Thinner than a shield?

H

HighValleyRanch

New member
Love how thin my shield is. Finding it a breeze to carry AIWB.
Tried to love my HKP2000SK. If it had been a little thinner, I could have lived with it. But it was fatter than my glock.

So what is out there that is thinner than the Shield.
 
To answer your question (sort of), not much that I would trust my life to. LC9S, G43, PPS, and P365 are all about the same in terms of width... Not any significant difference really. There are probably some 380s that are smaller and thinner, but I'm just not a fan of 380 as a primary self-defense round. YMMV.:)
 
The new Sig P365 unless you think you can tell the difference in the .06 more width. Don't think I could feel or see that 6/100th of an inch.
 
Siggy-06 said:
Diamondback DB9, Beretta Nano, Keltec PF-9, Walther PPS. They're all pretty slim.
Click to expand...
I hear ya on the Nano. Will put the LC9S in retirement for it. Also my LCR9mm fits better than the LC9S with a clipdraw. Also the Nano has about a 1/2 less in length and totally snag free. Same thinness as the LC9S, and less Height, Hope to get it one by the end of the month.
 
Last edited:
I don't want smaller, but thinner.
I'm seriously looking at the Kahr K9 or K40. About the same dimensions as the Shield.
Not planning on too much pocket carry as this will be the AIWB primary and I pocket carry my Seecamp in the weakside pocket already.
 
Another low cost option from Kahr is the CW9. It's poly framed, single stack 7 round mag I think. Can be had for under 300.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
 
The Shield is .95 inches thick according to S&W. The thickness of a 1911 slide may vary just a bit but I saw where one shooter measured the slide thickness of a Colt XSE at .925 inches. So, not a lot of difference but a 1911 feels thinner to me in an IWB than the Shield does. I think that's because the top of a 1911 slide is normally rounded, rather than squared off like the Shield.
 
For months now I have been looking for a single stack 9mm to replace my LC9S. I have owned a LC9 since they first came out and shot the heck out of them. But something happened along the way. I started to have second thoughts on the Light Trigger. I just felt it too light for carry. Mine is down to around 4.2-4.5 lbs. Way too light for my personal preference.(and mine has a safety). Great gun, very reliable, nice shooter loved the thin design.
I researched for months. However as a totally dedicated Pico Fan, I ended up just now ordering the Nano. Small, thin, shorter height, soft recoil, and the kind of trigger I want in a carry gun. Ok, I know some folks like very light triggers. That is fine, just not for me.
I will say that I have been shooting for decades a range rat so it is not that I am not use to shooting or new to guns.
As Hickcock45 said while reviewing another single stack. "Some of these guns have become so light on the trigger, for instance, the Ruger LC9S is so light, it is almost like a target gun". Yes, I would agree with him on that statement.
I will continue to use my LC9S as a range gun. Continue to keep up my skills using a safety. I love the gun. But just not for Carry. Not trying to start a flame war.
As far as the OP wanting a thin design, here is a example.

wnKRn3d.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top