I got the M&P Shield in 40 years ago and was not too happy with the recoil it gave me. After doing a straight trade, I fell in love with the 9mm, though it's grip still left a lot to be desired. It was the perfect height for a complete grip, but I really thought a 4" barrel was more desirable. In fact, now that is a common thing to see, but only out of the Performance Center for a couple hundred more bucks. No thanks. I ended up giving up the Shield for other pistols in hopes that I would find the holy grail. Never really happened, so I ended up just getting the 2.0 Shield since the grip was upgraded, despite the extra $50 or so dollars it cost me. So was it worth the upgrade?
CHANGES IN DESIGN
The original Shield was/is not a bad gun, and in fact it did, and still does, set the standard for pistols of it's size. However, that does not mean that it was free of issues that could have been improved to help it attract more customers and stay relevant in performance.
Grip Texture- The biggest problem that the original model faced is the fact that it had/has a smooth grip texture, which allows it to slip in your hand while firing at times. I know the .40 definitely needed help in the grip to make it more attractive to me.
Trigger Pull- This was the second issue many people other than myself really noticed. They said that the trigger was TOO gritty and even heavy. They also whined that there was not a loud and tactile reset. I used to be into trigger reset, but once my focus was on pulling the trigger and getting my next shot on target as fast as possible, reset was unnoticeable and therefore irrelevant altogether. That said, the trigger pull is much smoother and there is a new placement of the trigger stop as well. There is very little noticeable difference between the original and 2.0 trigger systems besides a dimple on the trigger bar on the 2.0, but that is all I could see.
Slide Serrations- The slide serrations on the original model were not bad, but the fancy feast crowd wanted to have the pistol match their press check fetish, so S&W accommodated that with a thin strip of serrations at the front of the fun for people that prefer to shake hands with the muzzle when charging the gun or confirming what they already know. This is one of the things I consider to be a waste. Just because it is in vogue doesn't justify putting it on the next model.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES
There are a few things that I feel S&W could have done to improve the pistol and some of the components. But this is just ideas from the peanut gallery at this point. First thing is I think that they could have made an indent on the barrel for aligning the recoil spring properly. The extractor could have been redesigned to act as a loaded chamber indicator in my opinion. Lastly, I think that this pistol could easily have a rail added, though it may have been more of a pain. However, this part probably would be the best selling point for the pistol. The last thing is I wish more of the 2.0 models would be made in a 4" version since most 9mm is rated for use out of 4" instead of 3". And yes, an inch will make a big difference in performance, just ask your wife.
WORTH IT OR NOT?
In my opinion, the 2.0 is pretty much what the original Shield should have been, beside things like the Gucci slide serrations up front. It feels like the original Shield model was a prototype S&W just threw at the market to draw interest, and the 2.0 is the real finished product that they ultimately intended to offer the market. If you have ever seen the difference between prototype and final product weapons, you may see what I am talking about. I plan on keeping this pistol, but I still get that itch to replace it for an underdog like the Honor Guard from Honor Defense. I am an underdog fan, but how can you know you have the best out there? This design is proven and supported, so I always have a good excuse for sticking with it.
RSS Feed