OK, I was wrong....

[RugerOldArmy]

I'll be the first guy to admit, I never embraced a polymer pistol. I've been a dyed in the wool 1911 and Smith guy for four decades or so. I tried Glocks, and just couldn't embrace them.

I ordered a Shotgun (Winchester 101) from CDNN, and had to do a FFL transfer though, and they had a M&P Shield 9mm, with a thumb safety, for cheap and a $75 rebate. I bought it on a whim, as a potential camping, carry, 'leave in the truck' gun. I picked up a cheap carbon-fiber IWB holster for carry.

Certainly I'd hate it.

It is about the size of my carry gun (Kimber Ultra Aegis II 9mm), but not single action.

I took it to the Range today and it shot surprisingly well. It wasn't fussy about ammo at all, functioned perfectly for 350-ish shots. It is light, fits the hand well, and the Novak-like 3 dot sights are decent. The trigger is no 1911 trigger, but workable.

I'm kind of happy with it as a truck gun, and potential carry gun. It is no piece of art, and the slide stop lever is best ignored (...unlike a 1911's that makes a decent release...not just a latch), but I'm probably better off releasing the slide with my off hand over the slide as some trainers claim.

FWIW, I was wrong...it looks to be a useful tool. I'll worry less about it getting stolen leaving it in my truck to run into a store too. No regrets.

That said, I'd have never gotten it without the thumb safety...apparently they sell them both with and without.

 

[Varminterror]

There's an certain elegance to be admired in a hammer. Your story about the Shield is rather similar to my own with Glock's. Not surprisingly surprised.

A lid for every pot, as they say - as I wouldn't buy a striker fired pistol which does have a thumb safety.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

A lid for every pot, as they say - as I wouldn't buy a striker fired pistol which does have a thumb safety.

It is peace of mind for me...even if I keep my finger off the trigger, as you should, to avoid 'glock leg syndrome'. I don't want a just trigger that can catch on some clothing...I even picked a holster that covers the trigger.

I 'get' where you're coming from, thinking about carrying a revolver. Yet with an autoloader and IWB holster it was something I wanted and am used to.

If I could get it with a grip safety and a thumb safety, like an XD, but smaller...I would.

YMMV. Part of it is what we're used to. I'm used to 1911s, and comfortable with a thumb safety.

Isn't America wonderful? We have choices, to suit our different tastes.

 

[johnmcl]

Ruger, This is the Golden Age of guns, isn't it?

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Ruger, This is the Golden Age of guns, isn't it?

There are a lot of interesting designs out now.

I'm certainly not thinking this is the golden age of craftsmanship...at least from the mass-produced guns.

 

[bannockburn]

RugerOldArmy

There are a lot of interesting designs out now.

And new and interesting technology to go along with that. But I have to would agree with you; certainly not the Golden Age of Craftsmanship. Still there are plenty of examples of guns from that bygone era if one prefers that to present day firearms. For myself I enjoy having a nice combination of both old and new.

 

[murf]

i went through this a couple years ago. purchased a glock 19 to replace my bhp as a carry gun. the bhp is now retired as the glock does everything the bhp did and won't break if i run it over with a truck!

purchased a glock 30 to replace my gold cup 1911. not the same accuracy, but the gold cup only comes out for special occasions. fit and function is excellent.

murf

 

[FL-NC]

I was in SF training when Glocks were new, Beretta were fairly new to the military, and the Sig was "the" pistol to get if you were going to settle for a "wimpy" 9mm- since the 9mm can't kill a dead dog- except outside the US, apparently. The plastic Glocks were just a joke to us. We called them combat tupperware, and we were sure the frames would just start randomly exploding (hopefully you'll only lose a finger or 2 - and not the whole hand). We were all wrong. The oh-so-holy 1911 (and its round) have largely been consigned to history, and the Glock in 9mm has become commonplace throughout the Special Operations community world-wide- where it out-performs all other designs in every possible way.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

where it out-performs all other designs in every possible way.

You really believe that?

The Sig P210 was developed in 1944. Military issue for Switzerland and Finland. Do you really believe the Glock is:
- As accurate as a P210?
- Is as well crafted as a P210?
- Has as good of a trigger as a P210?
- Would be as nice a gun to leave your sons when you pass?
- Will ever have the value of a P210?

If you answered 'Yes' to any question posed in this comparison of a 1944 9mm semi-auto design to the Glock, you should ask yourself if you're a bit biased.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

As a guy who started out shooting and owning revolvers, I can relate. Several years ago I bought my first polymer gun. Unfortunately it was an unreliable piece of junk. However, that was a spring issue and had nothing to do with the polymer frame.

Now, I own several all metal guns, and several polymer framed guns as well. I enjoy both, and recognize the utility of the material. I consider few polymer guns to be actually good LOOKING, but happen to like the look of HK guns, and I find them to be very reliable and accurate shooters. CZ produces some nice looking poly guns too.

As stated earlier, this definitely isn't the golden age of craftsmanship, but at least the mass produced Tupperware guns are mostly functional.

 

[98bluewave]

I'm fairly new to pistol shooting. I own a Colt 1911, Sig 1911, a S & W model 36, and 4 Glocks. The Glocks are taken to the range regularly and the others stay home.

 

[stoky]

Ruger, This is the Golden Age of guns, isn't it?

I think it might be more of a plutonium age.

 

[johnmcl]

On the Golden Age of Guns..

I think you guys miss my point. 50 years ago for handguns, one was constrained to Colt and Smith & Wesson, with the odd BHP in the mix. There were some minor players in the mix too, I add. From that lineup, one could go up and down the caliber line, but pretty much with one or two offerings and certainly not with much design options. There were absolutely good guns there, but were each and every one a heritage gun? I think not.

Today those companies offer a wider diversity of guns, plus there's half a dozen additional companies that also offer diverse and quality offerings. While some may bemoan the quality craftmanship aspects, I respectfully submit that there are more quality guns in those lineups, and offered to us, than there are lunkers.

I stand by my statement, these days are the Golden Age of handguns.

 

[FL-NC]

You really believe that?

The Sig P210 was developed in 1944. Military issue for Switzerland and Finland. Do you really believe the Glock is:
- As accurate as a P210?
- Is as well crafted as a P210?
- Has as good of a trigger as a P210?
- Would be as nice a gun to leave your sons when you pass?
- Will ever have the value of a P210?

If you answered 'Yes' to any question posed in this comparison of a 1944 9mm semi-auto design to the Glock, you should ask yourself if you're a bit biased.

Not trying to start a fight. My only point was to describe the feelings we had at the time regarding plastic handguns, how wrong we were in our assumptions at the time, and the role they play in that same command now (30 years later). Regarding the P210: I've never fired one, and it was never considered for use in the US Army or SOCOM (at least during my tenure). As such, I can't speak for the accuracy potential that pistol may possess, nor the craftsmanship or trigger characteristics. I did take the time to research it, and in my judgement it isn't and wasn't suitable for use within the commands in which I was assigned for various reasons. Since I am referring to US military issue handguns, the value or concept of leaving them to my next of kin is irrelevant. I should also clarify that the "everything else" that I was referring to is the other handguns currently available within the force for issue to assigned personnel- among which the P210 is not an option. I will admit, I am very biased regarding tools that perform really well in comparison to those tools that fall short, regardless of what type of tools we are discussing.

 

[TomJ]

On the Golden Age of Guns..

I think you guys miss my point. 50 years ago for handguns, one was constrained to Colt and Smith & Wesson, with the odd BHP in the mix. There were some minor players in the mix too, I add. From that lineup, one could go up and down the caliber line, but pretty much with one or two offerings and certainly not with much design options. There were absolutely good guns there, but were each and every one a heritage gun? I think not.

Today those companies offer a wider diversity of guns, plus there's half a dozen additional companies that also offer diverse and quality offerings. While some may bemoan the quality craftmanship aspects, I respectfully submit that there are more quality guns in those lineups, and offered to us, than there are lunkers.

I stand by my statement, these days are the Golden Age of handguns.

I have 5 1911's, 3 Sigs and 4 metal CZ's, and love them. I also have polymer guns from Sig, Glock, SA, Ruger, S&W, CZ and FNS. They're all fantastic shooters, accurate and most importantly incredibly reliable. Quality guns can be had for under $300. This absolutely is a Golden Age of handguns.

 

[tarosean]

Since I am referring to US military issue handguns, the value or concept of leaving them to my next of kin is irrelevant. I

you must have been devastated when glock wasn't picked for the next issued weapon....

 

[v35]

I like my large frame all metal guns too, but the Shield is perfectly serviceable, accurate, concealable.... everything you could want. It's one of my favorites, and I recently picked up a spare with the recent $75 rebate.

the slide stop lever is best ignored (...unlike a 1911's that makes a decent release...not just a latch), but I'm probably better off releasing the slide with my off hand over the slide as some trainers claim.

I had difficulty thumbing the slide release also, so I contacted both the dealer and S&W about it. They both said the same thing... lubricate, then shoot it, shoot it some more, and keep shooting it. 500 rounds later I decided that didn't work.

Failing everything I finally resorted to reading the manual. After all, who does that? Guess what, no where in the M&P Shield's manual does it indicate the slide stop is intended to be used as a slide release. It's a slide stop. The phrase "slide release" does not appear in the manual.

The technique S&W describes is exactly what you've been doing:

releasing the slide with my off hand over the slide

Insert a mag, then pull the slide to the rear and release it. That's exactly what the manual says and that's what you're supposed to do. It's also what I was initially trained to do, boxing glove theory and all that, for which I'll spare you the details because that theory been denied by people who ought to know better and I'm not one of them.

Finally, I suggest that you do not draw any conclusions about using the slide lock's function until actually inserting a fully loaded magazine. Believe it or not you might find you can easily thumb the slide lock lever down with a fully loaded mag, whereas you might not be able to do that at all with an empty mag. It makes sense if you realize there should be few if any reasons to insert anything other than a fully loaded mag in the magazine well.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

Quality guns can be had for under $300.

Is it quality, or utilitarian? I like my Shield for a 'Truck Gun'. But I see it in the same fashion I see McDonalds, in terms of cuisine. It does the basic job, as expected.

I like the M&P pistols more than I liked the 1st Gen Glocks. The chamber only partially supported the cartridge (tough on brass for a reloader). The grip angle was so funky I thought Gaston Glock was running them over at gunshows because he realized they were a better wheel chock than they were handguns.

I'll give Polymer pistols their obvious due...they're light. A good attribute for a carry gun.

There is one thing that underlies all of this....manufacturers make them because they are cheap to manufacture, and they increase margins. I'm more convinced this is the 'Plastic Age of Guns' than the 'Golden Age of Guns'. That is good if your budget is limited, or you're selling guns and want high margins. Injection molding plastic is way cheaper than machining blocks of steel to half a thousandth of an inch tolerances.

I think McDonalds would be hugely successful if they found out what Glock Marketing Kool-Aid FL-NC is drinking...they already have the rest of the formula.

 

[helitack32f1]

I think McDonalds would be hugely successful if they found out what Glock Marketing Kool-Aid FL-NC is drinking...they already have the rest of the formula.

From reading his posts, it appears the "Kool-Aid" FL-NC has been drinking is called "reality" with regards to the command in which he served. I am not sure why people that do not like Glocks feel the need to demean or diminish those that like or respect them.

 

[Mn Fats]

When I think of the "golden age of guns" I think of the craftsmanship era. Pre 64 model 70's. Model 12's. Old Smiths. Belgian Brownings. Not low priced polymers. Its a good time to buy sure, but does that define this as the golden age? I suppose that depends on how you look at it but for me, no. Anyways, good buy op. I hope it serves you well.

 

[rskent]

Its a good time to buy sure, but does that define this as the golden age?

I think so. I think it’s about the quality choices available to us as consumers.

If you want a polymer gun there are more affordable brands than ever before.

If you want a metal gun, still more quality guns than ever before. The old standbys

are still available. And I believe they are made better today than ever before.

If you buy a Colt 1911 today and a Colt fifty years ago, which one do you think,

on average, will be the more reliable and more accurate out of the box?

 

[rskent]

And how many manufactures made 1911’s 50 years ago?

How many manufactures make them today? For example.

 

[rskent]

From reading his posts, it appears the "Kool-Aid" FL-NC has been drinking is called "reality" with regards to the command in which he served. I am not sure why people that do not like Glocks feel the need to demean or diminish those that like or respect them.

Easy, it makes him feel better about his choices.

 

[RugerOldArmy]

If you buy a Colt 1911 today and a Colt fifty years ago, which one do you think,
on average, will be the more reliable and more accurate out of the box?

The one made 50 years ago. Back then they had skilled craftsmen hand fit the parts...which is essentially what you pay for now in a Custom gun.

Easy, it makes him feel better about his choices.

I feel great about my choices in guns. I'm less sure about my choice of returning a little "snark". The McDonalds analogy, while snarky, is accurate. Glocks are far from the pieces of art that guns of old often were. I only went there because of some of the outrageous claims made such as that Glocks "...out-performs all other designs in every possible way...".

 

[TomJ]

Is it quality, or utilitarian? I like my Shield for a 'Truck Gun'. But I see it in the same fashion I see McDonalds, in terms of cuisine. It does the basic job, as expected.

If you define a quality gun as one that is accurate, reliable and durable, then yes, quality guns can be had for under $300. I won't confuse a Shield with a high end 1911, as to me the 1911 has class that a polymer gun doesn't, but that doesn't take away from the Shield's quality.