New S&W conceal carry gun? Is it right for me?

[NewDefender]

My wife and I are wanting to purchase a small compact handgun for self defense that we can use defend ourselves in a bad situation.

I am considering the new compact smith and wesson in either 9mm or 40cal:

This gun is supposed to be a decent starter and advanced shooter handgun.
Any advice or input would be greatly appreciated.

We've also looked at the ruger lc9 and kel tec pf9

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

That looks like a very appealing little gun. Based on past performance from Smith & Wessons I've owned (including the M&P on which this is apparently based), I want it! It has a shorter (but still safe) trigger pull than the long-stroke DAOs of the others you mentioned.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Well first off that photo has been widely accused of being a photoshop and it looks like one to me too. Secondly, if you are looking at the really small autos like the ones you mentioned I would sincerely counsel against the 40. The difference in effectiveness between the good 9mm loads the the good 40 loads are just not enough to justify the increase in recoil. I do a LOT of shooting and personally I just think the 40 has too much recoil compared to the 9mm in small guns. My carry gun is a S&W 9c, which you should seriously consider BTW, and it is really soft shooting. I have no question that I will get the job done with my 9mm. The more you like shooting it the more likely you and your wife are to practice and get proficient with it. Proficiency is WAY more important than a few thousandths of an inch in diameter or a few grains of lead.

 

[greenlion]

New S&W conceal carry

This gun is supposed to be a decent starter and advanced shooter handgun.

Says who? I don't know of anyone who has even seen this gun for real, much less shot it.

If you aren't looking to conceal carry this gun, I would go with something mid sized anyway.

 

[bannockburn]

NewDefender

If indeed that is the actual size of S&Ws new compact semi-auto (I have also seen it as the M&P Shield), then I think it would make for a fine CCW in 9mm. for you and your wife.

The Ruger LC9 and the KelTec PF9 might be a bit too small (along with slightly more recoil), in terms of overall controlability, if you are just starting out with a semi-auto. Something a bit larger, like a Ruger SR9c, S&W M&P9c, or a Glock Model 19, might prove to be a better choice in that regard.

 

[loneviking]

April 12, that's the day that S&W unveils the new 'shield'...whatever that will be. If it is the little gun in the picture (big if) it would be a good buy. The customer service at S&W is excellent and all of the Smiths I have work well.

 

[wbwanzer]

I'm moving away from the plastic guns (except for my XDm). Below is what I have in 9mm for concealed carry situations, which for me aren't many. It's a S&W 3913. They are a well respected single stack that is not tiny, but small enough to conceal. They can be found used.

 

[18DAI]

It doesn't, and evidently won't, get any better than the 3913.

 

[Robbins290]

I agree. 3913 Thats my carry pistol! Best carry gun in my mind.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Man, I carried the M&P 9C for years but I recently bought a 3913 and I find myself carrying it more now. The 3913 is pretty awesome.

 

[dubya450]

I'd stick with a 9mm and away from 40. Too snappy for a small CC sized weapon. I'd also suggest to stay away from the lc9. In no way am I bashing ruger, I have 4 Rugers and love them but if you're somewhat new to guns I'd stay from it. The trigger really stinks IMO. If I were looking for a first ccw I'd probably get some sort of 38 special j frame s&w or a decent striker fired subcompact. Just my opinion though.

 

[Skylerbone]

Of critical importance is whether or not both of you will be capable of operating all controls on the gun you choose.

I purchased an M&P full size in 40 S&W several years ago and liked it so much I felt a 9mm would be the perfect choice for my wife to start learning with. As it happened, I ran across a used M&P 9c and bought it on the spot. Come range day, guess who couldn't overcome the heavy recoil spring to cycle the slide? I wound up with a nice compact and my wife got a new M&P 9L.

Small pistols tend to be less reliable and more difficult to operate and doubly so for new shooters. I would recommend a lot of shopping and, if possible, some range time before any purchase. Consider less lethal options in the meantime and defensive training if available.

 

[hhb]

New "Shield"

Anxicious to see the unveiling. I really like my M&P 9c 9mm, and have also carry a 3919 almost from the first day they were available. Only modification was to replace the hammer with a '59 series one. I want a good purchase on the hammer for a first single action shot. Found a LNIB 3953, and it gets to travel too.

 

[loneviking]

Don't forget the S&W 908. Same basic gun as the 3913 but with less flash.

 

[bigfatdave]

pinning all your plans on a gun that isn't even released seems foolish

the same goes for a brand-new design

look at established designs that you can actually find in person, avoid the "new improved" vaporware

 

[LWYM425]

I came across this review and thought I would check to see if anyone was discussing the potential merits of the Shield. Since you all have started the thread I'll just continue on.

Already some good takes on this. Thanks all,

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/04/12/introducing-the-smith-wesson-mp-shield/

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Here's another one: http://gunnuts.net/2012/04/12/smith-wesson-mp-shield-9mm-review/

And the official page: http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...80153_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

EDIT: Wow, they have 7-8k units already available to ship? Good business practices might just let them kill Springfield Armory and their XDs for a year or more until SA can get their act together.

 

[StrikeFire83]

Meh, the XD-s is thinner, more pocketable, with a better trigger/better sights and in a better caliber and 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.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I've never shot an XD that I thought had a better trigger than and M&P. The reset of the XDs is way too long. You have to take up the slack before engaging the sear again. Its not as conducive to good shooting to me. I fail to see how the sights are better either. All of the M&Ps come with pretty good sights. The XDs are as good, not better. The inclusion of a safety is also not automatically "better". It comes in handy on a small pocketable gun.

 

[jon_in_wv]

I stand corrected! The pic, if it was a photoshop, was a pretty fair representation of what the shield is.

 

[StrikeFire83]

I've never shot an XD that I thought had a better trigger than and M&P. The reset of the XDs is way too long. You have to take up the slack before engaging the sear again. Its not as conducive to good shooting to me. I fail to see how the sights are better either. All of the M&Ps come with pretty good sights. The XDs are as good, not better. The inclusion of a safety is also not automatically "better". It comes in handy on a small pocketable gun.

Triggers are very subjective, but I've shot Sigmas and M&P's and I found their triggers to be pretty terrible. But to each his own. As for the inclusion/exclusion of a safety, that's also very subjective. I abhor safeties in self-defense pistols, and it's a deal breaker for many of us.

But a fiber optic front sight I would think is objectively better than a white dot sight. Maybe that's just me.

As I said in the other thread, here's why the Shield falls short in my eyes:

XD-s
Height w/ mag: 4.4" (from the magazine base pad to the top of the sights)
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" (not sure if it's to the top of the slide or the sights)
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.

 

[rajb123]

Is this the smallest S&W for a 9MM.... it seems huge to me?

 

[StrikeFire83]

Is this the smallest S&W for a 9MM.... it seems huge to me?

Those were kind of my thoughts. The 40 and the 9 are the same size...in a .40 I think it's too bulky, in a nine there are just to many other much more concealable (pocketable) choices. cough*Kahr CM9*cough

 

[NewDefender]

I appreciate all the input thus far! I can't wait for someone to get their hands on one and report back on how it really handles.

 

[Skylerbone]

It's fine to note that none of us has seen or tried one yet but all the nay sayers surprises me, especially in regards to a few diminutive dimensions. I'd rather like to think that if I slapped an FO site on a Diamondback and offered it up as a smaller, thinner alternative to a G19 AND with superior sights the readership would take a Missouri stand and call my bluff.

In the caliber arguement one can argue diameter vs. velocity vs. bullet weight vs. sectional density but I'm pretty well convinced that they can all be lethal. I'd simply argue that the average buyer can run one isle over to check ammo prices and realize he won't be shooting much .45 ACP, most folks still don't reload.

Sooner or later someone's gonna beta test this sucker and hopefully be objective enough to inform others. I'm always in the market for just one more gun...hmm.