Talk me out of this Shield

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been carrying a Shield 9mm for a few years now, and I've been very happy with it. Over the past few months, though, I've been considering going back to .45 acp for carry. I've got nothing against the 9mm, and I've carried it for years. No plans to get rid of my 9s. Still, we've had several caliber wars lately, as well as .45 acp discussions, and that fired up my old brain to go to thinking about it again.

I do tend to believe that all other things being equal (which they never are), bigger holes in bad guys are better holes in bad guys. I've always shot my .45s better than my 9mms, and actually preferred the recoil impulse of the .45, but those may be a function of the pistols as much as of the calibers (5" 1911 vs G19 or 9mm Shield).

In any event, one of the things that I've said for a long time was that if someone would build a single-stack, polymer, .45 acp pistol, roughly the size of a G19, I'd be all over it. And then.... I discovered the Smith and Wesson Performance Center M&P 45 Shield 2.0, 4" barrel. Being the massive overthinker that I am, I sat down and ran the numbers on the PC Shield with the G19 and the G36. It's awfully close to that "single-stack, polymer, .45 acp pistol, roughly the size of a G19" that I mentioned above.

I can rent a Shield 45, and intend to, but I can't locally rent a Shield 45 with the 4" barrel. So, does anyone have one of these? Do you like it? How's the recoil? Can you tell me how these stack up against other pistols in your safe? I assume that it takes standard Shield 45 magazines?

My wanter is in high gear, but I can't really afford it. But maybe if I sold a couple of shotguns and hustled a side job, I could scrape the $$$ together... It just had to be a Performance Center pistol, didn't it?

A Shield 45 4" would be sweet.

The 3.8" G36 is.

:D




GR
 
I do tend to believe that all other things being equal (which they never are), bigger holes in bad guys are better holes in bad guys.
It's true that bigger holes are better, but it's not the whole story. Shield 45 may be the best among the available options in the format: Kahr P45/CW45, Commander-sized 1911, XD-S, and Glock 36. But at the end of the day it's still a 45 with poor capacity for the weight and size.
 
I have a first generation shield in 9mm and while I like it, the trigger is serviceable but not great, the sights are usable but not great, and the barrel is a little shorter than I'd like. I have a talon grip on it and have looked at sights, and trigger upgrades but for the money spent I think it would make more sense just to buy the performance center version. Wish those had been available when I first bought this one.
 
I've owned the Shield in 9mm and 45acp. I sold the 9mm but kept the 45. It really surprised me and my 63 year old hands how the recoil was relatively mild or at least less than I expected. Also the grip feels great in my hand.
 
I've been carrying a Shield 9mm for a few years now, and I've been very happy with it. Over the past few months, though, I've been considering going back to .45 acp for carry. I've got nothing against the 9mm, and I've carried it for years. No plans to get rid of my 9s. Still, we've had several caliber wars lately, as well as .45 acp discussions, and that fired up my old brain to go to thinking about it again.

You're just fabricating thoughts in your head to justify buying stuff and you don't have any money. Numbers don't lie, most people will survive handgun wounds. A .45 isn't going to radically better your odds of slaying the wicked. All you are really doing is deflating your faith in your carry caliber/tools without good cause. If you were really concerned about it youd carry a rifle. Your wanter is in high gear, evidence you just want a new gun more than you are concerned with 9mm stopping power or lack thereof.

Sorry to be a curmudgeon but you asked for it and I generally have a thick layer of crust surrounding me. You asked knowing everyone here would tell you to buy a .45 shield so I get to be "that guy".
 
Once you get by the obvious like reliability and concealability it's all about how you run it. I run the .45 Shield (3.3") better than I do the 9mm. That is a very personal thing though. Carry what you run best and have confidence in. Where your head is at is likely more important than the actual tool you employ. I'm simply more confident in my ability to run the .45 and that is BEFFORE we consider the least important factors (capacity and caliber) that we continue to obsess over
 
I carried a single stack Kahr CW45 for a while and loved it. Had a Shield .40 and hated it. Sold it a while ago. To each his own.

I don't blame you. I absolutely despised the Shield .40 but love the .45. it's amazing how such tiny dimensional changes can totally change the pistol.
 
Thank you all for the responses, both for and against. There were two things I knew when I posted this: (1) A certain number of enablers would come out in support. I knew this because I'm often one of them. :D (2) I'm well aware that buying this gun wouldn't drastically change my odds of winning a gunfight, but that doesn't change the fact that I want it.
I’m with LiveLife on the 40. If you want to punch big holes, there are a few 40 cals expanding into 45 territory. But your recoil impulse won’t be in the 45 territory....
I don't have a problem with .45 recoil, or perhaps better said, haven't had in any gun I've shot. My biggest issue with venturing out into .40 cals is that I don't want to stock a new caliber.
.... However, the decided point for me and YMMV is what Tom Givens calls Time in the Fight. It is also described as the reasonable number of opponents for the gun.

A six shot (6+1) gun keeps you in the fight at best for two folks (one shot stops - Yeah!). Then you have to reload. A ten or 11 gun is a three opponent gun or long time in the fight....
Yeah, but at about 10 rounds of .45, you're pretty much into full-sized territory. I don't see myself CC-ing a G21 any time soon.

IDK Bernhard Goetz took out four muggers with 4 shots and somewhere in there managed to miss one shot all with a 5 shot snubby revolver. And I doubt living in NYC he got to do much practice.
True, but if memory serves, that shooting took place on a subway train. The phrase 'fish in a barrel' comes to mind.
Maybe back burner the new shield until money is less tight.
Logically, I know this is the most reasonable answer. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have a teenager who will start college in about a year and a half. That means that the time when "money is less tight" is out there somewhere, probably at least 5 years out.
You're just fabricating thoughts in your head to justify buying stuff and you don't have any money. Numbers don't lie, most people will survive handgun wounds. A .45 isn't going to radically better your odds of slaying the wicked. All you are really doing is deflating your faith in your carry caliber/tools without good cause. If you were really concerned about it youd carry a rifle. Your wanter is in high gear, evidence you just want a new gun more than you are concerned with 9mm stopping power or lack thereof.

Sorry to be a curmudgeon but you asked for it and I generally have a thick layer of crust surrounding me. You asked knowing everyone here would tell you to buy a .45 shield so I get to be "that guy".
Which is it? Am I "deflating my confidence in my carry gear," or am I not concerned with 9mm stopping power? I know this won't 'radically better my odds of slaying the wicked.' As far as I know, though, that really doesn't mean that I shouldn't want it.
 
Which is it? Am I "deflating my confidence in my carry gear," or am I not concerned with 9mm stopping power? I know this won't 'radically better my odds of slaying the wicked.' As far as I know, though, that really doesn't mean that I shouldn't want it.


You were concerned that maybe 45 really does hold an edge vs 9mm. Therefore there is a certain lack of faith in your tools. And if not a lack of faith you still admitted to believing bigger holes are better, therefore your 9mm could be deemed a second best choice. Statistics don't back the bigger holes is better theory, most people survive a handgun wound. But since a fighting weapon ought to have max confidence from the user you better get that shield 45. That would be the only legit reason for ditching the 9mm aside from "i just want it".
 
You were concerned that maybe 45 really does hold an edge vs 9mm. Therefore there is a certain lack of faith in your tools. And if not a lack of faith you still admitted to believing bigger holes are better, therefore your 9mm could be deemed a second best choice.
I wouldn't call it a lack of faith, but that's neither here nor there. I would agree with you that I believe 9mm is a second best choice. That doesn't make it a bad choice, just not necessarily the best. I do think that bigger holes are better (provided they're in the right place). So is there some question as to whether smaller holes are better?

Statistics don't back the bigger holes is better theory, most people survive a handgun wound.
Statistics matter until they don't. The first part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second. I recall reading somewhere (I was unable to dig up a link this morning) that .22LR has been the cause of more deaths in the US than any other caliber. If true, that would make it the "deadliest" caliber. That doesn't mean I should carry one for SD.
 
So is there some question as to whether smaller holes are better?

They are pistol caliber rounds both. Both equally ineffective/effective depending on your viewpoint of what it's being compared to. Are smaller holes worse? Not statistically. Also, most 9mms have more capacity. Add up total hole size per mag and compare. A .356 punched 18 times over is bigger hole overall than .452 punched 7 times. (I don't know shield 9mm/45 capacity). I know, most ccw shootings are two or three shots yeah yeah then let's talk revolvers instead since that eliminates capacity as the main concern in favor of hole size.

Statistics matter until they don't. The first part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second. I recall reading somewhere (I was unable to dig up a link this morning) that .22LR has been the cause of more deaths in the US than any other caliber. If true, that would make it the "deadliest" caliber. That doesn't mean I should carry one for SD.

I think the .22 has caused more deaths. It makes sense, it's the most popular caliber. Statistics matter when you are trying to justify the bigger is better imo. I don't think it is. A good .38 or 9mm is effective with good shot placement. A hole a tenth of an inch bigger will not flow much additional blood or knock out much additional tissue.

It sounds like you had already made your decision to be honest. Carry what you feel most confident in is my best advice. If that means .45, go for it, even if the advantage is all in your head (or not). I generally opt for larger holes too but I'm from revolver world where you just can't stuff that many rounds into it like a 9mm so maybe my own thinking was the same as yours at the time but for what it's worth I'm shopping for 9mm hi caps now so go figure.
 
Logically, I know this is the most reasonable answer. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have a teenager who will start college in about a year and a half. That means that the time when "money is less tight" is out there somewhere, probably at least 5 years out.

I get it, I've got a bad case of "I want it now" for some stuff when I know the logical answer is to wait several years so a) our student loans are fully paid and b) my two kids start school and I can get back to work at least part time, not that Mr. Mom isn't a full time job and harder than several long hours physical labor jobs I've had in the past.

I wouldn't call it a lack of faith, but that's neither here nor there. I would agree with you that I believe 9mm is a second best choice. That doesn't make it a bad choice, just not necessarily the best. I do think that bigger holes are better (provided they're in the right place). So is there some question as to whether smaller holes are better?


Statistics matter until they don't. The first part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second. I recall reading somewhere (I was unable to dig up a link this morning) that .22LR has been the cause of more deaths in the US than any other caliber. If true, that would make it the "deadliest" caliber. That doesn't mean I should carry one for SD.

Also worth noting that murders with a single well placed shot and a helpless victim are lumped in with police shootings, where doctrine is lots of shots till the perp stops regardless of effectiveness of a single shot.

Plus, listening to Mas Ayoob on... Ballistic Radio Podcast I think, recently was talking about some of those "3 in 3 in 3" stats and how the PD jiggered the numbers to reflect the stats instead of the truth. Where a running, many round gun battle was broken up into several individual encounters to support the stats rather than taking the whole encounter as a single.

It was interesting.

I still like both the .45 and 9mm but if all else is equal I think the bigger bullets can't hurt. Though all else is rarely equal, so tradeoffs are needed.

Speaking of, despite extolling the virtue of my steel commander .45 1911, I've been noticing back pain of late and had blamed my non sleeping kiddos jumping into bed a lot lately (cold season) but as I reflect on it the last time my back was sore like this was when I carried my 226 a lot, and I'm starting to wonder if that extra 8 oz over my lightweight 9mms is actually the issue.

So I am going to need to possibly rethink some things, figure ill swap to the lightweight and see if the pain (it's really more of a discomfort) clears up with the lighter option. I hope that isn't the case but I have a sneaking suspicion it is.
 
Well, I’ve justified upgrading and improving the contents of the safe by selling other guns to do it. You’ve already mentioned doing the same thing. So you really aren’t hurting the budget, if you end up pulling equity to do something that makes you happy.

I’d do it with no regrets, as long as the commitments at home are already met and I could get i to the gun for as little out of pocket cost as possible.
 
The .45 Shield and the 9mm/.40 are two different pistols not just different calibers. If they offered the .45 Shield in 9mm I would buy it. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
 
Yep. And he filled his stringer that day. He also walked away and lived to tell the tale. And in the end thats all that really matters.
Yes, he did. But your first remark about Goetz was in response to GEM's post about Time in the Fight. I'm not sure that incident has much value in considering capacity vs. Time in the Fight. But that's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread.
 
So I went to Academy Sports and handled a Shield 2.0 in 45. The grip texture is a little on the aggressive side, but certainly manageable. The next step will be to to the range and shoot a Shield .45 side by side with my 9mm.

Shoot a G36 while you're at it.

That would be an interesting and enlightening comparative report.

TIA


P.S. Spec numbers can be deceptive.

The G36, sans controls and thumb rest, is 1" thick, from slide to mag base plate.


g23g36comp.jpg




GR
 
Last edited:
So I went to Academy Sports and handled a Shield 2.0 in 45. The grip texture is a little on the aggressive side, but certainly manageable. The next step will be to to the range and shoot a Shield .45 side by side with my 9mm.

I had the same experience with my Shield and other M&P 2.0’s. Light sanding took care of it.
 
Yes, he did. But your first remark about Goetz was in response to GEM's post about Time in the Fight. I'm not sure that incident has much value in considering capacity vs. Time in the Fight. But that's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread.

Maybe so. You just never know where a fight will come from, how long it will last or how many may be involved. And the Subway shooting was just like shooting fish in a barrel. Good point.

But that being said I am all for you getting a new gun. And is a 9mm the full equal of a 45acp now? I have no way of knowing and won't even guess. But the 45acp is the standard against what all other autos are judged by. So it will never be a bad choice.
 
And is a 9mm the full equal of a 45acp now? I have no way of knowing and won't even guess. But the 45acp is the standard against what all other autos are judged by. So it will never be a bad choice.
Having started out shooting 1911, I always somehow felt more "comfortable" having 45ACP pistols and went with 1911 to Glock 21/30 then later Sig 1911/M&P45 (8/10 rounds) on the nightstand and Glock 30 (10 rounds) got replaced with PT145 SA/DA (10 rounds) for wife on her side of the nightstand.

But alongside these are Glock 22 with 15 rounds and Glock 23 with 13 rounds not to mention PCCs with 30 round magazines.

If accuracy and capacity are the same, just as bullet technology improved for 9mm, I consider so has bullet technology improved for 40S&W/45ACP. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top