When I bought the M&P Shield 9mm, I was really hoping to find a striker fired replacement for my “pocket. If you’re looking for a gun which can be “pocket carried” the M&P Shield isn’t, in my opinion ideal for this purpose. According to Smith, the new trigger in the Shield will soon be integrated into the rest of the models in the M&P line. Crisp, with relatively short uptake and a definite reset point not found on the triggers in other M&P models. In fact, the M&P Shield is a very comfortable gun to fire, in large part due to the redesigned trigger found on the Shield. Fortunately, in my testing of the Shield, I found the safety to be unobtrusive, and not prone to accidental activation.įortunately, firing stability wasn’t tossed out with the Shield design – it’s a very easy weapon to manage recoil when firing, and muzzle flip didn’t seem worse than the larger, heavier M&P 9c. While a frame mounted safety is an optional feature on the M&P 9c, it’s not optional on the Shield. In addition to fire power/magazine capacity (the M&P 9c has a 12 round capacity), the Shield does not have ambidextrous controls (The Shield is set up for right-handed use) like the M&P 9c. Further comparing the M&P Shield to the larger M&P 9c, the list of other compromises made to create the smaller, more concealed carry friendly Shield grows. But magazine and frame are quite a bit more slender on the Shield, which will make it more comfortable for “inside the waistband” (IWB) carrying of the weapon. Height wise, the Shield about the same as the M&P 9c with the 7 round magazine, and quite a bit taller than the M&P 9c with the Shield’s extended 8 round magazine. M&P Shield (left) Compared to the M&P 9c (right) Here’s another photo where you can see the differences in the magazine width between them: While it’s clear to see in the above photo that the Shield is a bit shorter than the M&P 9c, it’s hard to see many other differences from this view. ![]() Here’s a comparison photo showing my M&P 9c next to the M&P Shield: The Shield 9mm is essentially a single-stack (technically a 1.5 stack) magazine version of the M&P 9c. Smith already makes a “compact” version of the M&P called the M&P Compact. The question becomes, what are you willing to give up in a full-size weapon in order to meet this goal? What are your priorities? The Shield is by and large based both cosmetically and functionally on the successful S&W M&P design and form factor – a very good thing. The goal is to get a defensive handgun that’s small and light enough to carry somewhere on your body comfortably, without those you come into contact with knowing you’re armed. When it comes to firearms, concealed carry is about compromises – giving up something to get something. Fortunately, the needs of a military officer dovetail nicely with those of the average consumer looking for a firearm for concealed carry purposes. But according to a source I spoke with that works closely with S&W, Smith was actually responding to the needs of military officers needing a small firearm to conceal with their dress uniforms more than any perceived need in the consumer market. ![]() The M&P Shield seems to be designed to cater heavily to the consumer “CCW” concealed carry crowd. ![]() I ordered mine on launch day, received it last last week, and took out to the range this past weekend to do some testing. Just over a week ago, Smith & Wesson announced and simultaneously launched their newest edition to the M&P line – the Shield in both 9mm and 40 S&W.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |