.40 M&P shield

Register to hide this ad
Very nice. Hunting one myself. Didn't think it would fit my big ass hands, but shot one a few weeks ago and it really is nice, and shoots very well for its size.
 
When I was in the Air Force anytime we were flying we were issued M9s (Beretta 92FS). As far as I remember, the 92 series has the standard internal safeties that all modern guns do for drop protection, decocking, firing pin block, etc. Depending on uniform required, we were issued the M9 (green nylon) holster or the shoulder holster. Standard operating procedure was to load the magazine into the weapon, rack the first round into the bore, decock, switch the safety off, and holster. We trained this way exclusively and (for Air Force) extensively.

Problem was, those holsters tended to rub the safety area and about half the time, when you drew, the safety was magically back 'on'. Nothing for pucker factor than a gun that doesn't work, with no backup arm, someplace unhappy in the world. When stuff hits the fan you can only be as good as your training, and we weren't trained for accidental safety engagement. We weren't cops that draw on folks to enforce compliance. If an AF flight crew member draws on someone shiiat is getting way too real way too fast. It is an experience you will have indelibly etched upon your brain and will revisit every time you look at or handle a gun from then on.

I still stand by my statement and belief that external safeties on a defensive handgun are there to kill the owner. See the retarded keylock safeties on newer revolvers, that were basically demanded by the Feinstein's Monster in California. As a lawyer, I understand the putative liability aspect from the manufacturers' viewpoint. I also note that I cannot find a single instance of someone successfully suing a gun manufacturer for a death or injury to the *owner* that resulted from the gun not operating as expected in a defensive situation.

The natural response to this diatribe is this: "Well then, don't buy a pistol with a safety. There are plenty out there." While this is true, none of them are as good a carry weapon, IMHO, as a Shield with this one issue. I think perhaps some engineer at S&W realized this fact as well because in most handgun lockwork I've seen, just removing the safety makes the whole shebang not go... bang. I wish they made a 48-state version like they used to do with vehicle emissions. But they do not. So we're left with removing or disabling the external safety, to ensure it performs as expected 100% of the time.

Again, if you've spent your life training with 1911s, then ignore all the above.
 
I've personally always thought the Beretta was a dangerous piece of crap for military use. Civilian owned, they're a nice sidearm, but that usually means low round count and well taken care of. The M9s were rode hard and put up wet (sandy/bloody/muddy). I'm not a fan of handguns that have about 1/16 of sideways play in the slide...

The replacement for much of the armed forces is the M11, a Sig P228. Much more robust in the long term, apparently (and I can tell you our late 70s vintage police-issue Sig is still an awesome gun). But, still a foreign made sidearm. Wonder why no American made sidearms made the cut? I know why they moved away from the 1911, but Colt and Smith and others were making decent pistols back then too.

So have we gotten far enough off topic yet? I could always start talking about cats or something. :)
 
What have you been shooting in the S&W? My compact 40 was a hand full with 180 gr. but a pleasure to shoot with 155 and 165 gr.

How is that for a segue ,Mike? :D
 
My experience (to chime in, as I'm not responding directly as OP) with the Shield in 9mm was that it was more controllable than our Sig P6 with 124 grain ball. The P6 is a single-stack lighter version of the P226 - think 3/4 scale; so, concealable but on the large size for that. Heavier than the Shield too. I think the funky recoil spring on the S&W helps take up a lot of the usually subcompact jump.
 
Back
Top