Something New from Smith & Wesson

But much more quality than the LC9... Hell Kahr's are known to be low quality. I love my PM9 and P9 both non-MA versions, but I am wel aware I had to sacrifice quality then to get that sub-compact single stack 9mm.. When the LC9 came out many people didn't bother who were still holding out for a quality single stack 9mm to come out. This may be it? Only time will tell, I am looking forward to grabbing one of these ASAP.

Yes. That is exactly what I was thinking. I only wish someone would build a quality gun similar or even smaller than PM9. It seems most are trying these days, but are failing. There are 5 or 6 choices on the market at this time and the all suck in some way. It also seems that many are trying to compete on price, which IMHO is unnecessary. I do not want $300-350 ok SD gun. I am ok with paying $500-800 for perfect SD gun. Take this S&W for example. It’s at least 0.5” too long and 0.25” too tall and 0.05” too wide and 3-4oz too heavy. It has useless safety, and probably mag disconnect. I bet the trigger will have to be reworked. And it has a fixed backstrap. The adjustable CT laser backstrap was a huge selling point for me to choose M&Pc over G26/G19.

Given it’s current size this should be 8+1 gun with 3.5 barrel. If it was and did not have the safety and head the CT backstrap laser, I would seriously consider it as M&Pc replacement. But as is, there is not much to get excited over. The price is reasonable and quality probably is ok. But Beretta Nano quality should be ok too and their price is also reasonable. But Nano is at least trying to compete with PM9, while this thing is competing with LC9. Bottom line is that Ruger sales will drop. Other than that there is nothing to see here.
 
Take it apart and look at the machining. The frame, rails seating in the plastic etc. Again, I stated I LOVE my PM9 and mine too has been flawless with well over 2,000 rounds through it! It works great, but the manufacturing of guns are of lower quality than that of larger name brands.

i dont know where you come up with "lower quality" from kahr. they use high grades of materials and have the best barrel in its class. they are a little pricey for the pm9's but do offer lower priced models and of all my pistols none gets carried more than my pm9 and it shows less wear than my glock... grade a in the quality department imho.
.
as far as this s&w goes, they are showing up late to a dance everyone has been at and came with a mediocre date! i will reserve full judgement until i handle one but its looking to be about the same as a pps.
 
I agree with that totally, I got rid of a K series steel frame because I just didn't like the weight. My point of seeking out the small subcompact was the weight. They are quality and handle the recoil better obviously due to the steel/weight.

I still have them. On occasion I'll carry the K9 or K40. If I'm carrying in a belt holster, a few extra ounces doesn't bother. The MK9 is a bit more problematic -- it is just too much weight in my pocket.
 
LC9:
L - 6"
W - 0.9"
H - 4.5"

Shield:
L - 6.1"
W - 0.95"
H - 4.6"


PM9
Length O/A: 5.42"
Slide Width: .90"
Height: 4.0"



and they all have the same length barrel. .6" and .7" don't seem like much until you try to get a gun that size into or out of your pocket.
 
i might have missed it, but is this going to be MA compliant? I saw the trigger pull is 6.5lbs, and I thought it needed to be higher here, ny, ca, etc.

i think from these specs, not quite pocketable. well, maybe cargo pants.

i was looking at .380 for pocket, even the pm9 i thought too big and heavy, my feel was all the 9s needed holster on a belt. This is a notch above pm9 as dixidawg points out. My smartphone is like 6 oz and i can't wear jeans without a belt, it pulls them down a bit!
 
i might have missed it, but is this going to be MA compliant? I saw the trigger pull is 6.5lbs, and I thought it needed to be higher here, ny, ca, etc.
!

It probably will be eventually, S&W will probably make a crap trigger version for MA, which we will promptly repair of course... [rofl]

-Mike
 
It probably will be eventually, S&W will probably make a crap trigger version for MA, which we will promptly repair of course... [rofl]

-Mike

Looking for Apex Tactical to get internal parts made for these bad-boys... [grin]

Especially if these "mini-M&P's" have the same mushy trigger with horrible reset.
 
I saw an article from the SacBee that there was a CA compliant model already available for sale. I would assume the MA one is the same.

I don't think CA has the 10+ pound trigger gayness in their law. Their testing though is similar to MA's EOPS testing. So S&W getting it on the roster won't take much, it's the CMR940 BS that is the problem.

-Mike
 


This is a really, really good video. They should drop some coin and get these on our local channels. (yeah right)

+1 to them for filming locally.

I dig it, very interested in checking one out. I really like my 9c but it can be bulky. With a broken-in crossbreed it looks like it could be a good year round carry piece.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think CA has the 10+ pound trigger gayness in their law. Their testing though is similar to MA's EOPS testing. So S&W getting it on the roster won't take much, it's the CMR940 BS that is the problem.

-Mike

You are correct. CA only requires the magazine lock-out and a LCI on pistols.

In MA we need the LCI and 10+lb trigger but maybe, just maybe, they'll toss in the mag-safety for good measure.
 
S&W has already shown that they won't use that (a manual safety) on a striker fired handgun to comply with CMR940. I doubt they will do it this time, either.

-Mike

I am keeping the faith. With MA Kahrs + Rugers That this gun is designed to compete with, I think they have to.
 
I am keeping the faith. With MA Kahrs + Rugers That this gun is designed to compete with, I think they have to.

The lever will be there, but I would be surprised if it ships as "MA compliant" with a 6.5 pound trigger.

-Mike
 
I would buy this gun if it has a 6.5lb trigger I'm not paying more to have a decent trigger(Trigger job or apex kit). I already did that with my M&P .40 and it still isn't the same as a free state trigger. This M&P shield is essentially the same as the lc9 except it's striker fired. Nowhere in the law does it say a striker means it needs a 10lb bull**** trigger that ruins the gun.

940 CMR 16.05: Sale of Handguns Without Childproofing:

(2) It shall be an unfair or deceptive practice for a handgun-purveyor to transfer or offer to transfer to any customer located within the Commonwealth any handgun which does not contain a mechanism which effectively precludes an average five year old child from operating the handgun when it is ready to fire; such mechanisms shall include, but are not limited to: raising trigger resistance to at least a ten pound pull, altering the firing mechanism so that an average five year old child's hands are too small to operate the handgun, or requiring a series of multiple motions in order to fire the handgun. <<EXAMPLE IS A EXTERNAL SAFETY which the gun has
 
This is a shame :(

Anyone email s&w yet?

Don't get down in the dumps about it... it WILL be compliant, you will likely just have to repair the trigger just like every other M&P.

S&W would be 110% boneheaded not to market this gun in MA, as it faces very little competition in its class. It will sell like crazy.

-Mike
 
I would buy this gun if it has a 6.5lb trigger I'm not paying more to have a decent trigger(Trigger job or apex kit). I already did that with my M&P .40 and it still isn't the same as a free state trigger. This M&P shield is essentially the same as the lc9 except it's striker fired. Nowhere in the law does it say a striker means it needs a 10lb bull**** trigger that ruins the gun.

There's nothing in the lawbut if you read CMR940 you will note that it is very ambiguous. History has also shown that the AG's office has lots of "extra special hate" towards striker fired handguns.

hands are too small to operate the handgun, or requiring a series of multiple motions in order to fire the handgun. <<EXAMPLE IS A EXTERNAL SAFETY which the gun has

Then answer this question- Why did S&W pull the M&P .45 with the external safety on it a few years ago? A few MA dealers were selling them then abruptly stopped- because S&W basically said "not AG reg compliant, do not sell this" and then a few months passed, and then the M&P .45's with the MA crap trigger came out in lieu of the ones with the external safety. I'm not sure what happened last time, whether it was the AG, or whether S&Ws lawyers balked, but either way, "someone" felt that the external safety on the gun was not enough. My guess is this has to do with the AG's built in prejudice against striker fired handguns.

Food for more thought: Why does S&W put a crap trigger on the M&Ps that have magazine safeties, for example?

BTW, "series of multiple motions" is not defined ANYWHERE under MGL or CMR940. It's a bullshit nostrum that only the AG's office knows the meaning of. Hell, by definition EVERY handgun could require a "series of multiple motions" to fire if you left it unloaded, and if that term was taken liberally, then every handgun could be made CMR940 compliant just by selling it unloaded. [laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom