CCW opinions please

[BDC_PAIN]

I'm looking to acquire a new gun for when I go to the CCW class. I wanted to get it soon that way I can spend some quality time at the range with it first. I'm looking for anyone's feedback who owns either of these two types of pistols or knows of them and can give me some pros and cons I might not read normally on the big dealer sites.

S&W MP shield .40
And
Springfield Armory XD .40

What ever light you can shine on these two is appreciated.
I have held both at my local gun shop both feel great in my hand.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Two very different guns. The Shield is a sub-sub-compact (mouse gun) while the XD40 is a fullsize pistol. Even the compact XD is much bigger than the Shield, the M&P Compact would be te S&W equivalent.

Don't like XDs, and don't have any experience with the Shield. I do know I wouldn't want such a small gun chambered in .40.

 

[ericlosh]

The shield is nice, personal prefrence after spending some time on 9mm, 40 and 45 has led me to believe the choice should be between 9mm and 45, and when one isnt offered take the other. Enough about what i think about your decision to get it in .40 though....for ccw the sheild would likely be your best bet, single stack means oh so easy to conceal, and i was able to hold a sheild when they came out, its not mouse gun size, it would be fun at the range too. Its still a very small gun but your whole hand fits on the grip, which is a great thing.

 

[Guate_shooter]

I have owned many xd's (before the xdm's came out) and even though they tend to have a much better trigger than any of the other plastic guns in the market the grip safety BS is a deal breaker for me.

I own several M&P's and also own a Shield, the Shield is not really a mouse size gun she is just a hair bigger. I find it almost impossible to fit inside a front pants pocket comfortable. YES she is single stack but not small by any means, that being said the grip is super narrow so if you DO have small hands they tend to feel amazing, Im not sure I would want something like that in 40 S&W though she will probably be snappy as hell and the BIGGEST down side of the shield is accessories in the market do not exist. I cannot even find extra magazines for it at this time.

I would look into an M&P Compact or Glock 19

 

[Pops 1]

I have had a few students come through my class with a Ruger SR9c, they have shot very well with no problems.

 

[Bearco]

Where are you located? I also agree with the above from Speed and the Guatemalan.

 

[BDC_PAIN]

I appreciate all the responses already. Truth be told I am leaning toward the shield as it felt right in my hand and the size seemed like it would work well as a CCW. Why the dislike of 40 in this size weapon? If you can put your shots on target with what you carry would something with the power of 40 not work better then a 9mm? I know 9mm have great penetration but the energy transfer to your target does matter or does it not? Not looking to start any arguments just looking for knowladge to better understand other owners train of though on these weapons and calibers. LA CHP I am located outside of Baton Rouge in New Roads.

 

[Bearco]

Remember that is is not only putting shots on target, but doing so efficiently. We want a large volume of hits in a short amount of time. This requires recoil management, which is difficult for a lot of people when shooting a 40S&W. The issues are magnified when shooting a smaller handgun.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[BDC_PAIN]

So the issue is controlling the smaller gun in 40 cal. I'm used to shooting my 1911 which I know is a much larger and heavier weapon. That is why I see 40 as a good for me as it's only 1 rd less in the shield then 9mm capacity.

 

[thatwhichisnt]

If you are set on the 40 then I would go with the glock 23. I know it is not on your list, but I got it and highly recommend it. I ditched my MP9 for it.

Shield would be a good backup gun, but personally I like something a little bigger. My 23 holds 13+1 and conceals easy in a loose tshirt.

 

[BDC_PAIN]

I'm not set on the 40 it just semmed like the best choice. I'm asking theses questions to get a better understanding of others feelings. Granted I understand a lot of hand guns are all user preference how you use it in this case CCW. Most of the time I have heard the argument for 9mm was for capacity advantage it gave. I personally have never shot a 40 I should call Percision shooting range and see what they have in 40 I can rent and see how that fells.

 

[Booseman]

I'm not set on the 40 it just semmed like the best choice. I'm asking theses questions to get a better understanding of others feelings. Granted I understand a lot of hand guns are all user preference how you use it in this case CCW. Most of the time I have heard the argument for 9mm was for capacity advantage it gave. I personally have never shot a 40 I should call Percision shooting range and see what they have in 40 I can rent and see how that fells.

You definitely need to go shoot a .40. It is a lot more "snappy" than a .45, especially a steel framed 1911. The smaller the gun gets the more difficult the recoil management becomes. So in an M&P Shield the recoil is going to be greater than say a Glock 23. IMHO

 

[thatwhichisnt]

40 has a good snap to it, but the glock tames it well.

The difference between 9 and 40 isn't much. 9s are cheaper, easier to shoot ( less recoil and such), and have higher capacity. The 40 has more consistent ballistic performance and is much better at holding its own when having to shoot through barriers such as glass and wood ( three dollar word is intermediate barriers). The negative is less capacity and more recoil. I carry a 40 because I think of worst case scenarios, however I never felt unsafe with a 9.