S&W announced they will offer an aluminum alloy framed M&P and I just happen to have been shooting an aluminum alloy compact Wonder Nine pretty much since the concept was created.
When I got my Shield 2.0 9mm I was struck by just how similar everything was to my 469 that was from 1985. And that got me thinking (siempre peligroso), just how new is 'NEW'?
Looking at the basics, dimensions, ergonomics, capacity and function; just what pertinent differences exist?
Striker fired pistols have been around since the 1890s so that's not new.
Well the Shield models are single stack and almost identical in all dimensions to a compact 39 if S&W had made a compact 39 while the current M&P line are double sack and correspond very very closely to the 59 series. Grip angles as well as the distance from the back of the grip to the trigger on the Shields are as close to identical as possible. The M&Ps though do have exchangeable back straps allowing some adjustment.
My S&W M&P Shield 2.0 9mm sitting on top of my S&W 469 (top of slides & rear of grip aligned):
Note the base of the grips, the angle and width of the grips, reach to the trigger and front strap alignment.
But what about the slightly wider Shield 45?
Surprisingly the 469 fits perfectly in my Shield 45 kydex holster.
In capacity the Shield 9mms being single stack hold fewer rounds than my 469 that came standard with 10, 13 or 15 round (59) magazines.
My 469 with one of my 15 round magazines has the same capacity as my Shield 2.0 9mm with both magazines.
But what is the weight difference? So I checked and weighed each with the Shield 9mm and 15 + 1 rounds.
So the weight difference isn't really all that much; around 3 ounces or so. When some one gets one of the new S&W aluminum M&Ps I hope they will do a similar weight check.
So just what is new?
I much prefer the manual safety on the new Shield to the slide mount push forward to fire safeties on the original Wonder Nines but it's not a really big difference. The 469 is hammer fired rather than striker but since I started out with a bazillion pound trigger H&R 22 caliber revolver and my first pistol was a single action hammer fired Beretta 70 plus having owned and shot both hammer and striker fired pistols for over a half century that is a non-issue for me.
The sights are equally good although I do like the 469s |_| and dot slightly more than the Shields three dot. Again though that's probably just familiarity.
The 469 shoots noticeably softer than my Shield 9mm but whether that is simply the wider double stack grip, the slightly heavier weight or the aluminum alloy vs polyester frame I can't say. Most likely it's a combination of all three plus over thirty years of familiarity. But working from memory (which is usually a mistake) my 469 and 5906 both shot softer than my 39 so I imagine grip width plays a major role.
If I came across an aluminum framed M&P 9mm I'd be tempted to buy but not at the nearly $1K price range.
When I got my Shield 2.0 9mm I was struck by just how similar everything was to my 469 that was from 1985. And that got me thinking (siempre peligroso), just how new is 'NEW'?
Looking at the basics, dimensions, ergonomics, capacity and function; just what pertinent differences exist?
Striker fired pistols have been around since the 1890s so that's not new.
Well the Shield models are single stack and almost identical in all dimensions to a compact 39 if S&W had made a compact 39 while the current M&P line are double sack and correspond very very closely to the 59 series. Grip angles as well as the distance from the back of the grip to the trigger on the Shields are as close to identical as possible. The M&Ps though do have exchangeable back straps allowing some adjustment.
My S&W M&P Shield 2.0 9mm sitting on top of my S&W 469 (top of slides & rear of grip aligned):
Note the base of the grips, the angle and width of the grips, reach to the trigger and front strap alignment.
But what about the slightly wider Shield 45?
Surprisingly the 469 fits perfectly in my Shield 45 kydex holster.
In capacity the Shield 9mms being single stack hold fewer rounds than my 469 that came standard with 10, 13 or 15 round (59) magazines.
My 469 with one of my 15 round magazines has the same capacity as my Shield 2.0 9mm with both magazines.
But what is the weight difference? So I checked and weighed each with the Shield 9mm and 15 + 1 rounds.
So the weight difference isn't really all that much; around 3 ounces or so. When some one gets one of the new S&W aluminum M&Ps I hope they will do a similar weight check.
So just what is new?
I much prefer the manual safety on the new Shield to the slide mount push forward to fire safeties on the original Wonder Nines but it's not a really big difference. The 469 is hammer fired rather than striker but since I started out with a bazillion pound trigger H&R 22 caliber revolver and my first pistol was a single action hammer fired Beretta 70 plus having owned and shot both hammer and striker fired pistols for over a half century that is a non-issue for me.
The sights are equally good although I do like the 469s |_| and dot slightly more than the Shields three dot. Again though that's probably just familiarity.
The 469 shoots noticeably softer than my Shield 9mm but whether that is simply the wider double stack grip, the slightly heavier weight or the aluminum alloy vs polyester frame I can't say. Most likely it's a combination of all three plus over thirty years of familiarity. But working from memory (which is usually a mistake) my 469 and 5906 both shot softer than my 39 so I imagine grip width plays a major role.
If I came across an aluminum framed M&P 9mm I'd be tempted to buy but not at the nearly $1K price range.
