Shield 9mm M2.0 v. Ruger EC9S

N

nanney1

New member
Pick one as a carry pistol. One caveat: the fixed sights on the EC9S is not a deal breaker for me and shouldn’t sway your opinion of one over the other.

I can purchase the EC9S for $100 cheaper than the Shield.

Mainly considering shootability, reliability, and ease of carry.
 
I don’t have an EC9s, but I do have an LC9s and it’s the only CC pistol I’ve kept out of several I’ve tried over the years. I bought this gun about 10 years or so ago, it’s the first semi auto 9mm I’ve had since I sold my only other 9mm back in 2002 which was a S&W model 39. I tried several other pistols for CC because of the limited capacity of the LC9s, but none were as reliable, accurate, or easy to conceal so the LC9s is the only one I’ve kept.
 
The Ruger EC9S fits me well and shoots great, but I bought the Shield. A defensive pistol needs night sights and the EC9S fixed sights mean it's just a point shooter after dark/low light situations. The LC9S will let you change the sights, but then price-wise, you're looking at a better deal with the Shield. Both guns have a lot of aftermarket support, but I think the aftermarket for the Shield offers a lot more.
 
I don't have an EC9s, but I've had a Shield for about 3 years. For $100 more, I'd probably still take the Shield. The Shield is a smidge bigger and heavier, but mine has run like a champ. Flawless function, as accurate as can be expected in my hands, and carries very easily. IMHO, it also handles recoil like a bigger gun.

With that said, my daily attire is also such that I can pretty much belt carry anything I want. A suit or a blazer most days. If I were planning to pocket carry, I might well go with the EC9s for that $100.
 
I vote for the Shield. My 1.0 was reliable. My first LC9s was not— Galloway sells a recoil spring replacement to fix Ruger’s bad design. Has Ruger fixed it?

My second LC9s tended to pop its magazine when I shot it. Gone.

Also I think the Shields handle recoil better and thus are more shootable.

I like the trigger on the striker Rugers and the first one was really accurate, which was why I gave them two tries. While I have since moved on to even smaller carry pieces, given the choice posed I would pick the Smith for reliability and shootability.

The 2.0 Smith supposedly has a better trigger though the one on my 1.0 seemed fine. I recall the Shield as somewhat thicker and heavier but you can judge this. Both are pocketable.
 
I have a shield 1.0 in 9mm, and also have a lot of experience with a LC9.
I have a shield sitting on my hip as I type this, so you know which one I picked.
 
My brother owns a Ruger LC9S (which is just an EC9S with adjustable sights) and it's a fantastic little pistol. As much as I like Smith & Wesson, between the Shield and the EC9S, I would choose the EC9S.

In fact, I was faced with the choice, was going to get the EC9S, but ultimately chose the smaller, lighter LCP for maximum concealment.

The only reason I would choose a Shield over an EC9S was if I were going to carry one chambered in .40 S&W or .45 ACP, and only because Ruger doesn't offer a single stack .40 or .45 like S&W does.
 
I am so enamored with the Shield, that I have one in all three calibers. When I first shot my 9mm, I was amazed at the low recoil. It feels like they used a mold of my hand in the design. The trigger does not pinch my finger like the Sig P365 and all pistols with that Glock style, trigger in a trigger, which includes the Ruger. I am of the impression that Ruger revolvers are more trouble free than Ruger pistols. I am still waiting for a replacement for the front sight on my LCP Custom. It has now blown off twice, both times with the third or fourth shot. My friend bought an SR22, that's going to have to go back because of frequent misfires due to light strikes by the firing pin. I'll stick with my Shields.
 
I bought a later model Shield 1.0 and liked it so much that I bought another. I've never shot the second one, but I've thought of getting a left-handed holster so I can carry one on each hip. :)
 
KyJim said:
I bought a later model Shield 1.0 and liked it so much that I bought another. I've never shot the second one, but I've thought of getting a left-handed holster so I can carry one on each hip. :)
Click to expand...
Jim, that reminds me of a comic strip popular, when I was a kid called The Phantom. He carried a medium-sized, semi-automatic pistol of undetermined brand on each hip in a flap holster.Hadn't thought of him in years. You can probably find a a picture on the internet.
 
The Shield.

I've had both, and I really like both, and the Ruger is a little more concealable; it'll fit in most pants/shorts front pockets. Shield isn't quite that small.

But the Shield is more reliable, there's a little more to hang on to, so easier to manipulate, more shoot-able, better sights, better trigger (not by much), larger capacity.

Like I said though, I've had both, and actually looking to get another LC9S pro. Sometimes it's nice to be able to just drop a little gun into your pocket and go.
 
I need to try an EC9s one of these days.

That being said... My Shield V1.0 has been one of the most reliable, accurate and comfortable shooters I own. For some reason, it doesn't like Winchester 147 gr Ranger. But that is it. Everything else is digested by the gun with ease.
 
The difference to me is that with my wardrobe, I can pocket carry the LC9s but not the Shield. If I want to wear a belt holster, I can have a bigger gun, maybe a M&P Compact.
 
I am biased toward the Shield. Probably because I have two of them. One in 9 and one in 45. They have both been extremely reliable and are easy to shoot. I carry the 9 most of the time. With the Magguts +2 spring kit installed in a 7 round mag, it gives me 9+1 rounds with barely any extra mag/grip length. I have over 3000 rounds through the 9 and 1600 rounds through the 45. No problems from either one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top