.45 Shield

They're made in MA - obviously they're MA compliant. Jk!

Im surprised at how S&W never, at least not in my recent memory, threw some weight into challenging some of the asinine gun laws in MA.

They probably own a portion of apex tactical and make profit off he triggers.
 
On my short list now. I don't know why though? I have a shield 9 that's a very soft shooter, plus holds 9 in a slim gun. Why do I want a more recoil/ muzzle flip with less rounds? Cause I can.... I guess.
 
They're made in MA - obviously they're MA compliant. Jk!

Im surprised at how S&W never, at least not in my recent memory, threw some weight into challenging some of the asinine gun laws in MA.

Ma Compliancy is a non issue.

Most of their models are compliant. Why would they care about changing the laws. They paid for the testing and feel that it keeps competitors who don't/ won't test out of the ma market. I'm actually surprised they bother bravo to them for doing so.

They sell lots of guns outside of MA. Putting any energy/money/time here on laws? They are much better off making products. It's our job to get laws changed.
 
Last edited:
I'll wait for Ruger's LC45.

Interesting.

That, or save up for the Kahr .45.

I still like the idea of the Taurus one. What was it, Millennial, or Millennium, or Titanium or 7-24 or something?

Choices are good things to have.
 
Interesting.

That, or save up for the Kahr .45.

I still like the idea of the Taurus one. What was it, Millennial, or Millennium, or Titanium or 7-24 or something?

Choices are good things to have.

Yeah except that if Taurus makes it, it's pretty much a 75% chance of buying a shitty, broken gun.
 
Yeah except that if Taurus makes it, it's pretty much a 75% chance of buying a shitty, broken gun.

See, I have the same opinion of Smiths, with the bonus that customer service is rude, dishonest, unprofessional and unfriendly. At least Taurus has decent customer service. But I know this is s losing argument on the internet.
 
Yeah except that if Taurus makes it, it's pretty much a 75% chance of buying a shitty, broken gun.

So you don't like Taurus, Kimber, or Para Ordnance. There's a lot of guns you don't like. I personally had a pt92 for a short time and I liked it better than my actual beretta. I thought it was more accurate. Only reason I went back to beretta was because the 92fs compact comes in Inox with a rail.
 
See, I have the same opinion of Smiths, with the bonus that customer service is rude, dishonest, unprofessional and unfriendly. At least Taurus has decent customer service. But I know this is s losing argument on the internet.

Smith is slowly working their way onto my shitlist, too.

I hope they turn the ship around, because they have a handful of products I actually like.


So you don't like Taurus, Kimber, or Para Ordnance. There's a lot of guns you don't like. I personally had a pt92 for a short time and I liked it better than my actual beretta. I thought it was more accurate. Only reason I went back to beretta was because the 92fs compact comes in Inox with a rail.

Yes, there are, but that's not really a huge part of the market. I will say that Krapber is a lot less ****ed up than the other two, but that's kinda damning with faint praise.


-Mike
 
So you don't like Taurus, Kimber, or Para Ordnance. There's a lot of guns you don't like. I personally had a pt92 for a short time and I liked it better than my actual beretta. I thought it was more accurate. Only reason I went back to beretta was because the 92fs compact comes in Inox with a rail.

Pretty sure he doesn't like Kel-Tec or HiPoint either. and definitely not Ruger. I'd imagine Rossi and Chiappa are in the running also. Maybe Mossberg and Marlin, and NEF, too.

In fact, the good list is pretty short for him, I think. That's OK, he has some good stuff to say in other areas other than gun choices.
 
Pretty sure he doesn't like Kel-Tec or HiPoint either. and definitely not Ruger. I'd imagine Rossi and Chiappa are in the running also. Maybe Mossberg and Marlin, and NEF, too.

Dunno about most of those other ones, but Ruger is not really on my shit list. I might not like a lot of the guns they make, for this or that reason, but most of their stuff usually works, and it's difficult to bash them as a
company. I had a MKII once that was ****ed up I sent it back to them and they replaced everything on that gun except the barrel and the frame. [laugh] Was pretty nice when it came back. (for a .22, that is)

I don't understand, for example, why skinflints buy shit like Taurus instead of a Ruger product. That's always been mind boggling to me, they want to save that last 40 bucks I guess or whatever it is, which is like a few boxes of ammo... [rofl]

Hi Point? [rofl] Then again, with the way some of these gun companies are going, Shit point is probably going to climb the ladder, in relative terms.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I wonder how that is going to take, I am sure we are not a priority.

Dean

I would disagree with you. Smith has pretty much made most of their stuff MA compliant. I see no reason for them to stop now especially considering the Shield was already MA compliant so it can't be that difficult a project from an engineering perspective. Probably waiting for the testing to be completed and then all the turn around time for the state to do their thing.
 
Talked to our boys at FS today inquiring about MA (approved) availability of the 45 Shield and the party line is no less than 1 year.

sent via Samsung Galaxy S6
 
Talked to our boys at FS today inquiring about MA (approved) availability of the 45 Shield and the party line is no less than 1 year.

The Real MA availability date is about 3-6 days after it shows up on gunbroker. [rofl] Whenever that is.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom