Stupid questions about the Shield EZ

[Skribs]

I'll admit, I've been out of the loop for a while, and I missed when these were released. A gun designed for new shooters, women, kids, the disabled, the elderly, etc., its an excellent idea. I'm a smaller guy, and I think something designed for ease of use is an excellent idea. My next handgun purchase will probably be one of these, if not for me, then as a gift for my Mom, whom this gun almost seems designed for.

The thing that confuses me is why did it take until 2018 for anyone to come up with this? Or even, what engineering is done to make it so easy to use and to shoot? Reviews say its easy to rack the slide and that it has relatively low felt recoil. How did they achieve both of these? And why is this not something that other guns are already doing, as it seems best of both worlds?

Which brings me to my last question: are there any advantages to the Shield over the Shield EZ? (Aside from a shorter grip that might conceal a bit better).

 

[valnar]

I can't answer about the low felt recoil, but I'll take a stab on summing up the "ez" slide racking.

The gun is hammer fired and essentially a single action trigger, which is another plus. As we all know, the gas+recoil force the slide back to load another round, so the spring has to be a certain weight Let's call that weight "X". The tension of that spring in a striker fired pistol has to overcome the striker and sear, so striker pistols are harder to rack.

With the Shield EZ, you don't have that, so the spring can be a little lighter. At least that's what I read. What I don't understand is...wouldn't a lighter spring slam the slide back just a little too much from the force of a 9mm pill? I think what they did in their design (and this is complete conjecture) is they use a heavy enough spring in the trigger assembly to take some slack off the recoil spring. eg. If you need "X" total force, then the EZ's recoil spring provides 2/3 X and the hammer spring provides 1/3 X. This way if you need to manually rack the slide, you don't need as much force because the hammer is already (and always) engaged.

Like I said, that's my running theory, but I really don't know. (Of course that doesn't answer why 1911 slides are hard to rack since it's a similar operating system.)

 

[Skribs]

I can't answer about the low felt recoil, but I'll take a stab on summing up the "ez" slide racking.

The gun is hammer fired and essentially a single action trigger, which is another plus. As we all know, the gas+recoil force the slide back to load another round, so the spring has to be a certain weight Let's call that weight "X". The tension of that spring in a striker fired pistol has to overcome the striker and sear, so striker pistols are harder to rack.

With the Shield EZ, you don't have that, so the spring can be a little lighter. At least that's what I read. What I don't understand is...wouldn't a lighter spring slam the slide back just a little too much from the force of a 9mm pill? I think what they did in their design (and this is complete conjecture) is they use a heavy enough spring in the trigger assembly to take some slack off the recoil spring. eg. If you need "X" total force, then the EZ's recoil spring provides 2/3 X and the hammer spring provides 1/3 X. This way if you need to manually rack the slide, you don't need as much force because the hammer is already (and always) engaged.

Like I said, that's my running theory, but I really don't know. (Of course that doesn't answer why 1911 slides are hard to rack since it's a similar operating system.)

A 1911 slide pulls the hammer back. Compare with a double action pistol where the slide only loads the round, and the trigger pulls the hammer back. I would think for racking a slide the double action would be easiest.

 

[valnar]

A 1911 slide pulls the hammer back. Compare with a double action pistol where the slide only loads the round, and the trigger pulls the hammer back. I would think for racking a slide the double action would be easiest.

True. I meant racking the slide on a 1911 already with the hammer back. But that could just be my perception since it's .45ACP vs 9mm anyway.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

I have a 380 EZ. I like it very much. Also i have a Walther PK380. It's also easy to rack. They came out before SW'S easy to rack. Both are nice guns and accurate for their size.

 

[gc70]

It is generally easier to rack the slide on a hammer-fired gun than a striker-fired gun. With the growth of striker-fired designs in recent decades, many newer shooters were never exposed to that fact.

The Shield EZ was initially chambered in .380ACP. Guns in .380 caliber were traditionally simple blowback designs that needed heavy slides and stiff recoil springs to control recoil forces. Using locked-breech designs in .380 was a game-changer with respect to allowing lighter slides and recoil springs. Not only did lighter springs make the EZ easier to rack, but less reciprocating slide mass and the locked-breech design's distribution of force over time changed the perception of recoil in the EZ.

Step up from .380 to 9mm in the EZ and results change a bit. The .380 weighs 18.5 ounces while the 9mm weighs 23 ounces; that 25% weight increase is in the barrel and slide. Controlling the 9mm's stouter loads and heavier slide requires a stiffer recoil spring. While still easier to rack than comparable striker-fired designs, I cannot rack the slide on a 9mm EZ using only my little finger on the front sight, which I can easily do on a .380 EZ.

 

[gc70]

Regarding the Shield versus the Shield EZ: the EZ is over a half inch longer, nearly a half inch taller, 1/10th inch wider, and 10% heavier than the Shield, which many would consider fairly significant for a concealed carry pistol.

 

[Kleanbore]

I carry an EZ 9. I like the easy slide, the grip safety, the trigger pull, and the size and weight.

 

[luzyfuerza]

My wife struggles to operate most autoloader slides, no matter the technique she uses. She can operate the EZ9 slide without any problems. She's successfully used it in two four-day shooting classes and in practice. For her, its the perfect autoloader. It conceals great on her waist in OWB kydex, and disappears in a horizontal shoulder holster.

At one point, I wondered how her EZ9 would work for me and my very large hands. I had never shot it, so I put a mag through it, and then used it to shoot the 2019 FBI pistol qualification test (described here: https://www.usacarry.com/2019-fbi-handgun-qualification/). I shot a 98% with the little EZ9, which is in-line with the scores I get when I shoot the FBI qualifier with my duty-sized handguns in 9mm and 45 ACP (96-100%). By no means is the EZ a niche tool intended only for shooters with weak hands.

I'm guessing that the EZ9 didn't emerge until 2018 because most firearms manufacturers thought that women and others with low hand strength didn't make up a big enough market to justify developing such a product. If my wife's experience (and mine) is any indication, sales of this gun have likely exceeded S&W's expectations.

 

[Capybara]

Women have been the fastest growing segment of the firearms market and especially the CCW market for quite a few years now. With many Boomers
who have guns and CCWs becoming afflicted with Arthritis, seems like a huge market to me. Smith & Wesson are pretty smart. Not seeing too many of the other
gun companies going after these markets nearly as much as Smith.

 

[Alte Schule]

In 2019, after a year of reading the reviews of the EZ .380, I rented one at my LGS range. At the time I was told it was one of their biggest selling firearms.

In my opinion I believe that S&W hit a grand slam with the EZ series. I now have the .380 and one in .30 Super Carry. with a OWB leather holster that fits both. Great pistol(s) for EDC.

 

[someguy2800]

They didn’t really invent anything new with the EZ, they just kind of went back in time a little bit. A lot of the older hammer fired guns like a star BM, colt 1908, were very easy to rack the slide. The hammer provides a lot of the spring force so that combined with adding a couple extra ounces to the slide means they don’t need a big recoil spring.

One thing I will say is that part of the reason modern striker fired guns are so reliable is they have very heavy recoil springs so they can force the slide shut by brute force. In my experience hammer fired guns of all types have more feeding issues where the slide doesn’t go fully into battery because of the lighter springs. Just something I’ve noticed over the years. The feed geometry need to be perfect on a hammer gun.

 

[someguy2800]

By the way, if you haven’t stumbled on it they recently released a new double stack version called the Equalizer

 

[JTQ]

It is generally easier to rack the slide on a hammer-fired gun than a striker-fired gun.

If the hammer is cocked. With the hammer down, my guess is the typical hammer fired gun is harder to rack than the typical striker fired gun.

 

[someguy2800]

If the hammer is cocked. With the hammer down, my guess is the typical hammer fired gun is harder to rack than the typical striker fired gun.

I would say they are pretty equal. In this case it’s a concealed hammer, so the hammer will never be down except if you dry fire it or have a misfire. Both of which could be a potential problem if someone only has enough hand strength to rack the side with hammer cocked.

 

[Kleanbore]

If the hammer is cocked. With the hammer down, my guess is the typical hammer fired gun is harder to rack than the typical striker fired gun.

That's not the case.

 

[JTQ]

I'm talking about hammer fired guns in the generic, and not specifically the S&W EZ, which I believe always has the hammer cocked, anyway.

With the hammer down, my guess is the typical hammer fired gun is harder to rack than the typical striker fired gun.

That's not the case.

I don't know what hammer or striker fired guns you've been using, but in my experience, with a hammer fired gun, with the hammer down, they are harder to rack than any striker fired gun I've handled.

Here is Ernest Langdon explaining it with a Beretta 92, beginning at about the 1:05 mark.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm talking about hammer fired guns in the generic, and not specifically the S&W EZ, which I believe always has the hammer cocked, anyway.

How can the EZ always have the hemmer cocked?

 

[valnar]

How can the EZ always have the hemmer cocked?

That's the secret sauce that makes the gun so easy to cock. The gun is always in the equivalent of Condition One for a 1911 (sorta kinda). You never manually have to overcome the hammer spring.

 

[doubleh]

When the market becomes large enough to make a profit with something it will appear. The huge increase in CCW along with so many more women shooters and an aging and infirm male population the market appeared and we have the EZ from Smith and offerings from other companies.

 

[gc70]

That's the secret sauce that makes the gun so easy to cock. The gun is always in the equivalent of Condition One for a 1911 (sorta kinda). You never manually have to overcome the hammer spring.

Do you believe nobody ever dry-fires an EZ?

 

[Kleanbore]

That's the secret sauce that makes the gun so easy to cock. The gun is always in the equivalent of Condition One for a 1911 (sorta kinda). You never manually have to overcome the hammer spring.

That is absurd.

Mine surely isn't.

 

[valnar]

I am waxing poetic on the subject. I don't own one myself, but regurgitating what I read. I'm happy to be proven wrong. How does S&W make it so easy to cock then?

 

[gc70]

If the hammer is cocked. With the hammer down, my guess is the typical hammer fired gun is harder to rack than the typical striker fired gun.

Hammers-fired designs benefit from greater leverage and mechanical advantage when being cocked than striker-fired designs. The rotational movement involved in cocking a hammer occurs over a substantially greater distance than the tiny, straight movement involved in applying tension to a striker.

Here is Ernest Langdon explaining it with a Beretta 92, beginning at about the 1:05 mark.

Langdon described peak resistance being reached very quickly in a hammer-fired gun when the slide first encounters the hammer. Peak resistance is reached at the end of the slide's retraction in a striker-fired gun when the recoil spring is compressed to its maximum. That is why the small slide movement Langdon described in a press-check is more difficult to control in a hammer-fired gun than a striker-fired gun.

 

[gc70]

I am waxing poetic on the subject. I don't own one myself, but regurgitating what I read. I'm happy to be proven wrong. How does S&W make it so easy to cock then?

Part of the answer is in post #6.

S&W is not the only manufacturer to recognize and advertise the racking advantage of a hammer-fired design. Springfield Armory described the XD-E as "The XD-E takes advantage of its hammer fired action, allowing the gun to be racked and charged with ease." "The XD-E features a Low-Effort-Slide that requires 27 percent less effort to cycle the slide when compared to leading striker-fired pistols in its category." Ruger describes the Security 380 as having a Lite-Rack System "allowing for easy slide manipulation."