Possible S&W Shield .45 sale or trade

[citizenconn]

I am probably no help, but my father had similar issues with his Shield in .45 and we replaced the crappy S&W clunky dual recoil spring with a single spring I think it titanium and the gun ran much, much smoother, was easier to rack and no longer has any feeding or recoil issues. I can't find the website of the place we got it several years ago, but it looks like there are lots of other options out there.

Good luck with the trade.

 

[I6turbo]

I could, at least in theory, have the barrel on one of those threaded....

True, though it would change the balance a lot. One of the things that I like about the International Medalist / FN 150 is the perfect balance (in my hand, anyway). The Medalist has a slightly longer barrel, and I don't find it as perfect as the slightly shorter barrel of the International / FN 150. Also, the original grip is important to me as I believe the design definitely contributes to the overall experience and people's ability to shoot accurately with the gun. As I've posted here before, I've allowed any friend and family member who has ever wanted to shoot my 1971 model IM to do so, and every one of them have out-shot their own handguns with it. I have and identical 1969 model with the Challenger grip instead of the IM grip, and I can't shoot it quite as well.

1969 IM top left, 1971 IM top center, 1974 Medalist (with its longer barrel but no forearm) top right:


I also have other grips and the available Challenger barrels, but for me, the IM/FN 150 as it came from the factory is the Goldilocks handgun.


Including the left-handed grip for one of my sons who shoots left-handed.

 

[Spats McGee]

True, though it would change the balance a lot. One of the things that I like about the International Medalist / FN 150 is the perfect balance (in my hand, anyway). The Medalist has a slightly longer barrel, and I don't find it as perfect as the slightly shorter barrel of the International / FN 150. Also, the original grip is important to me as I believe the design definitely contributes to the overall experience and people's ability to shoot accurately with the gun. As I've posted here before, I've allowed any friend and family member who has ever wanted to shoot my 1971 model IM to do so, and every one of them have out-shot their own handguns with it. I have and identical 1969 model with the Challenger grip instead of the IM grip, and I can't shoot it quite as well.

1969 IM top left, 1971 IM top center, 1974 Medalist (with its longer barrel but no forearm) top right:
View attachment 1153459

I also have other grips and the available Challenger barrels, but for me, the IM/FN 150 as it came from the factory is the Goldilocks handgun.
View attachment 1153460

Including the left-handed grip for one of my sons who shoots left-handed.
View attachment 1153461

That's a very nice collection. Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

[SwampWolf]

If it really looks like it's just a matter of me limp wristing it, maybe it's time for her to go up for sale. (Yes, I know I could do a bunch of hand and wrist exercises,

I'm of the opinion that any auto pistol intended for self-defense should not be sensitive in terms of functioning as to how well the gun is being held. Quickly getting a pistol into action from a place of concealment will not always allow for a perfect grip. And, like you, I have way too many things to do other than getting my fingers "in shape".

Beretta U22 Neos, S&W Victory or Browning Buckmark -- I put these all together, just because they're all .22 pistols. I've got several Ruger .22s, but it's really hard to have too many .22s

I'd choose the Browning. The Victory is too ugly and the Neos even uglier (it makes the Whitney Wolverine look positively "classic"). And yeah, I see where you like the looks of the Neos, but, like beauty, ugly is too in the eye of the beholder. A used Browning "Challenger" in good condition is a pistol I'd suggest being worth the search to find.

LCP, or similar flat pocket gun, probably in .380. This would just be for CC when I can't belt carry. While I'm not a big fan of the .380, you have to jump up quite a bit in size when you move from it to 9mm, which of course makes pocket carry more difficult.

Like most of us here, I have many 9mm pistols that I carry concealed but there's just no denying that there is an important place (niche?) for a lightweight, compact pistol chambered in .380 when it comes to edc. Mine is an LCP, which I've found to have the most important property any pistol being counted on for self-defense duties must have: stone cold reliability.

 

[Ks5shooter]

If its an ergonomical issue for you,then sell it.

 

[chicharrones]

Since 9mm 1911s were brought up, here's a comparison pic of my Springfield w/ 5" barrel next to my Buckmark Camper w/ 5.5" barrel. Both are pedestrian looking versions of their breeds, but their hearts are solid.

This Camper with rail and red dot is about 5 ounces lighter than this Springfield. I can shoot the Camper better thanks to that red dot helping out my middle aged eyes. While the Camper doesn't look as exotic as my long gone Neos, the Camper is a better gun in all ways.

Then there's the fact that the Neos is no longer in production, while the Buckmark still is. That tells us something right there.

View attachment 1153500

 

[Styx]

I'm of the opinion that any auto pistol intended for self-defense should not be sensitive in terms of functioning as to how well the gun is being held. Quickly getting a pistol into action from a place of concealment will not always allow for a perfect grip. And, like you, I have way too many things to do other than getting my fingers "in shape".

That kind of rules out almost all semiauto handguns no? Glocks and just about all of these lightweight polymer frame pistols suffer from an improper grip. I see it myself at the range several times. Most time it's the shooter and not an inherent problem with the gun. I've literally seen people, usually women, have malfunction after malfunction at the range only for the range officer to come over and have absolutely zero issues. That seems to be the case with the OP too for whatever reason.

Kind of brings the whole "are revolvers still relevant" debate full circle especially for those who claim modern semiautos are equally reliable.
Massad Ayoob: "Are revolvers still relevant?"

 

[north east redneck]

I have a 2.0 .45 Shield. I bought it second hand. It came with the Apex trigger and duty carry kit installed.
When I first shot it would fail to feed, sometimes two or three rounds per mag.
Not a magazine issue as I have five of them.
There was a small burr on the extractor claw. Removing that and polishing the feed ramp eliminated all feed issues with factory ammo. 185gr jacketed flat point and 230gr fmj.
It will still fail to to feed the odd reload that my M&P .45C will handle without issue.

 

[Styx]

I have a 2.0 .45 Shield. I bought it second hand. It came with the Apex trigger and duty carry kit installed.
When I first shot it would fail to feed, sometimes two or three rounds per mag.
Not a magazine issue as I have five of them.
There was a small burr on the extractor claw. Removing that and polishing the feed ramp eliminated all feed issues with factory ammo. 185gr jacketed flat point and 230gr fmj.
It will still fail to to feed the odd reload that my M&P .45C will handle without issue.

I just Googled "Shield 45 failure to feed" and it seems there are a lot of others who had a similar issue. There are a few youtube videos about it, and their comments section are full of cosigners. I never realized so many had a problem with their Shields.

I have a 1.0 Performance Center 45 Shield. I going to put more rounds through it now to see if I can get it to malfunction.

 

[north east redneck]

Forgot to mention that it functions perfect with Hornady Critical Duty, Federal Hydra, Federal Punch ammo.
Before the claw and ramp were addressed, the front of the rounds would get hung on the feed ramp, the base would not fully engage the extractor claw.
Since the issues mentioned were fixed, any fail to feed has been with the base engaged with extractor and the nose of the bullet above the feed ramp and starting to enter the chamber. At that point the slide stops forward motion. Rounds that have done this have been put into the magazine again and chambered just fine when they were the top round in the mag and loaded into the chamber by racking the slide.

I just Googled "Shield 45 failure to feed" and it seems there are a lot of others who had a similar issue. There are a few youtube videos about it, and their comments section are full of cosigners. I never realized so many had a problem with their Shields.

I have a 1.0 Performance Center 45 Shield. I going to put more rounds through it now to see if I can get it to malfunction.
View attachment 1153588

It would be interesting to hear your results. Please let us know how it runs.

 

[Spats McGee]

Thank you, one and all for the responses. The List didn't really get any shorter, but I do think it's been refined, maybe organized a bit better in my head. I've got it down to about 3 categories, in no particular order:

--> Bolt gun, .223 -- I don't think the Remington 700 or Savage 10 were specifically mentioned in this thread, but I have a friend who is a gunsmith, and he recommended them. I've known him for decades, and well enough that I don't disregard gun advice from him.

• Remington 700 -- This may be the Toyota Camry of the bunch, but that doesn't bother me.
• Savage Model 10 -- I'm still digging into these to see what I can see.
• Ruger American -- in particular, the Ranch model looks good. AR style mags and a threaded barrel. That's good.
• CZ -- several nice models, but the 457 ProVarmint Suppressor tops my CZ List.

--> Rimfires: .22s --

• For pistols, it looks like the Buckmark got the most support. No slight against the Victory, but I think I might be the only one in the thread who had any interest in the Neos! So if I go with a pistol, it will almost certainly be a Buckmark.
• I'm also still pondering the FVSR, but I might be able to squeeze some $ out of the budget elsewhere for one of those. The MSRP is pretty reasonable, and I have a couple of extra rimfire scopes sitting on a shelf.

--> 9mm 1911 -- Given the support for these, I have to seriously consider one. Ruger, Springfield Armory, Colt and Rock Island come to mind first. I'm sure there are other good companies, but surely I could find a solid shooter from one of those 4, right?

 

[Styx]

Thank you, one and all for the responses. The List didn't really get any shorter, but I do think it's been refined, maybe organized a bit better in my head. I've got it down to about 3 categories, in no particular order:

--> Bolt gun, .223 -- I don't think the Remington 700 or Savage 10 were specifically mentioned in this thread, but I have a friend who is a gunsmith, and he recommended them. I've known him for decades, and well enough that I don't disregard gun advice from him.

• Remington 700 -- This may be the Toyota Camry of the bunch, but that doesn't bother me.
• Savage Model 10 -- I'm still digging into these to see what I can see.
• Ruger American -- in particular, the Ranch model looks good. AR style mags and a threaded barrel. That's good.
• CZ -- several nice models, but the 457 ProVarmint Suppressor tops my CZ List.

--> Rimfires: .22s --

• For pistols, it looks like the Buckmark got the most support. No slight against the Victory, but I think I might be the only one in the thread who had any interest in the Neos! So if I go with a pistol, it will almost certainly be a Buckmark.
• I'm also still pondering the FVSR, but I might be able to squeeze some $ out of the budget elsewhere for one of those. The MSRP is pretty reasonable, and I have a couple of extra rimfire scopes sitting on a shelf.

--> 9mm 1911 -- Given the support for these, I have to seriously consider one. Ruger, Springfield Armory, Colt and Rock Island come to mind first. I'm sure there are other good companies, but surely I could find a solid shooter from one of those 4, right?

You're trading in a carry gun for a gun you don't intend on carrying now? That's quite the apples, oranges, and pears list you have there. It's hard to make a suggestion without knowing exactly what you're looking to accomplish.

 

[Spats McGee]

You're trading in a carry gun for a gun you don't intend on carrying now? That's quite the apples, oranges, and pears list you have there. It's hard to make a suggestion without knowing exactly what you're looking to accomplish.

Well, I’m trading “one I intended to carry but don’t” for one “not intended for carry.” And yeah, I know I’m still all over the map right now.

 

[Styx]

Well, I’m trading “one I intended to carry but don’t” for one “not intended for carry.” And yeah, I know I’m still all over the map right now.

Which one would you use and shoot the most out of what you listed? That should be a somewhat easy to figure out based on what firearm bases you already have covered, calibers your already have, ammo cost, and/or what you typically like to and enjoy shooting at the range and/or hunting with.

 

[chicharrones]

Well, I’m trading “one I intended to carry but don’t” for one “not intended for carry.” And yeah, I know I’m still all over the map right now.

Rifles versus Pistols. I can tell you what has pushed me to more pistol shooting compared to long gun shooting, and that is my work and family needs.

I put in long days for work and when I get back home on the weekends, my family wants me for chores or family gatherings. Since none of that includes shooting, it means I really don't have time for outdoor long gun shooting anymore at this point in my life.

So, I squeeze in an indoor range session maybe once per month as an early lunch break during the work week when I can. Which means handguns, or maybe PCCs. But lately it's been all handguns.

Fer instance, I got to hit the local indoor range last Friday because I got to drive home from out of town early that day. After 4 hours on the road, I rolled up to the indoor range right when they opened the doors at 10 am. I was tired, over caffeinated, and hungry, but I figure I won't get to pick how I feel when a defense encounter comes up. Not that all my shooting is defense oriented, because it's not. That would be boring to me.

 

[Howland937]

surely I could find a solid shooter from one of those 4, right?

Absolutely, and with room to be picky about other things such as size and finish. If you go with the commander size, it would even do well as a carry gun if you ever felt the need. And if you ever got bored with 9mm in your 1911, you're a barrel, recoil spring, extractor tune(maybe) and magazine away from a 9mm magnum. Couple hundred bucks and add a whole other caliber.

 

[JR24]

9mm 1911 -- Given the support for these, I have to seriously consider one. Ruger, Springfield Armory, Colt and Rock Island come to mind first. I'm sure there are other good companies, but surely I could find a solid shooter from one of those 4, right?

All will give you a solid shooter (lemons excepted).

I will say my most accurate 1911 is a Rock Island (though in 10mm), also my least expensive one. Finish issues? Tool marks and sharp edges all over the internals? Kinda rough operation not the silky smooth of higher dollar guns?

Yep, it has all those things yet is reliable and really accurate, with an acceptable trigger.

I’ve owned a couple Rugers and Colts and one Springfield as well as all were good. All were .45 but would be doubly sweet in 9mm (I know my old DW was, and my dad has a 9mm Wilson CQB that’s a lot of fun to shoot).

 

[Spats McGee]

Which one would you use and shoot the most out of what you listed? That should be a somewhat easy to figure out based on what firearm bases you already have covered, calibers your already have, ammo cost, and/or what you typically like to and enjoy shooting at the range and/or hunting with.

That's the $64K question, now isn't it? TBH, I'm not sure I know the answer to that right now. A little over 6 months ago, I took a new job & moved from an area with ~250K people to a town of <15K. To go shooting, it used to be about an hour from "starting to pack" to parking at the range. And then signing in, waiting for a lane, etc. Now, it's at least 30 minutes from Start to Park, but now I get to shoot out on the farm. I don't have to wait for lanes, and the only cease fires are the ones I call. There's no doubt but that I would shoot the Buckmark, but I do have other .22 semiautos. OTOH, I started stocking up on .22 some years ago, so I really don't have to worry about buying ammo. I have some .223, but not a ton. I could shoot a .223 bolt gun for a while, but I would eventually have to buy or learn to reload.

Absolutely, and with room to be picky about other things such as size and finish. If you go with the commander size, it would even do well as a carry gun if you ever felt the need. And if you ever got bored with 9mm in your 1911, you're a barrel, recoil spring, extractor tune(maybe) and magazine away from a 9mm magnum. Couple hundred bucks and add a whole other caliber.

I kind of figured those 4 would be able to meet my needs. I really, really do not need to go down the rabbit hole on 1911s again, though. Been there, and it's fascinating, but my wallet does not like where it leads.

Versatility is always a bonus, but I don't really see myself getting into 9mm magnum. I'm an old stick-in-the-mud with my calibers. The funny thing about this is that one of the reasons I bought this Shield was to have a Commander-sized .45 for carry. Then the Plus came out...

All will give you a solid shooter (lemons excepted).

I will say my most accurate 1911 is a Rock Island (though in 10mm), also my least expensive one. Finish issues? Tool marks and sharp edges all over the internals? Kinda rough operation not the silky smooth of higher dollar guns?

Yep, it has all those things yet is reliable and really accurate, with an acceptable trigger.

I’ve owned a couple Rugers and Colts and one Springfield as well as all were good. All were .45 but would be doubly sweet in 9mm (I know my old DW was, and my dad has a 9mm Wilson CQB that’s a lot of fun to shoot).

I'm oddly fond of good shooters that are a little rough around the edges. I dug around on SA, Colt and Ruger last night. Given my budget, Rock Island is looking real good. Besides, I've been curious about them for a long time.

 

[chicharrones]

That's the $64K question, now isn't it? TBH, I'm not sure I know the answer to that right now. A little over 6 months ago, I took a new job & moved from an area with ~250K people to a town of <15K. To go shooting, it used to be about an hour from "starting to pack" to parking at the range. And then signing in, waiting for a lane, etc. Now, it's at least 30 minutes from Start to Park, but now I get to shoot out on the farm. I don't have to wait for lanes, and the only cease fires are the ones I call. There's no doubt but that I would shoot the Buckmark, but I do have other .22 semiautos. OTOH, I started stocking up on .22 some years ago, so I really don't have to worry about buying ammo. I have some .223, but not a ton. I could shoot a .223 bolt gun for a while, but I would eventually have to buy or learn to reload.

I kind of figured those 4 would be able to meet my needs. I really, really do not need to go down the rabbit hole on 1911s again, though. Been there, and it's fascinating, but my wallet does not like where it leads.

Versatility is always a bonus, but I don't really see myself getting into 9mm magnum. I'm an old stick-in-the-mud with my calibers. The funny thing about this is that one of the reasons I bought this Shield was to have a Commander-sized .45 for carry. Then the Plus came out...

I'm oddly fond of good shooters that are a little rough around the edges. I dug around on SA, Colt and Ruger last night. Given my budget, Rock Island is looking real good. Besides, I've been curious about them for a long time.

That would swing me back to a rifle, if you're short on rifles. Rifles are my first "love" with firearms and having access to land to use them as intended is something I miss.

 

[grampster]

Hmmmm, I scrolled through the comments to see if anyone had anything to say about an LCP in .380. I spotted one from Swamp Wolf. I have one and am very content with it. I've had several pocket pistols; 2 Berettas Minx in .22 short, one Beretta .32 Tomcat, and a Baby Browning in .25 cal. The LCP in .380 fits the bill that I want in pocket firearm. It is purely a defensive weapon for close defense in my view. I shot it often with no issues, though I've always had a bit of jamming and lack of trust with the other smaller pistols in small caliber using hollow points, so my LCP is loaded with ball. I admit I've never shot any hollow points with it...though now I'm thinking about it now, I think I will run a few and see what happens.

 

[Spats McGee]

Again, thank you one and all for all of the information. I'm fairly sure that at some point, I'll pick up a Buckmark and an LCP-ish pocket pistol, and probably an FVSR, but I think that a centerfire bolt gun is probably the likely winner for the moment. There are two actual ranges locally. One has a 100 yard rifle range, and I just sent in my application to join that club. The other may (I'm not sure yet) have a 250- yard range, but it's costs about triple the amount of the first one.

So, I thank you again, and if I need more information on rifles, which seems likely, I'll start a thread in Rifle Country.

 

[Spats McGee]

The pistol is now sold, and I am in the process of buying a .223 bolt gun. Thank you, one and all.