S&W Shield EZ now in 9mm

Siggy-06 said:
S&W just released the Shield EZ in 9mm after the sucess of it's .380 version. They're turning up online at a few retailers currently.



https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-9-shield-ez-manual-thumb-safety



Personally I'm not a fan of the grip safety's shape as it sticks out into my palm with a high grip(on the 380 models). If it depressed a bit deeper I'd buy this 9mm version for sure. Been seeing prices arpund $399 so far.
Click to expand...
I would think part of the reason it sticks out as much is to make sure it stays depressed when held.

I imagine this will sell well for S&W.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I've been on the fence about getting the 380 EZ as a gift for someone hoping that it would come out with a 9mm. I'm glad they came out with this 9mm. Of course I'll have to wait till all the rushes are over.

This also more than makes up for the HUGE disappointment from glock yesterday.
 
Instead of putting all these redundant safeties on the gun, wouldn't it be easier if they just removed the firing pin entirely? :rolleyes:
 
OhioGuy said:
Instead of putting all these redundant safeties on the gun, wouldn't it be easier if they just removed the firing pin entirely? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It gets to a question of defining redundant. There are people out there that like the idea of a grip safety. I am trying to remember if it you were part of it but we've discussed here multiple times how people like the presence of a hammer when reholstering or whatnot to further aid in preventing a discharge. A grip safety can function as that as well. Similar to how I may see the hammer as redundant in that case, no doubt some people see the grip safety as redundant too.

I also wonder if part of the reason the EZ is so easy to rack is if depressing the grip safety actually provides some resistance to the slide or perhaps additionally cocks the hammer. You can't put the slide back on if the grip safety is depressed because doing so causes some of the trigger bar linkage to stick up. Total speculation on my part.

I don't know that I get the point of a thumb safety as well, but again preferences exist. There is also the Shield without a safety as an option. Providing options doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I am trying to remember if it you were part of it but we've discussed here multiple times how people like the presence of a hammer when reholstering or whatnot to further aid in preventing a discharge. A grip safety can function as that as well.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those people. For example, though I like AIWB carry for a number of reasons. I won't carry a striker fired gun that way unless it has a grip safety. An external hammer or grip safety can add one extra level to help prevent an AD in case clothing gets caught while holstering. Some people feel the same way about IWB hip holsters.
 
Speaking to the grip safety issue. You have to understand the EZ is not striker fired lkke the other M&Ps. It has a hammer concealed under the slide. So, basically a single action gun. A grip safety is not a bad idea
 
Sharkbite said:
Speaking to the grip safety issue. You have to understand the EZ is not striker fired lkke the other M&Ps. It has a hammer concealed under the slide. So, basically a single action gun. A grip safety is not a bad idea
Click to expand...
While I agree, some striker fired pistols are practically fully cocked and you could argue that they're similar to a single action gun, absent a hammer. Most often they have a trigger blade safety that prevents certain drop concerns. The grip safety can do that too.

Is the trigger travel on the EZ noticeably different than say a non-EZ Shield?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I have a 0mm Shield - i love it. I have a .380 EZ Shield - I love it.

I have owned 1911s which of course have grip safeties - not an issue for me at all. I wondered about how much I would like the 380 EZ and I found that I quickly adapted to the grip safety. I sometimes carry the 380 EZ and I appreciate the grip safety since I carry with the normal safety off. I[m older and my hands are as well. The thing I like about the 380 EZ is the ease of racking it - much easier than the 9mm Shield I have.

If you don't like a grip safety - then maybe it isn't for you and that's fine. I think that S & W has a good section fo the market with their M & P Shields. As pointed out, the 380 EZ is hammer fired, not striker fired and i would imagine the new 9mm EZ is going to be the same as the 380. That goes a long way for folks with hand issues, arthritis, etc. - especially for us older shooters and women who don't have the strength to rack their standard Shields. It might not be for everyone, but i think they will sell well. While I do carry the 380 once I'm a while, I much prefer the 9mm. I would have no issue in using one and probably will. I recently switched from my 9mm Shield to a Glock 26 for EDC - reasons - more capacity, easier to rack. If the 9mm EZ comes at a decent price, I will probably add one just due to the ease of racking and for range fun.
 
In the interest of fairness and open disclosure, I've to this date found very few if any pistols hard to rack. But being open to diversity and the opinions of others including my wife, I will concede there must be something going on there because we hear the "hard to rack" complaint frequently it seems these days.

I wonder though, can some of these pistols be TOO EASY to rack and therefore a bit of a danger to carry or induce malfunctions?

Also, why only 8 in the mag and one in the pipe in this new S&W semi offering? Springfield has apparently found a way around sig's patent.
 
I'm guessing that soon we're going to start seeing "EZ" firearms on the market that one can simply shake back and forth in the air to operate the slide.

Or maybe a little battery operated power button on the side you can simply push to do the job.
 
Last edited:
Love my EZ .380 the 9 mm should be a winner also. Younger and stronger persons cannot relate to pain in the hands from arthritis and the difficulty experienced in racking some slides, I have several hundred pistols and rack all of the semi autos however a few require creativeness. The EZ is appreciated and certainly not so EZ that it will rack itself as some have concerned themselves with.
 
Last edited:
I know, I'm being sarcastic, it just seems to me that the presence of both thumb and grip safeties is rather superfluous. I know, I know, a 1911 has been configured that way for a century.

I just saw that the 9mm EZ is available without the thumb safety. I think that configuration makes sense.

I had an XD for a while and never minded the grip safety. I do agree that having some passive means of preventing an AD when holstering the weapon is a very good idea, and I'm an advocate of a hammer or a "Gadget" if carrying a Glock.
 
Hmm. I seem to recall the pistol used to start WWI was a striker-fired 9x17mm with a grip safety and a thumb safety. Oh yeah, it was an FN 1910 designed by John Browning...
 
I know, I'm being sarcastic, it just seems to me that the presence of both thumb and grip safeties is rather superfluous. I know, I know, a 1911 has been configured that way for a century.
Click to expand...
Of course, the grip safety was added to the 1911 during initial development at the request of the Army, specifically to make the gun safer for cavalry soldiers on horseback. I think the idea was to make it safer during action when a soldier might have the pistol cocked and not locked. If dropped during the battle, it was less likely to discharge if it hit the ground or perhaps the saddle pommel when swinging from a lanyard. As a side effect, it made the pistol more modular --- just alter the grip safety for a more-customized grip.

I think the idea of the pistol being safer if it is dropped is still valid.
 
I think the idea of the pistol being safer if it is dropped is still valid.
Click to expand...

The modern firing pin/striker block solves the dropped gun issue.

I dont favor compromising my grip while holstering.
 
Sharkbite said:
The modern firing pin/striker block solves the dropped gun issue.

I dont favor compromising my grip while holstering.
Click to expand...

By itself no it doesn't. Momentum can still potentially drive the trigger rearward and cause a discharge. That is why most modern striker fired pistols have trigger blade "safeties". The small mass of the trigger blade makes it practically impossible for that part of the trigger to depress. S&W uses a hinged trigger instead of a trigger blade. SIG tried a system where the mass of the trigger in combination with the travel direction and mass of the trigger bar should have prevented it from being a problem. That didn't work out and now they have much lighter trigger shoes.

There are other ways too. A DA/SA pistol with the hammer down (or striker released) would need the force on the trigger to exceed the force provided by the hammer (or striker) spring. On a single action pistol with no other safety, I imagine it is possible. Might be very unlikely, but possible.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What's the advantage of carrying a Shield EZ over the ordinary M&P9 Shield?

Also, attempting to redesign/rechamber a .380 ACP pistol in 9mm Luger never works out well, just look at the Remington R51.
Despite what its appearance and European nomenclature may suggest, the .380 ACP is not a shortened 9mm Luger, but rather a scaled down version of the .45 ACP, ergo it's a straight-walled cartridge which generates significantly lower chamber pressures than 9mm Luger, yet manufacturers keep trying to make 9mm Luger versions of .380 ACP pistols, and what do you know, they always end up getting recalled or having some critical part fail which requires a redesign/replacement.

Heck, how often has any attempt at rechambering a firearm for a more powerful cartridge ever been successful? Because it seems like the answer is never.

Honestly...

  • Attempts to rechamber 9mm Luger pistols in .40 S&W - FAILURE.
  • Attempts to rechamber .45 ACP pistols in 10mm Auto - FAILURE.
  • Attempts to rechamber .380 ACP pistols in 9mm Luger - FAILURE.

Such attempts have consistently failed until the manufacturer straight up redesigned the pistols based on what they learned from said failures. It's just plain never that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top