M&P 380 Shield EZ...Anyone have?/had?/shot?/carried? etc? (Wife needs "easy rack" LOL)

[JNewell]

Theres a version of the shield EZ that has no manual safety on it.... of course if you're just going by generic MA trash guns I don't know if that SKU is distributor kosher or
not.

A smith 642 has a long ass learning curve, so hopefully she's ready for that business....

-Mike

As one who has carried a J-frame for a very long time, most of them have triggers that require a fair bit of strength to fire and a lot of practice to fire well, and most people aren't going to spend a lot of time on the range with a J-frame. You can't just hand a J-frame to someone with small hands and relatively weak grip strength and think they're going to do well with a revolver.

Both the non-thumb safety and thumb safety versions are on the roster.

I don't understand the complaints about the grip safety. I can think of at least one other hammer-fired semiautomatic that has a grip safety and people seem to be able to get over that.

I bought one to shoot as a training tool, basically a centerfire .22. I've got 500 rounds through it with the only problems being caused by very weak range loads from Magtech that wouldn't cycle the slide four times during the first 100 or so rounds. Since then it's been flawless with HPs and ball ammo. Thumbs-up to S&W for really thinking a gun through for a new group of shooters and potential shooters.

 

[sschevy]

Any problems/issues/malfunctions/(etc etc) with the Shield EZ due to the "extra" safety on the grip?...

We’ve repairs a good number of EZ’s here at my shop but none of the issues were related to the grip safety

 

[straightshooterjake]

We all know that that the FBI test for a good load is 12" - 16" of penetration. Below you will see the results of both a popular .380 and 9mm.
Hornady 90 gr. critical defense and Hornady 115 gr. 9mm critical defense.
.380 penetration - 13.2"
9mm penetration - 13.1"
.380 expansion - .52"
9mm expansion - .51"
So here's a .380 load that not only out performed 9mm ammo, from same manufacturer but also out performed many of the popular 9mm loads from other manufacturers.

I agree that the .380 load described above shows very reasonable performance. But there is another aspect of performance that is not shown in the penetration and expansion numbers, which is rate of expansion. The rate of expansion describes how quickly the bullet expands to its fully expanded diameter. For example, if a bullet has expanded to .50" after 3" of penetration, and then continues at that size, it is more damaging than a bullet that begins to slowly expand after 4", and reaches its full .50" after 12". There is no way to easily measure and categorize this difference, but there is likely to be a visible difference when looking at the channel a clear gel block.

In this case, when we see that a .380 and a 9mm have similar penetration and total expansion, but we know that the 9mm is both heavier and faster, and has more than 50% more energy, so something has to be different, and rate of expansion is probably the key factor. In general, 9mm has enough energy that it can expand rapidly and still penetrate 12" or more. Whereas, a good number of .380 rounds have been shown to expand well, but only penetrate 9". This happens because the .380 round expanded too quickly for its limited amount of energy.

Getting a consistently controlled rate of expansion is a difficult engineering challenge, and it is an area where there have been significant improvements in the last few years. I am impressed by the performance shown by the Hornady .380 round in the above post. And if the results are consistent, I would consider it more than adequate for defensive purposes. But I am still doubtful that it makes a better wound channel than a round with much more energy.

 

[JNewell]

I think many of us, have thought of the .380, as a better than a sharp stick load. Me included. I've changed my mind, after seeing test results, of one particular .380 load. Gel test using 4 layers of denim in front of a block of ballistic gel. We all know that that the FBI test for a good load is 12" - 16" of penetration. Below you will see the results of both a popular .380 and 9mm.
Hornady 90 gr. critical defense and Hornady 115 gr. 9mm critical defense.
.380 penetration - 13.2"
9mm penetration - 13.1"
.380 expansion - .52"
9mm expansion - .51"
So here's a .380 load that not only out performed 9mm ammo, from same manufacturer but also out performed many of the popular 9mm loads from other manufacturers. These results beg the question.
Does your present 9mm load perform as well as the Hornady, 90 gr. critical defense .380?
FYI. You can see these results for yourself at "lucky gunner .com".

Here's another video showing performance of the .380 Federal 99gr HST load. I'm not really interested personally in carrying, say, a Glock 42 when the 43 is essentially the same size and weight, but there are a lot of people who are probably choosing between (1) nothing, (2) .22LR and (3) .380, and I know which I'd prefer from that group.

 

[Knob Creek]

Jake, EXCELLENT post.


I have a P238, my wife has an LC9S, an LCPII (and an Officer's ACP and a GP100, but that's besides the point).

BUT... I USED to carry an S&W 637. Traded it in and got a 642. Now I carry the P238. Honestly, I didn't LIKE shooting the 637 or the 642 - too much recoil for my taste. Before you armchair experts start in on my size, experience, etc, old hands on NES know me and that I'm not recoil shy. Shooting since 1979, IDPA, IPSC, Steel Challenge, pin shoots - Atilla can testify that I used to blow apart pins at North Leominster every month with my .44 Mag 629. If you were at the last Pumpkin Shoot, y'all saw me hit a soda can on the berm at about 80 yards with my 2.5" Model 19 .357. If I'm open carrying, it's a full-size 1911. I'm NOT recoil shy (even if I don't like Eddie Coyle's thermonuclear 500 S&W loads - I have shot them.) So recoil isn't much of an issue for me.

The 38 snubby is a handful and it isn't an easy gun to shoot. Michael DeBethencourt's Secrets of the Concealed Carry Snubby, which I have taken, is a GREAT class on the snubby, BTW. Putting this gun in the hands of a smaller or inexperienced shooter is a great way to get dust in the action - because it's going to sit in her dresser drawer after she shoots it once.

My wife and I have a small gun business. We bought one of the EZs for the shop after we sold several of them at shows - we wanted to try it ourselves. It's larger than, say, my P238 or Alix's LCPII. BUT it's got a very good trigger, it's VERY easy to rack (that's what sells most of the guns at the table - we have a lot of older customers who just do not have the hand strength any more to deal with most semis), it's got a good comfortable grip and the recoil is very easy and manageable. Yes, it's chambered in the somewhat more anemic .380 ACP. No, it's not a 9. But the .380 that is carried and practiced with is better than a 9 in the dresser drawer.

One other advantage that no one has mentioned yet. Reliability. My P238 and Ali's LCP II are BOTH somewhat ammo fussy. WWB White Box .380 JHP, for example, will choke in both our pocket guns (and I'm going to stop selling the stuff because of that). The 380EZ fed EVERYTHING we put in it without a single hiccup.

I was NOT a S&W semi fan - or I wasn't. I've been very impressed with the M&P semis I've handled and shot, though, and I am now a fan. If my wife (or I) carried the 380EZ, I wouldn't be worried. In my opinion, it's a very good gun.

"Why do I get the girl gun?" - Mrs Jane Smith, on being handed a J-frame.

Bringing Michael DeBethencourts snubby class to a range in SE Mass. Probably in September.

 

[M60]

I agree that the .380 load described above shows very reasonable performance. But there is another aspect of performance that is not shown in the penetration and expansion numbers, which is rate of expansion. The rate of expansion describes how quickly the bullet expands to its fully expanded diameter. For example, if a bullet has expanded to .50" after 3" of penetration, and then continues at that size, it is more damaging than a bullet that begins to slowly expand after 4", and reaches its full .50" after 12". There is no way to easily measure and categorize this difference, but there is likely to be a visible difference when looking at the channel a clear gel block.

In this case, when we see that a .380 and a 9mm have similar penetration and total expansion, but we know that the 9mm is both heavier and faster, and has more than 50% more energy, so something has to be different, and rate of expansion is probably the key factor. In general, 9mm has enough energy that it can expand rapidly and still penetrate 12" or more. Whereas, a good number of .380 rounds have been shown to expand well, but only penetrate 9". This happens because the .380 round expanded too quickly for its limited amount of energy.

Getting a consistently controlled rate of expansion is a difficult engineering challenge, and it is an area where there have been significant improvements in the last few years. I am impressed by the performance shown by the Hornady .380 round in the above post. And if the results are consistent, I would consider it more than adequate for defensive purposes. But I am still doubtful that it makes a better wound channel than a round with much more energy.

Your standards for .380 are very high. I find a .380 that passes the FBI gel test and expands to .52 caliber much more than very reasonable. In fact it's rather remarkable. While there are a few 9mm carry rounds that do achieve these results, by an large most 9mm carry ammo does not do as well as this .380 round does.

 

[JNewell]

Bringing Michael DeBethencourts snubby class to a range in SE Mass. Probably in September.

Mike is 100% worth taking a class with.

 

[mousegunfan]

I have a P238 and the EZ so I just did a comparison. I love to shoot the P238 so I was very interested to see how they varied. I’ve shot the P238 a lot so it’s defintely broken in. The EZ I’ve shot a handful of times so I expected it to be tight. The EZ definitely racks easier than the P238 though the P238 is very easy to rack. I like the trigger on the EZ better. While the EZ is bigger I kind of like that it is as it gave me more to grab when it’s racked. It’s almost like the increased slide mass helped to push it along when racking if that makes sense. Also there are little nibs on the magazines like a 22LR which allow you to push down on the spring while you load it which to me makes it easier to load. If I had to pick one I’d pick the EZ.

As a defensive weapon the EZ with a 1" longer barrel than the 238 is better. In 380 that 50ft per second may make a difference.

 

[Darryl smith]

That’s what I got my wife 2 years ago and she loves it