JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to ALL <=-
Read an article yesterday about the S&W 9mm Shield PLUS.
My wife has a SIG P365XL and I bought her a RomeoZero
for it. He carry before that was the same as what I'm
carrying now - a .40 Shield (her's has a laser as well).
I love the SIG and can hit good with it - love the 'flat'
trigger, etc. But now that I've read about the Shield,
I'm really wanting to get my hands on it... My .40 holds
7+1 with the 'longer' magazine (only slightly longer than
the 6 capacity) but the new one comes with a 10 round mag
and a 13 round mag! So I could have 14 IN THE GUN...
Right now I carry my .40 on my hip, and TWO extra 7 round
mags on my other hip. I use versacarry, and apparently the
new PLUS will fit in the same gear!
So - all that to say this - anyone held one of these? Anyone
here shot one?
GAMGEE wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got
the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical
dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really
noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface,
it's almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it.
The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of
mind. I highly recommend it.
I've always thought a .40 cal in a
handgun this small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up shots.
With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate.
The Plus fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original Shield.
Read an article yesterday about the S&W 9mm Shield PLUS.
My wife has a SIG P365XL and I bought her a RomeoZero
for it. He carry before that was the same as what I'm
carrying now - a .40 Shield (her's has a laser as well).
I love the SIG and can hit good with it - love the 'flat'
trigger, etc. But now that I've read about the Shield,
I'm really wanting to get my hands on it... My .40 holds
7+1 with the 'longer' magazine (only slightly longer than
the 6 capacity) but the new one comes with a 10 round mag
and a 13 round mag! So I could have 14 IN THE GUN...
Right now I carry my .40 on my hip, and TWO extra 7 round
mags on my other hip. I use versacarry, and apparently the
new PLUS will fit in the same gear!
So - all that to say this - anyone held one of these? Anyone
here shot one?
... What if there were no hypothetical questions?
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to ALL <=-
Read an article yesterday about the S&W 9mm Shield PLUS.
My wife has a SIG P365XL and I bought her a RomeoZero
for it. He carry before that was the same as what I'm
carrying now - a .40 Shield (her's has a laser as well).
I love the SIG and can hit good with it - love the 'flat'
trigger, etc. But now that I've read about the Shield,
I'm really wanting to get my hands on it... My .40 holds
7+1 with the 'longer' magazine (only slightly longer than
the 6 capacity) but the new one comes with a 10 round mag
and a 13 round mag! So I could have 14 IN THE GUN...
Right now I carry my .40 on my hip, and TWO extra 7 round
mags on my other hip. I use versacarry, and apparently the
new PLUS will fit in the same gear!
So - all that to say this - anyone held one of these? Anyone
here shot one?
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got
the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical
dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really
noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface, it's almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it. The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of mind. I highly recommend it. I've always thought a .40 cal in a handgun this
small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up
shots. With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate. The Plus
fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original
Shield.
... A day without sunshine is like night.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got
the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical
dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really
noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface, it's almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it. The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of mind. I highly recommend it. I've always thought a .40 cal in a handgun this
small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up
shots. With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate. The Plus
fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original
Shield.
I've read the frames are very similar in size between the 9 and
40 M&P;s and t he 40 can accep the 9mm barrel and mags. I'm
considering getting a 9mm barrel for lighter practicing loads
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical
dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface, it's almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it. The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of mind. I highly recommend it. I've always thought a .40 cal in a handgun this small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up
shots. With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate. The Plus fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original Shield.
I've read the frames are very similar in size between the 9 and
40 M&P;s and t he 40 can accep the 9mm barrel and mags. I'm considering getting a 9mm barrel for lighter practicing loads
A quick Google search shows mixed answers/results on that question. Personally I would never do such a thing. For one reason, the point of
aim would be different because of the different ballistics. Doesn't
really make any sense. If you can't practice with a .40, why carry a
.40? If it's too heavy of a cartridge for you, sell it and buy a 9.
... Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical
dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface, it's almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it. The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of mind. I highly recommend it. I've always thought a .40 cal in a handgun this small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up
shots. With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate. The Plus fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original Shield.
I've read the frames are very similar in size between the 9 and
40 M&P;s and t he 40 can accep the 9mm barrel and mags. I'm considering getting a 9mm barrel for lighter practicing loads
A quick Google search shows mixed answers/results on that question. Personally I would never do such a thing. For one reason, the point of
aim would be different because of the different ballistics. Doesn't
really make any sense. If you can't practice with a .40, why carry a
.40? If it's too heavy of a cartridge for you, sell it and buy a 9.
Midwayusa and Brownells sell drop-in replacement barrels to
convert the 40 to a 9mm. It's by no means a form of bodgery or
kludging to make them work.
Regarding training with other calibers, this is done all the time
with having a matching firearm chambered in .22lr. The weight,
feel and handliing are the same. The recoil is only different.
Sights on a defensive pistol are not what you'd call match grade,
and should be close enough with the right choice of ammo. I can
also drop in a .357 Sig barrel in my M&P, and that caliber uses
the same magazines as the 40. 9mm is a cheaper alternative to
shooting and even handloading 40 cal, which is why I'd consider
the opportunity that is brought by having the ability to swap and
barrel and mag and retain the feel and trigger pull of my 40
compact.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface, it almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it. The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of mind. highly recommend it. I've always thought a .40 cal in a handgun this small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up shots. With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate. The Plus fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original Shield.
I've read the frames are very similar in size between the 9 and
40 M&P;s and t he 40 can accep the 9mm barrel and mags. I'm considering getting a 9mm barrel for lighter practicing loads
A quick Google search shows mixed answers/results on that question. Personally I would never do such a thing. For one reason, the point of aim would be different because of the different ballistics. Doesn't really make any sense. If you can't practice with a .40, why carry a .40? If it's too heavy of a cartridge for you, sell it and buy a 9.
Midwayusa and Brownells sell drop-in replacement barrels to
convert the 40 to a 9mm. It's by no means a form of bodgery or kludging to make them work.
If you say so.
Regarding training with other calibers, this is done all the time
with having a matching firearm chambered in .22lr. The weight,
I've been shooting for 40 years, and nobody I've ever known has ever
done that. Your mileage may vary.
feel and handliing are the same. The recoil is only different.
Sights on a defensive pistol are not what you'd call match grade,
and should be close enough with the right choice of ammo. I can
also drop in a .357 Sig barrel in my M&P, and that caliber uses
the same magazines as the 40. 9mm is a cheaper alternative to
shooting and even handloading 40 cal, which is why I'd consider
the opportunity that is brought by having the ability to swap and barrel and mag and retain the feel and trigger pull of my 40
compact.
Uh-huh. How many rounds of 9 would you have to shoot to get back the
cost of that barrel and magazine(s)? I'm guessing the number is in the thousands. Why not just shoot the actual ammo the gun is going to be shooting in a real life situation? That way you're not surprised by the extra recoil, and might be able to make some follow up shots that count.
You do what you want, but in my opinion it's not a very good idea.
... A day without sunshine is like night.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Regarding training with other calibers, this is done all the time
with having a matching firearm chambered in .22lr. The weight,
I've been shooting for 40 years, and nobody I've ever known has ever
done that. Your mileage may vary.
feel and handliing are the same. The recoil is only different.
Sights on a defensive pistol are not what you'd call match grade,
and should be close enough with the right choice of ammo. I can
also drop in a .357 Sig barrel in my M&P, and that caliber uses
the same magazines as the 40. 9mm is a cheaper alternative to
shooting and even handloading 40 cal, which is why I'd consider
the opportunity that is brought by having the ability to swap and barrel and mag and retain the feel and trigger pull of my 40
compact.
Uh-huh. How many rounds of 9 would you have to shoot to get back the
cost of that barrel and magazine(s)? I'm guessing the number is in the thousands. Why not just shoot the actual ammo the gun is going to be shooting in a real life situation? That way you're not surprised by the extra recoil, and might be able to make some follow up shots that count.
You do what you want, but in my opinion it's not a very good idea.
Last time I checked, a factory 9mm barrel for my M&P compact was
$85. A Storm Lake barrel costs $179. In good times when a box
of 50 rounds of 9mm was right around $10-12, either price isn't
that bad for allowing someone to make their pistil into a modular platform.
Regarding training with sub calibers, the idea isn't new.
Uncommon, maybe. It's an alternative to dry firing, where you get
the feel of the gun and the trigger pull without seeing the
effects of pulling the trigger.
I saw one dry fire simulator
that involves a barrel insert that connects to your phne via
bluetooth, and it detects movements such as jerking the trigger
through the use of motion sensors. The display on your phone
will show you a graph of how the pistol reacted as you pulled the
trigger.
Regardless the method, it's all about muscle memory and training
your eyes and hands to bring up the gun and align the sights with
the least amount of wasted steps.
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Regarding training with other calibers, this is done all the time with having a matching firearm chambered in .22lr. The weight,
I've been shooting for 40 years, and nobody I've ever known has ever
done that. Your mileage may vary.
feel and handliing are the same. The recoil is only different. Sights on a defensive pistol are not what you'd call match grade, and should be close enough with the right choice of ammo. I can also drop in a .357 Sig barrel in my M&P, and that caliber uses
the same magazines as the 40. 9mm is a cheaper alternative to shooting and even handloading 40 cal, which is why I'd consider
the opportunity that is brought by having the ability to swap and barrel and mag and retain the feel and trigger pull of my 40 compact.
Uh-huh. How many rounds of 9 would you have to shoot to get back the cost of that barrel and magazine(s)? I'm guessing the number is in the thousands. Why not just shoot the actual ammo the gun is going to be shooting in a real life situation? That way you're not surprised by the extra recoil, and might be able to make some follow up shots that count.
You do what you want, but in my opinion it's not a very good idea.
Last time I checked, a factory 9mm barrel for my M&P compact was
$85. A Storm Lake barrel costs $179. In good times when a box
of 50 rounds of 9mm was right around $10-12, either price isn't
that bad for allowing someone to make their pistil into a modular platform.
None of that answers the question that I asked. If you spend $100 on a barrel, and the 9 ammo is $2/box cheaper than the 40 ammo, then you'd
need to shoot 50 boxes (2500 rounds) of ammo to break even on the cost.
So I ask again.... what's the point?
Regarding training with sub calibers, the idea isn't new.
Uncommon, maybe. It's an alternative to dry firing, where you get
the feel of the gun and the trigger pull without seeing the
effects of pulling the trigger.
You're contradicting yourself. You *DON'T* get the feel of the gun if
you don't include the effects of pulling the trigger. The different
recoil between calibers makes it handle differently. Getting back on
aim for the follow up shot is different. There are other differences
too. How could it *POSSIBLY* be better to train with one ammo/caliber,
and then actually use the gun in a real, stressful, life-or-death
situation with a different caliber?
Just doesn't make any sense.
I saw one dry fire simulator
that involves a barrel insert that connects to your phne via
bluetooth, and it detects movements such as jerking the trigger
through the use of motion sensors. The display on your phone
will show you a graph of how the pistol reacted as you pulled the trigger.
Garbage/gimmick/toys. I'd prefer to detect problems by observing where
my bullet strikes the target in a real world environment, and make adjustments as needed based on what is ACTUALLY happening, not what some "app" is telling me. See above re: doesn't make any sense. There's a valuable saying in the military: "Train like you fight".
Regardless the method, it's all about muscle memory and training
your eyes and hands to bring up the gun and align the sights with
the least amount of wasted steps.
Yep, agreed. So (again), why train your muscles to react to a different feel/recoil that what you're gonna want those muscles to do when your
life might depend on it? Honestly I can't see how anyone could see this
any other way.
... Smith & Wesson: The ORIGINAL point-and-click interface.
Re: Re: SHIELD PLUS
By: Gamgee to Moondog on Sun Oct 31 2021 09:40 pm
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
Regarding training with other calibers, this is done all the time with having a matching firearm chambered in .22lr. The weight,
I've been shooting for 40 years, and nobody I've ever known has ever done that. Your mileage may vary.
feel and handliing are the same. The recoil is only different. Sights on a defensive pistol are not what you'd call match grade, and should be close enough with the right choice of ammo. I can also drop in a .357 Sig barrel in my M&P, and that caliber uses the same magazines as the 40. 9mm is a cheaper alternative to shooting and even handloading 40 cal, which is why I'd consider the opportunity that is brought by having the ability to swap and barrel and mag and retain the feel and trigger pull of my 40 compact.
Uh-huh. How many rounds of 9 would you have to shoot to get back the cost of that barrel and magazine(s)? I'm guessing the number is in th thousands. Why not just shoot the actual ammo the gun is going to be shooting in a real life situation? That way you're not surprised by t extra recoil, and might be able to make some follow up shots that coun
You do what you want, but in my opinion it's not a very good idea.
Last time I checked, a factory 9mm barrel for my M&P compact was $85. A Storm Lake barrel costs $179. In good times when a box
of 50 rounds of 9mm was right around $10-12, either price isn't
that bad for allowing someone to make their pistil into a modular platform.
None of that answers the question that I asked. If you spend $100 on a barrel, and the 9 ammo is $2/box cheaper than the 40 ammo, then you'd need to shoot 50 boxes (2500 rounds) of ammo to break even on the cost. So I ask again.... what's the point?
Regarding training with sub calibers, the idea isn't new.
Uncommon, maybe. It's an alternative to dry firing, where you get the feel of the gun and the trigger pull without seeing the
effects of pulling the trigger.
You're contradicting yourself. You *DON'T* get the feel of the gun if you don't include the effects of pulling the trigger. The different recoil between calibers makes it handle differently. Getting back on
aim for the follow up shot is different. There are other differences too. How could it *POSSIBLY* be better to train with one ammo/caliber, and then actually use the gun in a real, stressful, life-or-death situation with a different caliber?
Just doesn't make any sense.
I saw one dry fire simulator
that involves a barrel insert that connects to your phne via bluetooth, and it detects movements such as jerking the trigger through the use of motion sensors. The display on your phone
will show you a graph of how the pistol reacted as you pulled the trigger.
Garbage/gimmick/toys. I'd prefer to detect problems by observing where my bullet strikes the target in a real world environment, and make adjustments as needed based on what is ACTUALLY happening, not what some "app" is telling me. See above re: doesn't make any sense. There's a valuable saying in the military: "Train like you fight".
Regardless the method, it's all about muscle memory and training your eyes and hands to bring up the gun and align the sights with the least amount of wasted steps.
Yep, agreed. So (again), why train your muscles to react to a different feel/recoil that what you're gonna want those muscles to do when your life might depend on it? Honestly I can't see how anyone could see this any other way.
... Smith & Wesson: The ORIGINAL point-and-click interface.
I see what youre saying, but you can go one more step and shoot only premium defensive ammo rather than substitute it with cheaper plated or fmj ball stuff because that's the only way to get the full training experience. That would get pricey. Maybe I'll decide I like shooting 9mm even more and leave the barrel in. Only way to find out is to try
I see what youre saying, but you can go one more step and shoot only prem defensive ammo rather than substitute it with cheaper plated or fmj ball stuff because that's the only way to get the full training experience. T would get pricey. Maybe I'll decide I like shooting 9mm even more and le the barrel in. Only way to find out is to try
As the poor guy comming from a country in which ammo is not plentyful, my ow opinion is that if you can't afford to train with high end stuff, you can't afford to use high end stuff.
No shame in that.
If you can't justify the expense of .40 for training then maybe you should s with 9mm or .38, and use the more exotic bullets for some healthy fun in the range.
It is not like there aren't affordable calibers that are serviceable.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
MOONDOG wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
Read an article yesterday about the S&W 9mm Shield PLUS.
My wife has a SIG P365XL and I bought her a RomeoZero
for it. He carry before that was the same as what I'm
carrying now - a .40 Shield (her's has a laser as well).
I love the SIG and can hit good with it - love the 'flat'
trigger, etc. But now that I've read about the Shield,
I'm really wanting to get my hands on it... My .40 holds
7+1 with the 'longer' magazine (only slightly longer than
the 6 capacity) but the new one comes with a 10 round mag
and a 13 round mag! So I could have 14 IN THE GUN...
Right now I carry my .40 on my hip, and TWO extra 7 round
mags on my other hip. I use versacarry, and apparently the
new PLUS will fit in the same gear!
So - all that to say this - anyone held one of these? Anyone
here shot one?
... What if there were no hypothetical questions?
I like the M&P shields. I have a full size Performance Center M&P 40
CORE and M&P 40 compact. The shield is close tthe size of the compact, but much thinner.
GAMGEE wrote to MOONDOG <=-
Moondog wrote to Gamgee <=-
I carried a regular Shield 9 for a long while and about a year ago got
the Plus model. There is virtually no difference in physical
dimensions, just a very small bit wider on the grip, not really
noticeable at all. The Plus has a much more textured grip surface, it's almost like sandpaper, which results in a solid/firm hold on it. The increased magazine capacity is a huge bonus and gives peace of mind. I highly recommend it. I've always thought a .40 cal in a handgun this
small is on the borderline of too "snappy" for effective follow-up
shots. With today's modern ammo, 9mm is perfectly adequate. The Plus
fits and works fine with all existing holsters made for the original
Shield.
I've read the frames are very similar in size between the 9 and
40 M&P;s and t he 40 can accep the 9mm barrel and mags. I'm
considering getting a 9mm barrel for lighter practicing loads
A quick Google search shows mixed answers/results on that question. Personally I would never do such a thing. For one reason, the point of aim would be different because of the different ballistics. Doesn't really make any sense. If you can't practice with a .40, why carry a
.40? If it's too heavy of a cartridge for you, sell it and buy a 9.
MOONDOG wrote to GAMGEE <=-
Last time I checked, a factory 9mm barrel for my M&P compact was $85.
A Storm Lake barrel costs $179. In good times when a box of 50 rounds
of 9mm was right around $10-12, either price isn't that bad for
allowing someone to make their pistil into a modular platform.
Regarding training with sub calibers, the idea isn't new. Uncommon, maybe. It's an alternative to dry firing, where you get the feel of the gun and the trigger pull without seeing the effects of pulling the trigger. I saw one dry fire simulator that involves a barrel insert
that connects to your phne via bluetooth, and it detects movements such
as jerking the trigger through the use of motion sensors. The display
on your phone will show you a graph of how the pistol reacted as you pulled the trigger.
Regardless the method, it's all about muscle memory and training your
eyes and
hands to bring up the gun and align the sights with the least amount
of wasted steps.
MOONDOG wrote to ARELOR <=-
defensive ammo, however my goal at this point is mainly to shoot more.
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to MOONDOG <=-
Regardless the method, it's all about muscle memory and training your
eyes and hands to bring up the gun and align the sights with the least amount of wasted steps.
To add to that, I'm not 'training' to shoot groups - I'm shooting
at various metal plates - different sizes at different ranges -
and I'm not concerned with bullseye, but 'getting the shot on
target' - and that target is either a head size circle or a torso
size rectangle.
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to MOONDOG <=-
Regardless the method, it's all about muscle memory and training your eyes and hands to bring up the gun and align the sights with the least amount of wasted steps.
To add to that, I'm not 'training' to shoot groups - I'm shooting
at various metal plates - different sizes at different ranges -
and I'm not concerned with bullseye, but 'getting the shot on
target' - and that target is either a head size circle or a torso
size rectangle.
Ever heard the term "aim small, miss small"? Google it. It's valid.
... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive persons.
| Sysop: | Retros |
|---|---|
| Location: | Toronto, Canada |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 146:03:54 |
| Calls: | 1,097 |
| Files: | 6 |
| Messages: | 30,090 |