View Full Version : S&W Shield Coming in 45 ACP!
Father of 3
05-20-16, 08:57
It's official from S&W. The Shield will be available in 45 ACP.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/dealer/pistol/11531_L_Short.jpg
Comes in both TS and no TS models.
Full specs available on Smith and Wesson website (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_848574_-1_780153_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y).
PatrioticDisorder
05-20-16, 09:20
They'd be wise to add the grip upgrades to the rest of the M&P line up.
boombotz401
05-20-16, 09:24
Specs look real close to the 9/40, this might be a home run for s&w. Really like what they did with the grips, I wonder if they made the mag catch reversible? I'd be all over that
I'll be taking a ride to my lgs today to see if I can get my hands on it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Crap.
Never held an M&P, but considering I do not have a .45, depending on the price, I've always liked the idea of a compact .45, if the price is good, like the current shield, I may invest.
I won't be buying one. Recoil of a light, tiny .45acp is not pleasant. I'll stick with my 9mm Shield.
I won't be buying one. Recoil of a light, tiny .45acp is not pleasant. I'll stick with my 9mm Shield.
Same here.
slowlowmiata
05-20-16, 10:09
Having shot an xds in 9 and 45 and owning a 9 shield already I wouldn't buy a 45. I'm very happy with modern ammo in my 9mm shield
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/shield45.jpg
My buddy snapped this picture this morning at the NRA convention.
boombotz401
05-20-16, 10:33
Really like those grips, lot of negitivity here I think this is going to put a hurt on the xds.id bet the street price around 375-399
What's that baby shield underneath?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WickedWillis
05-20-16, 10:41
Really like those grips, lot of negitivity here I think this is going to put a hurt on the xds.id bet the street price around 375-399
What's that baby shield underneath?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do really like the grips as well, I think that is a positive step on the Shield. I just don't really care for small single stack 45's personally. With the G36 being the exception because I felt it handles the 45 better than the XDS. It will sell though, especially if it's in the Shield 9/40 price range.
Really like those grips, lot of negitivity here I think this is going to put a hurt on the xds.id bet the street price around 375-399
What's that baby shield underneath?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Negativity? I wouldn't say that. We don't have to buy or like everything, we're not gun writers that must say something nice so we can keep a free sample. As for going against the XD, I would prefer the M&P any day.
I do shoot my Shield 9, a lot, taken two classes with it while others in the class choose to shoot full size service handguns. Small guns take a lot of dedication and practice to shoot well, and a tiny .45 is a whole lot harder to manage than a 9.
The Shield below is just a regular 9/40 size or maybe optical illusion due to the distance and angle.
I was really hoping to see the 2nd gen M&P they're building for the Army contract with the GD barrels. Oh well.
In a picture by Rob Garrett, the gun doesn't appear to be as small as I thought. Dimensionally it's 0.35" longer than the 9, 0.28" taller than the 9.
I won't be buying one. Recoil of a light, tiny .45acp is not pleasant. I'll stick with my 9mm Shield.
The 45 I shot was a little smaller, but I'd never own anything even close to that small in 45.
I think I have a pretty good grip, 40fs barely moves, and that thing was all over the place. I'll stick to 9 for the small guns.
That said, I wish the texture was on my guns
turnburglar
05-20-16, 18:41
My wife loaded 124gr NATO into her shield and noticed it was different from 115gr right away. I can't imagine a shield in 40 or 45 being very shootable.
I won't be buying one. Recoil of a light, tiny .45acp is not pleasant. I'll stick with my 9mm Shield.
I'm in full agreement on that assessment and fail to see what the benefit would be to that gun,
My wife loaded 124gr NATO into her shield and noticed it was different from 115gr right away. I can't imagine a shield in 40 or 45 being very shootable.
I had one in 40 and it was tolerable, but felt much better going to a Glock 27 in terms of shoot ability (and I'm not saying the 27 is great).
I have both 9 and 40 shield. I carry the 40 every day. I'm a small guy and the recoil is not that bad. I thought it would be worse. I haven't gotten into the 45 realm yet but if I do it will probably be a kimber ultra carry 1911 instead of a shield.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have both 9 and 40 shield. I carry the 40 every day. I'm a small guy and the recoil is not that bad. I thought it would be worse. I haven't gotten into the 45 realm yet but if I do it will probably be a kimber ultra carry 1911 instead of a shield.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you measured split times/accuracy between the two? I'm curious as I've never shot a 40 subcompact, just 9 and 45.
I ask because "not bad" can be subjective.
tacticaldesire
05-20-16, 22:38
I must be the only one here excited about this. I'll reserve judgment until I can try one out but this is what a lot of people have been asking for including me. I can't imagine running +P is going to be too pleasant but I'd wager the .45 will probably be more manageable than the .40SW. 6+1 and 7+1 is solid capacity in a subcompact .45ACP.
Now I'm just hoping a VP45 gets announced sometime this year.
I must be the only one here excited about this. I'll reserve judgment until I can try one out but this is what a lot of people have been asking for including me. I can't imagine running +P is going to be too pleasant but I'd wager the .45 will probably be more manageable than the .40SW. 6+1 and 7+1 is solid capacity in a subcompact .45ACP.
Now I'm just hoping a VP45 gets announced sometime this year.
What is it you are excited about? It seems to offer no advantages. The .45 round is, particularly in that barrel length no better and possibly less effective then premium 9mm rounds out of the same platform and for that reduction in capability you get fewer rounds and more recoil slowing down subsequent shots. What am I missing?
boombotz401
05-21-16, 00:12
I can't speak for anyone else though myself and many others I know are more accurate with the 45round.
I'm a huge fan of 9mm and like 40 also but that 45 slug is tried and true for generations, I have to disagree about barrel length since 45 uses a faster power to push the heavy slug, I haven't seen much gains from 3 to 4.5.
I'm very fond of the 200gr +P gold dot.
There's a few incoming at my lgs and I called dibs on one, I'll get a review when it comes in
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I tried a Kahr in .45...tiny gun. The only reason I fired a second shot was to confirm the first one sucked as bad as it did.
My current carry rotation is XDsubc 9mm, M&P 40c, and a lightweight commander sized 1911 .45. The alloy frame compact 1911 has significantly more recoil than my full sized 1911, but is manageable and certainly not uncomfortable.
Sub c .45, NO THANKS.
If it's for you then rock on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tacticaldesire
05-21-16, 02:27
What is it you are excited about? It seems to offer no advantages. The .45 round is, particularly in that barrel length no better and possibly less effective then premium 9mm rounds out of the same platform and for that reduction in capability you get fewer rounds and more recoil slowing down subsequent shots. What am I missing?
What you're missing is that some people want different things.
There's lots of great, subcompact 9mm's out there. Now I want a subcompact .45. that's not an XDs or Glock 36. I would also argue against your summation that .45 out of a 3.3 inch barrel is less effective than 9mm out of a 3.1 inch barrel.
I shoot .45 just fine and have a lot of time and practice behind the cartridge. Nobody is arguing that 9mm doesn't provide faster followup shots. I'd think that's common knowledge to anyone who has been around firearms more than a day. There's compromises that have to be made no matter which cartridge one chooses and I have chosen the ones I am, and am not willing to make.
I like 9mm, and have never said anything to the contrary. It's a suitable round for pretty much anything and I don't feel unarmed with it in the slightest. That being said, .45 is the round I have chosen to primarily standardize on. That may be subject to change, but for now it's what I'm using. Whether or not you agree, I couldn't care less. I'm not interested in another .45 vs 9mm caliber war.
Also, the .45 model only losses one round in capacity compared to the 9mm. Pretty impressive if you ask me and a sacrifice I'm willing to make. And like I said, I will reserve judgement until I can get my hands on one. It could turn out to be a bust and I wind up hating it.
So basically it's because you standardized on the 45 and this simplifies logistics? I could understand that, I was just curious if you saw an independent advantage going to a larger, heavier recoiling round, with less capacity and no real gain in round to round performance. I was curious if there was some objective performance advantage I wasn't seeing. Kind of like Boombitz identified greater accuracy for him with the .45
I'll stay with my Shield 9mm too but here is a look see.
http://www.quanticotactical.com/asp/itemDetail.asp?dispItemNum=5544&type=M&CMN=Smith%20and%20Wesson-%20LE/Military&CMNum=142&CMSNum=732&CMSN=Shields%99
Here are some comparison pics to a 9mm I took today at the NRA SHOW...
http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee515/cathellsk/Mobile%20Uploads/image_1.jpeg (http://s1231.photobucket.com/user/cathellsk/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_1.jpeg.html)
http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee515/cathellsk/Mobile%20Uploads/image.jpeg (http://s1231.photobucket.com/user/cathellsk/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image.jpeg.html)
I'm super excited about this.
I've literally been asking for this since the M&P Shield line came out. I'm a huge fan of the .45ACP round, always have been. I own plenty of 9mm's. I have a GLOCK 43, M&P9 Shield, HK P30, GLOCK 17 Gen4 and an FNX-9. I own way more .45's though. I've just always preferred them for carry.
My current summer and warm weather EDC is the GLOCK 43 9mm with Trijicon HD's. I carry with a Taran Tactical +1 on it, and two spare 43 mags with Taran +2's, about to be upgraded to +3's. However if it's even a little cool out and I can wear a jacket or a hoodie, I almost ALWAYS grab my HK 45C. It's my favorite carry gun but a little wide for my tastes.
I've bee over on the M&P Pistol forum saying Smith & Wess should make this gun for ages. Why not? GLOCK has their GLOCK 36. Springfield has that XD-S .45. I've literally emailed them a couple dozen times tell them if they made it, we could buy it.
The last time I emailed and to them that a couple months ago one of the gals just replied with a smiley face. I asked WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!!?? Is it coming? I got no reply LOL!
Guess now I know! That said, I like the size. :)
Slvr Surfr
05-22-16, 20:54
Love my Shield 9mm. I won't be buying the .45 anytime soon since my experience with the XDs .45. Good for those who want them!:dirol:
Bulldog7972
05-22-16, 21:13
Having shot an xds in 9 and 45 and owning a 9 shield already I wouldn't buy a 45. I'm very happy with modern ammo in my 9mm shield
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I have an XDs in 45 and I don't find the recoild bad at all.
slowlowmiata
05-22-16, 22:00
Okay Andre the giant....
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I won't be buying one. Recoil of a light, tiny .45acp is not pleasant. I'll stick with my 9mm Shield.
I agree. I've fired a Kahr 45 which is a compact polymer single stack 45, and no thanks. Not a pleasant experience.
Considering that the difference in performance of 9mm and 45ACP is really minimal, what's the niche this gun fills?
tacticaldesire
05-23-16, 06:38
what's the niche this gun fills?
People who want a subcompact .45
I don't get why this is such a concept. The market for this exists. Like is it really that confusing a major OEM would release a subcompact handgun in one of the top 3 service calibers?
Chrisreedrules
05-23-16, 10:54
The market for a subcompact .45 exists mostly due to the fact that people who want them or "swear by" the .45 round is rife with the uneducated and the relatively inexperienced. 9mm is the new gold standard round for ccw and defense and it has been for years. If you like .45, buy a 1911. Otherwise, meh...
The market for a subcompact .45 exists mostly due to the fact that people who want them or "swear by" the .45 round is rife with the uneducated and the relatively inexperienced. 9mm is the new gold standard round for ccw and defense and it has been for years. If you like .45, buy a 1911. Otherwise, meh...
While I probably would have phrased it a bit more diplomatically, I think this is essentially accurate. Unless it's a gun designed around and is the most reliable with the .45, like the 1911, there simply isn't a need for it. It's like carrying a SAA, sure it will work, but it certainly isn't the most logical choice.....but then again I don't always make the most logical decisions either.
While I probably would have phrased it a bit more diplomatically, I think this is essentially accurate. Unless it's a gun designed around and is the most reliable with the .45, like the 1911, there simply isn't a need for it. It's like carrying a SAA, sure it will work, but it certainly isn't the most logical choice.....but then again I don't always make the most logical decisions either.
Although "on paper" it's not a gun that makes much sense compared to other offerings (for reasons already covered by others); having choices is a good thing and there are far worse choice (e.g., Judge, etc) out there, so all good I figure. It would not be on my short list however.
While I highly doubt this would replace my Shield in 9mm for CCW, at least S&W is at least trying to be innovative and bring new stuff to an all ready saturated market. But I will be curious if it suffers the same lack luster response that the G36 seems to have suffered in terms of having a limited following.
Like Will stated above, choices are good.
brickboy240
05-23-16, 13:01
I was actually surprised at how controllable the G36 was. I think it is easier to hit with and easier to control than any 3.5 inch 1911 I have ever shot.
Still not sure I want a Shield 45, though.
People will buy it, even if it is hard to control. People buy tiny Glocks in 357 and 10mm you know! LOL
I was actually surprised at how controllable the G36 was. I think it is easier to hit with and easier to control than any 3.5 inch 1911 I have ever shot.
Still not sure I want a Shield 45, though.
People will buy it, even if it is hard to control. People buy tiny Glocks in 357 and 10mm you know! LOL
Agreed. The 30 and 36 shoot way better than they should for a gun their size, and the Shield 45 may very well be the same way, just have to wait and see.
While I highly doubt this would replace my Shield in 9mm for CCW, at least S&W is at least trying to be innovative and bring new stuff to an all ready saturated market. But I will be curious if it suffers the same lack luster response that the G36 seems to have suffered in terms of having a limited following.
Like Will stated above, choices are good.
I agree choices are good and if someone is happy this gun was released I'm glad for them, but I would prefer they leave the releasing of niche guns out and figure out what should be their most effective fighting platform, the standard size 9mm. I'm just irritated that they haven't released the GD barreled full size 9mm......which is probably making me more irritated wth this release then is fair.
People who want a subcompact .45
I don't get why this is such a concept. The market for this exists. Like is it really that confusing a major OEM would release a subcompact handgun in one of the top 3 service calibers?
I see your point but I wonder how much longer there will actually be a top 3 in practice. The .40 is fading pretty fast in a remarkably short period of time and the .45 as king is changing also at a remarkably rapid pace. Now that the military is beginning to abandon the .45 as well as most LE Agencies I think it will see a marked reduction in usage. I'm not saying it may all but disappear like I think the .40 will, the 1911 alone will ensure its continued use as well as history and nostalgia, and the fact that it's a solid performing round, but I could see it seeing just a fraction of service/duty use as compared to the 9mm. You can only fight progress so long. The only thing keeping .45 in my safe is the 1911. If I become convinced that 9mm 1911's are just as reliable as the .45, or I go to anything other then the 1911, I just can't find any performance based reason to go to anything other then 9mm.
I agree choices are good and if someone is happy this gun was released I'm glad for them, but I would prefer they leave the releasing of niche guns out and figure out what should be their most effective fighting platform, the standard size 9mm. I'm just irritated that they haven't released the GD barreled full size 9mm......which is probably making me more irritated wth this release then is fair.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the bolded?
I do agree the standard size 9mm handguns are the most efficient defensive firearms in today's world when looking at it with a wide optic and most people are very well served with this combo in terms of overall benefit. But, that does not render the 45 obsolete, at least not to my way of thinking.
But I also think that we(as in the shooting community) have a tendency to overthink these things. Lord knows I am guilty of that.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the bolded?
I do agree the standard size 9mm handguns are the most efficient defensive firearms in today's world when looking at it with a wide optic and most people are very well served with this combo in terms of overall benefit. But, that does not render the 45 obsolete, at least not to my way of thinking.
But I also think that we(as in the shooting community) have a tendency to overthink these things. Lord knows I am guilty of that.
It's referring to the 2nd Gen M&P that Smith has reportedly developed for the Army trials. They have contracted with General Dynamics to make the barrels, many think this is because the Army specified accuracy of 4 inches at 50 meters which the current full size 9 has no chance of meeting. A few agencies around me are expecting to be fielding them instead of their .40 M&P's in about a year.
Out of curiosity what do you feel the .45 brings to the table that modern 9mm doesn't? I was surprised by it a few years ago to, but in all my research round for round....take Federal HST for example, the .45 doesn't do anything better then the 9mm except create heavier recoil, slower follow up shots, and a reduced capacity. Now you go FMJ and this changes significantly and I know some report shooting the .45 more accurately.
It's referring to the 2nd Gen M&P that Smith has reportedly developed for the Army trials. They have contracted with General Dynamics to make the barrels, many think this is because the Army specified accuracy of 4 inches at 50 meters which the current full size 9 has no chance of meeting. A few agencies around me are expecting to be fielding them instead of their .40 M&P's in about a year.
Out of curiosity what do you feel the .45 brings to the table that modern 9mm doesn't? I was surprised by it a few years ago to, but in all my research round for round....take Federal HST for example, the .45 doesn't do anything better then the 9mm except create heavier recoil, slower follow up shots, and a reduced capacity. Now you go FMJ and this changes significantly and I know some report shooting the .45 more accurately.
Thanks for the clarification, I have not been paying much attention to the handgun trials and was unaware of the finer details.
As to what the 45 brings to the table that 9 does not, nothing really from a practical standpoint. Yes, the 45 in FMJ flavor is probably, albeit only slightly, better ballistically speaking. But not enough to really matter in the real world in my humble nobody opinion. I could say that in my hands the 45 is more accurate, but that would not be a fair comparison for me to make, since all my 45's are relatively high end 1911's and my 9's are not, so not really fair in that regards.
But the reason why I feel that the 45 is far from being obsolete is because we (again, generally speaking) as a shooting community continue to make it relevant. It is still a good defensive round for those that choose it, regardless of the reasons as to why and if it is agreeable to all. The 9 has gained a lot over the years, but the 45 has not really lost any of its performance. Speaking to on target performance of course. Now when considering weight, capacity, etc. etc., well that is a whole separate topic.
The one place that I do think the Shield 45 will shine is for those folks that have hands large enough to not be able to truly be able to operate guns the size of the smaller Shield or 43 to their best potential. This will give those folks another option to look at and that is a good thing.
I touched it at the NRA convention. Really liked the new frame texturing.
C4
tacticaldesire
05-23-16, 15:49
The market for a subcompact .45 exists mostly due to the fact that people who want them or "swear by" the .45 round is rife with the uneducated and the relatively inexperienced. 9mm is the new gold standard round for ccw and defense and it has been for years. If you like .45, buy a 1911. Otherwise, meh...
I will agree that for most people and situations 9mm is king. I'm not one of those cliche neckbeards "cause they don't make a .46 shootin twice is stupid" guys but I do acknowledge the purpose behind this new offering. Theres still a number of agencies issuing .45s, mine included, and this offers agencies and individual officers an off duty/back up option that uses their duty load along with those who still carry 45s for whatever reason be it personal or professional. It's not going to tickle many here's fancy but there is a legitimate market.
I see your point but I wonder how much longer there will actually be a top 3 in practice. The .40 is fading pretty fast in a remarkably short period of time and the .45 as king is changing also at a remarkably rapid pace. Now that the military is beginning to abandon the .45 as well as most LE Agencies I think it will see a marked reduction in usage. I'm not saying it may all but disappear like I think the .40 will, the 1911 alone will ensure its continued use as well as history and nostalgia, and the fact that it's a solid performing round, but I could see it seeing just a fraction of service/duty use as compared to the 9mm. You can only fight progress so long. The only thing keeping .45 in my safe is the 1911. If I become convinced that 9mm 1911's are just as reliable as the .45, or I go to anything other then the 1911, I just can't find any performance based reason to go to anything other then 9mm.
What do you base these assumptions on? Do you have any data to back them up?
The .40 all but disappearing? .45 relegated to only 1911's? Yes, 9mm outsells the others, but that doesn't mean anything is disappearing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some people really get retarded when there's talk of calibers other than 9mm... like nothing else should exist.
I'm still waiting for a 10mm Shield. [emoji41]
boombotz401
05-23-16, 16:56
Some people really get retarded when there's talk of calibers other than 9mm... like nothing else should exist.
I'm still waiting for a 10mm Shield. [emoji41]
I'd like to see it in .454 casull but I might be on my own there
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I may be the only one, but I don't see any issue with a shield chambered in .45 honestly. I've always prefered shooting .45 to .40 and find the recoil in most .45 caliber pistols (compact and full size) to be easier to manage than .40. I shoot 9mm myself so it doesn't bother me either way, but I'd say a Shield in .45 makes equally as much sense as a Shield in .40.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=JC5188;2322354]What do you base these assumptions on? Do you have any data to back them up?
The .40 all but disappearing? .45 relegated to only 1911's? Yes, 9mm outsells the others, but that doesn't mean anything is disappearing."
I do believe the .40 will all but disappear. Now I suppose I should define what I mean by "all but disappear." I don't think it will disappear, that was the reason for the "all but" part of the sentence. What I mean is that it will go the way of the .357 Sig and 10mm. They are still both there but they are pretty insignificant in the world of duty weapons. If you actually read what I said I never said that the .45 would be relegated to only 1911's. I actually said that just by itself the 1911 would keep the .45 as an in use defensive round. I never mentioned other guns not using it at all. As far as my sources or reasons, the FBI is a big reason, once they decided to drop the .40 for the 9mm and published their reasoning that was a pretty good indicator of things to come, agree with them or not. In the meantime several other large agencies have followed suit or are about to. Studies on round effectiveness are pretty convincing, take a look at Federal's load comparison for the HST for example, it's very easy to navigate. Here's some more reading if you're interested on the subject:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/2/26/keefe-report-seriously-is-the-40-sw-dead/
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/7-reasons-cops-choose-9mm-40/
http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/45-acp-vs-9mm-ammo/#bsum-buffoni
http://www.thebangswitch.com/the-fading-40/
http://concealednation.org/2014/10/fbi-decides-on-9mm-as-their-1-choice-and-have-tons-of-science-behind-their-decision/
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/42092-Larry-Vickers-The-debate-is-over-9mm-won
http://www.usacarry.com/why-agencies-switching-9mm/
I'm not saying it will happen over night, but all factors seem to point to the .40 going the way of .357 Sig (hey Secret Service still like it) in the not too distant future. .45 will still be around but I'm betting it will be used in military and LE service and serious shooters at a fraction of the rate of 9mm.
The Shield 45 Actually makes better sense than the XDs 45. The grip was too short on the XDs and that damned grip safety.
boombotz401
05-23-16, 22:14
The Shield 45 Actually makes better sense than the XDs 45. The grip was too short on the XDs and that damned grip safety.
I agree with that, the extra round is nice too, I skipped the xds for the 5rd cap, if I'm going to carry 5 it's a J frame. 6+1 is minimum for an auto loader
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do believe the .40 will all but disappear.
...
I'm not saying it will happen over night, but all factors seem to point to the .40 going the way of .357 Sig.
Wanna take bets on what's on the shelf around election season?
There are many like me who have 40 guns solely for ammo rushes. I'd rather pay a couple bucks extra for off the shelf 40 than start eating into my 9 stash when something happens.
Performance wise I agree, there's no reason to run anything but 9 while using modern defensive loads, and I don't carry anything but 9mm Glocks.
[QUOTE=JC5188;2322354]What do you base these assumptions on? Do you have any data to back them up?
The .40 all but disappearing? .45 relegated to only 1911's? Yes, 9mm outsells the others, but that doesn't mean anything is disappearing."
I do believe the .40 will all but disappear. Now I suppose I should define what I mean by "all but disappear." I don't think it will disappear, that was the reason for the "all but" part of the sentence. What I mean is that it will go the way of the .357 Sig and 10mm. They are still both there but they are pretty insignificant in the world of duty weapons. If you actually read what I said I never said that the .45 would be relegated to only 1911's. I actually said that just by itself the 1911 would keep the .45 as an in use defensive round. I never mentioned other guns not using it at all. As far as my sources or reasons, the FBI is a big reason, once they decided to drop the .40 for the 9mm and published their reasoning that was a pretty good indicator of things to come, agree with them or not. In the meantime several other large agencies have followed suit or are about to. Studies on round effectiveness are pretty convincing, take a look at Federal's load comparison for the HST for example, it's very easy to navigate. Here's some more reading if you're interested on the subject:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/2/26/keefe-report-seriously-is-the-40-sw-dead/
http://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/7-reasons-cops-choose-9mm-40/
http://www.tactical-life.com/gear/45-acp-vs-9mm-ammo/#bsum-buffoni
http://www.thebangswitch.com/the-fading-40/
http://concealednation.org/2014/10/fbi-decides-on-9mm-as-their-1-choice-and-have-tons-of-science-behind-their-decision/
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/42092-Larry-Vickers-The-debate-is-over-9mm-won
http://www.usacarry.com/why-agencies-switching-9mm/
I'm not saying it will happen over night, but all factors seem to point to the .40 going the way of .357 Sig (hey Secret Service still like it) in the not too distant future. .45 will still be around but I'm betting it will be used in military and LE service and serious shooters at a fraction of the rate of 9mm.
Ok fair point on the .45, but those trade in G22's etc from all these agencies dropping .40 are snatched up by civvies before the ink dries on the sales tag. It's not like they are buying 9mm's and then destroying the .40's.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=jedi391;2322407]
Ok fair point on the .45, but those trade in G22's etc from all these agencies dropping .40 are snatched up by civvies before the ink dries on the sales tag. It's not like they are buying 9mm's and then destroying the .40's.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree, they won't just vaporize, but I also don't think they'll be used much by serious shooters or military/LE. If you told the average cop in the early 80's that by the mid to late 90's the revolver would have all but disappeared as a primary service weapon I'm thinking a conversation similar to this one would have come about. Those revolvers didn't vaporize either but we aren't talking about them much.
Based off what I see in gun store sales and my personal opinion, I think the 40 will first increase in cost (as the demand goes way down now that the FBI is done with it). As the price increases, people will begin to look at other calibers. They can either save a lot of money by going to 9mm or for a little bit more money, get into 10mm (which is cheaper than 45ACP now thanks to S&B/Magtech).
C4
Oscar Mike
05-24-16, 09:44
This .45 pocket rocket will make a sweet BUG. It's on my short list.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chrisreedrules
05-24-16, 20:33
For all those who think .45 is the be all and end all round, watch this video. Officer Reston was shot 7 times (once in the face) with a .45 caliber pistol. He survived to not only kill his opponent but to make a full recovery in 6 months.
http://youtu.be/_1Pj1-Iw-X8
tacticaldesire
05-24-16, 20:56
For all those who think .45 is the be all and end all round, watch this video. Officer Reston was shot 7 times (once in the face) with a .45 caliber pistol. He survived to not only kill his opponent but to make a full recovery in 6 months.
http://youtu.be/_1Pj1-Iw-X8
I don't see anyone suggesting.45 as the end all be all. All handgun rounds have comprises. Someone liking .45 is not the same as thinking it's the end all be all. I can find stories of people surviving IEDs', airstrikes, 7.62, .44 Mag. 5.56 etc if you'd like. Your link proves nothing other than that officer is a strong warrior.
Again, why a. 45 shield is causing so much controversy baffles me. Users of the cartridge will like it. People who have settled on 9mm likely won't. We're talking handgun rounds here. All are full of compromises and none have nuclear capabilities.
eightmillimeter
08-24-16, 13:10
Just took one of these out for a drive. Very accurate pistol with a decent trigger, no problem keeping it in the black on a B8 from 10yds.
Stippling is great, and needed. You definitely know it's a 45 but it is doable for an experienced shooter.
Just took one of these out for a drive. Very accurate pistol with a decent trigger, no problem keeping it in the black on a B8 from 10yds.
Stippling is great, and needed. You definitely know it's a 45 but it is doable for an experienced shooter.
Would you see a value in owning one though?
I shot one about a week ago. For comparison I owned both a Kahr P45 and a Glock 36. The shield is by far better handling gun than the both of them. The P45 was snappy and painful to shoot, the G36 was better recoil wise but with the size of my hands gen 3 glocks are hard for me to shoot. The recoil on the shield is more of a big and I mean big push backwards other than that with range ammo and some cheap hollow points my buddy had it was just loud and with a lot of flash, but with quality defensive stuff it wouldn't be that bad. As for accuracy it was shot between 7 and 10 yards and was more than adequate for social work. I like the grip texture a lot, so much so I want it on all my polymer guns, though I can see it wearing holes in clothes so be mindful. The only thing I don't care for on this gun is the forward serrations they are just too small to be useful.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
eightmillimeter
08-25-16, 01:49
Would you see a value in owning one though?
Yes but for specific reasons:
1) You are already invested or have a preference for 45 ACP, be it logistic or personal
2) The standard shield is too small for you and you don't "mind" a 45
This one isn't one I'll buy simply because my cc needs are met already and I'm invested in 9mm at this point in life.
The market for a subcompact .45 exists mostly due to the fact that people who want them or "swear by" the .45 round is rife with the uneducated and the relatively inexperienced. 9mm is the new gold standard round for ccw and defense and it has been for years. If you like .45, buy a 1911. Otherwise, meh...
Too much oversimplification. The .45 is an option, and far from an irrelevant one. It's a common round and thousands of shooters are heavily invested in the .45 for numerous reasons. It doesn't make them "uneducated" or "inexperienced" even if they swear by it. A CCW filled with 6 rounds of high performance JHP .45 ACP is not inherently wrong.
And no, this 9mm revival is fairly recent. The .40 was the quintessential defense round according to forum experts, SME's, ballistic testers, LE and Fed agencies and 9mm haters on the internet not all that long ago.
I've been carrying my 45 Shield for a few weeks now. The size is just right. Noticeably larger than my 9mm Shield. I'm neither uneducated or inexperienced.
Yes but for specific reasons:
1) You are already invested or have a preference for 45 ACP, be it logistic or personal
2) The standard shield is too small for you and you don't "mind" a 45
This one isn't one I'll buy simply because my cc needs are met already and I'm invested in 9mm at this point in life.
That would sum me up too.
I won't be buying one. Recoil of a light, tiny .45acp is not pleasant. I'll stick with my 9mm Shield.
Yeah. You'll see a lot of the .45 version for sale at gun shows, when people get bitten.
Recoil is surprisingly similar to that of the Shield in 40. Shooting the two pistols side by side it is hard to feel the difference other than the slightly larger grip on the 45.
Here are a couple reviews:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/9/1/range-time-with-the-sw-mp45-shield-pistol/
http://www.gunblast.com/SW-Shield.htm
Recoil is surprisingly similar to that of the Shield in 40. Shooting the two pistols side by side it is hard to feel the difference other than the slightly larger grip on the 45.
Here are a couple reviews:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/9/1/range-time-with-the-sw-mp45-shield-pistol/
http://www.gunblast.com/SW-Shield.htm
I'm not surprised. .40 is pretty snappy from a small pistol. A Glock 36 feels on par with a G27 to me. G19's, G26's and G30's are far more pleasant!
The only time I enjoy .40 is when it's coming out a full-size pistol with a light mounted.
No doubt though if I wanted a single stack 9mm or .45 I would buy a Shield. (Feels better in hand, holds an extra round with factory mags/springs/baseplates)
The new Shield is about the same size as an Officer's Model. But it is slightly thinner. If also is probably more reliable with a larger variety of ammo.
Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk
Would you see a value in owning one though?
Will, being a former competitive powerlifter, I have enjoyed reading your articles for many years. As to the shield 45, yes I see value in owning it. I just picked it up last week and have about 500 rounds (speer 230 GD, AE 230 FMJ, 230 FMJ reloads with 4.8 gr bullseye and 5.3 of w231, 230 grain HST +p). I think the recoil is fairly mild. Probably a little less than a glock 27. The sights are decent, stippling in excellent and it eats any ammo I have put through it. The mags are a little harder to seat that glocks, but I wouldn't say it's likely to be a problem. I always liked the shield 9mm, but didn't feel it offered any advantage to my glock 26. Especially considering the advantage of carrying a 15, 17 or 33 round backup mag. The 45 Shield is lighter than the XDS-45, has less felt recoil, 2 extra rounds and easy to conceal. It is becoming my favorite off duty carry after a week. Also, I like 45's.
Bump: How has function been with everyones guns?
Looking to pick up a thin single stack. Barrel length 4" or less. Weight is not an issue. I am wedded to Glock double stack 9s but see no reason I have to get a 43. all the guns are close in size. 9mm only nets 1 extra round so I am on the 45.
Bump: How has function been with everyones guns?
Looking to pick up a thin single stack. Barrel length 4" or less. Weight is not an issue. I am wedded to Glock double stack 9s but see no reason I have to get a 43. all the guns are close in size. 9mm only nets 1 extra round so I am on the 45.
Mine has been running with no complaints. JHP, ball and even 200gr LWSC.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I bought a new .45 Shield. and have fired it 200 times with factory 230 grain hardball with no malfunctions. Impact is point of aim. Accuracy seems to be good. I have not yet shot it over a bench but have fired about 50 rounds at gallon jug sized targets "across the river" and achieved hits. Misses were near. I was seated in my truck and was shooting from a rested position. Recoil was surprisingly light for the caliber and weight of the pistol.
My complaints may not be relevant. One is that the underside of the slide which contacts the top round in the magazine had many deep and rough tool marks. But they did not affect function. I smoothed them with a medium stone followed by a fine one. Another complaint is that the bore and rifling have several rough tool marks. They did not affect accuracy. If you remove the floor plate from the extended mag, be prepared for a very long session in trying to reassemble it. Wow!
Compared to 9mm Shield mags, these required much more effort to load.
I bought the pistol out of curiosity. Too, I have a sinful quantity of 45 cases and all the necessary reloading equipment. That and the fact that I like 45 pistols motivated me. If you own a reliable 9mm or 40 cal Shield, either will accomplish the same tasks as the 45 Shield. So do I recommend the 45 version? Yeah if you want one. Will I keep this one forever? For me forever is like 10 years but to give an answer--probably not.
Today I talked with a tech at the Smith factory about a question pertaining to the recoil spring. The man was personable. I mentioned the heavy circular tool marks under the slide mentioned in the above post. He said that they were purposely machined there to reduce slide velocity. When seeing them the first time, I wondered whether or not the marks were there for this purpose. But noticing how they scarred brass, I decided that they had no function. On my pistol they have been smoothed somewhat. I'll report here if polishing made a noticeable difference. I'll definitely not run +p ammo in the gun now. In the back of my mind I'm hoping to develop an accurate 200 grain cast bullet load for plinking and carry in woods or along streams. I just now remembered that somewhere in my stash I have 500 rounds of factory 185 jacketed target ammo. I'll did this stuff out and try it. I've figured out how to install a simple trigger stop, and once done, I'll test for accuracy on paper rather than shooting across the river at rocks and kildee birds.
Tokarev thanks for input.
Williejc Yes like he said every gun has those they aren't tooling marks. I think the 45 may be better for me than the 9 or 40. The 9mm ammo used (depends on the lot) but lets say expands to .49" out of 4" barrel. With 45 shield the bullet starts close to that, I get a slightly longer slide (better for me to carry) and little bigger grip (fits better and still thinner than Glocks doublstack). Only lose 1 round in capacity.
My only worry is the 45 ammo is tested out of a 5" barrel. I have no idea if the 3.3" will get it to enough velocity for reliable expansion.
Glock 43 worry is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLWdpKkzIyM
Velocity difference between 5 inches and 3 inches would be around 50 fps which should not affect expansion. If you think it might, then you can select a +p round.
Having taken apart 100's of pistols, I've never seen tool marks used to reduce slide velocity. I dispute the logic because after firing a few 100 rounds, the marks will be polished anyway.
Velocity difference between 5 inches and 3 inches would be around 50 fps which should not affect expansion. If you think it might, then you can select a +p round.
Having taken apart 100's of pistols, I've never seen tool marks used to reduce slide velocity. I dispute the logic because after firing a few 100 rounds, the marks will be polished anyway.
I may just be skeptical but it sounds like baloney to me. Would you be able to post any pictures?
williejc, you essentially eliminated some of the engineering put into the pistol to make it more reliable.
Since brass is not particularly good at wearing down hard steel, the scallops are effective for a lot longer than you suppose.
Reliability is about have multiple redundancies to push the pistol toward running correctly under all conditions. Just because you have no experience with something does not mean it is not functional. Racking the slide over a loaded mag confirms drag is added to the slide, which probably helps keep the slide from outrunning the magazine and reduces the chance of inertial misfeeding. The more powerful ammo gets, the more help you need.
Next time don't remove something you are not familiar with. Possibly reducing the gun's functionality for more powerful ammo cannot be considered a good thing.
The amount of brass removed by the scallops is very small and unlikely to significantly affect brass life. The area of removal is where the brass is comparatively thick and it is unlikely a round would experience removal from the same area repeatedly.
Generally, through extensive chronographing, I find velocity loss between a 3 and a 5 closer to 100 fps. If you find standard velocity a little in the slow side, you may have more problems making up for that.
With thoughtful ammo selection good expansion can be had. Performance will meet needed standards.
I find the 45 Shield noticeably less bouncy to shoot than my 40 and this mostly with other than wimp loads. I do not find it to be anywhere near as bad as I thought it would be even compared to a 40 plus ounce 1911. It is nearly mild.
The size of the pistol lends needed support from the pinkie with the short mag. I like that. Size wise, the pistol fits an exacting niche well and is a pleasing option in a carry pistol. I will not wallow in the mud in combat with it, just carry it for CCW.
alcante262
03-02-17, 21:38
Great gun accurate,reliable and recoil is like a 40 cal.
No pictures. I got my first center fire semi auto in1963, and since then have owned several hundred handguns. I bought my first Gun Digest in 1957 and have been a serious student of the game for 60 years. The 45 Shield is the first pistol that I've ever seen or heard of that uses machine marks to retard slide velocity. Upon seeing the marks, I wondered if that might be their purpose but then ruled out that option. I realized that the strongest upward pressure of the mag's rounds would be exerted by the first cartridge up. Thereafter the upward force would decrease as each round was fired. The overall result is that this retarding force would not be constant.
Factors controlling slide velocity in pistols include slide weight and barrel weight. In short recoil locked breech pistols slide and barrel move together until unlocking of the two parts occur. That's the reason that barrel weight is a factor. Another factor is strength(weight in lbs) of recoil springs, and yet another is the weight of hammer springs. The time measured in milliseconds referred to as dwell time also contributes and refers to that duration that slide and barrel remain locked together.
When looking at the Shield, we must delete hammer spring weight as a factor in this striker fired pistol. Smith has introduced another factor, which to me appears not precise because force involved is dependent on number of rounds in the magazine. Simpler approaches would have been increasing slide/barrel weight or recoil spring strength. The latter was ruled out to allow easier slide manipulation. I'm not an engineer nor a machinist nor a mechanic nor a designer of any type. Hence I'm not qualified to speak as an authority. However, I do have six decades of study based on library research and previous ownership of a few hundred handguns and experience from having fired at least 300,000 rounds through these several hundred handguns. That's all know.
Bottom line: the engineers who designed the pistol thought it necessary. They know far more about the pistol than you do.
Drag is exerted as long as a round is present. It is very likely that low round count drag was sufficient to provide the needed attenuation and more rounds was simply icing on the cake, so you may well be looking at it from the wrong perspective.
A non engineer overriding an engineering feature purposely installed into the gun does not strike me (or the Smith and Wesson engineers) as a smart move.
Defending this modification sounds nonsensical to anyone reading your reply, quite frankly. The most authoritative source possible has already called it a mistake. Increasing recoil spring strength or slide weight has downsides, especially recoil spring strength and was already rejected as a solution.....then you deleted their fix.
Not good!!
You appear to have much in common with 1911 feed ramp polishers, modifying that which you do not understand.
Here are the serrations http://smith-wessonforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=257610&d=1479611976
Johnny it's done unless you are the S&W engineer we don't know what specific parameters they are needed for. If he gets 1000s and 1000s of trouble free rounds it will be okay. S&W is a high volume manufacturer and I could see someone mistaking the marks. He is not telling people to modify their guns unknowingly. We can be civil.
Johnny also I forgot to thank you for sharing your chrono results. Looking at 230 gr +P I could expect close to or over 800 fps from your experience.
We do know what parameter the serrations are for.....to reduce slide velocity. The heavier the load the more the serrations are needed.
Non Plus P 230's normally specc'd at 880-920 fps will do in the 800 fps range. Hornady critical duty Plus P 220's get around 900-920. Other Plus P 230's in the 850-900 fps range.
The 230+P load is only doing 900-920 out of a 5" according to manufacturer.
I meant the parameters needed to induce failure without the serrations. (I'm not going to be the one to test it.)
Hoping to pick up this gun in a few months. For when a G19 is too big ha.
One can figure the high velocity capability of the gun has been reduced somewhat, and as the magazine springs take a set or the load is increased failure to function will occur earlier than an unmodified pistol.
Just what point that is, is not known. Would have been best to leave the pistol uncustomized to ensure full capability.
Plus P loads are from 950-1000 from most manufacturers with 230's in a five inch.
The 880-920 fps loads are not rated as Plus P in most instances. My 230 PDX1, for instance, is rated at 920 from a 5 and is not Plus P.
Non plus P handloads also approximate these speeds with a 230.
Actually, if I were a firearms engineer, I would have recognized the marks and then would have not had to go through the reasoning exercise that led to an incorrect conclusion. Had I talked with the Smith tech first, then I would not have polished this surface. I explained my thought process based on my experience. This experience did not include using a rough surface to retard slide velocity. One thing that I omitted in the posts was that reading relevant forums showed that others had the same idea in that they viewed the rough surface as tool marks. This finding guided my thinking.
37 years ago my employer bought several hundred Model 65 revolvers from Smith & Wesson. The first shipment contained 300. Of these, 200 would not function. The company sent a team of senior technicians and one engineer to Texas. I was privileged to spend two hours with them while they repaired the revolvers. As we talked shop, they used a big lead hammer and files to correct defects. The lead bar torqued various parts of the frame and yoke. Files removed metal as needed. I saw efforts consisting of 99% art and 1% science. The engineer, a new guy, watched. He did not have these skills.
Smith designed the Model 39 in 1954 in response to our government's interest in replacing the 1911. The crowd mentioned above described this pistol as a piece of shit. One of my friends from the past was Frannie Longtin, who worked for the company for 40 years and retired as product service manager in 1972. Frannie did not use profanity but described the M39 in other term with the same meaning. In the 1960's Smith developed a security pump shotgun(riot gun)for sale to law enforcement agencies. It was a failure because the gun flat out did not work.
I write all this because I do not place engineers on a pedestal. They know more than we lay people but sometimes present ideas that do not hold up. One of their functions is to control manufacturing costs. It will be interesting to see if Smith continues to use tool marks to assist in controlling slide velocity. If the method shows success, then I suspect it will be maintained. My opinion is that gun makers design and produce firearms using the committee method with bean counters wearing big hats. KelTec uses engineers who so far have not been successful producing handguns that work.
I would not polish these marks if I bought another Shield 45. At the same time I would feel discomfort hearing the grind sound when retracting the slide. To learn more, I plan to talk with Smith's technical department to satisfy curiosity, which in the first place motivated me to buy the .45.
It is from interactions such as these in this thread that we learn. Thank you.
The lesson here is to actually know the consequences of actions before undertaking them.
As mentioned, the scallops really do not cause any significant harm to the case. I am a handloader myself and see no real reason for concern.
Engineers may not be infallible, but it is a good idea to recognize that a small 45 needs a lot of help to function correctly. The things on the pistol are there for a reason.
Since the 45 Shield is widely reported to function well, it is reasonable to presume the features on the pistol help it do so. It is also reasonable to presume the engineers got this right and their reasons to include the features found on the pistol are sound.
If that is in fact why they did it, I'm highly skeptical as to it's success over the long term...have to wait and see. It looks like a novel answer for a gun that might be too small and light to work otherwise and maybe they're betting most users won't put that many rounds through the guns over the long hall anyway. For me, I'll pass as I don't favor putting chatter marks in my ammo every time the slide cycles.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.
If that is in fact why they did it, I'm highly skeptical as to it's success over the long term...have to wait and see. It looks like a novel answer for a gun that might be too small and light to work otherwise and maybe they're betting most users won't put that many rounds through the guns over the long hall anyway. For me, I'll pass as I don't favor putting chatter marks in my ammo every time the slide cycles.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.
On my sample these "tool marks" are evenly spaced and distinct and don't look like some kind of accidental occurrence.
Also, these marks or "teeth" don't grind across anything unless the gun is actually being fired and then it is only across the top-most cartridge in the magazine as the slide is traveling backwards. They travel across the casing once and then that casing is gone and into the chamber to be fired and ejected during the next cycle.
I suppose some damage could be done if a person were to chamber the first round by racking the slide fully and then ejecting that round and rechambering the same exact round time and again. But even then the cartridge would have to be reinserted into the mag so the same spot in the case was in contact with the teeth. The potential is there but I don't think damage is a realistic concern. I think a person would have to go out of his way to make an issue of this.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Oops. DoubleTap
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
FWIW..........a co-worker of mine has a 45 shield, and is not a reloader, but I am. He gives me all his brass. These chattermarks are a non-issue. I can't tell brass that's been fired in his Shield or my 1911's and full size 45 M&P apart. Also, fwiw, his 45 Shield is a fantastic little gun to shoot, and is on my "must buy list". It runs 100% reliably, is NOT snappy, and very comfortable to shoot all day long. I can't say the same thing about many of the 3"ish officer sized 1911's I have shot, or small .40 S&W pistols, like the Shield in .40, that gun is not very comfortable to shoot for me, and I am glad I went with the 9mm Shield for my CC gun.
To satisfy my curiosity about the 45 Shields' machine marks on the slide's ventral surface, I called Smith again. Hoping to talk shop with a knowledgeable person, I asked to speak with someone about technical information in the M&P section. This time the employee claimed not to know their purpose but stated that they were put there for a reason, or they wouldn't be there. I got him to call somebody else for more information. The reply was that they help the bullet to move along, and they definitely aren't there to reduce slide velocity.
I like this pistol but am disappointed that S&W can't explain the basics. Now I don't give a damn why they're there. Maybe that was the factory's intention.
I continue to shoot the Shield. So far there have been zero malfunctions in 400 rds of factory ammo. One observation is that slide tool marks definitely bite into the surface of nickel cases. When compared with plain brass cases, this extra grab is noticeable when retracting the slide on a full mag. I've observed that inserting a fully loaded mag into the pistol with the slide forward requires much force--more so than with any other of the large number of pistols that I've owned. Too, the mags are very difficult to load. Of course spring weight is one reason. Another is the mag's design allowing a narrow space where the cartridge can enter. These points for me are minor.
The 45 Shield is a nifty little pistol in a big caliber. I've yet to figure out why the Shield does not seem to recoil any more than it does. Notice that I said seem. The felt recoil is much softer than one would expect. Eventually I will try hand loads with lighter bullets in 185 and 200 grains and predict that the result will be a load with really mild recoil. If all are as accurate as mine, I readily see how this semi auto could perform double duty as a trail gun and comfortable companion when fooling around in the woods or along the stream. I have no trouble carrying mine in an IWB holster.
I also own a 9mm Shield, which might be a better choice for concealed carry. It's smaller and lighter, and of course has less recoil. Ammo is cheaper. My opinion is that proper 9mm ammo will perform as well as .45 ammo. Also a large number have been manufactured--to get any bugs out of this offering. That said, I can recommend either.
Whats the weight on a loaded .45 Shield? I've looked but can't fine anyone who has weighed one.
I see about 22.5 oz with an unloaded magazine.
I've picked one up but not dry fired one. Reviews say the trigger is better than the 9mm. How does it compare to gen 3 Glock triggers?
My calculations show that 6 230 grain .45 rds weigh 3.1 oz and that 7 230 grain .45 rds weigh 3.7 oz. Note that these calculations did not consider weight of powder, cases, and primers--only the projectile weight. Hence, a 45 shield holding six rounds will weigh at least 25.6 oz, and the same loaded with 7 rds will weigh at least 26.2 oz. The ammo weight is significant and noticeable.
The trigger is slightly better than the 9mm version but mine is not nearly as nice as my 3rd generation Glocks. As stated in an earlier post, mags are very, very difficult to load. This statement is from a man with extra large and strong hands. Too, inserting loaded mags into a gun with slide forward is difficult.
My calculations show that 6 230 grain .45 rds weigh 3.1 oz and that 7 230 grain .45 rds weigh 3.7 oz. Note that these calculations did not consider weight of powder, cases, and primers--only the projectile weight. Hence, a 45 shield holding six rounds will weigh at least 25.6 oz, and the same loaded with 7 rds will weigh at least 26.2 oz. The ammo weight is significant and noticeable.
The trigger is slightly better than the 9mm version but mine is not nearly as nice as my 3rd generation Glocks. As stated in an earlier post, mags are very, very difficult to load. This statement is from a man with extra large and strong hands. Too, inserting loaded mags into a gun with slide forward is difficult.
Sounds about right. I recall a Glock 36 I had weighed about 26/27 oz loaded. Noticeably lighter and a little more comfortable than a G19. (31 oz loaded)
G36 was certainly slower to fire due to recoil/muzzle flip.
I enjoy my Shield 45. I have three Shield 9mms. I'm still looking for a good holster for the 45 shield. No issues so far.
alcante262
03-25-17, 11:10
Take a look at the Vedder holsters thats what I use AIWB
Some kydex holsters designed for 9mm and 40 cal Shields will accept the .45 version.
Bump: How has function been with everyones guns?
Looking to pick up a thin single stack. Barrel length 4" or less. Weight is not an issue. I am wedded to Glock double stack 9s but see no reason I have to get a 43. all the guns are close in size. 9mm only nets 1 extra round so I am on the 45.
I picked one up recently and put a couple hundred through it so far without issue. It's also quite accurate. I have owned Shields in all three calibers, and now just have the 9mm and .45ACP. The Shield in .40S&W is obnoxious and unpleasant to shoot, the muzzle flip is dumb. The .45 Shield is actually quite pleasant, the recoil is more of a push back than a snap up. The 9mm is, of course, smooth and slick as owl shit.
I got one to try out. Haven't fired it yet.
I never bought a 9mm Shield because if a gun is going to be a belt gun I should be able to get all my fingers on the grip without extended magazines. It was just too short. When I handled the new .45 Shield I really liked the texture, height, and also that it's just a tiny bit thicker. (I think)
Someone else said earlier in the thread people who get this either really like .45 or at least don't mind it. I am the latter. Not a fan of .45, (I like 9mm and down) but I don't mind it, either. This model only loses one round to the 9mm version.
It weighs just over 28 oz loaded with eight rounds of 185 gr ammo and about 29 oz with 230 gr ammo.
I really like the frame, texture, height, (can just get all my fingers on it with the flush fitting mag) mag release (shoots mags out) appearance, machining and finish. The mags seem sturdy. They are a bit tough to load but the Lula double-stack mag loader works perfectly.
The trigger is fair to good. Better feel and a tad lighter than my over 10,000 rnd factory component Glock 19 gen 3.
The trigger has a little take up, then a wall, then an easy (feels like 4-5 lbs) for a little distance through the wall then the break. So it's not crisp, but it's light and predictable IMO. Although the trigger is polymer the face is nice and smooth. Reset is tactile and while not as short as a Glock, just fine. It goes back to the wall. Overall I think the trigger is pretty good---for a polymer gun.
The best thing about the gun is how thin it is. The whole thing is just very, very thin for the caliber. It will be comfy to carry if it proves reliable.
The front sight is okay. White dot, slightly wider than I prefer. (I like sights in the .115-.120 range) I painted the whole face of it white.
The rear sight has that stupid Novak shape I can't stand. (it's shaped like a ramp) Making racking the slide using the rear sight impossible. It also has two big, bright white dots I filled with black paint. The rear sight gap is generous and I like that. If I keep the gun I'll get a blacked out rear sight with a shape that can be used to rack the slide in an emergency. At least the sights are steel and prominent.
Racking the slide (with an empty mag) is easy. My wife could do it as easily as a Glock 19.
Field strip is simple. Not sure how the firing pin, extractor, and disconnector come out.
Slide lock is tough. Not unlike on a Glock. It's clear they want you to grab the slide, not push the slide lock. Perhaps aftermarket ones with a little extension (like the Glock brand extensions) will be available. And maybe those will cause early slide lock. (like they do for some people with them on Glocks)
Overall there is very, very little I'd change. The most major thing I'd change is I wish the barrel was longer. Just for velocity and sights radius. (and other benefits of a longer barrel/slide) Another 2/3 of an inch would get it to 4 inches even. Doesn't make it any harder to conceal, add much weight, or make it less comfortable to carry/sit in IMO.
I'll add shooting impressions after I've fired it. Hopefully it works.
Did you know that S&W has a rebate on these pistols sold beginning April 1?
S&W put the silly sear disengage lever on the M&P's they can be disassembled without first pulling the trigger as required for Glocks. You can ignore their directions, pull the trigger, and disassemble as if it were a Glock. This trick doesn't work with their pistols having the mag disconnect.
The .45 Shield is a nifty size and shoots better than it should. Did you notice drag of the machined marks on slide bottom when retracting slide with loaded mag? Anyway, Smith engineers made a fine pistol when they designed this one.
Pearce now makes a .45 Shield mag base similar to the one for Glocks. It provides extra length for gripping but doesn't change mag capacity.
The little gun jumps upon firing. If the slide release were bigger, its weight would provide enough inertia for it to move up prematurely during recoil and lock the slide.
Did you know that S&W has a rebate on these pistols sold beginning April 1?
S&W put the silly sear disengage lever on the M&P's they can be disassembled without first pulling the trigger as required for Glocks. You can ignore their directions, pull the trigger, and disassemble as if it were a Glock. This trick doesn't work with their pistols having the mag disconnect.
The .45 Shield is a nifty size and shoots better than it should. Did you notice drag of the machined marks on slide bottom when retracting slide with loaded mag? Anyway, Smith engineers made a fine pistol when they designed this one.
Pearce now makes a .45 Shield mag base similar to the one for Glocks. It provides extra length for gripping but doesn't change mag capacity.
The little gun jumps upon firing. If the slide release were bigger, its weight would provide enough inertia for it to move up prematurely during recoil and lock the slide.
Yea..I missed the rebate by less than a week..crud. Might get a Bodyguard just to take advantage of it. I've fired one and liked it.
I didn't know about pulling the trigger to field strip, thanks!
Yes I noticed the little serrations on the slide. I looked at fired casings. Sometimes I noticed a mark but I see zero reason why it would affect reloading casings if thats a concern for some folks. Not an issue in any way.
When my hands were fresh I was able to use the slide lock as a release. Just like a Glock. It can be tough to get purchase on it, but it's doable.
I fired about 200 rounds through the Shield .45 today.
This biggest surprise was how little recoil it had. Less than a Glock 36. Maybe more flip than a G30/G21 so I guess somewhere between the two. Much less than something like a glock 27 or Glock 23. Nothing really had much push, just varying degrees of Muzzle flip. Everything felt soft except +p ammo. 230 gr had the most flip, 185 gr less.
My shooting was no different with the six or seven round mag. The gun was plenty accurate. If I was outside of a 5 inch circle at 25 yards it was my fault. Not the gun or ammo. Most accurate ammo of the day was Georgia Arms 185 Gold Dot +p. It had more recoil than 230 gr FMJ (Geco, S&B) but the gun ate it and 20 rounds went into *almost* one big ragged hole at 15 yds shooting a steady pace.
My wrist is pretty fatigued at the moment, but I think it was the combination of 200 rnds of .45 and some .357 mag from a Ruger LCR. My hand has some rub marks but no cuts or bleeding or blisters after all that shooting with no gloves. (even with the somewhat aggressive texture on the S&W)
Now for the only trouble I had...Three times the magazine popped out. Once while firing +p ammo and twice while firing very rapidly. Was it the gun or did my hand/finger migrate and press the mag release? I don't know. Being it was hot, and I was sweaty, not wearing gloves and shooting rapidly on the move it's entirely possible I hit the button.
On two occasions I felt it pop loose and a round was not fed into the chamber. (tap-tack) On one occasion the round got caught half way in when the mag started to drop causing the slide to be stuck mid-position. I improvised a rack-tap-rack and that fixed it. These all happened between the 100-160 round marks. I slowed down my shooting to see if the problem continued while taking note of whether I was hitting the mag release. It did not reoccur. So again, me or the gun? I don't know.
I shot it one-handed with both hands and had no problems.
Overall I'm very impressed with the gun. I'll need to research and play with the gun some more to find out what the deal is with the sudden mag releases before I buy a holster, mags, more ammo, etc. But today I found the pistol fun to fire and just took to it right away as if I'd been shooting it for years. It's the first M&P pistol I've owned.
My guess is you bumped the mag release a couple times during recoil especially with the + P ammo. I've done the same thing myself a time or two.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I too had the mag drop down/fall out a couple times but traced the problem to not having the mag securely locked. Because spring pressure from a loaded mag requires extra insertion effort, I now make certain that the mag is locked securely. Chambering a round by releasing a locked back slide works very well as a strategy for avoiding failure of mag being properly locked. I'm comfortable also with carrying it with one less round in the mag. One other possible advantage of carrying a 1-less rd-loaded mag is having less upward pressure on the slide, the idea being that this option might prevent a malfunction. My bias is that smaller pistols are more susceptible to malfunction so I help them out this way. I don't fret about not having the lost round.
Examining mine, I think the problem is simply that the mag catch does not protrude into the magazine far enough.
Maybe it's recoil/flexing, maybe it's a finger/thumb bumping the mag release. Either way the problem would be solved if the mag catch protruded another millimeter into the magazine and/or the mag catch spring was stronger.
It only takes a light push a short distance to pop the magazine. Other guns, Glocks for example, require a deeper push to remove the magazine.
A redesigned mag catch and/or stronger mag catch spring would solve the problem. So would a slight flare on the slot on the magazine.
I'm surprised the aftermarket hasn't done this since S&W doesn't want to.
I'm going to ask S&W to send me a mag catch. It it's no better I'll modify one of them to increase mag catch protrusion into the magazine.
I just now checked my mag catch. No short distance does not apply to mine. I agree with your diagnosis.
One method I used to examine the issue was to remove the slide, look down into the mag well, and slowly press the mag release with a mag in place.
When it pops out I look and see how much of the mag release is still protruding into the mag well. I still have about a third of mine showing.
Altering the mag catch to go further into the mag might make it go too far and contacting rounds or the follower in the mag.
So I decided to flare the magazine about a millimeter (or less) right at the top corner of the mag catch slot in the magazine.
After doing this I noticed I have to depress the mag release further to get the mag to pop free. (this is good!) Looking down into the mag well after releasing the mag I see the mag catch is barely visible poking out of the frame into the magwell.
On one of the mags the flare rubbed inside the mag well and barely kept if from dropping free. After reinserting it about two dozen times it wore a scratch inside the mag well (steel vs polymer) and now it drops free.
So basically everything is looking good now, I only need to test it with firing.
S&W is sending another mag catch. I'll see if it's any different.
Fire4Affect
04-09-17, 07:56
For the longest time, small 3 inch barreled .45 ACP's were finicky at best in regards to reliability. S&W has come out with a .45 ACP that will load, fire and eject said cartridge very reliably and in a package more reasonable than the Colt Officer's ACP. I give a lot of credit for S&W for achieving that. So much so, I bought the Performance Center Shield 45. In the rounds I have shot through it I have not had any malfunctions and the recoil is reasonable given its stature.
I do like the size of the grip as it allows for me to get a full three finger grip on the flush 6 round magazine. I did rent a non-ported version Shield 45 and did notice a 15-20% reduction in felt recoil with the PC Shield. So, the compensator ports do make a difference. It would be nice to see some of the 45 Shield appointments carried over to the 9mm. Especially the deletion of the thumb safety on the PC 9mm Shield.
To update:
I fired about 100 rnds through the .45 Shield after "flaring" the slot in the magazines for better purchase on the mag catch. It worked. I had no magazine release issues.
I've noticed that with sweaty hands the gun does start to squirm upward while firing and not resetting my grip on it. But it's not really a problem because the accuracy and speed don't seem to suffer and gun being 7+1 rounds is soon empty. Talon rubber grips would likely help. Not sure if I'll bother. But then again they do feel good in hand.
Speaking of accuracy; I'm still impressed by the gun. I brought a Glock 34 out at the same time as my 2nd shoot with the Shield. I hadn't fired a 34 or 35 in awhile and it just reiterated what I already had learned. Although the G34 feels better in the hand and has great balance I didn't shoot it any better than my G19. And it also shoots a little left. Two things scores of other shooters already know.
The .45 Shield, despite it's increased muzzle flip, doesn't shoot any worse. I credit this to it's big sights and a trigger superior to the Glock. Groups at 25 yds were no different. Neither was my ability to knock down plates at that range. Shooting decently on the move at closer range was no different and not hard to do. It's strange, really.
Perhaps with one more outing I'll be confident enough to carry this Shield .45. I do recommend lighter-weight ammo. The 230's noticeably had more muzzle flip/torque than the 185's. They seemed the make the gun want to migrate up in the hand a little faster during rapid fire. I wouldn't use +p ammo either for the same reason unless it was something very light weight. JMO. None of the recoil is painful, even after about 200 rnds. It's soft, it just rotates in hand a bit. I noticed no issues with POI shift using the different weight ammo.
Bought one about ten days ago under rebate out of curiosity. I have a small hand, and was immediately impressed by the slim grip. The trigger also seemed nice; haven't weighed it yet. Grip texture is something else! I actually put strips of electrical tape across the top of the backstrap and the frontstrap because they were so abrasive. Later if I want I can sand those areas down a bit if I want to. Anyway, loading the mags was a bear to start with; after about four days of leaving them loaded and occasionally unloading them they eased up to where I don't have to order a Maglula. I also cleaned the mags--"If you remove the floor plate from the extended mag, be prepared for a very long session in trying to reassemble it." Wow! The 6 rounder is nothing, but that 7 rounder just isn't worth the trouble unless you really have to.
Went out this AM and fired 6+6 rounds through the short mag, and 7 through the long one. Used factory Federal 185 gr. JHPs. With a sore wrist I was concerned about recoil, but it really wasn't an issue. It felt a lot like the BHP I've been shooting quite a bit lately. POI is about l" high at 12-15 yds; it seems to really want to shoot. If it is stone reliable I will be well satisfied. Time will tell.
A few years back I had a Kahr CW45. Great trigger, very accurate, recoil tolerable. But everything gave constant feeding problems and I gave up on the little stinker.
It's true mags are tough to load. I just use a maglula "doubles stack pistol" universal loader and it works great. I encourage anyone who plans to shoot guns to buy loaders. Saves your fingers and range time and less stress/cuts on your hands/fingers will help you shoot better.
The 7 rnd mag is a hassle to reassemble. I'll try not to do it much.
I'm going to get the Talon rubber grips for it. I like the way they feel.
I put the Shield .45 on a kitchen scale.
For comparison a Glock 19 with 16 rnds of 124 gr ammo is just over 31 oz.
Empty with 7 rnd magazine: 23.25 oz
With 8 rounds of 230 gr Blazer Brass: 29.25 oz
With 8 rounds of 185 gr Win. Silvertip: 28.37 oz
With 8 rounds of 165 gr Fed. Pers. Def: 28 oz
With 8 rounds of 78 gr Liberty: 26.5 oz
We do know what parameter the serrations are for.....to reduce slide velocity. The heavier the load the more the serrations are needed.
I disagree with that thought. Putting those ridges in the slide are not meant to slow it down. It was meant to make sure the round was in the further rear position. However, the S&W Engineer that come up with that idea had a brain fart. The slide slamming back in the rearward position will cause the bullet to be enough back for proper stripping out of the magazine into battery.
I have a SIG P320 in .45 ACP and also a new S&W Shield 45. I took a polishing wheel to the "grooves" and it performs much better now at racking and there is no issues with function after 600 rounds. None. Only the completely fully loaded magazine would exert pressure on the side. As rounds were removed and there was less tension, all that idea of dampening the slide just goes out the window. During the last round, there is not that much pressure on the slide. Just put 1 bullet in the magazine and rack the slide to load the bullet into chamber. Now load a fully loaded magazine into the mag well and do the same. Much different, and totally inconsistent with any idea of reducing slide velocity or force.
I used a polishing wheel and took down a lot of the sharpness of the "ridges", not all of it. I posted a comparison of a SIG P320 45 slide with the S&W Shield 45 slide....
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4165/34063662282_d70e50957e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/TU6b37)
One other thing I noticed, and will post this separate, is that the fired brass is very easy to tell apart from my SIG P320 in that there is always a small "trail" of the firing pin on the primer. SIG is merely a single impression... a dot. S&W is an impression with a slight slide. I had a Taurus 45 and a Bersa 45 that also did that as well. Was told it is normal and just that the barrel was moving before the striker's firing pin was still in pressure with the bullet.
You all notice this marking too?
I installed rubber adhesives from Galloway Precision.
As I experienced with Glocks, they really help. I no longer feel the gun rising out of my hands as I fire quickly. Cool.
I haven't cleaned or lubricated my Shield .45 in a couple hundred rounds. It still has some SLP 2000 EWL lube in it though. I just happen to have this lube. I normally use Synthetic motor oil where I use oil and high-temp synthetic grease on sliding parts.
Today I wanted to try several different types of ammo for recoil, function, accuracy and muzzle blast. Being it was bright out I didn't notice any substantial muzzle flash. Previously I've fired Geco FMJ, 230gr HST's, and Georgia Arms 185 gr FMJ and Gold Dots. (might be forgetting another)
I'll mention that the GA 185 gr +p Gold Dots seem particularly accurate. But they feel hot (more recoil) and slow up split times. All the other ammo shot fine. Nothing stood out as substantially less accurate than the average. Everything shot near to point of aim. Not more than a couple inches difference at 25 yds anyway so surprisingly, POI shift not a concern even with the 78 gr Liberty.
Today I fired:
Wolf 230 gr FMJ. Seems a little hot. Usual Wolf smell.
Blazer Brass 230 gr FMJ. Fine. Soft when magazine mostly full.
Winchester 185 gr FMJ-FP. Feels soft even when gun almost empty. I really like this ammo. Easiest shooting ammo today. Just like Georgia Arms 185 gr FMJ.
Geco 230 gr. Fine. Recoil between the Wolf and Blazer.
Remington Golden Sabre 185 gr. Seems a little hot. Immediately noticed golden flakes splattered in the action after the first magazine. Dirty. Won't get this again.
Winchester Silvertip 185 gr. A little less recoil than the Golden Sabre. No complaints.
Liberty ammo Civil Defense 78 gr. +p. Feel's a little hot, like a +p 185 gr. Same muzzle blast as them but maybe a little less recoil.
Federal Personal Defense Low Recoil 165 gr Hydrashok. I wouldn't say they are especially low recoil. They feel like a medium-heat 185 gr.
In all I fired about 225 rounds today. If I'm not mistaken I have about 500 rounds through this gun through 4 magazines. (need a few more). Other than the issue of mags dropping on my first range visit I've had ZERO malfunctions.
The mag drop issue was solved by flaring the magazine catch slot on each mag by about a millimeter. S&W did send me another mag catch and it's in the gun but it's identical to the original.
All in all I'm very impressed with this pistol and it's ability to feed a wide range of bullet weights, power levels and profiles with various types of shooting. (Including one-handed primary and support side while moving, from the hip, etc)
It's thinness is a blessing, especially when driving. I already have a holster for it and it will be my primary light carry gun replacing my beloved Beretta 81. (Not for sale!) She didn't seem to have a fat ass until I felt the thin S&W against me... In addition, although I shoot the Beretta well and with faster split times, the bigger sights on the S&W really help out beyond 15 yds. And yea....45 acp may be a little more dangerous than .32 acp.
What load are you carrying Ron? I am going to stay away from certain ones that are made for a 5" 1911 with the 3.3" barrel.
What load are you carrying Ron? I am going to stay away from certain ones that are made for a 5" 1911 with the 3.3" barrel.
Haven't really decided. Right now the fed. Pers. Def. 165 gr. It reduces carry weight. It shouldn't be a big expander from the short barrel so it should penetrate alright. Probably leaves the barrel around 900 fps.
I'd prefer something 185 gr or lighter to reduce pistol weight. Also Rapid fire is easier to control with lighter bullets. I haven't ruled out the 78 gr Liberty ammo for carry in the gun and 165-200 gr ammo for the spare mag (s).
I didn't pick the gun because I'm a .45 fan. I was just impressed with this particular gun/frame and it just happens to be .45.
Check out the luckygunner tests. 3.5in barrel iirc. That 165 fails to expand reliably and the 78 disintegrates with insufficient penetration as expected. Penetration is less w most all hp designs due to increased area over 9mm and 40 but there are some reliable expanders. I dont look at the expansion diameters too much as it makes the Ranger T look too good but useful results either way.
Check out the luckygunner tests. 3.5in barrel iirc. That 165 fails to expand reliably and the 78 disintegrates with insufficient penetration as expected. Penetration is less w most all hp designs due to increased area over 9mm and 40 but there are some reliable expanders. I dont look at the expansion diameters too much as it makes the Ranger T look too good but useful results either way.
I did. 4/5 of the 165 gr Hydrashoks expanded in this test using a 3.6 inch barrel. If they don't or don't much from the .3 inch shorter barrel of the Shield no big deal. They'll penetrate more and not too much left on them should they exit. They didn't do great in this test but I don't think they did bad either and I got a bunch for about 50 cents a round.
It seems no load gives ideal, predictable performance from a short barrel in all tests so I'm not stressing it. If someone tries to seriously harm me and must be shot I hope they are shot several times each. I'd hate to have to rely on one bullet hit. (when it's already been a bad day)
As for the Liberty load I originally dismissed them (when they came out) but looking at them later they have merit. They are very light in the gun, reduce recoil a little, and seem to function very well in all types of guns. They really tear several holes in the 2-4 inch mark. That could be limb, torso, or head. The remaining 50 gr or so base averages 11 inches. Not too bad. It does tend to arc off course. Missed shots should quickly slow down and be less dangerous to people way down range. This would also make them act like a less-penetrating ball round at 50? + yds away. Which is why I'd carry normal weight ammo in spare mags should range/penetration be a problem.
At close range (which is pretty much what were talking about) I think the Liberty ammo has something to offer. Less recoil, a lighter gun, more holes and still almost a foot of penetration in test media.
Although I have 45 ball I hadn't decided on a jhp for the short barrel. Now looking at the XD-E 9mm ALSO but wpuld need a short barrel 9mm load anyways then.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/3/29/tested-smith-wesson-mp45-shield/
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I always thought Shields rested at @60% cocked like Glocks do. I just learned they are more like @98% cocked.
Made me stop and think about that. But empirical data (tens of thousands of Shields out there and no rash of AD's) seems to indicate it's not a problem. Thoughts?
What load are you carrying Ron? I am going to stay away from certain ones that are made for a 5" 1911 with the 3.3" barrel.
I'd like to see (or perform) barrier testing with the liberty defense from short barrels. The 9mm and .45 loads seem pretty consistent in test gelatin.
While my Shield eats the wider - mouthed HST and Gold Dots I noticed chambered rounds get a good hit from an edge that leaves an indentation in the bullet. That makes me nervous. As if they feed but barely.
Right now I put a round of HST in the chamber and the rest fmj. I wish the pistol had more barrel for more JHP choices but it is what it is.
I always thought Shields rested at @60% cocked like Glocks do. I just learned they are more like @98% cocked.
Made me stop and think about that. But empirical data (tens of thousands of Shields out there and no rash of AD's) seems to indicate it's not a problem. Thoughts?
Don't believe it is a problems as there is the firing pin/striker blocker that does not move up and out of the way until your trigger is squeezed back.
Most of the striker fired pistols are now fully cocked at rest.
Don't believe it is a problems as there is the firing pin/striker blocker that does not move up and out of the way until your trigger is squeezed back.
Most of the striker fired pistols are now fully cocked at rest.
Yea I know but it still isn't as safe a gun that's kept half-cocked or a true DA.
E Pluribus Unum.... One among many. This is like most of the striker fired. If you feel it's not safe enough, then your best bet is a SIG Sauer with a decocker lever.... or a Glock (as I understand it with it's striker).
E Pluribus Unum.... One among many. This is like most of the striker fired. If you feel it's not safe enough, then your best bet is a SIG Sauer with a decocker lever.... or a Glock (as I understand it with it's striker).
I think I can live with it. But I'd be pissed if it ever fired without a trigger press. There are tens of thousands of guns like it being carried in holsters, purses and bouncing around in trucks. Doesn't seem to be a problem.
Ron, when I get a chance I'll test my Shield with a primed cartridge, no powder, no bullet, and take a big rubber dead blow hammer to it. If It is hit on barrel, rear, sides, etc multiple times HARD and doesn't fire the primer that is indicative of good sear and striker engagement. If after doing all that I can then "fire" the primed round in the chamber, it meant that the sear was always engaged. If it does go off the striker catch, and gt's caught by the striker safety, it may still fire when I pull the trigger even though it is not 100% cocked.
However...that would be for my pistol. Every pistol out there is unique. The only way to test for sure is if "your" pistol withstands the tests above.
I did something similar. Just dropped it from about 1.5 ft onto a rug at different angles. Using a rubber/plastic malet sounds like a better way to test this. I'll try that myself.
I'll just put a fresh snap cap in it. I'll hear if the striker fires. And I'll make sure by pulling the trigger after the test blows.
I believe military (Army) standard is 4 feet drop, from their testing of candidates, before choosing the Sig P320 (among other criteria). Now the P320 is also being adopted by Air Force, Marine, Navy as well Don't know about the Coast Guard. Dead blow is way more jar than 4' drop on the floor and I'm not about to drop my pistol on any hard surface just to prove some point that can be had by other means.
I always thought Shields rested at @60% cocked like Glocks do. I just learned they are more like @98% cocked.
Made me stop and think about that. But empirical data (tens of thousands of Shields out there and no rash of AD's) seems to indicate it's not a problem. Thoughts?
I carry a 9mm Shield with Apex trigger in my pocket 98% of the time and have yet to shoot myself.
Wolf warning.
While Wolf FMJ steel case has fired and fed for my Shield, and it does not feel like they skimped on powder, I won't get anymore of it despite the savings.
When unloading magazines by thumb a couple mags had the second to top round stick in the magazine. Tapping the mag firmly on an object worked for one but not the other. I had to press on it with a tool to get it to pop up. I tried to reproduce this hand cycling rounds through the gun and I did. The second round was not fed by the magazine.
Brass-cased rounds definitely feel slicker to load (magLula) and unload than the steel-cased rounds. Rounds firmly pop up as one is removed. I think the steel or it's coating creates too much friction with these powerful magazine springs.
Just something I thought I'd pass along.
Was in town last week and finally picked one up. first impressions are good, obviously thinner than a double stack and seems to eliminate that extra printing to disapear. Would prefer a longer slide version but seems long enough to get it done.
Anyone else notice their Shield .45 trigger getting really light with use?
Mine started off a little gritty on take up but then a pretty crisp 4-5 lb pull. (guessing, no scale) Certainly lighter than my old, well used Glock 19 with factory 5.5 lb trigger.
Now after about 650 rnds I notice that while the small amount of grittiness is very reduced, the break itself has become very light. I mean side by side it feels HALF of what the Glock has. Makes me a little nervous. (but helps accuracy! Pistol/trigger/sights make it easy to shoot well)
Unrelated, but I've had trouble getting quick, smooth mag changes from the Shield due to it's shorter grip length. I try to shift my fingers out of the way as a press the mag release but more often than not my little finger or palm rubs the ejecting magazine and it doesn't fall free. Really slows things up.
I'm back to the Beretta Cheetah for daily carry for now.
I did something similar. Just dropped it from about 1.5 ft onto a rug at different angles. Using a rubber/plastic malet sounds like a better way to test this. I'll try that myself.
I'll just put a fresh snap cap in it. I'll hear if the striker fires. And I'll make sure by pulling the trigger after the test blows.
I did perform the smack-with-rubber-malet test. Hard enough to the point I was concerned about breaking something.
No "discharges". So that's good.
hotrodder636
06-13-17, 16:19
Any results on this?
Ron, when I get a chance I'll test my Shield with a primed cartridge, no powder, no bullet, and take a big rubber dead blow hammer to it. If It is hit on barrel, rear, sides, etc multiple times HARD and doesn't fire the primer that is indicative of good sear and striker engagement. If after doing all that I can then "fire" the primed round in the chamber, it meant that the sear was always engaged. If it does go off the striker catch, and gt's caught by the striker safety, it may still fire when I pull the trigger even though it is not 100% cocked.
However...that would be for my pistol. Every pistol out there is unique. The only way to test for sure is if "your" pistol withstands the tests above.
Any results on this?
I'm very happy to report that no matter how hard I struck it with the rubber mallet, side, barrel, back end, magazine end. no amount of really heavy hammer hits made it discharge a primed case. Multiple hits, multiple times. Sometimes I would bring the gun at the hammer at the same time I was directing a hit against the pistol with the mallet. It was way more severe than any mere dropping at 4 foot.
I carry it daily. I would never worry one bit about it. Also I have 2 extra 7 round magazines, but never carry them on person when I'm carrying. So how fast i can drop the mag and put another one in is moot. I carry an extra in my car "just in case" but never on my body. If I've had to shoot someone 3-4 times, and still have an aggressor, the next one goes into the head, and yes, I'm that good. I grew up on a ranch where I was taught to shoot animals in the head to be humane anyway.
How is everyone's .45 Shield doing?
Mine is good.
Reading my old post, one thing hasn't changed, it's not a fast reload. Because the grip is short the 6 or 7 rd mag will be contacting my palm or a finger when I press the release. It's best to have the support hand pull the magazine out before going for the fresh one. Still thinner and faster than a revolver, though.
Pistol has been running fine. It carries a little better with the 6 rd flush magazine. Doesn't catch on clothes as much and seems to result in a better draw for me.
Carry ammo is 230 gr Ranger T. It's a bit flippier than FMJ. If I run out of this ammo and can't get another source I'll be considering Hornady 200 gr or 230 gr XTP, or HST 230 gr. I've heard the HST has a bright muzzle flash, though. I hate that. Pretty common with Federal ammo.
I need to look into replacing the recoil spring, I suppose. Anybody ordered one or know a good price?
Why, other than the certainty that people will buy it?
Heavier recoil
Lower capacity
No difference in results
I'm keeping my 9mm Shield.
Why, other than the certainty that people will buy it?
Heavier recoil
Lower capacity
No difference in results
I'm keeping my 9mm Shield.
I never liked the gen 1 Shields. I also didnt care for how the small the 9mm was. A bit small for a belt gun, too big for a pocket gun.
The 2.0 came out first in .45 and with a $75 rebate and I liked the improvements, as well as it being just a little bigger.
Then I was impressed with how it handled recoil, it's trigger, and how accurate it was.
The 9mm 2.0 Shield came out much later.
The .45 only gives up one round and I still prefer it's size.
Referring to AKSARBEN’s post on page 12, the fact of the matter is slide frame impact causes the round to want to jump forward, not hold it rearward.
This is why the dimple is present on 1911 magazines. The function of the scallops is exactly as I have stated. No brain fart on the engineering end.
Think about it. Slide frame impact does not make the round go rearward. It yanks the magazine backward in relation to the top round present. The top round tends to want to float unless nailed firmly to the magazine lips by a strong spring or physical block, as with 1911 magazines.
This is a well understood principle about the effects of inertial forces and how it is a challenge to get small pistols to work.
Again, slide frame impact yanks the gun and magazine rearward in relation to the top round, and the cartridge moves “forward” if sufficient resistance to movement is not present.
If doubt about the function of the scallops is present a call to the factory will clear that up.
The final suggestion is that before modifying anything, ask the engineers who designed it for their input. They are engineers and they designed the gun. There is a pretty fair chance they know something you do not.
Any respondent here a firearm designer? If you are not maybe best to talk to them about it first.
My suggestion is to read this thread. Someone actually called Smith and Wesson and the other poster’s guess as to their function is correct.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-wesson-m-p-pistols/508750-shield-45-question.html
The final point is engineers like redundancies to ensure reliable function. A strong magazine spring in combination with other features like scallops helps ensure as the gun wears or heavier ammo of greater power is shot the gun remains reliable.
Engineers love redundancy to assure reliable function at extremes of use or wear. Small pistols need more redundancies than bigger pistols shooting the same cartridge.
Look at the vertical impact surface in the 45 frame and compare that to the 9mm Shield. It is different. Why might that be so?
Think redundancy and you are on the right track.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.