My wife recently completed a CCW class and I am looking for a pistol for her. We have looked at the M&P Shield and she liked the way it felt. I don't like the idea of buying a firearm without shooting one first. I am from the Omaha area and have looked at both the Bullet Hole in Omaha and Big Shots in Lincoln and neither of them have the Shield to rent.
Does anybody int the Omaha area have a M&P Shield that my wife and I can shoot.
Also does anybody have an opinion good or bad regarding the Shield?
OPINION! So take that for what it is worth...
The Shield is an excellent overall gun for CCW. For many people, the small size means they'll carry it all the time. The trigger is decent (not great, the Kahr pistols are definitely better, the Ruger LC9 pistols are worse), sights are good, action is reliable---overall, a perfectly decent choice.
That being said:
1) Does your wife need a small gun for carry? Or would a larger one work also? (In other words, how does she plan to carry?) Reason for this question: larger pistols are simply easier to shoot well---both in accuracy, recoil control, and comfort. Guns like the Glock 19 and the M&P Compact are only a little larger, but MUCH easier to shoot well. Full-size pistols even more so.
2) Has she taken a look at the Kahr K9, Ruger's LC9, or the Beretta Nano for comparison purposes? Personally, I think that the Shield is better than the Nano or the LC9 for a number of reasons, but is worse than the K9. Among other things, the Shield's bore axis is rather high compared to the grip, and as such, the muzzle flip is not minor compared to the K9. (The LC9 and the Nano's axis line isn't that great, either.) The Glock 26 is a great gun also, and depending on body type, the fact that the gun is thicker won't make much difference. I'm glad you want to have her shoot it first before buying---for the subcompacts, it isn't so much if the gun is comfortable in her hands, as it is something that is even remotely comfortable to SHOOT. Recoil in a subcompact is a much bigger deal than in full-size weapons, and small differences in gun design can translate to big differences in perceived recoil and muzzle blast.
(Personal comment: I carry a G17 year-round with no issues. I know women who carry G26s all the time, and others who switch from Kahr K9s in the summer to Glock 19s in the winter. I also know a woman who carries a full-size 1911 all the time. It really all depends on body type and finding the right holster.)
So---the Shield is a perfectly good gun. Is it your choice because it is small, and you think it's the only thing that'll conceal well on her? Or is it because she has tried a number of guns and holsters, and decided that her lifestyle, body type, and clothing types effectively specify a gun of that type/size?
3) Are you positive you want to go with a .40? Given current-day ammunition loads, the 9mm (literally) is just as effective as the .40 load, and the 9mm is a LOT cheaper, and a LOT easier on your hands to shoot. .40 out of a full-size duty weapon has noticeably more recoil and muzzle blast (with no commensurate increase in ballistic effectiveness) than 9mm---and out of a smaller gun like a sub-compact, the difference can be jarring.
Another way to put that: People have a hard enough time practicing their firearms skills as it is. Most people really don't like to practice with a subcompact loaded in .40, because it simply isn't very much fun.
This isn't to say that no one likes it---plenty of people do shoot .40 out of smaller guns, and do just fine. My point is merely that if you were going with .40 because someone told you it was the best thing out there----then get a 9mm instead. It is just as effective, ammo is cheaper, and it is much more likely that you and your wife will practice with it. (Plus, having 7+1 rounds instead of 6+1 is nice.)
If, on the other hand, you are convinced that the .40 is simply better, then you should go with the caliber you want. After all, the above is merely my opinion, and no one needs to listen to me.
Just some thoughts...
