A S&W Squeeze Cock?

No mention of a grip safety but a "load assist button" though that sounds like it might be part of the magazine. It would not makes sense to offer a pistol with a grip safety and then an option for a manual thumb safety but you never know. Looks like regular trigger with no safety dingus. We should find out more shortly. Glad they are coming out with a pistol tailored for those who have issues with hand strength and/or hand pain.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2018/2/5/smith-wesson-introduces-mp380-shield-ez-pistol/
In the past when a pistol manufacturer touted a new gun entry as having easy slide manipulation—even with a .380-cal.—we have taken the assertion with a grain of salt until we’ve had some hands-on experience. In the case of the just-announced Smith & Wesson M&P380 Shield EZ, we can attest that indeed, the pistol lives up to its claims.

American Rifleman editors had some early range time last fall with the new .380 ACP addition to the very popular M&P Series, and have been eagerly awaiting its announcement. We’ll be putting the pistol through our regular test and evaluation protocol in the coming weeks, but here’s what we can tell you in terms of features:

The pistol, which offers an 8+1 round capacity, ships with two 8-round magazines that include a load-assist button, as well as a Picatinny-style rail for accessories. Barrel length is 3.675”, and the pistol is outfitted with white-dot front and adjustable white-dot rear sights. Along with tapped rear slide serrations, a one-piece single-action trigger and audible trigger reset, it also features an 18-degree grip angle for a natural point of aim, as well as enhanced, textured grips. A tactile loaded-chamber indicator, a reversible magazine release, and available ambidextrous thumb safety round out its many ergonomically friendly features. The pistol will be available nationwide at the end of Feb. 2018 at an MSRP of $399.

“When we set out to design the M&P380 Shield EZ pistol, our goal was to deliver an all-around, easy to use personal protection pistol—from loading and carrying, to shooting and cleaning,” said Jan Mladek, General Manager of M&P and S&W Brands. “... We focused on key areas that customers told us were important—the ease of racking the slide and loading the magazine,” he said, “allowing consumers of all statures and strengths the opportunity to own, comfortably practice with, and effectively utilize this exciting new pistol“ for both first-time shooters and experienced handgunners alike.
Click to expand...
 
marine6680 said:
Yeah... I doubt it's a cocker...

That early in the AM, and my brain was trying to justify it's existence... If it provides no additional functionality... They why?

Still think a grip safety is dumb on this pistol.

Having an easier to use pistol for those with weaker hands, that's a good niche to fill though.
Click to expand...

John Browning favored the grip safety in his pistol designs until the Army made him put a thumb safety on the 1911.

A grip safety makes sense as an automatic safety on a gun with a short, light, single-action trigger. And a grip safety hinged at the bottom (Browning 1910 or Colt 1903) seems to be more easily reliable than one hinged at the top (Colt 1911).

Just looking at the distance between the S&W's trigger and its trigger stop makes it obvious that the gun has a short trigger travel. As to a light trigger, in this video Jerry Miculek says the .380 Shield has "the lightest trigger I have ever seen on a Smith & Wesson product."

Since the .380 Shield is available with or without a thumb safety, the grip safety seems to be intended as the primary safety and the thumb safety is the extra.
 
"easier to rack slide..."
Click to expand...

How many times have we been asked, right here in this section of the site, to recommend a semi-auto that was easy to work the slide? (Answer: a lot.)

S&W might well have found a real niche.

Anybody know how 'easy' to rack the slide it really is?
 
In the early days of auto pistols there was another concern that was addressed by a grip safety. Many shooters tended to grip a revolver high and carried that habit over to an auto pistol. But if the hand grips a pistol too high, the slide gouges the thumb web, a painful result. So a grip safety had a secondary purpose for some shooters, keeping the hand down on the grip away from the moving slide.

Jim
 
sigarms228 beat me to it, but i too was going to point out that the EZ pistol is advertised as a single action with internal hammer and not striker fired like the other M&P's.
 
That probably explains the need for the grip safety then. A glance at the picture inside the slide it does not look like it has a firing pin block safety either or at least the typical plunger kind I am used to seeing. The magazine looks like similar design to my Ruger Mark II.
 
Last edited:
John Browning favored the grip safety in his pistol designs until the Army made him put a thumb safety on the 1911.
Click to expand...

Poor Mr Browning, he gets blamed for so much.
Actually, his 1900 FN had only a thumb safety, his 1900/02/03/05 "parallel ruler" guns had no manual safety (except the odd rear sight safety on the 1900, soon dropped) and his "hammerless" guns had both thumb and grip safety (except for early 1906 .25s.)
 
It's interesting that S&W seems to have completely dispensed with the standard M&P striker design! I stand corrected on my earlier posts. :)

The load assist button—shown in the G&A link—looks pretty clever.
carguychris said:
They're aiming at a market niche currently occupied only by the Walther PK380.
Bart Noir said:
As just pointed out by fastbolt, the Ruger LC380 is also a 9mm-sized pistol chambered in .380.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I stand by my assertion. :D

Shield EZ:
L: 6.64" (from G&A article text)
H: 4.98" (ditto)
18.5 oz.
8+1 capacity
4± lb SA trigger, cocked-and-locked is the only trigger mode

Walther PK380:
L: 6.5"
H: 5.2" (with pinky rest FWIW)
18 oz.
8+1 capacity
4± lb SA trigger, can be carried cocked-and-locked

Ruger LC380:
L: 6"
H: 4.5"
17.2 oz.
7+1 capacity
7± lb DA trigger, no SA option

The Ruger is smaller and lighter, albeit not drastically so. The Walther and the Smith are virtually the same size. The main points of comparison, however, are the full-length grip and the trigger. The PK380 SA trigger is really short, light, and crisp, and the early reviews of the Shield EZ indicate the same. This is a big selling feature for people with hand strength issues.

IMHO the Walther PK380 used to effectively exist in a class of one, as the only inexpensive locked-breech .380 with a full-size grip and "full-time" SA trigger option. (The EAA Witness Pavona is not locked-breech in .380, the RIA Baby Rock isn't either, and while the Browning 1911-380 is locked-breech, it's substantially pricier.) The PK380 is remarkably pleasant to shoot if/when it cycles properly. :rolleyes::p However, I can't bring myself to recommend the PK380 due to its numerous serious flaws, and I'm not alone in this regard. :(

I think S&W has a winner on their hands, although I'll heartily concur that "gun guys" are NOT this pistol's target market.
 
chris, you are right. When considering the trigger methods, the Ruger is not in the same category as those others. Thanks for putting together the specs for us.

I rather like that Browning .380 you mentioned. But since I have 9 Parabellum 1911-inspired guns in roughly that size, I don't think I will get one.

But that new Smith is going to sell well. Now, will they build a 9mm version? That would be interesting.

Bart Noir
 
I think S&W did a good job putting out a product to fit a niche. I was confused by the pistol's existence at first, but then I think about my girlfriend's opinions on my 9mm shield and it starts to make sense. She just can't get over the fact mine has "no safety", and sometimes has trouble racking it due to the stiff spring. Loves how it shoots, but those are some of her complaints. If I was in the market for a gun just for her, I'd definitely give this a look.

That grip safety is incredibly ugly though. Should've just stuck with a 1911-style one, unless SA has that style patented.

In essence though, this is basically a polymer, internal hammer-fired 1911 chambered in .380. It's single stack, has a grip safety AND a manual thumb safety, and the grip angle is similar. Could be a good gun...just wish they hadn't called it a "shield". Especially since that name still belongs to the sub-compact carry gun. It's just plain confusing.
 
That grip safety is incredibly ugly though. Should've just stuck with a 1911-style one, unless SA has that style patented.
Click to expand...

From what I have been reading the grip safety connects to the internal mechanism lower on the grip and will work even partially depressed. Keep in mind this a pistol designed to be functional for those that have impaired grip strength/mobility.
 
Been doing a little comparison. This gun is comparable in size to my Thunder 380, but it appears to have a thinner grip. I'm a fan of 380, but not so much the really small pistols chambered in it. I wouldn't want anything smaller than my G42, and the Thunder 380 is just about perfect for me. So, this new offering by S&W is something I wouldn't mind having, but without the manual safety. I agree that the grip safety is pretty much ugly though. They should have continued its curve going up until it met the bottom of the frame under the slide. Still, that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I'm definitely going to check this new gun out the next time I visit a local gun store, but I'm gonna leave mah credit charge at home! I have enough trouble deciding between the three EDC guns I already have. Adding one more would just add to the trouble. Then again, I could just get seven different EDC guns, one for every day of the week! :D
 
Jacket, your girlfriend might be interested in the Springfield XDe. The slide is amazingly easy to rack, even without first cocking the hammer. It has a combined decocker & safety lever in the traditional 1911 location.

I intend to hang onto mine for the days when I loose my strength, as I have seen my father do.

It doesn't have the best trigger but it is quite usable.

Bart Noir
 
Should've just stuck with a 1911-style one, unless SA has that style patented.
Click to expand...

There is no patent protection on a century-old design. And S&W has been making 1911s for years.

But I agree that the grip safety is rather ugly.

Bart Noir
 
It looks like a really great product for women, the elderly, and anyone else who might have difficulty operating a traditional semiautomatic.

The slide wings are a neat feature. It has wings like a VP9, except they're integral to the slide and even match the fishscale serration pattern.

It's completely bizarre that it's hammer fired. The G&A article suggests the arrangement is to retard motion of the slide, but it seems a little drastic to design a completely different FCG just for that. I wonder what it looks like on the inside?

I suspect it might be a market failure since the intended userbase is too small. That would really be a shame, though. S&W definitely ran the numbers and knows what they are doing, but still...
 
kozak6 said:
It's completely bizarre that it's hammer fired. The G&A article suggests the arrangement is to retard motion of the slide, but it seems a little drastic to design a completely different FCG just for that.
Click to expand...

Cocking a hammer during the rearward movement of a slide is different from cocking a striker during the forward movement of a slide. Demands on a recoil spring also differ significantly between the designs. The pistol's design objectives of ease of use are probably easier to achieve -or maybe only possible- with a hammer-fired design rather than a striker-fired design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top