Originally Posted by Russ

Think of a Glock 26 single stack and you have the S&W Shield.

I know Glock doesn't make a single stack and after you handle and shoot the Shield you will stop asking Glock to produce a single stack.

The Shield is the Gun of The Year and I would welcome anyone to refute that claim.

Name one new handgun in the last 6 months that is more reliable based on real owner forum reports, has a better trigger based on real owner forum reports, softer recoil and capable of round stacking at 7 yards. (I have personally round stacked shooting my Shield)

Russ

That's a pretty "stacked" deck you set up, there.

Why must we start with handguns that are only 6 months old or less? Why must we base the trigger quality only on reports from people who just spent a big chunk of money on a new gun, and may not even OWN or have shot anything else; do we somehow expect them to be LESS biased and more experienced? How do we measure the relative "softness" of recoil? Or the "capability" of "round stacking", whatever that is?

What about the fact that the Shield has no long-term record of reliability in the real world, that we have no idea how well it will hold up to large amounts of shooting in regards to durability OR accuracy, and that I wouldn't trade 20%-30% of my carry gun's magazine capacity (Glock 26) for an untested weapon that is .23" thinner but .43" taller (long grips/grip-frames "printing" on a cover garment are usually what gives away a hidden gun); not to mention losing a third of an inch in sight radius and "gaining" a heavier trigger pull.

The Bren Ten was once considered the "Gun of the Year" by some folks, too. Seen a lot of those floating around lately?

Taurus has been picked as gun of the year as well, a few times. So, that means zero. However, I do expect that they will pick the Shield for the award this time.

I do have a Shield, and I will say that it is my fav subcompact I have every owned or shot.

Originally Posted by DJ Niner

That's a pretty "stacked" deck you set up, there.

Why must we start with handguns that are only 6 months old or less? Why must we base the trigger quality only on reports from people who just spent a big chunk of money on a new gun, and may not even OWN or have shot anything else; do we somehow expect them to be LESS biased and more experienced? How do we measure the relative "softness" of recoil? Or the "capability" of "round stacking", whatever that is?

What about the fact that the Shield has no long-term record of reliability in the real world, that we have no idea how well it will hold up to large amounts of shooting in regards to durability OR accuracy, and that I wouldn't trade 20%-30% of my carry gun's magazine capacity (Glock 26) for an untested weapon that is .23" thinner but .43" taller (long grips/grip-frames "printing" on a cover garment are usually what gives away a hidden gun); not to mention losing a third of an inch in sight radius and "gaining" a heavier trigger pull.

The Bren Ten was once considered the "Gun of the Year" by some folks, too. Seen a lot of those floating around lately?

DJ:

Ok go back a year or five years or when the Glock 26 was introduced. You will not find a larger group of satisfied sub compact owners.

I have owned a Kahr, Beretta Nano, shot a $650 Kimber Solo (not saying much) shot a Ruger LC9, shot a Glock 26, shot a Sig 238 ( I know it is a 380 but Shield shot tighter groups, in fact the first sub compact I can round stack).

DJ, I may not have owned more than 50 handguns like Shipwreck, but I have shot enough brands to know when a gem comes along and the Shield is an M&P and that is what sold me. It has a track record being an M&P and S&W listened to the public and made the Shield trigger the best of the M&P guns.

Gun forums are brutally honest even when someone just put down big bucks for a gun. A good example was the Beretta Nano. It took less than one week on the Beretta forum for Nano owners to bring out the pitch forks.

On the M&P forum one gentleman did some quick math early on and 40 Shield owners posted collectively shooting nearly 10,000 rounds with zero failures. Think about it. 40 different shooters from all walks of life shooting everything from Walmart cheap ammo to the finest defense ammo with zero failures.

Those reliability numbers make the Shield gun of the year and the waiting list to buy one only reinforces that honor.

Russ

OK, you've made a good enough point for me to want to check out the shield.

But what I really want to know is what "round stacking" is?

Originally Posted by Bisley

OK, you've made a good enough point for me to want to check out the shield.

But what I really want to know is what "round stacking" is?

Bisley

Round stacking is shooting multiple rounds into the same hole of a Target. In my case the hole was larger than the diameter of a 9 mm bullet but it was one hole.

I had never done it before and I will not repeat because I just replaced the full size three dot (very nice) with Big Dot Night Sights. It was a difficult decision to part with excellent sights but my Shield is a defensive weapon and speed is the name of the game.

I can still group my shots 2 inches ay 7 yards even with the Big Dots but I can now draw from my 36x32 Dockers sweep safety and shoot in 1.5 seconds. (PLEASE PRACTICE WITH AN EMPTY GUN!) I am finding the big front sight makes a great point shooting sight.

Russ

P.S. The rear sight on Big Dots do not catch on my small pocket opening pants like the stock sights did. I will admit the .43 taller Shield over Glock 26 did make it a little more challenging to quick pocket draw until I changed out the sights.

S&W added that extra .43 to the grip making it possible for me to get 1/2 the width of my pinkie on the flush magazine. The .95 thin is what makes the Shield conceal in my pocket in a Desanti E1 holster.

No question the gun is a keeper

In that case, I guess I'm more into trying to 'stack' shots than quick-draw. I had a Kahr P-45 with Big Dot sights and it annoyed the hell out of me because the pistol had the ability to shoot well at longer distances, but the dot covered up the bulls eye at anything past about 7 yards.

Of course, I'm probably less dedicated to learning to gun fight than most folks, these days. I just like to shoot, mainly, and know how to safely and responsibly carry a weapon, so I do...just in case.

Originally Posted by Russ

DJ:

Ok go back a year or five years or when the Glock 26 was introduced. You will not find a larger group of satisfied sub compact owners.

I have owned a Kahr, Beretta Nano, shot a $650 Kimber Solo (not saying much) shot a Ruger LC9, shot a Glock 26, shot a Sig 238 ( I know it is a 380 but Shield shot tighter groups, in fact the first sub compact I can round stack).

DJ, I may not have owned more than 50 handguns like Shipwreck, but I have shot enough brands to know when a gem comes along and the Shield is an M&P and that is what sold me. It has a track record being an M&P and S&W listened to the public and made the Shield trigger the best of the M&P guns.

Gun forums are brutally honest even when someone just put down big bucks for a gun. A good example was the Beretta Nano. It took less than one week on the Beretta forum for Nano owners to bring out the pitch forks.

On the M&P forum one gentleman did some quick math early on and 40 Shield owners posted collectively shooting nearly 10,000 rounds with zero failures. Think about it. 40 different shooters from all walks of life shooting everything from Walmart cheap ammo to the finest defense ammo with zero failures.

Those reliability numbers make the Shield gun of the year and the waiting list to buy one only reinforces that honor.

Russ

So, on average, the owners shot about 250 rounds each with no failures. Not what I would call a definitive test period! Let me know when they get to around 3000 rounds per pistol, then I'll take a look at it more closely.

I own an M&P 9mm and still won't carry it until it breaks the 3000 round mark for reliability. Until then, I'll stick with the G32C that has 12k+ rounds thru it without a single malfunction. I want the M&P to make it past the mark as I'd love to carry it daily simply because .357Sig will break the bank and 9mm is much 'nicer' on my achy wrists.

Originally Posted by zhurdan

So, on average, the owners shot about 250 rounds each with no failures. Not what I would call a definitive test period! Let me know when they get to around 3000 rounds per pistol, then I'll take a look at it more closely.

I own an M&P 9mm and still won't carry it until it breaks the 3000 round mark for reliability. Until then, I'll stick with the G32C that has 12k+ rounds thru it without a single malfunction. I want the M&P to make it past the mark as I'd love to carry it daily simply because .357Sig will break the bank and 9mm is much 'nicer' on my achy wrists.

Zhurdan

At the price of ammo all 40 Shield owners should hit the 3 k mark in about 5 years. I'll check back.

In the meantime I believe it is impressive 40 different Shields shot by 40 different shooters using probably about every brand of 9mm available including reloads with zero malfunctions.

If I am looking for a reliable conceal carry it would get my attention knowing the odds are real good if I buy a Shield it will be reliable when 40 folks from all walks of life took their Shield out of the box went to the range and shot on average 250 rounds each and all 40 scored a perfect score.

Statistically speaking look back to college. What are the odds a class of 40 students would score 100% on a 250 question exam?

That is why the Shield is gun of the year.

Russ

Originally Posted by Russ

Zhurdan

At the price of ammo all 40 Shield owners should hit the 3 k mark in about 5 years. I'll check back.

In the meantime I believe it is impressive 40 different Shields shot by 40 different shooters using probably about every brand of 9mm available including reloads with zero malfunctions.

If I am looking for a reliable conceal carry it would get my attention knowing the odds are real good if I buy a Shield it will be reliable when 40 folks from all walks of life took their Shield out of the box went to the range and shot on average 250 rounds each and all 40 scored a perfect score.

Statistically speaking look back to college. What are the odds a class of 40 students would score 100% on a 250 question exam?

That is why the Shield is gun of the year.

Russ

Russ,
No offense intended, but that's the difference between people who carry a gun and people who SHOOT their gun. I've carried a gun of one brand or another over the past 16 years, and trust me when I tell you, I know about the ammo cost blues.

That being said, most people who carry a gun don't shoot it enough to be proficient with it on a static range, let alone under duress. Shooting a hundred rounds a month, a person could become somewhat proficient and that'd run them about $400 or so per year, give or take for different brands of training ammo. All in all, that's fine, but I'd be willing to bet that if you even put them on a clock, that'd be enough stress for most to shoot like a stick in the mud.

Some of us, who shoot a lot (a tad over 4k pistol rounds so far this year for me) can make some guns cry and fail. That's the only reason I will wait until it's vetted a bit more.

There's an old saying that I've lived by for a long time regarding new products... "Buy first, cry first". I'll happily let others do product testing for me for a year or more before putting down dollars that would be better used on ammo for a gun that I know works.

Originally Posted by zhurdan

Russ,
No offense intended, but that's the difference between people who carry a gun and people who SHOOT their gun. I've carried a gun of one brand or another over the past 16 years, and trust me when I tell you, I know about the ammo cost blues.

That being said, most people who carry a gun don't shoot it enough to be proficient with it on a static range, let alone under duress. Shooting a hundred rounds a month, a person could become somewhat proficient and that'd run them about $400 or so per year, give or take for different brands of training ammo. All in all, that's fine, but I'd be willing to bet that if you even put them on a clock, that'd be enough stress for most to shoot like a stick in the mud.

Some of us, who shoot a lot (a tad over 4k pistol rounds so far this year for me) can make some guns cry and fail. That's the only reason I will wait until it's vetted a bit more.

There's an old saying that I've lived by for a long time regarding new products... "Buy first, cry first". I'll happily let others do product testing for me for a year or more before putting down dollars that would be better used on ammo for a gun that I know works.

Zhurdan

I can respect your view and I would gladly wait it out but I was in a unique situation. I owned one CCW and it was a Beretta Nano and Cabelas's was willing to trade it out after 5 months 1334 rounds and 11 FTE. I was not about to walk away from that offer so I did what most would do search gun forums for a good replacement and after doing some quick math I felt it was a good risk to go with a Shield that I confirmed 40 owners had zero problems after collectively shooting 10,000 rounds.

No one can predict absolute otherwise we would have baiiled out of the stock market last week but the early numbers look solid for me to take the chance on the Shield and if I was to do it all over I would still go with those odds.

Russ

And good luck to you and I mean that... but I seriously would have shot three more rounds out of the nano. 1337.

(joke at the end requires a working knowledge of nerdiness... Steve may not get it. hehe)

I have 850 rounds thru my Shield that I have had for a month now. Will be at 1050 in two more weeks, probably

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Taurus has been picked as gun of the year as well, a few times. So, that means zero. However, I do expect that they will pick the Shield for the award this time.

I do have a Shield, and I will say that it is my fav subcompact I have every owned or shot.

Similar personal experience here. For my carry purposes the Shield > Kahr PM9/Kahr P40/Sig P238/Springfield XD40/Glock 26/Ruger LC9