count me out.

I would assume that it is no different from the rest of the M&P line where they also have offerings without the thumb safety.

BamAlmighty
April 9, 2012, 02:26 AM
S&W needs to get over itself.

We already have a PF-9, Ruger LC9, Walther PPS, Bersa's BP9, Kimber Solo, R9, Kahr PM9/CM9, Diamondback DP9, Beretta Nano...

Essentially they are the last manufactures making a single stack. Why build excitement over being last?
Because some of the guns you mentioned are far from perfect and could be improved on.

And Don't forget Springfield is joining the field with its XDs, granted it is only offered in .45 out the gate, but eventually will be offered in 9 and 40 which I look forward to trying. You might not see it, but competition is actually good for the consumer.

Sgt_R
April 9, 2012, 06:57 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MP-9-Shield-courtesy-reddit.com_1.jpg

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/ryan-finn/new-mp-9-shield-photo-leaked/

Thaddeus Jones
April 9, 2012, 10:24 AM
I wonder how much it will cost in aftermarket parts, to give this model M&P a useable trigger? :)

fastbolt
April 9, 2012, 01:37 PM
Yes, there are some other slim (and not-so-slim) single stack 9's on the market.

If S&W is able to get this new one to run as reliably as their previous 3913 & CS9, they've got a winner on their hands.

If the grip is thinner than the CS9, they've got a winner on their hands.

Even if it only has a magazine capacity of 7-8 rounds, they've got a winner on their hands. (Will it come with a short/flush & extended mag?)

If it has the new pending M&P trigger improvement, they've got a winner on their hands.

If it's simpler in design than the PPS (from an armorer perspective), it'll sell well to LE who have agency armorers.

Some folks seem to like a thumb safety on their M&P (I've got 1 with the TS & 1 without), and a reduced size lever would probably be welcome by most owners who aren't wedded to the 1911-style safety lock lever. (I only got mine because I'm a long time 1911 owner/shooter and I wanted to try one.)

If they have a .45 model in the wings ... to replace the CS45 subcompact ... they'll have orders back-logged for months. ;)

Personally, I'd try one in 9mm ... after it's been on the market for a bit. I dislike Kahr triggers and I was rather unimpressed with the LC9 I recently tried. Its grip and trigger would have prevented me from wanting to buy one ... even if the gun hadn't exhibited frequent light-strikes with an assortment of ammunition. (The owner of that particular LC9 got rid of it after it had been repaired by Ruger, but the light-strikes continued with 124gr +P duty ammo.)

Yep, there's definitely room in the market for another slim single stack 9. ;)

I'm not getting rid of my 5 other small 9's, though. :)

ForumSurfer
April 9, 2012, 02:01 PM
I've owned a kahr cw9 and I love carrying a slim 9mm single stack.

However, if m&p releases a single stack 9 (or whatever) without reducing the slide thickness, I won't buy it.

Why? Simple. On everything I conceal carry, the slide is the thickest part and what takes up the most room. So a single stack m&p or glock with a standard slide and narrower grip doesn't exactly free up any room in my waist band. No thanks, I'll stick to the double stack version and higher round count since I'm not saving any waistband space.

Just look at the glock 36. It has been around for a long time and never exactly took the ccw world by storm.

If it IS a new slimline and the slide is narrower, then all the geometry changes and it is essentially a new gun with new internals. If that is the case, I'd want to ait a year and see if it has new to market teething issues.

See what I mean here in the rear views of the new XDs. Obviously there has been some very major tweaking or a complete redesign to make it fit the narrow confines.
Original:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p188/johnnnyhgmail/Springfield-XD_3.jpg
XDs:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p188/johnnnyhgmail/Sprinfield-XDs-sight.jpg

DAdams
April 9, 2012, 02:54 PM
Is there a market glut for a compact 9mm?

Go look at the waiting list for the Boberg despite the fact the production is limited to a few per week.

wild cat mccane
April 9, 2012, 04:49 PM
I got misquoted quite a bit there :)

I never said we don't need a new one. I like having MANY options. However, the sneak peek pic releases, the building of excitement, the secret facebook posts by S&W...all that was ridiculous.

Maybe they should spend the time making the M&P trigger not the worst striker trigger on the market? :) There. That should get more attention :)

mgmorden
April 9, 2012, 04:52 PM
I never said we don't need a new one. I like having MANY options. However, the sneak peek pic releases, the building of excitement, the secret facebook posts by S&W...all that was ridiculous.

Its called marketing ;). They're in business to sell guns. Regardless of how justified you think it is, marketing does, in fact, work. They'd be crazy NOT to do this sort of thing to build up excitement for a new product.

Robbins290
April 9, 2012, 05:46 PM
I own and love the 3913. If they made a single stack. I would buy to preserve the 3913

ForumSurfer
April 9, 2012, 05:58 PM
Its called marketing . They're in business to sell guns. Regardless of how justified you think it is, marketing does, in fact, work. They'd be crazy NOT to do this sort of thing to build up excitement for a new product.

And it works because here we have a 2 page discussion on something not even released yet. :)

danez71
April 10, 2012, 12:01 AM
I got misquoted quite a bit there :)

I never said we don't need a new one. I like having MANY options. However, the sneak peek pic releases, the building of excitement, the secret facebook posts by S&W...all that was ridiculous.

Maybe they should spend the time making the M&P trigger not the worst striker trigger on the market? :) There. That should get more attention :)

Marketing has been working for Ruger quiet well along with the pet rock and numerous other things. I actualy fall more on your side on this though. Let performance be your marketing and sell the product cheaper. But thats just me.

Trigger... a whole other thread but I like the MP trigger better than glocks but I'm not a trigger snob... just someone that hates loooong triggers. Hence why I didnt buy the LC9 / Kahr or any other DA/SA with decocker except for a couple 22s that are for plinking and have an hammer I can thumb back.


I agree also with that it must have a thinner slide. Just a thinner grip wont cut it for me. Thinner slide and grip and its mine and I'll sell my MP9c to get it and run my BHP more again. I miss not shooting it more than I do now.

Kingofthehill
April 10, 2012, 05:09 AM
I love it!

If its truly a thin, single stack then I surely will be owning one. Im a huge fan of my several M&P's and my carry gun is my compact m&p .357sig. It will be hard for me to ditch an amazing caliber in wht I consider the perfect caliber to size ratio but if this is thin enough it may turn in my sole carry gun. At the very least it will go in rotation with my .357sig but I am keeping my fingers crossed fo this in that caliber

mlk18
April 10, 2012, 06:17 PM
Two days to go until the grand unveil. I for one am excited and will very likely get one (since we all pretty much know it will be 9mm slim M&P).

Cokeman
April 10, 2012, 10:36 PM
What if it's not? What if it's a shotgun?

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 10, 2012, 10:46 PM
I was just thinking today how I would love to have a more concealable single stack 9mm, but only if it was as close to my M&P9 as possible...

Sounds like my wish will be granted =)

I've owned Glocks, Walthers, Rugers, Sigs, Tauri, and Berettas. And the M&P has beat them all in my opinion. I'm getting rid of my Walther P22 to get the M&P .22 pistol, and I'll probably get rid of my Millennium Pro to get this new M&P. I'll probably get rid of my LCP to get the Bodyguard as well.

allaroundhunter
April 10, 2012, 10:48 PM
I was just thinking today how I would love to have a more concealable single stack 9mm, but only if it was as close to my M&P9 as possible...

Sounds like my wish will be granted

^^ +1

wild cat mccane
April 10, 2012, 11:22 PM
1: That picture is photoshopped. Anyone can see that. It isn't even in a real physical space.

2: All this excitement got 2 pages on a large forum with 4 posts being my own bashing on their marketing. S&W marketing worked? :)


Dear S&W, I have a business degree. I would love to come and work for you and do a much better job at excitement building translating to higher sales. Please send PM.

mgmorden
April 11, 2012, 01:50 AM
1: That picture is photoshopped. Anyone can see that. It isn't even in a real physical space.

Compare it to the picture linked later in the thread. It's the same picture with the man's hand that was holding it painted out. It is photoshoped - but it's not the item itself that was photoshopped - it was a poor editing job to remove the background from around it.

2: All this excitement got 2 pages on a large forum with 4 posts being my own bashing on their marketing. S&W marketing worked?


2 pages on this forum. Other pages on other forums. Lots more on their Facebook page. You can't possibly believe that the measure of success for an entire marketing campaign can be gauged via THR alone. That's like standing in a single building during a war and claiming that a battle was a failure because all you saw was a single window get shot out. You don't get the whole picture until you look outside at the total effect ;).

wild cat mccane
April 11, 2012, 02:47 PM
sorry, I'll add 2 pages each on TFL and Glocktalk. :D

Madcap_Magician
April 11, 2012, 03:09 PM
Go look at the waiting list for the Boberg despite the fact the production is limited to a few per week.

Good idea! ... *checks*

Crap. 281st in line. And I signed up November 16, 2011.

Girodin
April 11, 2012, 03:24 PM
I actualy fall more on your side on this though. Let performance be your marketing and sell the product cheaper. But thats just me

Sadly that all to often doesn't work. See the relative success of the XD and say the Steyr M series. The XD design existed prior to Springfield branding it the XD and hyping it up with their marketing campaign. It wasn't until it had ads in every gun rag that it caught on. The design was just as good before.

On the other end of things is the Steyr M series. These are wonderful guns. I personally find that they compare very favorably to Glocks and they other polymer 9mms. However, they have not been marketed well and they have never caught on.

I have to agree with the poster that said unless the slide is smaller too it is not really an advantage.

I welcome this to the market, but there are enough good products out and available for purchase (for years now in fact) for me to be waiting on edge.

robinkevin
April 11, 2012, 03:50 PM
I think they would be making a mistake going with single stack 9mm. Personally I like 9mm but I think Springfield is headed in the right direction. A lot of people are buying 1911's this past year many of them being new gun owners some will find the 1911 too heavy to carry all day and be looking for a light pistol in .45 that is easy to carry.

autospike
April 11, 2012, 04:06 PM
Looks great to me. I really wanted a single stack 9mm and was hoping this would have been released sooner. I got tired of waiting for the S&W and bought a PPS. I am a bit concerned over the safety - I don't want one on my gun. However, it's entirely possible that this "feature" is only found on one variant of the gun to make it fit certain niche markets.

allaroundhunter
April 11, 2012, 04:06 PM
A lot of people are buying 1911's this past year many of them being new gun owners some will find the 1911 too heavy to carry all day and be looking for a light pistol in .45 that is easy to carry.

A good holster makes a 1911 not that bad.

robinkevin
April 11, 2012, 04:37 PM
As I said... Some will find it too heavy. Other will carry it just fine. I know of a lot of people that carry 1911s 24/7 and never hear them complain about the weight.

Madcap_Magician
April 12, 2012, 01:47 PM
Maybe they should spend the time making the M&P trigger not the worst striker trigger on the market? There. That should get more attention

Interestingly, that appears to be what they tried to do with the new trigger on the M&P Shield, which HAS been redesigned for a more positive reset, though it still features the hinged trigger deal.

Caleb Giddings at Gun Nuts Radio has the first review up already. Unfortunately, it's not very complete.

http://gunnuts.net/2012/04/12/smith-wesson-mp-shield-9mm-review/

fastbolt
April 12, 2012, 03:16 PM
This seems to be an example of S&W's new marketing philosophy, with them waiting until they'd developed an inventory before announcing release, and also developing a catalog of readily available accessories by working with several other companies. ;)

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 03:28 PM
Meh, the XDs is thinner, more pocketable, with a better trigger/better sights and in a better caliber. AND it doesn't have the stupid safety.

Kudos to Smithy for having the gun ready to ship right away, but the XDs just seems better in every appreciable way.

Stasher1
April 12, 2012, 04:13 PM
I've been excitedly waiting for this little pistol to be released, but after checking the dimensions, it really has nothing to offer over the Kahr CM9 I already own.

I carry an M&P9c iwb ~95% of the time, but there are times when a smaller/lighter gun is just more comfortable or practical. I had hoped that the Shield would be decent replacement for my CM9, but it's larger in every dimension and has a thumb safety. :barf:

I suppose I could deal with the size, but the safety is a deal-breaker for me. That's one of the reasons I own an M&P9c and CM9 instead of the Ruger SR9c and LC9.

fastbolt
April 12, 2012, 04:31 PM
Meh, the XDs is thinner, more pocketable, with a better trigger/better sights and in a better caliber. AND it doesn't have the stupid safety.

Do you own a XD 3"? Or have handled one?

It doesn't exactly have an overall advantage in size & weight to the new Shield (the XD 3" retains the thick and chunky profile), although it does have a magazine capacity advantage. Maybe the single stack XD will be better?

As far as the safety issue, the XD has the grip safety, and that pivoting loaded chamber indicator (similar to Ruger's indicator, which means more parts that have to function during feeding).

If S&W has managed to create a safety with increased resistance to the original M&P option, then it shouldn't be a problem for proper handling, manipulation & usage. I won't be able to compare it to the BG380's safety until I get one on the bench, though.

I'm curious to see how the new enhanced M&P-type trigger does, myself. The original specs for the M&P called for an acceptable +/- 2 lbs tolerance for the 6 1/2 lb trigger in the 9/.40/.457 (the .45 is about half a pound heavier). The XD specs call for a trigger in the subcompact with an acceptable variance of 5.5-7.7 lbs (slightly more than a +/- 2 lbs tolerance), so it's not like the XD's trigger is going to be much different.

If I can't get one for T&E any time soon, I might just order one, anyway, being familair with the M&P platform (as an owner and armorer). I'm due for a M&P armorer recert later this year, and I hope to get the armorer info for the new Shield in the near future.

I suspect this new S&W will create an increasing amount of market attention, even with the existing smallish compact & subcompact 9/.40's already available.

My first inclination is to try it in 9mm, as I have more .40's than 9's at the moment. ;)

Armed012002
April 12, 2012, 04:35 PM
A thumb safety.

That's disappointing.

Why does Ruger and S&W feel it's necessary to require a thumb safety on a striker-fired auto with a firing pin safety and heavy trigger weight?

:banghead:

fastbolt
April 12, 2012, 05:23 PM
Because their marketing studies indicate a lot of potential buyers want that feature.

The clamor for the thumb safety option in the standard M&P line caught them by surprise. After all, they'd only put it in the M&P 45 because it was a specified feature in the suspected military pistol program. The commercial demand for incorporating it in the 9/.40/357 models was such that they finally modified the frames and sear housing blocks to start shifting the "standard" parts over to those suitable for use with the thumb safety installation.

Fortunately, it's not the same huge "paddle levers" as is used in the larger M&P's.

FWIW, the feedback I've heard from the factory is that the trigger is nice (in comparison to the original design M&P trigger). It ought to be, since their engineers have been working on revising the M&P trigger/sear housing for the last couple of years. ;)

hhb
April 12, 2012, 06:31 PM
Ordered the 9mm today, and may have it by Monday. S&W has been stock piling until today and will begin shipping. Supposed to have 7 or 8K in the warehouse.

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 06:42 PM
Do you own a XD 3"? Or have handled one?

It doesn't exactly have an overall advantage in size & weight to the new Shield (the XD 3" retains the thick and chunky profile), although it does have a magazine capacity advantage. Maybe the single stack XD will be better?

No broseph, I'm not talking about XD SUB COMPACTS, I'm talking about the XD-s...this:

http://xdspistol.com/specs.php

Let me make it easy for ya:

XD-s
Height w/ mag: 4.4"
Frame width: .90"
Maximum width: 1" (and only for 2 cm at slide stop)
Front sight: Fiber Optic
Weight: 21.5 oz
Caliber: .45 ACP
Capacity: 5+1

S&W Shield
Height w/ mag: 4.6"
Frame Width: .95"
Maximum Width: .98 (majority of the gun, not just slide stop)
Front sight: White Dot
Weight: 19 oz
Caliber: .40 S&W
Capacity: 6+1

So I can get .45 ACP in a shorter (height) and functionally thinner pistol and all I give up is 1 round and 2.5 oz? Yeah, I'll take the .45.

fastbolt
April 12, 2012, 07:10 PM
Thanks, but I've already got a subcompact .45 (CS45) with 6+1 capacity. ;)

You meant .90", not .09", right? ;)

I'm talking about the 9/.40 version of the smallest XD. If & when the Shield is finalized in a .45 version, then the XDs 45 would be a similar comparison.

While I've always liked the .45 ACP cartridge (long before .40 existed and back when I didn't really think of the 9mm as a "real" carry cartridge :neener: ), over the years I've come to appreciate the virtues of the smaller 9/.40 pistols and their cartridges (especially with newer ammo).

Also, I received some further info on the Shield line. The release today is for the regular commercial/sporting goods model. The LE version won't be available and announced for another month or so. I didn't get the details on the difference, but at a guess I'd expect the LE version to probably have night sights and an extra magazine (and a LE/Mil price break).

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 07:26 PM
You meant .90", not .09", right?

Yeah, I screwed up on the decimal points. It's fixed now. Thanks for the catch.

While I've always liked the .45 ACP cartridge (long before .40 existed and back when I didn't really think of the 9mm as a "real" carry cartridge ), over the years I've come to appreciate the virtues of the smaller 9/.40 pistols and their cartridges (especially with newer ammo).

I like the 9mm rounds, look at my pistols. A lot of dead MFs from 9mm bullets, no argument here.

I'm talking about the 9/.40 version of the smallest XD. If & when the Shield is finalized in a .45 version, then the XDs 45 would be a similar comparison.

This is where you lost me. It doesn't really matter where "you" want to shift the comparison, the XD-s gives you a larger caliber in a functionally smaller gun than the Shield from a manufacturer with an excellent track record for building reliable pistols.

Also, the XD-s is right at the limit of pocket carry (in terms of height/thickness) and the Shield is beyond that limit for the vast majority of us. Also, Springfield is measuring from the bottom of that mag butt plate to the TOP of the rear sight. I'll want to see a video with caliper measurement to see of that's how S&W measured their gun, because I doubt it.

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 07:37 PM
Thanks, but I've already got a subcompact .45 (CS45) with 6+1 capacity.

That's cool, I don't know what a CS45 is but I can dig. The closest thing to the XD-s that I've seen is Kahr PM-45...and measurement wise the XD-s blows the Kahr out of the water:

XD-s
Height w/ mag: 4.4"
Frame width: .90"
Maximum width: 1" (and only for 2 cm at slide stop)
Front sight: Fiber Optic
Weight: 21.5 oz
Caliber: .45 ACP
Capacity: 5+1

PM-45
Height w/ mag: 4.85" (top of sights to mag base pad)
Slide/Frame width: 1.01"
Maximum width: 1.165 (@ slide stop)
Front sight: White Dot
Weight: 17. oz
Caliber: .45 ACP
Capacity: 5+1

Source: http://www.gunblast.com/Kahr-PM45.htm

fastbolt
April 12, 2012, 07:48 PM
I've certainly had to go back and make enough corrections of my own when my fingers were flying faster than my thoughts. ;)

As far as comparisons, I was only trying keep comparisons to similar caliber platforms, since the 9/.40 is the hottest growing market outside of .380 ACP. The .45 is still a slower market.

But hey, I'm a long time .45 owner & shooter, myself. Unless they actually come out with a Shield variation chambered in .45 at some point (dunno), I personally tend to think the M&P is at its best in the M&P 45. ;) (Much like I tend to think the Glock and Walther's are optimal when chambered in 9mm.)

"Pocket (holster)" carry is pretty variable, too. Different folks draw their own lines.

While I have some jackets & coats which work pretty well for pocket carry of my G26's, G27, SW999c & CS9, I'd not be surprised to find that more folks find those too large for their practical use. Then again, I know a couple of guys that pocket holster carry their G26's in slacks & shorts. Different strokes.

I prefer not to use .380 anymore, so a 5-shot J-frame is as small as I'll go for that role (pants/shorts), and the J's work rather well in the role for me.

Now, once the LE version of the M&P Shield is released in another month or so, it'll be interesting to see if they've finishing testing on a .45 version, and what the dimensions will be for the larger caliber.

If they eliminate the replaceable grip inserts for a hypothetical .45 model (as they did in the 9/40 Shield, to help cut thickness), they might be able to further shave some thickness off a .45 frame. Be nice to see a slimmer slide, too.

Glad you like the XDs 45. It's not a platform for which I have much interest, myself.

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 07:56 PM
Different strokes for different folks. I'm sure the Shield will be a great gun, function wise. S&W doesn't build junk...and I'd take a Shield sight unseen over a most anything but a Glock or a Springer.

HOOfan_1
April 12, 2012, 08:16 PM
Because their marketing studies indicate a lot of potential buyers want that feature.


I was at a Gander during a sale and the salesman was showing compact autos to a couple of guys. They wanted the M&P but they said they had to have a manual safety. The clerk got on his radio to ask if they made the M&P with a safety. I told him they did but you don't often find them in Virginia and suggested they look at the Ruger SR40c instead. They ended up buying the Ruger.

I've been thinking of buying a Khar CM9. I for one hope Hickok does a CM9/PM9 comparison with the Shield. He does the best comparo videos I've seen

Armed012002
April 12, 2012, 10:24 PM
Because their marketing studies indicate a lot of potential buyers want that feature.

Probably the same group of potential buyers scared to load a round in the chamber or carry a cocked and locked 1911.

Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

At least make it an option for those who want their gun to work when they need it to.

Ruger is worse in this regard. They mandate an internal lock, magazine disconnect, loaded chamber indicator, and thumb safety in addition to a heavy trigger pull and firing pin safety. Effectively six safety features that will all fail when some idiot acts like an idiot.

Keep your finger off the trigger until you've identified your target and ready to fire. That's safety.

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 10:28 PM
Keep your finger off the trigger until you've identified your target and ready to fire. That's safety.

Yep.

Cokeman
April 12, 2012, 10:37 PM
So how much are these things going for?

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 10:40 PM
$440 msrp

TarDevil
April 12, 2012, 11:06 PM
I guess I'm naive but I don't understand the fuss about a thumb safety. I like my thumb safety. I don't have to use it, but I do. I like the added peace of mind of one more layer between me and a ND. I've practiced with and without, and can be ready to fire just as quick when using it...I just have to practice THE EXACT SAME WAY EVERY TIME. If I'm missing something, please educate me.

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 11:26 PM
^ Because a safety is simply NOT NECESSARY on DAO and striker-fired guns. Period. Why would I want something there that's not necessary. Why would I want to complicate training by adding a safety?

Cokeman
April 12, 2012, 11:29 PM
$440 msrp

No kidding. :scrutiny:

So what are they going for?

StrikeFire83
April 12, 2012, 11:35 PM
^ If you find one, let us know. The gun was just announced today. Smith has a 7 to 8 thousand "shipping to dealers" as we speak, but I don't know of anyone who's bought one out in the wild...yet.

Cokeman
April 12, 2012, 11:57 PM
I researched and found these.

9MM Shield (http://www.impactguns.com/smith-wesson-mp-shield-9mm-compact-180021-022188147216.aspx)

40 S&W Shield (http://www.impactguns.com/smith-wesson-mp-shield-40-sw-compact-180021-022188147209.aspx)

People are already seeing them in shops and buying them.

http://i1169.photobucket.com/albums/r513/whiskey_bravo1/MPSHIELD.jpg

crracer_712
April 13, 2012, 12:12 AM
http://grabagun.com/smith-wesson-and-wesson-m-p9-shield-9mm.html

There's one left in stock here for 395.00, 6 bucks shipping.

crracer_712
April 13, 2012, 12:13 AM
BTW, the 40 shield isn't available yet.

StrikeFire83
April 13, 2012, 12:17 AM
^wellegy, Cokeman, looks like ya answered your own question. My guess is that these will settle in at around a $400 street price, +/- depending on your locale.

Cokeman
April 13, 2012, 12:42 AM
I've seen Beretta Nanos with an MRSP of $475 going for $389. The Shield might go for less than that since it's MRSP is $449.

danez71
April 13, 2012, 01:39 AM
Probably the same group of potential buyers scared to load a round in the chamber or carry a cocked and locked 1911.

Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

At least make it an option for those who want their gun to work when they need it to.

Ruger is worse in this regard. They mandate an internal lock, magazine disconnect, loaded chamber indicator, and thumb safety in addition to a heavy trigger pull and firing pin safety. Effectively six safety features that will all fail when some idiot acts like an idiot.

Keep your finger off the trigger until you've identified your target and ready to fire. That's safety.


Well thats awfully presumptuous on your part. I carry my BHP cocked and locked and when I had my 1911 I also carried cocked and locked. Millions of other do as well and quiet a few of us want it on the M&P line as well.

Besides, you you keep your finger off the trigger... a thumb safety isnt technically needed on any gun.


^ Because a safety is simply NOT NECESSARY on DAO and striker-fired guns. Period. Why would I want something there that's not necessary. Why would I want to complicate training by adding a safety?

Again... back to the BHP and 1911.

Both of those had a short trigger pull of ~ the same trigger pull when bought new. Millions of BHP and 1911 owners think its a good idea and some great gun designers think its a good idea t


Blade guards arent needed on power tools either... but millions of people WANT them.

Its a circular arguement. Just because some peopel cant control all of their fingers doesnt mean eveyone cant either.


Why cant people just accept that instead trying to force their beliefs on everyone else?


Looks like a neat gun.. I'll have to at least 1t.

StrikeFire83
April 13, 2012, 03:01 AM
Danez71, I'll answer what was specifically directed at me.

Again... back to the BHP and 1911.

Both of those had a short trigger pull of ~ the same trigger pull when bought new. Millions of BHP and 1911 owners think its a good idea and some great gun designers think its a good idea t

Apparently you're not too good at the readin'...because I said that DAO and striker-fired guns don't need safeties...1911s and BHPs are single action guns that were designed to be operated with a safety. Nothing wrong with that. I know a lot of people who shoot and like those pistols. Wonderful. I have a CZ-75b that I can carry cocked and locked. I get it. But Glocks, XDs, and yes...M&Ps don't need safeties. They weren't designed with safeties, and to the extent that they have safeties (the M&P and a few mostly discontinued XD models)...it is because political pressures and certain state requirements made it financially wise to include them. Obviously there is a market, great. Smith should produce two versions of the Shield like the do with the other M&Ps, one with a safety and one without.

Just because some peopel cant control all of their fingers doesnt mean eveyone cant either.

Um, what? Is that a double or triple negative? No make-o the senso, bro.

Why cant people just accept that instead trying to force their beliefs on everyone else?

Ha ha ha ha ha...Pot, let me introduce you to kettle.

allaroundhunter
April 13, 2012, 03:06 AM
Smith should produce two versions of the Shield like the do with the other M&Ps, one with a safety and one without.

I am fully expecting them to...but if they don't, I'm just going to have to try the M&P Shield and get used to leaving it in Condition Zero :what: ..... kinda like how I already carry my M&P :cool:

mgmorden
April 13, 2012, 03:07 AM
Why cant people just accept that instead trying to force their beliefs on everyone else?

I don't think accepting "Different strokes" is the issue. What they're complaining about here is that the gun comes with a safety - its not an optional feature. If it came in two versions nobody would care if people who wanted one bought one with it, but people who don't want it are having the reverse belief (that a safety is required) for upon them.

I think S&W's approach with the other M&P's worked well - it's available both with and without the safety - buy whichever version you prefer.

Personally for me it's a relative question. If it's a gun that will be carried IWB or in a pocket then I want EITHER a safety or a 6+ lbs trigger pull. I don't need both. If it's a gun that will be used for competition and other range use (ie, used exclusively either without a holster or with a kydex OWB holster) then I prefer to not have the safety - no matter how light the trigger.

blackhawk556
April 13, 2012, 03:08 AM
They're making a CA compliant version also! They didn't forget about us, one of the largest gun markets in the country :)

Since its CA compliant, that means it will be "safer" than other guns out there ;)

Cokeman
April 13, 2012, 03:08 AM
So they thinned and shortened the gun, improved the trigger, and added a safety, and shaved almost $300 off the price compared to the M&P9c?

allaroundhunter
April 13, 2012, 03:11 AM
So they thinned and shortened the gun, improved the trigger, and added a safety, and shaved almost $300 off the price compared to the M&P9c?

M&P 9c's go for around $500 around here. I have never seen them go for near $700...

Here (http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_39_71/products_id/77483/S%26W+M%26P9C+9M+3.5+AMS+ILDOT+12R) is a link for one for $476

mgmorden
April 13, 2012, 03:11 AM
I am fully expecting them to...but if they don't, I'm just going to have to try the M&P Shield and get used to leaving it in Condition Zero ..... oh wait, that sounds like how I already carry my M&P

Problem there is that it's a switch on the outside of the gun - a switch that unlike a trigger is rarely covered up and protected by the holster. In that lies a danger that the safety can be engaged unknowingly. Having a gun with a safety that you just don't apply could lead to disastrous results if Murphy strikes. Either get one without it, or train yourself to always flick it off - even if you don't normally apply it.

StrikeFire83
April 13, 2012, 03:16 AM
problem there is that it's a switch on the outside of the gun - a switch that unlike a trigger is rarely covered up and protected by the holster. In that lies a danger that the safety can be engaged unknowingly. Having a gun with a safety that you just don't apply could lead to disastrous results if murphy strikes. Either get one without it, or train yourself to always flick it off - even if you don't normally apply it.

b-i-n-g-o!

allaroundhunter
April 13, 2012, 03:16 AM
Problem there is that it's a switch on the outside of the gun - a switch that unlike a trigger is rarely covered up and protected by the holster. In that lies a danger that the safety can be engaged unknowingly. Having a gun with a safety that you just don't apply could lead to disastrous results if Murphy strikes. Either get one without it, or train yourself to always flick it off - even if you don't normally apply it.

Sorry, that was sarcasm (rarely does it come out like I mean it on the computer :banghead:) on my part. I will not carry an M&P shield if it has a manual safety. My problem is that I am used to the feel of my M&P and not having to worry about the safety, and having another gun with near the same feel with a manual safety is counter-intuitive (as is the same thought of many others here, including yourself, mgmorden :)).

Cokeman
April 13, 2012, 03:22 AM
M&P 9c's go for around $500 around here. I have never seen them go for near $700...

Here (http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_39_71/products_id/77483/S%26W+M%26P9C+9M+3.5+AMS+ILDOT+12R) is a link for one for $476

Look at the MSRP (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_764517_-1_757954_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y)

Look at the MSRP (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_809560_-1_780153_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y)

click clack
April 13, 2012, 03:22 AM
Dang! i just bought my m&p9c too.. Don't get me wrong, I love it but this is pretty cool too. Sweet pricetag too. Maybe the 9c will have a little brother soon :)

mingansr
April 13, 2012, 04:44 AM
the sw website lists the Shield as a 'striker fired' action. is this an SAO or a DA/SA trigger? thanks

allaroundhunter
April 13, 2012, 04:49 AM
the sw website lists the Shield as a 'striker fired' action. is this an SAO or a DA/SA trigger? thanks

It is more like a DAO, as is the rest of the M&P series.

LawofThirds
April 13, 2012, 04:55 AM
This looks suspiciously similar in size to a CS9...

May have to check it out. Wish it was a DAO though. Partial-cock striker systems are my least favorite system.

allaroundhunter
April 13, 2012, 04:58 AM
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but I just looked at the manual for the Shield and some models will have a loaded chamber indicator similar to that of the Ruger SR series (but slightly smaller and less obtrusive)...

Skunk Pilot
April 13, 2012, 07:10 AM
I don't know about the Shield. I do know that you can remove the thumb safety on the other regular M&P's and have it function just fine. I'd assume they'd offer it without from the factory at some point though.

Canfield
April 13, 2012, 09:22 AM
Sorry, that was sarcasm (rarely does it come out like I mean it on the computer :banghead:) on my part. I will not carry an M&P shield if it has a manual safety. My problem is that I am used to the feel of my M&P and not having to worry about the safety, and having another gun with near the same feel with a manual safety is counter-intuitive (as is the same thought of many others here, including yourself, mgmorden :)).
I'm coming from the opposite side of the thumb-safety issue, but I'm also not happy about the Shield's safety. My only pistol now is a 1911. I'm looking for another pistol that's smaller but has the same manual of arms. I liked the 1911-style safety on the other M&P pistols. I worry that a flat little switch that you can't rest your thumb on won't work as naturally. I'm going back to looking at smaller 1911s.

danez71
April 13, 2012, 10:23 AM
Danez71, I'll answer what was specifically directed at me.



Apparently you're not too good at the readin'...because I said that DAO and striker-fired guns don't need safeties...1911s and BHPs are single action guns that were designed to be operated with a safety. Nothing wrong with that. I know a lot of people who shoot and like those pistols. Wonderful. I have a CZ-75b that I can carry cocked and locked. I get it. But Glocks, XDs, and yes...M&Ps don't need safeties. They weren't designed with safeties, and to the extent that they have safeties (the M&P and a few mostly discontinued XD models)...it is because political pressures and certain state requirements made it financially wise to include them. Obviously there is a market, great. Smith should produce two versions of the Shield like the do with the other M&Ps, one with a safety and one without.



Um, what? Is that a double or triple negative? No make-o the senso, bro.



Ha ha ha ha ha...Pot, let me introduce you to kettle.

No need to get snarky.

Im fine with reading... and comprehension. ;)

I said
Again... back to the BHP and 1911.

Both of those had a short trigger pull of ~ the same trigger pull when bought new. Millions of BHP and 1911 owners think its a good idea and some great gun designers think its a good idea t

~ same trigger pull length and weight = basically the same thing.

The 1911 didnt have the thumb safety in its original design. Its been hashed out numerous times. IE The M&P was deisgned the a thumb safety as much as the 1911 was. The 1911 with thumb safety has been widely accepted for what... oh, about a 100 yrs.

I think you were about the only one that didnt understand the controling all of your fingers comment I made.



mgmorden Quote:

I don't think accepting "Different strokes" is the issue. What they're complaining about here is that the gun comes with a safety - its not an optional feature. If it came in two versions nobody would care if people who wanted one bought one with it, but people who don't want it are having the reverse belief (that a safety is required) for upon them.

I get what youre saying but dissagree.

When a new pistol comes out with-out the option of a thumb safety you dont see people that want it being snarky to the people to dont.

PabloJ
April 13, 2012, 10:26 AM
Last S&W 469 I looked at in very good condition with two TWELVE round magazines had tag of $279. The size looked pretty similar and fit my medium hand quite well is this new S&W for tiny hand crowd? Oh, Glock 26 magazine holds 10 rounds.

dcarch
April 13, 2012, 11:01 AM
Looks interesting. If the price is right, and the trigger is good, I may have to pick one up eventually. I'm gonna wait a bit and let some other people beta test it for me, though. That, and I sure don't want to end up with "SD round 2".

WinThePennant
April 13, 2012, 11:23 AM
I think this is fantastic.

When Glock comes out with a single stack 9mm, I'll be the first in line!

Stasher1
April 13, 2012, 11:27 AM
Looks interesting. If the price is right, and the trigger is good, I may have to pick one up eventually. I'm gonna wait a bit and let some other people beta test it for me, though. That, and I sure don't want to end up with "SD round 2".


I think this is sound advice, and not just from a beta-testing perspective.

With an MSRP of ~$450, actual retail will probably fall in the ~$400 range to start but will likely drop to the $325-$350 range once initial demand subsides...or even lower, if its MSRP/retail pricing ratio is consistant with the rest of the M&P lineup.

When the CM9 and CW9 hit stores they were running ~$425, but they've already dropped down below $375 at several locations, with the CW9 routinely popping up for less than $350. I predict the same will happen with the Shield.

robb01
April 13, 2012, 11:35 AM
Wonder if I can justify one after just getting an MP9c :)

http://goo.gl/H9XbG

Stasher1
April 13, 2012, 11:40 AM
Looking at the dimensions posted by S&W, it's really not that much smaller overall. It's .25" thinner than the 9c, but all the rest of the dimensions seem to be within ~.5" or so.

Madcap_Magician
April 13, 2012, 12:38 PM
If the thumb safety is that low-profile and has a really positive on/off detent, then I'd just carry it safety off and not worry about it, like I would a Beretta.

Aahzz
April 13, 2012, 02:05 PM
Just bought one at lunchtime. Safety has a very positive feel, trigger feels great. Pics and range report to come...

StrikeFire83
April 13, 2012, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by danez71
-snip-

Okay, okay. You win. You go out and buy the Shield (with thumb safety) and the millions of us who don't like thumb safeties because we "can't control all of our fingers" can NOT buy it.

Problem solved.

Jon Coppenbarger
April 13, 2012, 04:22 PM
I have a few coming and davidsons gallery of guns had like 14 left about 15 minutes ago in the 9mm.
just put in item #180020 if you want one before they are all gone.

kent e
April 13, 2012, 05:16 PM
I would like this safety because I have children. I have lots of them. They jump all over me, the boys tackle me, the little ones hang on my leg, just under the barrel as it's holstered on my waist, and so I'd LIKE to have one.

Is it needed? No. But I would like the extra piece of mind because it does point at my children often. For me, that's reason enough.

ForumSurfer
April 13, 2012, 05:53 PM
I would like this safety because I have children. I have lots of them. They jump all over me, the boys tackle me, the little ones hang on my leg, just under the barrel as it's holstered on my waist, and so I'd LIKE to have one.

Is it needed? No. But I would like the extra piece of mind because it does point at my children often. For me, that's reason enough

Just so you can relate, I'm a very active guy. I'm very active with my kids. I carry a glock. We wrestle around while I wear it, I've fallen into the pool, I've fallen into some fast moving little creeks in the mountains, I hang upside down on the monkey bars, bicycling, hiking, rope swings, rope climbs...all without issue. At one time I was convinced an external safety was one more layer of safety. I don't feel that way anymore. :)

I'm a firm believer in the four rules and proper gear. It is also one reason I switched to kydex with my lifestyle. I prefer leather, but kydex gives me better retention when I'm hanging upside down on the monkey bars and it takes hits better in my opinion.

Aahzz
April 13, 2012, 06:53 PM
Here's a few pics of mine next to the venerable 3913. 2 with the short mag, one with the long. Off to the range after dinner....

http://www.sweeneyllc.com/images/aahzz/shield1.jpg
http://www.sweeneyllc.com/images/aahzz/shield2.jpg
http://www.sweeneyllc.com/images/aahzz/shield3.jpg

Jon Coppenbarger
April 13, 2012, 07:19 PM
We have quite a few choices over that last few years but nothing wrong with another choice and I hope to like them also.

Deaf Smith
April 13, 2012, 08:19 PM
Okay, okay. You win. You go out and buy the Shield (with thumb safety) and the millions of us who don't like thumb safeties because we "can't control all of our fingers" can NOT buy it.

Problem solved.
No the reason one does not want the safety is because we want ALL our SD guns to work the same way.

Say a Glock 19, S&W Shield, and a Taurus TCP. All DAO and all without any external safety.

We don't want the safety to somehow be put on the safe selector when we really wanted it on 'fire'.

Now if we had a 1911 or Ruger 9mm with a safety (their polymer 9mm does have one) then I can see the S&W shield as a good companion piece.

But I pack Glocks and J .38s for a reason.... NO EXTERNAL SAFETIES!!

I hope S&W makes versions of it without a safety.

Deaf

3KillerBs
April 13, 2012, 08:33 PM
Well, the reason DH kidnaps my Taurus Slim so often is that the thick butt of his M&P 9 shows too badly under the light clothing appropriate to a NC Piedmont summer.

danez71
April 13, 2012, 10:00 PM
Now if we had a 1911 or Ruger 9mm with a safety (their polymer 9mm does have one) then I can see the S&W shield as a good companion piece.


I have a BHP for almost 20 yrs and had a 1911 for around 15 yrs during the same time period.

I waited until the MP9c was avail with the thumb safety for just that reason.

Now I have this option too.

Seeing the pics next to the 3913 that Aahzz posted makes me want it more. Judging by the pics the Shield looks to about the same amount smaller than the 3913 as the 3913 is to the MP9c which should be quiet a noticable shrinkage from the MP9c.

mingansr
April 14, 2012, 08:51 PM
allaroundhunter said
[quote]It is more like a DAO, as is the rest of the M&P series. [quote/]


thanks for the info. not interested in DAO. i'll have to wait for my XDS, SAO

BamAlmighty
April 14, 2012, 10:07 PM
A gun is only as safe as its user, if you need a manual safety to be safe, you are doing it wrong!

While I wouldn't own a Shield, it is a nice alternative to the Ruger LC9 or Keltec PF9. The fact that it doesn't have a useless mag disconnect safety automatically puts it ahead of the Ruger and I am sure the Shield's trigger is infinitely better than either the LC9 or PF9.

Not that I would replace my CM9 with any of these, I still haven't found anything that is as compact and shoots as well as the CM/PM9, even goes for the Rohrbaugh R9, it fits the compact bill, but not smooth shooting.

StrikeFire83
April 14, 2012, 10:18 PM
A gun is only as safe as its user, if you need a manual safety to be safe, you are doing it wrong!

While I wouldn't own a Shield, it is a nice alternative to the Ruger LC9 or Keltec PF9. The fact that it doesn't have a useless mag disconnect safety automatically puts it ahead of the Ruger and I am sure the Shield's trigger is infinitely better than either the LC9 or PF9.

Not that I would replace my CM9 with any of these, I still haven't found anything that is as compact and shoots as well as the CM/PM9, even goes for the Rohrbaugh R9, it fits the compact bill, but not smooth shooting.

Yep. I agree with all of this except for the comments on Rohrbaugh, only because I've never shot one.

jdmb03
April 14, 2012, 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wild cat mccane
S&W needs to get over itself.

We already have a PF-9, Ruger LC9, Walther PPS, Bersa's BP9, Kimber Solo, R9, Kahr PM9/CM9, Diamondback DP9, Beretta Nano...

Essentially they are the last manufactures making a single stack. Why build excitement over being last?

Because some of the guns you mentioned are far from perfect and could be improved on.

And Don't forget Springfield is joining the field with its XDs, granted it is only offered in .45 out the gate, but eventually will be offered in 9 and 40 which I look forward to trying. You might not see it, but competition is actually good for the consumer.

I agree, the competition is a good thing. What does it matter if S&W is the "last" to make a single stack? Would you say the same thing if Glock made a single stack 9mm?

jdmb03
April 14, 2012, 11:30 PM
I wonder how much it will cost in aftermarket parts, to give this model M&P a useable trigger?

What do you consider a "useable" trigger for a striker fired gun? The M&P has a nice 6# trigger, what's wrong with that?

jdmb03
April 14, 2012, 11:40 PM
Quote:
Because their marketing studies indicate a lot of potential buyers want that feature.

Probably the same group of potential buyers scared to load a round in the chamber or carry a cocked and locked 1911.

Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

At least make it an option for those who want their gun to work when they need it to.

Ruger is worse in this regard. They mandate an internal lock, magazine disconnect, loaded chamber indicator, and thumb safety in addition to a heavy trigger pull and firing pin safety. Effectively six safety features that will all fail when some idiot acts like an idiot.

Keep your finger off the trigger until you've identified your target and ready to fire. That's safety.

I like the option of the safety and I carry with one in the chamber and I carry a cocked and locked 1911, so now what?

basicblur
April 14, 2012, 11:44 PM
Haven't followed this post, but from my post elsewhere (bought one today for $399):

Just fished out my LC9 as I wanted to compare 'em.
1. Slides pretty much the same AFA thickness, etc, but the Ruger is slightly more rounded at the top edges.
2. The Ruger has a much longer trigger pull, but it's smooth.
3. The Shield has a much shorter trigger pull, and although folks rave about it, I think it still feels slightly 'spongy'.
4. The Shield is striker fired, the Ruger hammer fired.
5. The Ruger seems to have a thinner grip, and the slide is slightly shorter in length.
6. All controls 'bout the same (safety, slide lock).

If I was going for ultimate concealability, I think I'd give the nod to the Ruger?
If not, the Shield does fit my hand a little better, plus the rougher texture of the Shield grip is reassuring.

The Shield is a single stack, but it looks like the rounds are half-staggered.
The LC9 is cheaper, but how much I don't know - our local shop is currently out of 'em.

WinThePennant
April 15, 2012, 01:43 AM
Early reports suggest that the shield has relatively mild recoil. I hear that the LC9 kicks like a mule.

Stasher1
April 15, 2012, 03:19 AM
The LC9 is cheaper, but how much I don't know - our local shop is currently out of 'em.

I think we'll see a fairly significant drop in price once the "new-ness" wears off. I believe the average retail price will wind up being comparable to the LC9.

michaelbsc
April 16, 2012, 04:37 AM
Okay, okay. You win. You go out and buy the Shield.... and ... us who don't like thumb safeties ... can NOT buy it.

Problem solved.

Bingo!

We got a winner!

I may be new around here, but I can see that I like the way people can work it out.

WinThePennant
April 16, 2012, 10:15 AM
The thumb safety might not be that big a deal. If it has a stout release, meaning it stays put, then you can just leave it off and have no worries of it engaging.

Madcap_Magician
April 16, 2012, 12:44 PM
... and Davidson's is sold out. They had 36, and then they had none.

basicblur
April 16, 2012, 03:30 PM
Not gonna vote yay or nay, but I will say comparing the LC9 to the SHIELD is a bit like apples and oranges?
Don't know what the trigger pull weight is on both guns (may be the same?), but the LC9 has a much longer stroke. As such, I'd say the LC9 could do without the safety much more than the SHIELD.

After all...we wouldn't want an epidemic of SHIELD Leg to break out now, would we? :D

ForumSurfer
April 16, 2012, 03:58 PM
As such, I'd say the LC9 could do without the safety much more than the SHIELD.

But the shield isn't a pocket gun, as such...the g26 and m&p 9c have gotten by fine without safeties (although it is optional on the 9c)so far. Since it doesn't fit in human pockets, it will be carried in exactly the same manner as m&p 9c's without safeties and glock 26's.

basicblur
April 16, 2012, 04:05 PM
But the shield isn't a pocket gun...
Far be it from me to define what a pocket gun is - I've seen guys at the gun shop carrying some darn big revolvers in their pockets!

ForumSurfer
April 16, 2012, 04:16 PM
Far be it from me to define what a pocket gun is - I've seen guys at the gun shop carrying some darn big revolvers in their pockets!

Same here. I know a few people who say they pocket carry a g26. My pockets are obviously much smaller. :)

But my point is that many other guns of similar size (and product line) can be had without a safety....I hate that they are forcing a manual safety whether we want it or not.

Yeah, you can just leave it off...but IMHO I need to train to use it if it is there because there will always be a possibility of it getting activated.

mgmorden
April 16, 2012, 04:21 PM
Not gonna vote yay or nay, but I will say comparing the LC9 to the SHIELD is a bit like apples and oranges?
Don't know what the trigger pull weight is on both guns (may be the same?), but the LC9 has a much longer stroke. As such, I'd say the LC9 could do without the safety much more than the SHIELD.

I'd call the difference in triggers more like splitting hairs than comparing apples and oranges :). That's almost like saying you can't compare anything unless they're nearly identical products.

Both are similarly sized (and priced) polymer 9mm's targeted at pretty much the same market segment. Small differences in design execution don't invalidate the comparison.

basicblur
April 16, 2012, 04:30 PM
But my point is that many other guns of similar size (and product line) can be had without a safety...
Yes, but I'd be willing to bet if S&W made the SHIELD sans safety, then they'd either up the trigger pull weight or increase the length of pull.

It took a while, but I've seen a trend over the years where ('specially new shooters) all wanted lighter and lighter triggers. Word finally seems to have gotten around(?) that if you're going to tote something sans an external safety, then maybe you should opt for something like the NY Trigger on Glocks, etc.

I'd hate to see a repeat of that learning curve simply because we're dealing with a new gun.

basicblur
April 16, 2012, 04:38 PM
Small differences in design execution don't invalidate the comparison.
When it comes to which one can do without a safety, I'd say it does ('specially for newbies).

I can very well see S&W saying you can have:
1. A short/light trigger pull with a safety.
2. A long trigger pull without a safety.
3. You can't have both! (short/light trigger pull without a safety).

Doesn't matter which route S&W goes, folks are gonna complain.
I grew up on DA revolvers, so trigger pulls don't make much difference to me.

Which trigger do I like best - the SHIELD or the LC9?
I'd probably say the LC9 - long, but it's smooth/solid, and doesn't have the spongy feel of the SHIELD.

There's still a LOT to like 'bout hammer-fired guns!

Balok1701
April 16, 2012, 08:13 PM
I totally agree! The slide must be thin (1" or less) to be effective for IWB or pocket carry. You could even let the grip remain a little thicker for higher capacity since it usually rides above the waist band out of the holster.

gym
April 16, 2012, 11:02 PM
I drove 2 hours back and forth to get one of these new M&P guns. Wind up was I passed. It didn't really fit into the "pocket pistol" catagory. I compared the nano, M&P shield, and sig 290, to my lcp in Gander Mountain, it was empty and several salesmen hadn't seen the new M&P yet. The shield was the larger of the guns. Even with the short magazine. There is no way with 8 rounds this gun would be comfortable to pocket carry. Possiblly the sig, Even though it is an odd shape, it lends itself better to stealth, The nano also was easier to hide but not enough to pocket carry. I also didn't like the way the Magazine feeds into the feed ramp, that looks like an accident waiting to happen. All agreed none of these 3 could replace the LCP as a pocket gun.
I wanted to try an LC9 also, but it figures that they had none, "not even used". So 2 1/2 hours in the car and I came back with nothing.It took a lot of willpower, but the fact that they were selling these guns at the highest prices I ever saw, MSRP+, was a good motivater.No one gets $700 for the sig 290 except them. the others were 479, and 450 for the nano and shield.I scanned hundreds of guns the Kahr was smaller than all of these mentioned in 9, but I didn't go to buy a kahr, I never liked the grip.So now I wait for the next big thing, or small thing in this case. I think that no one will make a more reliable small gun in 9, that will be smaller and as reliable as the 380 LCP. Having had seacamps when they first came out and paid the rediculous price I paid. It felt good coming out with the 2 guns I walked in with.
For me it's a BUG, I carry a 40 or 45 as my main gun other than when home, so it's ok if things saty the same.I was thinking about the XDS, but a 6 round 45 is tricky, I had a CS45 smith, and the 6 round guns are unique in todays world of hi cap multi magazine thinking, plus it's a pain in the butt to keep loading unless you have 6 mags, even for practice.And that would have to be a belly band gun or a fanny pak, as two medium size guns are just too big and heavy.But there is something to say for 6 rounds of 45 compared to 7 or 8 rounds of 380 or 9mm. If you are a decent shot, it should be enough for two to 3 attackers, if you are still alive. If so you can go to your secondary gun, or mag.

StrikeFire83
April 16, 2012, 11:45 PM
I totally agree! The slide must be thin (1" or less) to be effective for IWB or pocket carry. You could even let the grip remain a little thicker for higher capacity since it usually rides above the waist band out of the holster.

Hmmm, so this Glock 26 that I carry IWB is with its 1.2" frame is "ineffective" for IWB carry? That's news to me.

danez71
April 16, 2012, 11:58 PM
But my point is that many other guns of similar size (and product line) can be had without a safety....I hate that they are forcing a manual safety whether we want it or not.

OMG to eveyone whinning about the safety.

So dont buy the thing. No one is FORCING you to BUY anything.


As I said pages ago.... Glock doesnt offer a safety but you dont get half of the whinning that glock is "forcing" no dafety on them.

Man up, get over it, and move on to something else if YOU dont like it. :cuss:


And why are people critiquing that its not a pocket gun?!?!? Did S&W EVER say it was?

The only people that are whinning that it isnt a pocket gun are the ones that making claims that it isnt.


BTW - I can fit my M&P9c in my $17 Guide Gear jeans. I have a 30-32 waist :neener:

Its not ideal by any means but it works. The Shield would be just a little bit easier.

Some of you need to branch out a little and try buying cloths to carry how you want instead of sticking to the same jeans you worn in Jr High.

After reading through some of these posts, I see that some say things like "using the right belt & holtser and you can carry anything" but then wont go buy a $17 pair of jeans that have bigger pockets. Sheesh!!!

S&W isnt advertising it as a pocket gun so why critique it on that criteria?

Apparently some just like to make up stuff just to be able to have asomthing to complain about.

StrikeFire83
April 17, 2012, 12:14 AM
OMG to eveyone whinning about the safety.

So dont buy the thing. No one is FORCING you to BUY anything.

As I said pages ago.... Glock doesnt offer a safety but you dont get half of the whinning that glock is "forcing" no dafety on them.

Man up, get over it, and move on to something else if YOU dont like it.

Dude, you need to chill out. You're right, Glock DOESN'T offer a safety and NEVER HAS, so asking for one would be stupid. But Smith & Wesson designed the M&P without a safety, and has been offering M&P's without a safety for YEARS, so it makes sense that people who like the M&P's without safeties and were looking forward to an M&P single stack WITHOUT A SAFETY. This isn't brain surgery. And unless you designed the weapon or hold a controlling share of S&W stock, you shouldn't be taking criticism of a firearm so personally.

Cokeman
April 17, 2012, 02:17 AM
OMG to eveyone whinning about the safety.

So dont buy the thing. No one is FORCING you to BUY anything.


As I said pages ago.... Glock doesnt offer a safety but you dont get half of the whinning that glock is "forcing" no dafety on them.

Man up, get over it, and move on to something else if YOU dont like it. :cuss:


And why are people critiquing that its not a pocket gun?!?!? Did S&W EVER say it was?

The only people that are whinning that it isnt a pocket gun are the ones that making claims that it isnt.


BTW - I can fit my M&P9c in my $17 Guide Gear jeans. I have a 30-32 waist :neener:

Its not ideal by any means but it works. The Shield would be just a little bit easier.

Some of you need to branch out a little and try buying cloths to carry how you want instead of sticking to the same jeans you worn in Jr High.

After reading through some of these posts, I see that some say things like "using the right belt & holtser and you can carry anything" but then wont go buy a $17 pair of jeans that have bigger pockets. Sheesh!!!

S&W isnt advertising it as a pocket gun so why critique it on that criteria?

Apparently some just like to make up stuff just to be able to have asomthing to complain about.

That's easy to do when there's nothing of any size in there to compete for space. :neener:

mingansr
April 17, 2012, 05:49 AM
that's why i like the XD line. no safety and it's a true SAO trigger, but does incorporate the grip safety and the so called USA trigger (ultra safety, a two stage trigger). i want to carry locked and loaded. that's why i'm waiting for the new XDS, for Slim, single stack, .40sw to come out, maybe in the fall. if i don't like it, i'll probably have to settle for the Sig P238 which i can pocket carry. hope not. don't want new muscle memory, as i've posted before.

that shield looks like a nice pistola tho, doesn't it?

danez71
April 17, 2012, 10:13 AM
That's easy to do when there's nothing of any size in there to compete for space.

LOL... thats was kinda funny. I'll give you that... but only because when I stick a gun in my pocket, I make sure nothing else is in my pocket. ;)


And unless you designed the weapon or hold a controlling share of S&W stock, you shouldn't be taking criticism of a firearm so personally.

I'm not taking it personally... the people that are whinning about SW "forcing" something upon them are.


You (not specifically you) arent entitled to have every choice you want. Life isnt fair.


You dont hear the lefties whinning 1/10th as much as this thread has when controls such as mag release arent ambi. Why? Because they deal with it and move on.

crracer_712
April 17, 2012, 10:59 AM
Well, there's the M&P9 shield and the LC9. To me, there's enough difference between the two, they really aren't in the same catagory.

The LC9 feels slimmer and will carry with less intrusion than the M&P9 Shield. I'm probably one of the few that actually like the LC9 trigger, albeit long, mine is super smooth and I'm very accurate with it. The M&P breaks much quicker and is a great trigger, but it's really hard to compare the two here.

Using the flush fit magazine, as it is now, I prefer the feel of the LC9 in my hand. While the grips are similarly slim, the grip on the M&P has more depth, making it feel a bit slimmer, somewhat out of proportion compared to the LC9.

Recoil between the two seemed nearly identical. To keep things even, I shot some of my 115 gn Rainier plated reloads in both. Already knowing the LC9 shot them well, the M&P had no trouble with them at all. Shootability felt better with the extended magazine in the M&P and gave me a full grip.

Fit and finish of my M&P seem to be excellent, no pitting anywhere that I could find. The sight's dots are a bit bigger on the M&P and are very nice for staying on target. Honestly, I'd heard about the 'audible' click with the trigger reset, but I didn't notice it.

I tried the M&P in the Desantis Soft Tuck holster that I use for the LC9, and while I was able to force it in, it's just not going to work as the bulkier barrel end just grabs the holster and hangs on. I'm thinking a form fitted leather or kydex holster will be the way to go for the M&P due to the blocky slide. It doesn't lend itself well to sliding in to a holster such as the Desantis Soft tuck as much as the LC9 with it's slender tapered slide.

The M&P really does feel and look like it's big brothers other than being much slimmer in the grip. It's definately a keeper and gives the impression of being more work oriented than the LC9.

The take down lever stays in place, as opposed to the take down lever on my M&P40c. As far as the safety is concerned, if you don't like a safety, simply leave it off. It's stout, and unobtrusive. I don't see any way for it to accidentally get bumped on or off.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwNDguanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwNDkuanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwMzQuanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwMzcuanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwMzguanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwMzkuanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwNDIuanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwNDMuanBn.jpg

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii36/rodmarch/utf-8BSU1BRzEwNDUuanBn.jpg

momano
April 17, 2012, 11:53 AM
^^ great pics! thanks!

ForumSurfer
April 17, 2012, 12:07 PM
OMG to eveyone whinning about the safety.

Stop whining about me whining :neener:

Seriously, it isn't whining...I want one, it is me expressing what I want them to change. If we didn't express what we wanted changed all over the internet...this pistol never would have been produced, nor would the optional safeties have been introduced on the other models.

The whining as you so eloquently put it is people voicing their opinions about a product. Once enough people voice the same opinion, the manufacturer wakes up and says "Hey! Look! A bunch of people want ______, it looks like we can make money with minimal investment to an existing product line so lets give it to them!"

crracer_712
April 17, 2012, 12:49 PM
I do wish they had made the mags black in color. They really stand out from the gap between the slide and the slide stop.

Also, the slide stop is easy to use to release the slide, unlike the LC9.

basicblur
April 17, 2012, 01:04 PM
I do wish they had made the mags black in color.
I'm partial to black mags myself, 'specially for civilian use.
Black mags on a spare carrier are much easier to hide (or be discreet) than bright metal magazines.

I have a tough time finding spare mag carriers with a flap to completely cover the magazine. I'm kinda partial to DeSantis mag carriers, and 'bout all of 'em expose the top 1/2 to 1/3 of the magazine if carried on your belt.

dondavis3
April 18, 2012, 08:55 AM
I just went through this decision making this past week.

Bought a new S&W yesterday.

I own a Ruger LC9 and wanted to consider the S&W Shield.

Took my LC9 to LGS to compare the 2 guns.

Trigger is much better on the S&W.

Shield is a little larger than LC9.

Ended up buying the S&W M&P 9C Compact.

Compact is only .2" wider than the Shield - empty about same weight - size overall about the same, but the Compact carries 12 + 1.

I looked for and found one with a safety - I wanted the safety.

:cool:

ku4hx
April 18, 2012, 09:01 AM
OMG to eveyone whinning about the safety.

So dont buy the thing. No one is FORCING you to BUY anything.


As I said pages ago.... Glock doesnt offer a safety but you dont get half of the whinning that glock is "forcing" no dafety on them.

Man up, get over it, and move on to something else if YOU dont like it. :cuss:


And why are people critiquing that its not a pocket gun?!?!? Did S&W EVER say it was?

The only people that are whinning that it isnt a pocket gun are the ones that making claims that it isnt.


BTW - I can fit my M&P9c in my $17 Guide Gear jeans. I have a 30-32 waist :neener:

Its not ideal by any means but it works. The Shield would be just a little bit easier.

Some of you need to branch out a little and try buying cloths to carry how you want instead of sticking to the same jeans you worn in Jr High.

After reading through some of these posts, I see that some say things like "using the right belt & holtser and you can carry anything" but then wont go buy a $17 pair of jeans that have bigger pockets. Sheesh!!!

S&W isnt advertising it as a pocket gun so why critique it on that criteria?

Apparently some just like to make up stuff just to be able to have asomthing to complain about.
No, No, No ... the voice of reason will never win out.

danez71
April 18, 2012, 10:16 AM
I just went through this decision making this past week.

Bought a new S&W yesterday.

I own a Ruger LC9 and wanted to consider the S&W Shield.

Took my LC9 to LGS to compare the 2 guns.

Trigger is much better on the S&W.

Shield is a little larger than LC9.

Ended up buying the S&W M&P 9C Compact.

Compact is only .2" wider than the Shield - empty about same weight - size overall about the same, but the Compact carries 12 + 1.

I looked for and found one with a safety - I wanted the safety.

:cool:

I have the MP9c with safety. Great gun.

Thanks for your input as I'm seriously considering the Shield.

If it was avail when I bought my MP9c I would have bought as I have a BHP as a full size already.

I'm trying to decide if the size difference between the 9c and the Shield is worth it and / or if I should just sell the 9c if the two are close enough in size.


No, No, No ... the voice of reason will never win out.

Thats how I feel sometimes.

crracer_712
April 18, 2012, 11:05 AM
I have the MP9c with safety. Great gun.

Thanks for your input as I'm seriously considering the Shield.

If it was avail when I bought my MP9c I would have bought as I have a BHP as a full size already.

I'm trying to decide if the size difference between the 9c and the Shield is worth it and / or if I should just sell the 9c if the two are close enough in size.


There's actually quite a bit of difference between the two. While just looking at them, it may appear similar, handling them, not so much. You could go to Smith's forum for a good thread that has photos of the shield and compact side by side.

Barrel and slide are longer on the compact and the biggest difference is the grip thickness.

dondavis3
April 18, 2012, 11:42 AM
@ crracer_712

Not much difference - here are the sizes right from S&W website

Compact:
Weight Empty 21.7 oz. - height. 4.3 " Width 1.2 " length 6.7" = Capacity 12+1

Shield:
Weight Empty 19.0 oz. - height. 4.6 " Weight .9 " length 6.1" = capacity
7 + 1

Wt 3 oz Height 3/10th of a inch - width 3/10th of a inch

capacity lots.

:cool:

basicblur
April 18, 2012, 12:13 PM
Trigger is much better on the S&W.
That's a subjective thing I guess...I see crracer states he likes the LC9 trigger better, as do I. One might state one trigger is better than the other, but much better?

Some folks seen to rate triggers only only on (lack of) length of pull - length of pull (and pull weight) doesn't bother me as long as it's smooth.

The SHIELD trigger has a slightly spongy feel to it - dont' know if it's those darn articulated triggers they keep putting on 'em these days or if the trigger is actually made of something other than metal?

There's still a lot to like about hammer fired pistols.

dondavis3
April 18, 2012, 12:28 PM
@ basicblur

I agree - I prefer hammer fired guns.

:cool:

crracer_712
April 18, 2012, 01:35 PM
@ crracer_712

Not much difference - here are the sizes right from S&W website

Compact:
Weight Empty 21.7 oz. - height. 4.3 " Width 1.2 " length 6.7" = Capacity 12+1

Shield:
Weight Empty 19.0 oz. - height. 4.6 " Weight .9 " length 6.1" = capacity
7 + 1

Wt 3 oz Height 3/10th of a inch - width 3/10th of a inch

capacity lots.


That's like looking at it blindly. I have a 9 Shield and a 40c. I can see and feel the difference.

In the above photos of the Shield and LC9, I can see the differences. If I set the 40c and the 9 Shield together, the differences would be even more.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 18, 2012, 05:38 PM
Can someone who has a M&P fullsize, compact, and shield possibly post comparison pics of all three next to each other?

crracer_712
April 18, 2012, 05:46 PM
Not mine, but I found these on another forum, picture of 9 shield and 9c

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b28/evnash/34a285b7.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b28/evnash/f3b6b9be.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b28/evnash/1ac6b3f6.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b28/evnash/96472250.jpg

wild cat mccane
April 18, 2012, 05:55 PM
Couldn't you just epoxy the safety on off if you don't like it?

StrikeFire83
April 18, 2012, 06:04 PM
Not much difference - here are the sizes right from S&W website

Compact:
Weight Empty 21.7 oz. - height. 4.3 " Width 1.2 " length 6.7" = Capacity 12+1

Shield:
Weight Empty 19.0 oz. - height. 4.6 " Weight .9 " length 6.1" = capacity
7 + 1

Wt 3 oz Height 3/10th of a inch - width 3/10th of a inch

capacity lots.

Yeah, when you put it like that the M&P Shield is even more of a head-scratcher. Taller than the double stack? Really? :banghead:

Sam Cade
April 18, 2012, 06:16 PM
Dude, you need to chill out. You're right, Glock DOESN'T offer a safety and NEVER HAS, so asking for one would be stupid..

...
...

The G17S has/had a manual safety.

danez71
April 18, 2012, 11:20 PM
Not much difference - here are the sizes right from S&W website

Compact:
Weight Empty 21.7 oz. - height. 4.3 " Width 1.2 " length 6.7" = Capacity 12+1

Shield:
Weight Empty 19.0 oz. - height. 4.6 " Weight .9 " length 6.1" = capacity
7 + 1

Wt 3 oz Height 3/10th of a inch - width 3/10th of a inch

13% lighter

9% shorter

Height isnt too much of an issue since most people put the pinky extension on or complain their pinky hangs off.

25% thinner Thats significant IMO.



crracer_712, those pic show a pretty big difference in the slide and the grip.

Thanks for posting them.

Id guess thats the Med grip on the 9c which is what I normally use.



I'll probably buy the Shield and keep the 9c I have.

My BHP is my prized gun. My 9c has become the go anywhere do everything gun. The Shield will be used for what its meant to be and be easier and more comfortable doing it.

StrikeFire83
April 19, 2012, 02:12 AM
Sorry,Sam Cade, but you're gonna have to do better than a pre-production prototype of a Gen1 Glock that was never offered to the American public to prove me wrong.

Sam Cade
April 19, 2012, 09:38 PM
Sorry,Sam Cade, but you're gonna have to do better than a pre-production prototype of a Gen1 Glock that was never offered to the American public to prove me wrong.

That isn't a pre-production prototype.

It's a photo of an actual service pistol.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1008404

Glock seemingly has made several runs of manual safety pistols.

I guarantee if a distributor placed an order for 10,000 G17Ss they would build them.

jon_in_wv
April 22, 2012, 10:19 AM
Yeah, when you put it like that the M&P Shield is even more of a head-scratcher. Taller than the double stack? Really?

It certainly doesn't look taller but if you think 0.3 inch in height makes more difference than how slim it is I would say you are mistaken. I've carried the M&P 9C for years and lately I've migrated more towards carrying my S&W 3913. It's taller than the M&P but it carries nicer due to how slim it is. Its a lot taller than .3 inch too.

HOOfan_1
April 23, 2012, 07:42 PM
I for one hope Hickok does a CM9/PM9 comparison with the Shield. He does the best comparo videos I've seen

here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7pmjCWSgJU

If you enjoyed reading about "S&W M&P's new single stack?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!