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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you expect X number of assailants then perhaps you want 2*X rounds (double-tap) on hand.

Though if you expect any then perhaps you are in the wrong place.
 
Some body has to keep the gun rags in business. Never underestimate the Power of Advertising. Remember the Zombie ammo? You are a dead man walking without high power and Zombie loads. Don't just put one in their head, blow it off and then some. How many People wanted the most Powerful gun in the world after watching Dirty Harry?
 
Published specs often mean squat and often are inaccurate or misleading. On paper my Walther PPS is not much smaller than my Glock 19. However actual comparison side by side and carrying reveal a much different comparison. While my Glock 19 is fairly comfortable to CCW IWB, my much thinner and somewhat lighter Walther PPS easily beat it for all day CCW comfort while still being a pistol I can shoot very well.

j4ODQXs.jpg


S4urzZY.jpg
 
It's all about increasing the comfort when carrying IWB. Everyone who wants to conceal carry for some reason is dead set on doing it IWB. I'm sure they would consider pocket carry if they could find a 9mm small enough to fit in their front pocket, but they can't and they won't use .380 because they all know .380 doesn't work and will get you killed (their thought, not mine). Shoulder holster... they look at the $200 price for one and they say, "That doesn't work for me, brother."

So, it's IWB and the deal with that is the thinner the pistol, the more comfortable that carry method is. Understandable and when these 365 clones are all .05" thicker than the single stack 9mm pistols like the LC9, Glock 43, PF9, etc. yet they hold 3, 4, or 5 more rounds... it's an improvement in capacity by a significant amount and a reduction in size by a significant amount.

Also, with all the focus by anti's on the 10 rd mag capacity limit, if I was going to be stuck with that limit, I'd rather have a 365 or clone of a 365 than be stuck with a Glock 19 and a 10 rd mag.

Is it a trend? Yes. Is it a trend I seeing going away? No, I don't see people clamoring for single stack 9mm's that are marginally thinner that hold 3 rounds less. Of course, for those who already own all those single stack 9's that you haven't had an issue with, you may as well keep them, there's no reason to run out and spend $400 or $500 on an unproven pistol because it holds a few more rds, but those who, like me, don't have a single stack 9mm... it's really hard to tell someone to get the single stack polymer 9mm over the one that holds more rounds in the mag.
 
TruthTellers said:
It's all about increasing the comfort when carrying IWB. Everyone who wants to conceal carry for some reason is dead set on doing it IWB. I'm sure they would consider pocket carry if they could find a 9mm small enough to fit in their front pocket, but they can't and they won't use .380 because they all know .380 doesn't work and will get you killed (their thought, not mine). Shoulder holster... they look at the $200 price for one and they say, "That doesn't work for me, brother."

So, it's IWB and the deal with that is the thinner the pistol, the more comfortable that carry method is. Understandable and when these 365 clones are all .05" thicker than the single stack 9mm pistols like the LC9, Glock 43, PF9, etc. yet they hold 3, 4, or 5 more rounds... it's an improvement in capacity by a significant amount and a reduction in size by a significant amount.

Also, with all the focus by anti's on the 10 rd mag capacity limit, if I was going to be stuck with that limit, I'd rather have a 365 or clone of a 365 than be stuck with a Glock 19 and a 10 rd mag.

Is it a trend? Yes. Is it a trend I seeing going away? No, I don't see people clamoring for single stack 9mm's that are marginally thinner that hold 3 rounds less. Of course, for those who already own all those single stack 9's that you haven't had an issue with, you may as well keep them, there's no reason to run out and spend $400 or $500 on an unproven pistol because it holds a few more rds, but those who, like me, don't have a single stack 9mm... it's really hard to tell someone to get the single stack polymer 9mm over the one that holds more rounds in the mag.
Click to expand...


Well said imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I own a Walther PPS M1 I dig. I have no Jones to run out and replace it. That said if you are in the market for this style of gun it would be ludicrous to not go with the Shield Plus vs the Shield for example or a P365 etc. in all but the rarest of circumstances I can’t see why you would choose the pure single stack option today if buying specifically as a defensive tool.

Now all that said the P365 is a paradigm shift in size vs capability but I am one of those folks who just thinks it’s too small (FOR ME PERSONALLY) but if I carry it’s almost always a Glock 19 sized gun OWB so having the itty bittiest for IWB doesn’t really concern me.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Imo, the real point is that if you can get essentially the same gun for use in self-defense in terms of its configuration, size and weight but carries more ammunition, I fail to see the downside to deciding on it. If you predicate your decision on which gun to carry on the fact that "most people won't have to use" it, then you have to wonder why you're carrying at all. If, on the other hand, "a shooting does occur", based on the thousands of police reports I've authored over a period of 24 years, in the few that involved a "shootout", no one I interviewed ever regretted having as many bullets on board as they could practically tote.
Capacity may not be "king" (that crown belongs to PLACEMENT), but it has royal blood.
 
cslinger said:
That said if you are in the market for this style of gun it would be ludicrous to not go with the Shield Plus vs the Shield for example or a P365 etc. in all but the rarest of circumstances I can’t see why you would choose the pure single stack option today if buying specifically as a defensive tool.
Click to expand...
The only reason would be price. Once things settle down with demand, those slimline, single stack 9mm's are going to be neglected and rejected by most people, but those who want a decent quality, lightweight, slim pistol for $250 or less will have a ton of them to choose from on the used market. Yeah, sure a new Taurus Gx4 may only be $400, but $150 or $200 is a lot of money to some people. If the choice is between a Hi Point and a Beretta Nano or Bersa BP9 for $50 more, the choice is obvious what more you get for your money.
 
TruthTellers said:
The only reason would be price. Once things settle down with demand, those slimline, single stack 9mm's are going to be neglected and rejected by most people, but those who want a decent quality, lightweight, slim pistol for $250 or less will have a ton of them to choose from on the used market. Yeah, sure a new Taurus Gx4 may only be $400, but $150 or $200 is a lot of money to some people. If the choice is between a Hi Point and a Beretta Nano or Bersa BP9 for $50 more, the choice is obvious what more you get for your money.
Click to expand...


I’ll be curious what S&W does with the original Shield. If they sell for $250 like a few years ago I see them sticking around as you mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Any Beretta Nano's/ APX Carry or Kahr's for example coming around at a low price, I will be sticking around as well. Any time I can get a top quality, well built firearm for less is one heck of a deal. Look at the Ruger SR9C. A great firearm and when it came back on the market people made some great buys. Go ahead and Pay so much more for a few more rounds in guns that have absolutely no better quality than the single stacks. In the end, many others will make some great deals. I do think the Taurus GX4 is going to take some of the wind out of the guns costing more. Anyone that thinks Price is always what dictates quality is kidding themselves. And Lol, trying to compare some of the quality single stacks out there to a high point is lame.

There are many people that actually prefer to have a single stack and the gun manufacturers know this. There are many out there that just DO NOT like double stack magazines period. Heck, some even have a hard time trying to load the last which kind of defeats the purpose. In a small gun, give me a single stack.
Hopefully the manufactures will continue to give us a choice.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, my G26 does everything I want a 9mm to do, is well proven, and disappears under a T-shirt.
If I need something smaller for my pocket, I have that covered too.
 
My LC9s isn’t going anywhere. I tried several different compact double stacks and always went back to the Ruger. Accuracy, reliability, and concealability were best for me. I had a couple candidates I really tried to like but I just didn’t shoot them well enough and the added bulk and weight just didn’t cut it.
 
But if you didn't have the LC9s and were out looking with an Max-9 were in front of you, why would you buy the LC9s?

It has no size advantage and better everything else.

:)
 
I replaced my G26 with the 365 because it simply fit my hand better and I am able to grip it properly without a lot of monkeying around. I also prefer the SIG trigger over the two part Glock one for a smoother trigger pull
YMMV
 
cslinger said:
That said if you are in the market for this style of gun it would be ludicrous to not go with the Shield Plus vs the Shield for example or a P365 etc. in all but the rarest of circumstances ...
Click to expand...
I can see why someone would want to replace a Shield with a Shield Plus or similar subcompact with a staggered magazine because of capacity. But that doesn't address my original premise that there is little to gain when going from a M&P 1.0 Compact or M&P 2.0 Subcompact.
 
I’ll be curious what S&W does with the original Shield. If they sell for $250 like a few years ago I see them sticking around as you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Even though I own and often carry a P365 (which is superior in form factor to my 1st-generation Shield that I paid $215 for when new), I still occasionally carry the Shield.

It’s still a very good gun with proven reliability.
 
First post here.
I’ve had two of the 1.0 Shields (with and without safeties) for several years and bought a 9C last year. I also picked up a 365 last year because, like everyone else, I wanted more rounds in a smaller package. Well, other than appendix, i think the shield carries better. The 365 just isn’t that comfortable and I’ve tried several holsters. The Shield is comfortable in a simple kydex holster. The 9C is barely thicker but the grip is shorter, so it carries very well. With an Apex trigger and D/C kit it’s not one I would ever sell.

I love the trigger in my Shields. Firm wall with a 6.5# break which is good for a carry gun. Although I might get a Plus at some point, I’m afraid the trigger may be too light. I paid maybe $299 before the $75 rebate for my last shield so no, the Plus isn’t even close to twice the pistol. Add better sights................
 
But if you didn't have the LC9s and were out looking with an Max-9 were in front of you, why would you buy the LC9s?

It has no size advantage and better everything else.
Click to expand...

If it were me, then I would still get the LC9s.

Honestly, the Max-9 may hold more rounds, but each of those rounds will most likely weigh at least 115grs, so anyone who is actively seeking a firearm that is lightweight for Summer carry and is smart enough to realize that a firearm's unloaded weight is meaningless in relation to how much it will weigh when you're actually carrying it fully loaded to capacity.

It's the same tired old argument that folks have been using against Revolvers for ages, based on flawed, unilateral reasoning which is only convincing towards those who have already made their decision yet apparently cannot accept that others disagree.

Shot placement is, was, and forever shall be the single most decisive element of a gunfight. Capacity is largely irrelevant when considering any self-defense scenario in which the defender isn't outnumbered, and even then the defender is at such a strong disadvantage that their likelihood of success has already dropped below an acceptable range, ergo preparing for such a scenario is practically worthless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top