I've been reading and watching reviews on the new M&P Shield 9 EZ and yesterday I had a chance to handle one in a LGS. It has me wondering if it's a harbinger of the future for the main M&P line.
The internal hammer-fired action requires less strength to rack and the rear of the slide provides better purchase. The tabs on the sides of the magazine seem to really work for loading it. I even liked the grip safety, though some may find it controversial. It certainly has advantages re-holstering.
Why would the design, once fully vetted in the Shield 9 EZ, not be incorporated into the professional grade duty pistols? What is the possible downside to a slide that's easy to manipulate or magazine that's easy to reload? How about a disassembly procedure that's even easier to accomplish w/o pulling the trigger (vs. striker M&P's)?
What is the advantage of old-school striker systems or basic magazines?
The internal hammer-fired action requires less strength to rack and the rear of the slide provides better purchase. The tabs on the sides of the magazine seem to really work for loading it. I even liked the grip safety, though some may find it controversial. It certainly has advantages re-holstering.
Why would the design, once fully vetted in the Shield 9 EZ, not be incorporated into the professional grade duty pistols? What is the possible downside to a slide that's easy to manipulate or magazine that's easy to reload? How about a disassembly procedure that's even easier to accomplish w/o pulling the trigger (vs. striker M&P's)?
What is the advantage of old-school striker systems or basic magazines?