Shield vs XDS

[JWH321]

Well the XD sure comes in a much nicer box.

 

[Shooters Plus]

Good write up/review. It would be hard to make a much fairer comparison considering it's such a subjective topic.

On the magazine release "issue," is it only with the slide closed, or does the same apply with the slide locked back?

Thanks Outlaw Man! It is only noticeable when the slide is closed. No biggie but thought it was worth mentioning on the article.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Thanks. If it's a "design feature" rather than a coincidence, like ViniferaVizslas implied, I can see it being useful for that purpose. I was worried that you couldn't just press the release and the mag drop free when you ran dry.

 

[kvtcomdo]

Have the XDs in 45 first. Truly love it.

Liked it so much I bought the XDs in 9mm as well.

Same holster (HighNoon) will fit both as the external demensions are the same.

Have never regreted the purchase.

 

[B!ngo]

It's rare that one can easily choose a product that is made in the U.S. versus abroad, is price competitive with the foreign made product, just as reliable if not more so, have a great warranty and customer support system and so on. It made choosing the Shield 9 and easy one.
And Springfield is not the Springfield of old. I'm not convinced that the Xp's have the same build quality as the M&P's do, and then there's that recall thing.
To me, this one's easy.
Now all that said, I own a Shield with a safety (that I don't ever turn to 'safe') and I'm left-handed. So I really would rather sell it and buy the new one without the safety. I'm not sure how long I'll have a chance to do that here in CA.
B
P.S. In fact, the Xp would be the third on a list of three with the Walther being in second.

 

[nugun55]

What's an Xp?

 

[george burns]

Many here are comparing the aesthetics of the firearm rather than the caliber of the round. Why would anyone carry a 9mm if they could carry a 45? I did it myself for when my gun was away being fixed, because my Glock 30 is too heavy to lug around all day. But if you really have to use it, you are more likely to drop someone faster with a 45, aside from all the ballistics, it is just a bigger hole.
I would say with out digging up scientific proof, that 2 in the chest with a 45, should do the job on just about anyone. I do carry only 9mm and 45. This after carrying a half dozen calibers for many years.
9MM has come a long way, but so has 45, it just makes sense to use the largest caliber available for close combat.
If I had 15+1, I would go with the 9 or the Glock 30, "with 11 rounds of 45. But with a 7 round reload in the gun, the XDS is like carrying a 1911.

 

[Big Shrek]

S&W Shield - Made in the USA

Springfield XD series - not.

I know where my money is gonna go.

 

[Schwing]

I am in the process of trying to decide between these 2 guns myself. Luckily (or unluckily depending on how I look at it), it is going to be a few months before I can spend the $$.

I am leaning towards the XDs based on the feel of the gun more than any other feature. I am one of those in the minority, however, who actually prefers a thumb safety which is a nice feature on the shield IMO.

Why would anyone carry a 9mm if they could carry a 45?

OH MAN... WHERE TO GO WITH THIS ONE

Faster rounds, better penetration, better expansion, lower recoil, more rounds, personal preference, smaller frames....

 

[Hunter991]

I have both and they are both great. The xds is easier to conceal for me as the grip is just a tad shorter. And it's a 45. Honestly I would grab either but there is no knocking the xds. It's been perfect and it's a quality firearm. The shield is nice too but a little more sloppy but also 100 percent reliable for me. Really depends on what caliber u want. For a 9 I would go Shield as it's a little more ergonomic. But I would skip the shield 40 and goto the 45 xds if you want a bigger caliber. The 40 s&w has some issues with blowing up in the 40.

The grip safety on the xds is a great feature as well. You can't ask for a better safety IMO..

 

[george burns]

My 45 has better expansion than my 9mm I fired using the same brand of ammo. It also has about the same recoil as my 9's,and as far a penetration, you can't know that until the autopsy. One thing we know is the 45 is more likely to expand and even if it doesn't it is at the top of the charts for stopping men with 1 or 2 shots. The 9mm has come a long way, otherwise I wouldn't carry it, but having my choice of having to shoot a human with a handgun, the 45 would always be my first choice over the 9mm.
The only advantage the 9mm has is the amount of lead you can carry IMO, and the flatter trajectory for distance. But as far as hitting hard a 45 will almost always do more damage with one or 2 rounds, "which you will be lucky to get on target with a defensive shooting". Very rarely in a gunfight when both men are moving and firing, does one get 4 or 5 hits, which is sometimes what is needed with faster smaller diameter rounds, unless they are coming out of a rifle.
Also the frame sizes are about the same on the guns we are talking about, no real difference.

 

[TarDevil]

I am one of those in the minority, however, who actually prefers a thumb safety which is a nice feature on the shield IMO.

I've usually leaned towards thumb safeties on most striker fired guns with short, light triggers of say, around 5 - 6 lbs (my EDC is a Ruger SR9c). Two weeks ago in Washington State I finally got my hands on a Shield and I'll have to side in the camp who say that safety is too small for me to feel I could reliably get it off in a hot situation. YMMV.

If I ever acquire a Shield, it will be sans thumb safety.

I've yet to handle a XDs, so I've nothing to offer comparatively of the two.

 

[2ndamd]

CCW gun?
Gotta go with the Shield.
The grip safety on the xds presents way too many problems in a gun fight.
Remember, if you are the law abiding victim? You will be attacked first and possibly injured.
This could mean not being able to grip the gun well.
Heck, now that I think about it maybe a LCR

 

[george burns]

I have never had a grip safety problem in all the 6 decades of shooting 1911's, it is pretty much a battle proven function of the 1911, and any other gun I have ever used one on.
Anything can fail, but that is a reach as far as I can see. Of the hundreds of rounds I have fired with mu xds it never failed to fire, for any reason.
If anything the same if not more can be said about the safety on the shield.

 

[Fatdaddy]

I've had a 40 Shield since shortly after they came out and really like it. I'm in the camp of "liking the manual safety" but now they are being offered without it for those that aren't. The way the gun fits my hand and even the trigger seems like it was made for me. The trigger is noticeably lighter and smoother than my XDS.
I'm not a big fan of the XDS-45 to be honest and I really wanted to be. I even sold my first XDS and bought another just recently to give it another try. The sights are nicer and the grip safety is cool but the gun just doesn't really fit my hand as good as the Shield. The XDS 45 version seems like all of the recoil impulse is directed into your trigger finger. The "suitcase full of crap" which should be a plus just ends up being in the way taking up valuable space in the safe.
I have both and the Shield is my favorite by far.

 

[LUCKYDAWG13]

Gotta go with the Shield.
The grip safety on the xds presents way too many problems in a gun fight

just think of all those that trust a 1911 in a gun fight :banghead:

 

[Mainsail]

CCW gun?
Gotta go with the Shield.
The grip safety on the xds presents way too many problems in a gun fight.
Remember, if you are the law abiding victim? You will be attacked first and possibly injured.
This could mean not being able to grip the gun well.
Heck, now that I think about it maybe a LCR

Can you provide a cite where this has happened? Can you provide even one verifiable example of a private citizen in a self defense situation who didn't prevail due to a malfunctioning grip safety? I'm curious because before I alter my safety plan and buy a new gun I think it would be a good idea to know if this is just some fantasy you had or if it's something real.

 

[huskybiker]

I have and carry both (Shield9, XDS45). In a pocket holster, I prefer the Shield. IWB, they are about a toss up.

 

[george burns]

I still can't see "all things being equal", preferring a 9mm, to a 45 for a carry gun, assuming we are dealing with a threat 0-25 feet away, "just for arguments sake", the 45 is going to do more damage almost every time.
Having had both, the recoil level is not that different, but the hole is much larger.
The 45 has always been a better man stopper than the 9mm, it just has a lower amount of rounds "for the most part" available at one time.
Neither one is a magic bullet, but the 45 has proven itself in battle to induce more 1 shot stops than the 9.
As I said I carry both, and the 9mm I look at as the lowest caliber that I believe will do the job adequately. It also allows for a smaller profile and a lighter weight on most every gun.
Calibers can be disputed all day, I just look at the diameter of the hole and it is self explanatory, the 40 to me is redundant. There is nothing that the other 2 won't do that the 40 will. The slight variation in pistol rounds needs to be exaggerated in order to sell more weapons. Given the same set of circumstances they should all get the job done so why not carry the largest round possible, or the fastest.
When we look at the difference that a rifle round makes it's obvious that we are talking about subtle differences in pistol rounds unless you step up to the magnum size guns, like a 460 or 44, or 357 mag. Unfortunately they are too heavy and impractical for most to carry, but that would be the next step up from the conventional, 9, 40,45, 357 sig, etc.
You won't see a pistol with 17 rounds of any of those calibers, as there is no call for such a gun, other than a Desert Eagle, which is more of a conversation piece than a carry gun.

 

[stonecutter2]

I still can't see "all things being equal", preferring a 9mm, to a 45 for a carry gun, assuming we are dealing with a threat 0-25 feet away, "just for arguments sake", the 45 is going to do more damage almost every time.
Having had both, the recoil level is not that different, but the hole is much larger.
The 45 has always been a better man stopper than the 9mm, it just has a lower amount of rounds "for the most part" available at one time.
Neither one is a magic bullet, but the 45 has proven itself in battle to induce more 1 shot stops than the 9.
As I said I carry both, and the 9mm I look at as the lowest caliber that I believe will do the job adequately. It also allows for a smaller profile and a lighter weight on most every gun.
Calibers can be disputed all day, I just look at the diameter of the hole and it is self explanatory, the 40 to me is redundant. There is nothing that the other 2 won't do that the 40 will. The slight variation in pistol rounds needs to be exaggerated in order to sell more weapons. Given the same set of circumstances they should all get the job done so why not carry the largest round possible, or the fastest.
When we look at the difference that a rifle round makes it's obvious that we are talking about subtle differences in pistol rounds unless you step up to the magnum size guns, like a 460 or 44, or 357 mag. Unfortunately they are too heavy and impractical for most to carry, but that would be the next step up from the conventional, 9, 40,45, 357 sig, etc.
You won't see a pistol with 17 rounds of any of those calibers, as there is no call for such a gun, other than a Desert Eagle, which is more of a conversation piece than a carry gun.

But between 9mm and 45ACP, all things are far from equal.

I think it simply comes down to having more rounds of a smaller/faster bullet, or less rounds but a bigger/slower bullet. Entirely up to each person which of those they wish to have at their disposal.

I'm of the opinion that a .45, travelling big and slow, will still put a BIG hurt on someone.

I don't have any concerns about penetration, since if I have to defend myself I want far less chance of a bullet going through someone and into something or someone else beyond them. I'm not intending to analyze the wound channels and wish i'd penetrated another inch or two.

I also wouldn't want to fire a lot of rounds, as I'm responsible for each that I do fire. That's just my perspective. I envision it likely that I'd be facing a limited number of assailants, 1 or 2, and at very close quarters. For that scenario, a subcompact like the XDs in 45ACP is what I want.

To each their own...this is just something everyone decides for themselves.

 

[MikeFrank]

I went out back after work today to clear some brush and take down two small locust trees for fence posts. As is my habit I tucked my 9mm Shield in a cheap (Barsony) IWB holster in my usual 4 o'clock carry position. Worked with axe, sickle and saw for about two hours (this is my answer to a gym). Didn't even notice the Shield, but it was right there if I wanted or ended it. I can shoot reasonably well with it, too. I've only fired a friend's XDS at the range, but IMHO it's a little heavy for what I did today.

 

[viking499]

I have a Shield and love it. Handled both before I bought. I did not like the higher bore axis of the XDS.

 

[Orion8472]

I've had both. Bore axis height is negligible. To me, they both shoot as nicely and with similar recoil impulse.

I now have the XDs 9mm 4.0 because I personally prefer it's looks over the Shield, . . . and it has a smoother slide action [IMO]. YMMV