Taking nothing away from the newer lines of subcompacts like the Springfield Hellcat or the SW Shield Plus, but I just can't see what all the excitement is about. They don't seem to be any smaller than guns already out there.
I had not seriously considered buying one of the newer higher capacity 9mm subcompacts until the Shield Plus came out. I like the M&P pistols. I have gen 1 versions of the M&P full size, the M&P Compact, and a couple of the M&P Shields (late ver 1.0). Much to my surprise, there's not a lot of difference in the size of the 1.0 Compact (or 2.0 Subcompact) and the Shield Plus:
M&P Compact 1.0
3.5 in. barrel
6.7 in. overall length
4.2 in. overall height
1.2 in. width
24.7 oz. weight
12+1 capacity
Shield Plus
3.1 in. barrel
6.1 in. overall length
4.6 in. overall height
1.1 in. width
20.02 oz. weight
11+1 capacity
(All above specs from S&W website)
While the length of the Compact 1.0 is more, that is explained by the longer barrel. I have found a half-inch difference in barrel length to be inconsequential in my carry guns. Indeed, the Compact 1.0 has a shorter overall height; i.e., a shorter grip frame. I have found a shortened grip frame to be more significant for concealed carry than a bit of extra barrel length. The Shield Plus (and the other newer subcompacts) had to increase the grip frame length to allow for the staggered magazine. But the Compact still has one more round than the Shield Plus.
I also found that the M&P 2.0 Subcompact to be comparable in size to the Shield Plus.
M&P Subcompact 2.0
The M&P Subcompact 2.0 in 9mm has a 3.6 inch barrel and the following measurements per Handguns magazine:
6.6 in. overall length
4.5 in. overall height
1.2 in width
24.0 oz.
12+1 capacity
(I used the magazine's measurements because SW specs used qualifiers such as "max." and measured width to include controls on the gun.)
I understand that the newer pistols may have better ergonomics or triggers, though some of that is subjective. But, other than that, I just don't seen any real reason to buy one of the newer subcompacts.
I had not seriously considered buying one of the newer higher capacity 9mm subcompacts until the Shield Plus came out. I like the M&P pistols. I have gen 1 versions of the M&P full size, the M&P Compact, and a couple of the M&P Shields (late ver 1.0). Much to my surprise, there's not a lot of difference in the size of the 1.0 Compact (or 2.0 Subcompact) and the Shield Plus:
M&P Compact 1.0
3.5 in. barrel
6.7 in. overall length
4.2 in. overall height
1.2 in. width
24.7 oz. weight
12+1 capacity
Shield Plus
3.1 in. barrel
6.1 in. overall length
4.6 in. overall height
1.1 in. width
20.02 oz. weight
11+1 capacity
(All above specs from S&W website)
While the length of the Compact 1.0 is more, that is explained by the longer barrel. I have found a half-inch difference in barrel length to be inconsequential in my carry guns. Indeed, the Compact 1.0 has a shorter overall height; i.e., a shorter grip frame. I have found a shortened grip frame to be more significant for concealed carry than a bit of extra barrel length. The Shield Plus (and the other newer subcompacts) had to increase the grip frame length to allow for the staggered magazine. But the Compact still has one more round than the Shield Plus.
I also found that the M&P 2.0 Subcompact to be comparable in size to the Shield Plus.
M&P Subcompact 2.0
The M&P Subcompact 2.0 in 9mm has a 3.6 inch barrel and the following measurements per Handguns magazine:
6.6 in. overall length
4.5 in. overall height
1.2 in width
24.0 oz.
12+1 capacity
(I used the magazine's measurements because SW specs used qualifiers such as "max." and measured width to include controls on the gun.)
I understand that the newer pistols may have better ergonomics or triggers, though some of that is subjective. But, other than that, I just don't seen any real reason to buy one of the newer subcompacts.