Why all the hubub over the newer higher capacity subcompact 9mm pistols?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KyJim

New member
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.
 
Lots of folks carrying a pistol concealed obsess over dimensions and weight and, to a degree, those things (an ounce here, an inch there) count for something. Too, when comparing, say, a Shield 1.0 Compact with the "Plus" version, it's hard to argue that carrying more ammunition in the same package in terms of configuration and weight doesn't matter a little, if not a lot.

The new "micro-compact" genre of pistols intended for edc might well be overthought for some but I'm glad we have the choice. I much prefer carrying my original Colt Cobra snub-nose revolver over my J-frame Smith Airweights for edc mostly due to the extra 20% advantage that six rounds offer over five (but also because the da trigger pull on this family of Colts is far superior to any J-frame revolver I've ever squeezed the trigger on, imo) In any self-defense scenario, if I can have more bullets (even one) in an otherwise equivalent gun, I'll pay extra for the advantage.
 
Fear not reality, is always the biggest motivator for many. Not everyone buys into it and you can bet there are millions of shooters out there that will Not trade in a single stack or a revolver just for a few more rounds. Heck, I am still trying to figure out why people actually buy a Big Gulp soda, go to at a all you can eat restaurant, or eat a Whooper Burger. More is better to some folks, not to all.
 
KyJim said:
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)....
Click to expand...
I highlighted a couple of things that were important to me. The extra 4.5 ounces is (IMHO) a significant increase when we're talking about a ~20 oz pistol. And the Shield Plus is either 10+1 or 13+1, not 11+1. Also, bear in mind, the Compact isn't just "0.4" taller," or "4.7 oz heavier." It's 0.4 inches taller and 0.1" wider and 4 ounces heavier. Taken all together, like when you hold the pistol or put it in your holster, it all adds up.

KyJim said:
....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.
Click to expand...
I'd carried my Shield 1.0 for about 3.5 years when the Plus came out, and it had been a dynamite little pistol. For me, then, it was like being able to get a pistol I already knew I liked, with the added bonus of 5 more rounds per mag. The improved trigger was a bonus that I didn't really think about prior to purchase. With that said, I shot my Plus side by side with my PC Shield 45 today and I have to say that the Plus trigger is light years better than my PC Shield 45, which is a 2.0.
 
I had ordered an M&P9sc 2.0 right before the Shield plus was released, loaded with 12 rounds it weighs 29ozs.

I sold my M&P9C 2.0 to buy a Shield plus but now I’m reconsidering or delaying the purchase.

my summer EDC is a Shield40 2.0 that fully loaded weighs in at 24ozs so I’m not sure another 9mm is what I need at present time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
the 1.0 is not a fair comparison s it has been superseded by the 2.0.

comparing the 2.0 sub compact to the shield plus

shield plus saves 4.8oz or about a 19% weight reduction
the grips are slightly shorter on the plus
the shield barrel is 1/2in shorter
the shield plus has 10 and 13rnds mags, the 2.0 only has 12rnd mags.
plus has a normal-ish trigger. hated the hinged trigger.

you are not going to see a lot of changes in the S&W lineup, same design philosophy.

where you see real differences is in between the other brands.

check out handgun hero here
https://www.handgunhero.com/

They let you compare guns head to head visually and in specs.

In short everyone wants a hi cap sub compact. And the companies have all come out with their own flavor. Variety is the spice of life, and options are good.
 
Last edited:
I had a Gen 3 Glock 26. I picked up a SIG P365XL when they came out because I got a very good price and was curious. I’ll caveat all of this by saying I typically carry a larger compact sized pistol as opposed to a sub-compact.

Despite what might seem like smaller differences on paper, there was a noticeable difference in carrying the two pistols, especially in width. The other difference was the thickness of the Glock 26 grip relative to its short height. The thickness of the Glock grip doesn’t bother me at all with a Glock 19 or larger pistol, but it was somewhat awkward with the Glock 26. When I shot the two back to back there wasn’t what I would call a significant difference and I wasn’t giving up anything in capacity (I used the +2 extensions on the Glock 26 magazines). While it is true I could carry larger magazines for the Glock as backup, I find the 15 rd magazine for the P365XL is fine.

In the end I sold the Glock 26 and kept the P365XL. For the purpose I use a pistol of that size for, concealment when a larger pistol isn’t practical due to dress or activity, the P365XL seemed to make more sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Shadow9mm said:
The 1.0 is not a fair comparison s it has been superseded by the 2.0.
Click to expand...
But it is fair --- lots of 1.0's out there and they will be around for many years. My question is what's the imperative to switch to a gun that's not any smaller?
Spats McGee said:
The extra 4.5 ounces is (IMHO) a significant increase when we're talking about a ~20 oz pistol.... And the Shield Plus is either 10+1 or 13+1, not 11+1.
Click to expand...
First, I can see that the four ounces might matter in some instances. I used to carry an all-steel 1911 everyday, so I may not be as weight sensitive as some.

Second, good catch on the capacity. Guess I need to check my glasses. :) But still, that's only one round more and the Compact can use the M&P full size mags. I carry the standard mag in my gun, but do have a full size mag with X-Grips adapter in a mag carrier.
 
I haven't bought a micro 9 yet. I like my HK VP9sk so much that I refuse to relegate it to other duties besides EDC. But, I've been reading that HK is coming out with something small...
 
Spats McGee said:
I highlighted a couple of things that were important to me. The extra 4.5 ounces is (IMHO) a significant increase when we're talking about a ~20 oz pistol. And the Shield Plus is either 10+1 or 13+1, not 11+1. Also, bear in mind, the Compact isn't just "0.4" taller," or "4.7 oz heavier." It's 0.4 inches taller and 0.1" wider and 4 ounces heavier. Taken all together, like when you hold the pistol or put it in your holster, it all adds up.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that ounces DO matter. I believe they matter more than most people realize. For myself, I love the Beretta Nano. The best shooting Micro I have shot. However I carry the Kahr CM9 because the Nano is 4 oz Heavier. The Kahr is a wonder at only 15.8 oz and the extended grip which does not even weigh a full oz gives a total of 8 rds carry which is more than adequate for Practical carry. (15.8 oz vs 19.8 oz) Any extra rounds just add weight to any gun, especially if not needed for practical carry. Fortunately the Kahr is a lovely shooter as well. I also prefer the smooth DAO triggers on both guns.
That said, 95% of the time, I EDC a Beretta Pico or Kahr CW380. (and feel totally protected and proficient with them). I started Big in EDC and worked myself Down to the smaller guns over the years. Finally found the perfect Carry that suites me just fine. I actually find the small pocket gun to have many advantages in EDC defense that bigger guns do not offer, except shooting beyond 15 yds which I do not train for or find a need for.
Buying any New EDC requires diligent range time. What a bad time we are in now with the ammo shortage. Something to keep in mind. A new gun now has more cost combined with ammo cost than anytime I can remember and it appears this mess is going to be here for a while.
 
Last edited:
KyJim said:
But it is fair --- lots of 1.0's out there and they will be around for many years. My question is what's the imperative to switch to a gun that's not any smaller?
First, I can see that the four ounces might matter in some instances. I used to carry an all-steel 1911 everyday, so I may not be as weight sensitive as some.

Second, good catch on the capacity. Guess I need to check my glasses. :) But still, that's only one round more and the Compact can use the M&P full size mags. I carry the standard mag in my gun, but do have a full size mag with X-Grips adapter in a mag carrier.
Click to expand...
First of all, I agree comparing 1.0s to Shield Pluses is fair. A comparison to 2.0s would also be fair. As you note, they'll be around for many more years. I also used to carry an all-steel 1911 (with a 5" barrel, at that), but after a few years, decided to carry something lighter.

I carry my Plus with three 13-round magazines, which kind of supports your position, TBH, because I'm adding weight to my overall carry setup by doing so. Well, unless I wanted to carry with full-sized mags for backup. According to this site, a Speer Gold Dot in 124 grain weighs 0.45 oz. So if I'm carrying 2 spare, full-sized M&P mags for backup, that's (0.45 x 8) = 3.6 extra ounces. So then it becomes 3.6 oz + 4 more for the gun = 7.6 oz total extra weight.

With all of that said, had I owned an M&P (non-Shield) when the Plus came out, I might not have bought the Plus. As I did not, it's a little different equation. For me, and in terms of weight only, it was ~6.75 extra ounces, with no appreciable change in dimensions, to add 15 rounds to my carry setup. Handgunhero lists the Shield Plus as being 0.6 oz lighter than the Shield 1.0, which takes it down to ~6.15 oz. FWIW.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me.

My SIG Sauer P365 is slightly smaller than my S&W M&P Shield and carries 3 more rounds of 9x19mm in a flush-fit magazine.
 
Most weeks I don’t shoot that many people, don’t like the paper work. But when I do a six shot 38sp snub or 380 single stack is sufficient. I usually even leave the 140 rds of backup ammo at home.
 
Drm50 said:
Most weeks I don’t shoot that many people, don’t like the paper work. But when I do a six shot 38sp snub or 380 single stack is sufficient. I usually even leave the 140 rds of backup ammo at home.
Click to expand...
The best answer I heard today
 
It's just the latest trend, that's all. A lot of folks are just extremely susceptible to marketing, which convinces them that they "need" to upgrade their carry gun to whatever the latest thing is, and right now the latest trend is 9mm Micro Compacts.

Humorously, I keep seeing threads across multiple forums about folks finding various 9mm micro compacts in pawn shops for cheap, which to me indicates that a lot of folks who are buying these aren't exactly impressed by them at the end of the day.

Before anyone gets all upset, I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who bought these of their own volition based on personal preferences and who are extremely satisfied with them, I'm merely referring to the lowest common denominator of gunbuyers who get swept up in trends, are easily swayed by marketing, and will buy new firearms on impulse only to discover that they aren't to their liking.

These guns will certainly stick around, but will eventually settle into the market rather than dominate it or become the next big innovation in firearms design in which all future designs will continue to follow the trend of trying to squeeze as many rounds into the smallest, thinnest pistol they can possibly make.

Folks are quick to call out that the Shield PLUS weighs about the same as an ordinary M&P9 Shield and holds more rounds, yet apparently forgets that those extra rounds add to the overall weight of the gun, so unless someone is already carrying a few extra magazines to equal the amount of ammo that the PLUS offers in the first place, then they've added weight to their carry load.

Personally, I'm still carrying the M&P40 Shield 1.0, and even if S&W comes out with an M&P40 Shield PLUS, I'm still going to carry the Shield 1.0 because it's lighter, and that's more important to me than capacity when it comes to Summer carry.
 
Last edited:
Drm50 said:
Most weeks I don’t shoot that many people, don’t like the paper work. But when I do a six shot 38sp snub or 380 single stack is sufficient. I usually even leave the 140 rds of backup ammo at home.
Click to expand...


There’s a lot of middle ground between 6 rounds and 140 rounds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My 2 cents is try if you like it keep it .Over the years I started carrying in 1982 .Went from
Revolvers ,autos full size ,compacts ,mouse guns .Seecamps,keltecs .Beretta ect.
22LR,32,380 38 SP,357 MAG,9MM 40 SW 45 ACP
Today SIG 365 ,MP SHIELD 1.0 9MM.
 
Because people are convinced that capacity is king when it comes to concealed carry.
It’s not, but lots of people think that. So small guns with large capacity have become really popular. It’s fine. Thankfully most people won’t have to use their carry gun and won’t ever realize that they’ll never need rounds 7 through 10, even if a shooting does occur.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top