judgecrater

Well done. Not much size difference between them but a little. Major price difference!

JeffWard

For concealed carry in Florida, where a "cover-garment" usually consists of an untucked t-shirt, the thin grip profile of the Shield is a home run. The other dimensions are of minimal concern. I'll trade my 9C for one soon. Likely in the 40, since I shoot both 40 and 9 now.



JeffWard

Rolex John

Interesting - so you're saying you think the Shield will print that dramatically different when wearing a t-shirt?

lane9

"But according to a source I spoke with that works closely with S&W, Smith was actually responding to the needs of military officers needing a small firearm to conceal with their dress uniforms more than any perceived need in the consumer market."



Do you have any way to verify that outside of an unnamed source? The market for small CCW handguns is huge; the number of military officers trying to conceal weapons in a dress uniform is not. On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense.

KRWeiss

+1



I've shot the M&P9S quite a bit already (about 2400 rounds between 2 of us) and find it to be relatively comfortable and a completely reliable weapon, now to get one in my prefered caliber. I dropped it in the pocket of my Levi 550 jeans but it didn't disappear completely like the LCP does, although it didn't print so badly that I wouldn't carry it that way. Drawing from the pocket was just a little tight, LCP draws a bit better but it doesn't come in a duty caliber.



Stuffed it in my belt (mexican carry) and it completely dissappeared under a regular fit t-shirt, bending and twisting didn't show a thing. The Shield in a Galco PF9 belt holster concealed much better under a Hawaiin shirt than previous M&P pistols (in a similar holster), IWB and it won't print at all.



- - - - - - - -



Surely you jest.



Bingo.

Rolex John

Actually it makes perfect sense. It's been widely reported that the entire M&P line was designed for Military and Police usage. That's who they design for, and that's who they listen to.

jasonuscg

It makes no sense at all; in only an off-base unofficial capacity could a military officer carry CCW while in "dress" and most are not going to spend valuable liberty time in a "dress uniform"...



The only ones with arms are base police, while all others, when armed are going to be on duty that require arms for their duties at only specifically given times and not whith personally owned arms.

MaddMax

I agree and been there. You ONLY carry your Combat Issued Weapon/side arm on duty.

lane9

OP,



Please don't take offense; I didn't quote your comment to embarrass you. I appreciate your contributions to this board. Your source, whoever it is, just did not give you good info.

Rolex John

Not necessarily - in the Air Force for example there is a process and procedure where you can purchase and carry a side arm other than what is standard issue.

Rolex John

None taken, however I think it's yet to be proven that the information wasn't good. If someone with a direct contact at S&W would like to contradict the information I was given, that's fine. But until then, I'll stand by my source.

lane9

It has been proven to be illogical, which should be a clue.



The military did not ask S&W for this pistol. There is no contract for the military to buy and issue them and the standing regs are that an unissued weapon is not authorized for carry. In addition it has been pointed out that very few individuals are even allowed to have weapons on military installations unless they are on active deployment, in which case they're not wearing their dress uniforms and are required to carry a weapon such as the M9 or M4/M16 at all times.



Let's pretend for a moment that it's true. Do you really think that S&W's board of directors sat at a table and decided to make a weapon for a non-existent market? 2010 demographics reveal that there were approximately 234,000 officers in the US military at that time. How many of those officers are even wearing a dress uniform on a regular basis? How many of them are allowed to carry a gun on base? How many of them are willing to jeopardize their career by carrying an unauthorized handgun in the dress uniform they hardly ever wear in the facility where they are not allowed to carry guns? There is no money there at all. Now consider reality: gun sales and CCW permits are at record high levels. There is a market demand for a single-stack 9mm that is easily concealed, and S&W recognized a lot of money on the table that they saw an opportunity to grab.



Your choice is between believing your source (which means S&W is the stupidest corporation ever that got really lucky their product is in demand with the civilian market) and looking at reality (S&W does what every free-market supplier does and introduced a product to meet a demand). It is much more likely that your source is wrong, and everyone else who has posted in this thread agrees.



ETA: I suck at spelling.

KRWeiss

It's an obvious fabrication by either John or his "friend", but since it's in print, our buddy John assumes that this is proof enough and we have to prove it incorrect rather than him prove it correct.



There are plenty of reasons to believe that S&W listened to their civilian customer base (including. LEO) who have been begging for a single stack M&P pistol, and no reason at all to believe that S&W invested millions in R&D and marketing (to the civilian market no less) at the private request of a military officer who wants a firearm that he would have NO opportunity to carry without violating regs. On the other hand, if it was for a military contract it should be easy enough to find.



Update (18 minutes after submitting the post above): I should have checked my email before posting.





You're a day late. Yesterday I sent an email to a V.P. at S&W, a source I've quoted in these forums a couple times before. Among other things, I quoted this paragraph form John's review and asked him if this information was correct:



"The M&P Shield seems to be designed to cater heavily to the consumer “CCW” concealed carry crowd. But according to a source I spoke with that works closely with S&W, Smith was actually responding to the needs of military officers needing a small firearm to conceal with their dress uniforms more than any perceived need in the consumer market."



He denies the suggestion that the military has "specifically requested a firearm for carry in dress uniform". While he didn't confirm or deny a request by the military for a single stack M&P pistol (which S&W would have immediately and proudly featured in an investor's bulletin) he directly and specifically refuted information that John included in his article.



Edit: Spelling, grammar and clarification. Added quote from John.

lane9

I want to give RJ the benefit of the doubt that he genuinely believes his source is reliable and desires to stay loyal to it.



On general principle, it can be detrimental to be loyal to a person over rational independant thinking without willingness to doubt or question.

MaddMax

Thank you. Unissued weapons not authorized.



In my day, we could have private weapons on post, BUT, they HAD to be locked up in and along with the Company Weapons. You could sign out your personal weapon (on weekends) but it was a pain in the arse doing it. Big enough pain to just avoid it. It was also forbiden using your private weapon for duty.

MaddMax

Just taked to my Foreman. He called and asked his older brother about that. He's a Full Bird, Battalion Commander (26 years) USAF. His answer was "NOT under my ...... command".

Rolex John

No it hasn't. The assertion has been called into question - that's not proof.





The military didn't ask S&W to make any weapon in the M&P line, and neither is there a contract for the military to acquire any M&P. Note that I never said the military asked M&P to make the Shield, or suggested there was a contract.



Once again, as has been WIDELY reported by S&W, the M&P was designed primarily with Military and Police usage in mind. That's who they design for, and that's who's input they rely on. That's been the key to their success with the M&P line - a recipe they did not deviate from when designing the Shield.

Rolex John

I do work at Wright-Patterson AFB and have spoken to active duty personnel directly on this topic who have indicated they are, within reason, free to carry the weapon of their choice.

Rolex John

I never suggested that the military specifically requested S&W make them a firearm. S&W did speak with military officers when designing the Shield, and created it based on their input. There's a difference.





Did he refute my article or your distortion of my article?