The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Skans · October 13, 2012, 10:48 AM

The LC9 fits in my pocket. Personally, I want my next pocket 9mm will be smaller, not bigger than the LC9. The Shield is slightly longer and taller than the LC9. It also weighs a little more.

I really like a number of things about the Shield, but why...WHY couldn't they make it smaller than the LC9 - even by a few millimeters??? Yes, this makes a huge difference to me! No matter how good the features or trigger is, the Shield just won't work for my purposes. I don't care how accurate the Shield is; how good the trigger is; what stupid safety features it doesn't have (that the Ruger has) - if it ain't smaller (like Diamondback DB9 smaller), it's technology wasted.

The Ruger is smaller, lighter, exceptionally reliable and accurate enough at defensive ranges. If S&W would have made it smaller, the Shield would made it to the top of my list of "gotta have" guns. But, SIZE MATTERS!

October 13, 2012, 10:48 AM	#22
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	The LC9 fits in my pocket. Personally, I want my next pocket 9mm will be smaller, not bigger than the LC9. The Shield is slightly longer and taller than the LC9. It also weighs a little more. I really like a number of things about the Shield, but why...WHY couldn't they make it smaller than the LC9 - even by a few millimeters??? Yes, this makes a huge difference to me! No matter how good the features or trigger is, the Shield just won't work for my purposes. I don't care how accurate the Shield is; how good the trigger is; what stupid safety features it doesn't have (that the Ruger has) - if it ain't smaller (like Diamondback DB9 smaller), it's technology wasted. The Ruger is smaller, lighter, exceptionally reliable and accurate enough at defensive ranges. If S&W would have made it smaller, the Shield would made it to the top of my list of "gotta have" guns. But, SIZE MATTERS!