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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

But my point is that many other guns of similar size (and product line) can be had without a safety...

Click to expand...

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.

Small differences in design execution don't invalidate the comparison.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

danez71 said:

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.


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

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.

Click to expand...

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

basicblur, you made good points.

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?

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.

^^ great pics! thanks!

OMG to eveyone whinning about the safety.

Click to expand...

Stop whining about me whining

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!"

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.

I do wish they had made the mags black in color.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

danez71 said:

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.


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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

@ 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.

Trigger is much better on the S&W.

Click to expand...

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.

@ basicblur

I agree - I prefer hammer fired guns.

@ 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Can someone who has a M&P fullsize, compact, and shield possibly post comparison pics of all three next to each other?