S&W M&P Shield in 40?

[Vonz90]

So I am considering replacing my LC9 with a Shield in 40 SW.

Like this for anyone unfamiliar with them http://concealednation.org/2015/08/fire ... eld-40-sw/

My thought for going with 40 is it is the same size and capacity so I figure might as well get a bigger round.

Another plus is that the 2.0 is out (which is supposedly only very minor chamges) so there are original versions available for very good prices.

Any contrary thoughts or things I might want to consider?

[randy]

No experience with the Shield, but I do know that my .40 Hi Power was less pleasant to shoot than my 9mm Hi Power. A very distinct snap impulse that I have not felt on 9mm, .45ACP or .357Mag.

Not punishing or unworkable, but not fun either.

I am also coming around to the point of view that ammo development has progressed to the point that when using good quality modern defensive ammo the difference between 9mm and .40 is negligible.

Bottom line is that I won't be spending any money on another .40. YMMV

[Netpackrat]

Yeah all the cool kids are using 9mm now. Even I, after years of being 10mm guy, have started carrying one.

Other place where I hang out, the subject of handgun effectiveness came up once, and one of the Israeli dudes observed that 9mm ball always seemed to get the job done for them.

[Gunnuts]

I bought a Wather PPS M1 in 40 S&W with the same idea; a small carriable pistol with some extra pop.

I found it was the way Randy said, its one snappy mofo.

With practice I think I can get to the point I would feel confident carrying it, but it will take some time.

Like NPR, I'm carrying a 9mm (Sig P938) because its even smaller and I can hit what I'm shooting at confidently.

That doesn't help with your decision much, but at least now I know I'm one of the cool kids.

[Netpackrat]

You’re apparently not really cool unless you’re rocking a Roland Special AIWB.

[Gunnuts]

Charlie Brown - Rats.jpg

[Vonz90]

I am never one of the cool kids, so in that sense, going with a 40 probably makes sense.

My thought with the 40 over 9 is not that I do not think 9 is adequate, but a matter of trade offs. If by using a 9 I would get more rounds or a smaller pistol, then I would get the 9. But between the 9 and 40 Shields, the have the same size and capacity so all I am giving up is having more recoil and recoil does not bother me generally, especially as I normally only out 200-300 rounds a year (at most) through my carry pistol.

So the trade offs are about 20% more muzzle energy vs more recoil.

If I get a different platform, then maybe different calculation. But the prices on new old (not 2.0) Shields are kind of attractive at the moment.

[BDK]

40s are very snappy IMO. I wouldn't want one in a small gun

[Netpackrat]

What BDK said.... Also, 200-300 rounds is basically one range session for me through my carry pistol (higher total usually due to shooting other stuff too). I definitely don’t get to the range enough for currency but I cannot imagine intentionally having that low of a yearly practice budget... Especially out if a lightweight, relatively snappy pistol.

[scipioafricanus]

Have a 9 Shield. It can be "snappy" depending on the ammo. I would never try it in a 40. Try it with this stuff though. This 9mm ammo is great in my Shield and SIG 365: https://www.sgammo.com/product/hornady- ... ammo-90240