Battle of the Budget 9mm's

Jack - I agree, don't buy a "cheap" gun. but their is a difference between a cheap firearm and a budget firearm. A budget firearm is well made at a lower price point. A cheap gun is one that was cheaply made.

Though the shield is about $350 it is still consitered a budget firearm if you compare it to the prices of its single stack compact 9mm competition: XDs, PPS, G43...

I have my shield on me right now but I would not consider it a budget option, now that it has a complete apex kit and xs big dot sights :D
 
You understand Tula and a lot of the Russian, etc. ammo is "bimetal" jacket? Copper wash on steel. Some of it is pretty consistent and accurate, but the steel does abrade rifling. So you have to deduct new barrel cost from $/round saved - if long term accuracy matters at all. Maybe an academic point in light of true potential or expectations. I like to realize my own limitations. No steel or brass, thank you.
 
Many of the indoor ranges around me do not allow steel... period. If the magnet sticks to the box, whether it's the case or the projectile, it's a no go.
 
banning steel cases is moronic. I understand jackets and cores, that damages their equipment. the only motivation I could think of is them trying to fetch a higher price for their range brass by not allowing steel to get mixed in, and forcing you to buy their range ammo because you can't shoot any of the cheap ammo you brought, both are greedy practices in my opinion.

as for the " don't buy cheap guns, buy an M&P" comment. that is pretty rich. one of the most poorly fitted and finished handguns I've ever owned was an M&P, second only to a bulgarian Arcus. there's actual quality, and then there just plain brand snobbery. I'd pit a Ruger 9E, Canik TP9, SCCY CPX, or just about any of the EAA imports against the shield any day in terms of quality. the only think the shield has going for it is that it is just about the only sub $350 gun that fits the current craze of single stack 9mms, and has the better-ish of the triggers available in that class.
 
The m&p shield is a striker fired single stack 9. Why would I save up my pennies for that? It's not what I wanted. Blindly telling everyone to buy an m&p shield is BS.
 
The Turks make excellent guns, if the SAR was something I was interested in I would have confidence in its reliability. I was really close to buying a TriStar/Canik C-100 but ended up with a great deal on a 92 Beretta.
 
The Beretta 92 was the object of my pistol desire for years, but once I got out there and got my hands on some guns, that lust fell to the wayside. I'll always have a soft spot for the Beretta. Maybe one day I'll rekindle that fire.
Right now, the K2P is the object of my desire. It's a sweet piece.
 
Yeh, it's not even that I really like the Beretta more than the Canik I was looking at, it's more sentimental/nostalgia from active duty days.
 
I understand the mystique and appreciation too.Beautiful, reliable design. Have to sell my compact one of these days though. Too bulky for most purposes. A big gun that won't fit my hand without extension mags makes no sense. Agree on Canik except in the C-100, T-100, T-120 direction. They nailed the DA SA concept in a light weight compact. A Beretta style decocker would have made it perfect. I know CZ PCR and PO 1 have it - almost. Just sayin', for the price.
 
Last edited:
tahunua001... The ranges I've gone too all allow brass and aluminum casings, so the "keeping the brass cost up" isn't the issue. It's the steel core and ricochet issue. They don't want to inspect every bullet, just the box as a whole, hence no steel.
 
I was shooting at an indoor range, and a fire started in the backstop. Had to be a steel core bullet, but I never could figure out what flammable material was in the pile. . .
 
Save up a few extra pennies and get a Shield. Seriously. Don't buy a "cheap" gun.
Click to expand...

lolwut?

I can't say I would not call the Shield a "cheap" gun ..... I've shot one. The SR9c was a nicer gun for less money.



...wasn't there a sticky about the Shield recall circa 2013?
 
The Shield practically screams cheap to me, as does the whole M&P pistol line. To me, a 3rd Gen all stainless 4506, 5906, or even a 4006 is a decent S&W pistol.
 
Jimbob - I have to disagree with you. as i have owned multiple of both the shield and the sr9c. As to how they shoot, they are different sizes one being a single stack and one being a double stack so that's hard to compare. But for what its worth in my hands and when applying proper fundamentals they both shoot exceptionally well for their price point.

I have done a lot of gunsmithing on both of these firearms and I can tell you the smith and wesson is built to a much higher standard. The parts also have been more consistent and they seem to have a better quality control. The slide itself has a much nicer machining job than the sr9c and the trigger mechanism is vastly superior to the sr9c. The shield does have that awful hinged trigger but a quick swap with some apex parts and it turns into a phenomenal trigger. The s&w is a more refined and better finished pistol when you actually break them both down and pay attention to the little details. I have owned 3 shields and 2 sr9c's. I finally found a good deal on a shield without a safety and its here to stay.

That being said looking at the two ruger sr9c's I've had. Both were incredible shooters for the money with a pretty good trigger. I can look into the slide and see where it seems they got lazy on cleaning up the inside and did not smooth out the casting/machining(whichever they used) before applying the finish. The trigger bars have also been inconsistent and their contact with the sear has been unpredictable and often needs a slight filing to remove unwanted grit and "crunch" when pulling the trigger. (careful not to mess up, ruger does not sell these like glock does and getting to file happy can cause it to go into class III territory real quick :D this has never happened to me with one of my guns but I have read of it happening to others online) My last issue with the sr9c is that it seems to have way to many safety "features" the worst one being the actual manual safety. Not just because it has one but because it is difficult to disengage compared to almost any other frame mounted safety I have ever felt. It is to small and does not operate smoothly and often requires a change of grip to take off, which hinders a draw.

All that being said the shield is a $300-$350 pistol that shoots extremely well for its size and though it doesn't have the most amazing trigger in the world it shoots well none the less and apex has a great fix for it if it bothers you to much.

The sr9c is a $400-$450 gun that is more equivalent to the m&p9c, fns9c, glock 26/19 or even the springield xdm 3.8 subcompact. If you could find an sr9c for $300 I wouldn't have any problem recommending it to someone but for the prices they go for I would much rather spend money on any of the ones listed above.

Just my opinion, for what its worth :)
 
Hemiram - I don't disagree with your statement about the gen 3 guns. They are phenomenal da/sa hammer fired guns. I would love to add one to my collection but each time I go to buy hammer fired a CZ ends up coming home with me:rolleyes:. The M&P line of polymer framed 9mm I believe are actually pretty well made. They are not as refined as previous smiths but the engineering behind them allow for some amazing trigger work and a comfortable platform to start with.

Just curious is the m&p line the only polymer line of guns you do not like?
 
Until the local market was flooded with them, the shield was going for 450ish.

The sr9c could be had for just a tad less, and don't need a trigger job out of the box.

The local gun store (which often buys up inventory that other places can't seem to move) suddenly has a whole glass case filled with M&P's ...... lot's of Shields in that mess, priced around $400 ...... probably because buyers know they'll have to either deal with that crappy trigger or pay to have it fixed...... OR buy an sr9c (only two left in the store last time I looked).
 
jimbob - you are still comparing apples to oranges here, single stack vs double stack - play complete different roles for some people.

Also there was a reason that ruger came out with the american series. The sr series had a bunch of extra stuff added that a lot people didn't want, I'm not surprised that there were very few sr9's left in that shop as I'm sure they don't stock up on them in comparison to what else is on the market for the same price. Including rugers "upgrade" to the SR series.

$400+ for a shield is way to high and buyers should look elsewhere.

The shield though it doesnt have a great trigger neither does glock. All three of my shields ive owned have had better stock triggers than a stock glock. You don't see people turning away from glock in hoards because of their trigger. Its a tool, its a reliable tool. The shield is the same way, it is a tool that is easy to carry lightweight, accurate, well priced and simple to use. no ones buying a shield to take to an IDPA match.

It serves its purpose similar to the ruger lc9s, which is an accurate comparison to make. The lc9 and even the newly improved lc9s does not have as nice of trigger or reset as the shield does, in my opinion. and the lc9's do not have has much aftermarket support, which is the same for the sr series as well. I also prefer the shields ergos to the lc9's but that is strictly personal preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top