How's the S&W Shield for accuracy?

[tipoc]

What have folks' experiences been with accuracy from the Shield? With different weight bullets? Some pics would be helpful, at 7 yards, 10 yards etc.

I had a S&W M&P9c and it's accuracy was inconsistent with different bullet weights. So I'm asking about the Shield.

Any experience would be helpful.

tipoc

 

[RussellC]

What have folks' experiences been with accuracy from the Shield? With different weight bullets? Some pics would be helpful, at 7 yards, 10 yards etc.

I had a S&W M&P9c and it's accuracy was inconsistent with different bullet weights. So I'm asking about the Shield.

Any experience would be helpful.

tipoc

I have the 9mm version. The gun has the capability to be surprisingly accurate. Most of the "inaccuracy" is its trigger, which (especially when brand new) is difficult to pull without a little barrel jump, which leads to the second issue, how one grips it. Once trigger breaks in and one learns how to grip and fire it without barrel jump, problem solved. I posted a reposted another's video from this forum a while back, I'll see if I can locate it...

 

[RussellC]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=760794&highlight=russellc See post number 3.

Here you go: be sure to watch the video.

 

[340PD]

I have found most Shields to be far more accurate than the trigger puller.

 

[RussellC]

I have found most Shields to be far more accurate than the trigger puller.

Yup, although the guy in the video aint bad at trigger pulling. Also, while it might be my trigger pulling, I've never met a gun that didn't act different with different bullet weights.

 

[wally]

I've mounted a Trijicon RMR optic on mine, and on its final sight-in with .40S&W Winchester Ranger-T it put 5 shots into 2" at 25 yards off sandbags.

This is now my #1 carry pistol.

 

[copaup]

Shield .40. First 30 rounds out of the gun. 7 to 15 yards.

13 additional rounds, fired at the 7as fast I I could get a sight picture and with a full speed magazine change. Given I'd never handled the gun before this, I figure it will do...

 

[tipoc]

Yup, although the guy in the video aint bad at trigger pulling. Also, while it might be my trigger pulling, I've never met a gun that didn't act different with different bullet weights.

Guns should toss the heavier bullets higher and the light lower. That's how they work. But when a gun is more accurate with one weight bullet than another something is wrong. My M&P 9c did well with 115 gr. pills but was noticeably poorer with 124 and particularly 147 gr. bullets.

The reason I'm asking about the Shield is that for the first couple of years of production of the M&P series of guns in 9mm S&W made the odd move of installing 9mm barrels in the guns with a 1-18 twist to them. I didn't know this when I got my M&P9c and had to look into it's accuracy problems. S&W corrected this they say in about 2012 by going to the more common 1-9 twist.

I don't know if this ever effected the Shield so this is why I'm asking.

tipoc

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

My wife and I rented a half dozen single stack 9mm this summer including the Shield, Ruger LC9S, Beretta Nano, Springfield XDS and I forget what else.

The shield was the most accurate shooter and yielded the tightest groups. The eight round mag is difficult to seat in the pistol and not a spare I would carry. The Ruger was the second best shooter and the most pocketable.

 

[JRWhit]

The main thing will be how accurate you are with it. Triggers are a big deal for shooter accuracy. If I could nail a 2" group at 10 yds with a pistol of certain design, that doesn't mean you could, and visa versa. Ergonomics can't fit every hand that grips it, and I believe that is why for every gun out there, there is a group that legitimately states that the gun has issues,
When the issue is, it just doesn't fit them. When possible find a friend or a rental service that has one and see how it fits.
In all reality these pistols are all accurate beyond our capablity as shooters. The only way we can now for sure is by using a vise. But that still won't tell you if it is shootable to you.
Just like a pair of shoes, you gotta try em on to know.

 

[JohnnyBravo]

I've mounted a Trijicon RMR optic on mine, and on its final sight-in with .40S&W Winchester Ranger-T it put 5 shots into 2" at 25 yards off sandbags.

This is now my #1 carry pistol.

I would really like to see a picture of your RMR equipped Shield.

 

[RussellC]

Guns should toss the heavier bullets higher and the light lower. That's how they work. But when a gun is more accurate with one weight bullet than another something is wrong. My M&P 9c did well with 115 gr. pills but was noticeably poorer with 124 and particularly 147 gr. bullets.

The reason I'm asking about the Shield is that for the first couple of years of production of the M&P series of guns in 9mm S&W made the odd move of installing 9mm barrels in the guns with a 1-18 twist to them. I didn't know this when I got my M&P9c and had to look into it's accuracy problems. S&W corrected this they say in about 2012 by going to the more common 1-9 twist.

I don't know if this ever effected the Shield so this is why I'm asking.

tipoc

Not necessarily so...short barreled guns are notorious for having bad result with heavier bullets, in example, 147 grain in a gun like the shield. (9mm) Not enough barrel to get it to velocity. Nothing "wrong" at all, just simple physics.

 

[DFM914]

The Shield is very accurate for it's intended purpose, carry gun. It is not a match gun. I carry one everyday in 9mm. I also have a Sig P250 compact 2nd gen gun that is far more accurate just a little chunky for everyday carry.

 

[JO JO]

I have one in 9mm is plenty accurate for a carry gun , like said above not a match gun
but for carry and inside 30ft works great for me

 

[tipoc]

Not necessarily so...short barreled guns are notorious for having bad result with heavier bullets, in example, 147 grain in a gun like the shield. (9mm) Not enough barrel to get it to velocity. Nothing "wrong" at all, just simple physics.

You are mistaken in general. Also as I did not mention group size you are mistaken in particular.

There is nothing inherently inaccurate about a short barreled gun firing heavier bullets in any caliber if the rate of twist is right. Certainly nothing notorious. They can be as accurate out to a certain distance as their longer barreled kin.

This is the case with the Glock 26 for example which simply outshot my M&P9c across all bullet weights and with multiple brands of ammo.

So I went looking for an answer to that and installed an Apex trigger group. That helped quite a bit but did not resolve the difference with heavier bullets. That's when I ran across the different rate of twist that S&W initially used on the M&P line of guns. S&W changed the rate of twist at some point a year or two back and the issue was resolved. That's why I asked about the Shield. That experience seems to be that they shoot pretty good and I'll have to try one I suppose.

tipoc

 

[243winxb]

http://www.americanrifleman.org/article.php?id=13509&cat=20&sub=21&q=2From American Rifleman

 

[RussellC]

You are mistaken in general. Also as I did not mention group size you are mistaken in particular.

There is nothing inherently inaccurate about a short barreled gun firing heavier bullets in any caliber if the rate of twist is right. Certainly nothing notorious. They can be as accurate out to a certain distance as their longer barreled kin.

This is the case with the Glock 26 for example which simply outshot my M&P9c across all bullet weights and with multiple brands of ammo.

So I went looking for an answer to that and installed an Apex trigger group. That helped quite a bit but did not resolve the difference with heavier bullets. That's when I ran across the different rate of twist that S&W initially used on the M&P line of guns. S&W changed the rate of twist at some point a year or two back and the issue was resolved. That's why I asked about the Shield. That experience seems to be that they shoot pretty good and I'll have to try one I suppose.



tipoc

I'm not mistaken on either account, there is just not enough barrel length for the bullet to travel down in a 3 inch or shorter barrel and allow for the powder to burn to completion giving proper bullet speed, and this problem rears its head with heavier bullets. Did I mention group size?


Also, different barrels not only have different rifling, as you mentioned, but the chamber varies as well as the place and distance that the rifling begins. This is why individual barrels are plunk tested to determine best Oal for that particular barrel. Also, different sized and shaped bullets have different bearing surface amounts that contact said rifling, which also impacts accuracy for that given combination. When you learn more, you will know what I am talking about.

Agreed that the Apex trigger would likely be an improvement. Was it easy to instal yourself, or require gunsmith? I am seriously considering one. BTW, what is barrel length on that M&P compact, the only M&P that I own is said Shield.

 

[Mr.Revolverguy]

Full review of M&P Shield

http://www.dayattherange.com/?p=1943

 

[Ankeny]

In all reality these pistols are all accurate beyond our capablity as shooters.]

I sure get tired of hearing that mantra. It's just not true.

 

[tipoc]

From Russel C.:

When you learn more, you will know what I am talking about.

I'll not take the bait there.

It's a mistake to take what is sometimes true in long guns and try to make it fit into the experience of handguns. For this reason the idea that short barreled pistols are...

... notorious for having bad result with heavier bullets

to quote you, is a mistake. They are not well known for this with standard weight bullets. It's the opposite of my experience.

It is in general true that if you have an inefficient powder burn in a case that velocity and accuracy can suffer. But this is the case with all bullet weights and you have to have a seriously poor reload for this to be the case.

But we are speaking here not about the 30-06 in a 20" barrel vs. a 14" but about the 9mm in a set of standard velocity bullets and bullet weights.

Among the factors that can adversely effect mechanical accuracy from a handgun a standard weight bullet with a proper charge is not one of them. A 147 gr. bullet will not be coming from a barrel so slowly that it is detrimental to accuracy. Rate of twist of the barrel, powder charge and type, bullet type, a properly built gun, etc. are much more important to accuracy.

In the case of the guns we are speaking of all were factory ammo in standard weights and velocities. No squib loads.

The S&W Shield has a 3.1" barrel.

The S&W 9c has a 3.5" barrel.

The Glock 26 has a 3.42 barrel.

All barrels are close in size. If what you said was true the G26 should be "notoriously" poor in accuracy with 147 gr. pills. But it wasn't. It was in fact more accurate than the M&P9c with the heavier bullet even though it's barrel was .080" shorter.

The difference between the two was the rate of twist.

There is no reason that a 3.1" barrel should be less accurate with a 147 gr. 9mm bullet then a 3.5" or 4" barrel. Maybe as you say the powder does not all burn properly. Then velocity should show a significant drop off. But that's not the case either.

Here's the 9mm tables from BBTI...

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

On the bottom chart are the figures from actual guns.

We can see that with a 147 gr. Federal Hydra Shok JHP fired from a Berretta 92 we get 989 fps and with a Para LDA 9 with it's 3" barrel we get 933 fps. A difference of 56 fps. Not enough of a decline to to result in any "notorious" inaccuracy. It will effect energy and speed but not accuracy.

If what you said were true we would also see this in the accuracy of a 2" snubby revolver with 158 gr. bullet vs. a 125 gr. bullet. But we don't see that there. We'd see it with a Colt Defender vs. a Colt GM with 230 gr. bullets but we don't see that at all.

In all these cases the guns have a proper rate of twist for standard bullet weights. For a piece of time the S&W M&P line did not.

If you can find some proof of this or reference to it in Hatcher's Notebook or Rinker's "Understanding Firearms Ballistics" I'll be happy to read it.

tipoc

 

[jfrey]

I shoot 115 gr. bullets in my Shield and it is plenty accurate enough for my purposes.

 

[smalls]

I've mounted a Trijicon RMR optic on mine, and on its final sight-in with .40S&W Winchester Ranger-T it put 5 shots into 2" at 25 yards off sandbags.

This is now my #1 carry pistol.

I'm pretty interested in your set up. Im not saying anything is wrong with it, just curious, but why such a large sight on such a small gun? Or any carry setup? Do you have problems with holsters interfering with the sights?

 

[JRWhit]

In all reality these pistols are all accurate beyond our capablity as shooters.]
I sure get tired of hearing that mantra. It's just not true.

We aren't really gonna argue about rather a free standing shooter is more accurate than one in a ransom rest, are we?

 

[ritepath]

I can take my mostly unmodified shield and hit pretty darned good on the plates at 15 yards (again it's the shooter) Some hits at 25 yards. In your typical 7-10 yards it may as well be my p220.

I did hate the trigger when at first but I took the work sharp to the trigger bar, and striker face. (about 5 minutes with the #600 belt)

 

[RussellC]

From Russel C.:



I'll not take the bait there.

It's a mistake to take what is sometimes true in long guns and try to make it fit into the experience of handguns. For this reason the idea that short barreled pistols are...



to quote you, is a mistake. They are not well known for this with standard weight bullets. It's the opposite of my experience.

It is in general true that if you have an inefficient powder burn in a case that velocity and accuracy can suffer. But this is the case with all bullet weights and you have to have a seriously poor reload for this to be the case.

But we are speaking here not about the 30-06 in a 20" barrel vs. a 14" but about the 9mm in a set of standard velocity bullets and bullet weights.

Among the factors that can adversely effect mechanical accuracy from a handgun a standard weight bullet with a proper charge is not one of them. A 147 gr. bullet will not be coming from a barrel so slowly that it is detrimental to accuracy. Rate of twist of the barrel, powder charge and type, bullet type, a properly built gun, etc. are much more important to accuracy.

In the case of the guns we are speaking of all were factory ammo in standard weights and velocities. No squib loads.

The S&W Shield has a 3.1" barrel.

The S&W 9c has a 3.5" barrel.

The Glock 26 has a 3.42 barrel.

All barrels are close in size. If what you said was true the G26 should be "notoriously" poor in accuracy with 147 gr. pills. But it wasn't. It was in fact more accurate than the M&P9c with the heavier bullet even though it's barrel was .080" shorter.

The difference between the two was the rate of twist.

There is no reason that a 3.1" barrel should be less accurate with a 147 gr. 9mm bullet then a 3.5" or 4" barrel. Maybe as you say the powder does not all burn properly. Then velocity should show a significant drop off. But that's not the case either.

Here's the 9mm tables from BBTI...

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

On the bottom chart are the figures from actual guns.

We can see that with a 147 gr. Federal Hydra Shok JHP fired from a Berretta 92 we get 989 fps and with a Para LDA 9 with it's 3" barrel we get 933 fps. A difference of 56 fps. Not enough of a decline to to result in any "notorious" inaccuracy. It will effect energy and speed but not accuracy.

If what you said were true we would also see this in the accuracy of a 2" snubby revolver with 158 gr. bullet vs. a 125 gr. bullet. But we don't see that there. We'd see it with a Colt Defender vs. a Colt GM with 230 gr. bullets but we don't see that at all.

In all these cases the guns have a proper rate of twist for standard bullet weights. For a piece of time the S&W M&P line did not.

If you can find some proof of this or reference to it in Hatcher's Notebook or Rinker's "Understanding Firearms Ballistics" I'll be happy to read it.

tipoc

We will have to agree to disagree. Your analysis ignores the whole bullet shape variance-bearing surface interaction with the rifling. Why dont you buy one, or rent one at the range and try it, then you will see. Not to mention that at the same velocity, the recoil will also be increased by the heavier bullet, which will affect accuracy at least during rapid or semi rapid shooting. The Shield isnt as large in the grip as the other M&P you mention and is a little more difficult to control.

Print off whatever you like, experience is worth a thousand words of someone elses findings. You asked about this gun and that is exactly what I have told you.

Russellc