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

Originally posted by danez71
-snip-

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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....

We have quite a few choices over that last few years but nothing wrong with another choice and I hope to like them also.

StrikeFire83 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

allaroundhunter said

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

I wonder how much it will cost in aftermarket parts, to give this model M&P a useable trigger?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Early reports suggest that the shield has relatively mild recoil. I hear that the LC9 kicks like a mule.

basicblur said:

The LC9 is cheaper, but how much I don't know - our local shop is currently out of 'em.

Click to expand...

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.

StrikeFire83 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

... and Davidson's is sold out. They had 36, and then they had none.

AFA the thumb safety...

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?

As such, I'd say the LC9 could do without the safety much more than the SHIELD.

Click to expand...

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.

But the shield isn't a pocket gun...

Click to expand...

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!

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!

Click to expand...

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.