S&W Shield 9mm vs. Springfield XDS 9mm

Hey guys, thanks for all the replies. There's plenty of food for thought here. I haven't actually tallied it up yet, but it looks like you guys are slightly more in favor of the Shield. Which is kinda how I was leaning due to price point, all other factors being roughly equal.

As for why not .40 caliber, that's simple. I have two full size .40s already (Sig P229, and Beretta Px4) that have some carry duties during our short winters here in AZ. So in part I feel I have enough .40s. The other reason I'm trying to talk myself into a 9 mm is that this gun is supposed to eventually supplant my LCP as primary warm weather CCW. So I wanted a bit more muzzle energy, an extra round or two, and yet just as concealable as the LCP. And of course, 9 mm is just cheap. So cheap that even if I wanted to reload it, I'd hardly save anything. Most of the other calibers i reload represent significant savings.

However, that said, I am curious to see how the .40 version of the Shield performs, so I'll probably go back to the range and test one out next week.

Anyway, carry on people; your replies have been very helpful so far.
 
I have a shield .40 and almost never shoot it. it's not unpleasant, but the 9mm is a lot more comfortable and accurate, for me anyways. there is not enough benefit from the .40, especially from a short barrel to move me to it.
 
I am curious to see how the .40 version of the Shield performs, so I'll probably go back to the range and test one out next week.
Click to expand...

There is certainly nothing wrong with the 9mm. But some of us find that in the Shield, the 40 gives up nothing but one round in the mag while giving you more flexibility in terminal performance.

When you get ready to buy a Shield in either caliber, I can put you on to a dealer in Kansas who sells them at the lowest prices I have seen anywhere. I have bought most of my Shields from him. Just send me a pm when the time comes...
 
Last edited:
The armchair theorists can sit around making unsubstantiated references to unspecified bullets that magically have elevated the 9mm's terminal ballistics beyond the immutable laws of physics. I prefer to get in a lot of range time and learn how things really work. Have been at this for nearly 50 years and am continually amazed by the silly urban myths folks will latch onto and perpetuate verbatim as if they were getting them from first-hand experience.
Click to expand...

lol, such an operator. I probably don't shoot as much as you. I shoot maybe 2,000 rounds a month in 9mm. If I had time to reload, it would probably be more.

However if you have more training and experience than Todd Green, I'm certainly interested to hear your qualifications. Have you done a lot of fast-paced training or competition?

You speak of 40 as if you're referring to 10mm. It's not the same. Not even remotely close. As mentioned, the most you're going to get is about 50ft/lbs of difference in energy between 9mm and 40s&w. Considering the equivalent 9mm version of the same gun will carry between 1 and 3 additional rounds in most cases, you have more available 'terminal ballistics' available in the 9mm version of the gun. Complete with faster follow up shots and lower felt recoil.
 
I don't have any of the 3 listed, but am following due to personal curiosity.

I'll also chime in to say that IMO
1) shot placement (training and accuracy) is more important than the difference in 9 vs. 40
2) all things equal (same brand in self defense performance ammo) the .40 must have the edge over the 9 due to weight and diameter - it's physics.
3) the difference in capacity is less important in a high capacity magazine as in a low capacity magazine; giving up 1 or 2 rounds out of 13 vs 15 is less significant than sacrificing 1 in a 7/8 round magazine - while it may be the same percent, it certainly may be more valuable in lower capacity guns
4) recoil in smaller guns and larger calibers can be hard to manage

For these reasons, in a larger sized weapon I'm comfortable with the .40, but in a tiny single stack, I'd go for the 9mm.
 
40 must have the edge over the 9 due to weight and diameter - it's physics.
Click to expand...


But the physics make them about equal with modern loads.

The added weight of the 40 is counteracted by its larger frontal area adding resistance to penetration. Energy transfer simply does little to add to the terminal effects of the round. This is backed by years of expert conducted study.

Lots of variables to control for, making a comparison to weight and size too simplistic.


Back in the day, 9mm had difficulty reliably penetrating deep enough and/or consistently. 40 was better at this... Now 9mm design has improved so it has caught up. 40 gained more consistency as well, but 9mm still improved enough to equal that performance.

Even the fabled 10mm and 357mag don't add that much to the equation. I believe their vaulted status is due to the same reasons that 40 was better than 9 back in the day... Limitations in bullet design meant adding power added consistency to the penetration and proper expansion of HP and SP designs of the time they were created.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned, the most you're going to get is about 50ft/lbs of difference in energy between 9mm and 40s&w
Click to expand...

A 135-grain hollowpoint in .40 S&W over Hodgdon Longshot pushed to 1434 fps translates to 617 foot pounds of kinetic energy. The closest any 9mm load comes to that is a 90 grain bullet pushed to 1512 fps for 457 foot pounds.
 
Last edited:
A 135-grain hollowpoint in .40 S&W over Hodgdon Longshot pushed to 1434 fps translates to 617 foot pounds of kinetic energy transfer.
Click to expand...

Please show me a factory load that provides that kind of energy.... or are you saying that you carry your hand loads for defensive use? If the latter, we needn't continue this discussion because that's a fool's errand. Underwood is the only one that approaches those loads... which is known for being way overpowered for the cartridge.

I'm comparing loads like 124gr Federal HST +P 9mm to Federal HST 165gr 40s&w. We can also compare Gold Dots if you'd like.


....and you notice no difference in felt recoil from a 1400+ fps 40 and something like an HST +P? The only thing I can think of is that you must have some kind of nerve damage. I would be interested in seeing a video of you shooting the shield 9 and shield 40 with those loads in rapid fire and on target.
 
Last edited:
...and you notice no difference in felt recoil from a 1400+ fps 40 and something like an HST +P? The only thing I can think of is that you must have some kind of nerve damage.
Click to expand...

I've made no allusion to such a comparison.
 
Last edited:
I cannot believe you don't understand that kinetic energy is the key to penetration and expansion.
Click to expand...

Actually... Momentum is the driving force of penetration... Not energy. That's the physics of it. People have argued otherwise, but the experts agree...


The counter to the momentum is the drag the bullet experiences when traveling through the test media.


A 40 has more momentum, but it's larger frontal surface area increases drag.

Velocity and energy do increase expansion... Expansion increases drag... A 40 expands larger overall, so it limits it's penetration even further.


As was mentioned, energy transfer means little, so it matters little if one round has more than another, if that first round penetrates shallower.


All tests of modern bullets show that 9 and 40 both penetration properly and consistently.

A little extra expanded width does little to add to the terminal effectiveness... Energy transfer and temporary cavity do little to increase terminal effectiveness. (in handgun rounds, though rounds like 44mag that throw very heavy bullets pretty fast do start to gain from the extra energy... But common semiautomatic calibers... They don't)

I can go deeper into this later, I am awaiting dinner atm.
 
Last edited:
The 40S&W vs 9mm debate is a classic thread drift.

back on topic,
My sister in law has a shield and my brother in law has a XDs. I have a significant amount of trigger time with both, and IMO I like the ergonomics and feel of the shield better. however, I shoot the XDs much better, I love the trigger. I'd be happy with either, they both are better than my LC9.
 
Short & simple. I'm a smith guy all the way. I owned a xds 3.3 in .45 & hated and sold it. I do realize you wanted feedback on the 9 and not .45. I own a m&p 9c and love it although might upgrade the trigger and sights. (Which I would do to any other maker) & my body has a shield 40 and I like that as well. Needless to say I'm going to get a shield 9 here pretty quick. And as far as the 9/40 I personally feel it's so close to energy & velocity id rather have the extra round or 2.
 
I looked at both when I purchased, and went with the Shield in 40

Some people like every edge they can get in a SD handgun/ bullet
The 9mm works, but to me, to pick up 20-30% more energy on target
from a bigger bullet seems like a better way (My choice)

(I may only get one shot)

But.... after seeing this debate on multple boards over a long time,......

Its getting tiring.......

Have a personal choice. All people get one. Weigh the pros and the cons

decide what works for you and then practice

I am going on a caliber debate hiatus

It becomes boring with the same old talking points

People get ANGRY if you dont choose what they did.........

Its still a free country



But.... back on topic.... I went with the Shield in 40

It is a great CCW weapon, and I shoot it well

My followup shots are getting better and better

I did put an inner tube on the grip, which for me improved the feel a bit


The XDS is also a fine weapon, but the made in America is still important to me personally, and edged it toward the Shield


Good luck with your choice
 
I did put an inner tube on the grip, which for me improved the feel a bit
Click to expand...

I liked the feel with the Pachmayr grip glove, but unfortunately it is not compatible with the Crimson Trace LG-489, so I had to choose between the two... CT won.
 
Last edited:
and I shoot it well
Click to expand...

That's what it all boils down to. There is no substitute for first-hand experience.

I shoot it well as well, in either caliber. My groupings on paper are indistinguishable between the 40 Shield and the 9 Shield, while my shots into ballistic gel suggest considerably better terminal performance from the larger bored sibling. For me that makes it a no-brainer which one I carry as my CCW backup.

But smaller framed shooters often feel a difference between the two, which may translate on paper. My wife is smaller than me and can feel the difference, yet she still groups the same with the .40 Shield as with the 9 Shield. There are a lot of variables that go into which gun is "best" for any individual, and we can't possibly account for them all on a theoretical basis. In my opinion, everyone should try both before committing to one or the other.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top