M&P Shield .40 on the verge of Kaboom?

Storm lake is giving out mixed messages on the barrels. In separate e-mails to the company, I got one person telling me that the Shield conversion barrels were next in line for production and then last week got another person telling me that they were unsure if they were going to proceed with production. This was in reference to a 40 to 9 conversion barrel, so my info might not pertain to any 357 sig plans they have.

Thanks, My direct question to them was a 357SIG barrel. Hopefully they will follow through. If not, I will look for a Sig P224 next and dump the Shield idea [wink]
 
Man, I am now officially confused. was going to pick up a 40 shield this week, but as I read reviews online (EVERYWHERE) there are these horror stories. And not just confined to the S&W Shield. The gist of the arguments is that the ammo and guns are being cranked out so quickly to meet demand, that quality control took a back seat. I REALLY don't want to pick up a gun that will blow up in my hand (like I see posted on the S&W forum, LOL).

The problem is that .40 S&W doesn't belong in a relatively tiny single stack handgun, period, end, full stop. It's a stupid idea and guns configured as
such should have never been manufactured. I'd say the same thing about most small .45s too but there are exceptions, like the G36 and the XDs... at least those two guns, generally work.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Recently I have seen a lot of crap ammo as well. I took my 38 to the range the other day with 2 fresh boxes of Remington 38sp. After firing on of many cylinders on one I could not push the brass ejector. Used the bench for leverage and it came out. One of the cases was split right down the side. I think they are putting out ammo so fast that the quality control sucks.

If it was UMC that ammo has always been crap. It was slightly less crap 10 years ago but even back in 2004 it was still meh enough to put it on my "don't buy this unless you have no choice" list. [laugh]

-Mike
 
The problem is that .40 S&W doesn't belong in a relatively tiny single stack handgun, period, end, full stop. It's a stupid idea and guns configured as
such should have never been manufactured. I'd say the same thing about most small .45s too but there are exceptions, like the G36 and the XDs... at least those two guns, generally work.

-Mike

Agreed 110%. The first time I shot a Kahr PM40 I laughed. My friend asked why. It told him that semi-auto makers have finally reached a previously unreachable point of producing an unshootable product by cramming the largest possible caliber in the smallest possible gun.

There IS a reason you see so many small .40 cal defensive guns for sale.

Don

p.s. Prior to the PM40,, if you wanted something truly unshootable (think S&W 340 PD) you had to go with a revolver. ;-) Its a dubious achievement.
 
I wonder how the Glock 29 fairs. I read how people think the G27 is too small for a 40, so I wonder about the 10mm. I have a M&P 40c and like it (now that I had the trigger done) and I have a G22 & G21 which I like, but I shot a buddies G26 and it just felt too small in my hand. So I can just imagine what a G27 or G29 would feel like.
 
I wonder how the Glock 29 fairs. I read how people think the G27 is too small for a 40, so I wonder about the 10mm. I have a M&P 40c and like it (now that I had the trigger done) and I have a G22 & G21 which I like, but I shot a buddies G26 and it just felt too small in my hand. So I can just imagine what a G27 or G29 would feel like.

The g29 slide is thick.
it shoots nice though.
 
I got a chance to shoot a G29 about 3 years ago. It recoiled less than I thought it would. But it was surprisingly heavy. I suspect the 10mm is losing a lot of velocity out of such a short barrel. That will also reduce recoil.
 
Back
Top Bottom