S&W Shield 9mm vs. Springfield XDS 9mm

[Rangerrich99]

Okay, so I'm considering my first 9mm in 20 years. As I want it to eventually be my primary CCW, after much research and test firing of several candidate guns at the range, I've narrowed it down to these two. Now I'd like to hear from those of you that have long-term experience with either weapon. Pros, cons, side notes, whatever.

My top factors were: trigger pull weight, reset, grip comfort, sight accessibility, first to second shot time, conceal-ability, and reliability (at the range, as I had to rent these weapons I only was able to judge reliability over a couple hundred rounds at a time. Neither weapon experienced a failure over 500 rounds). I gave a slight edge to the XDS for its trigger, sights to the Smith and everything else was about equal, in my amateur opinion.

Now I'd like your opinions on whatever factors you see fit.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

[Ride Madone]

I know it isn't one of the ones you are considering but I have shot both of those and the HK VP9, in my opinion, blows them both out of the water. Thats not to say that those aren't awesome guns but in my hand the VP9 feels perfect. The recoil is extremely manageable and the trigger is awesome. I don't mean to start a tangent but I love this gun so much I can't stop telling people about it. It is definitely worth going to the shop and at least holding it.

My son posted this, "for me." When he read me the title, he said M&P vs XD and left off the "Shield" and XD"S" so I allowed him to post this response without reading it myself.
Sorry.

As I have stated in Many other posts, I own and love the shield. It is small, light and accurate, so that would be my choice.

I do, however love my VP9 and highly recommend it.

[dave421]

^Dude, you realize the VP9 isn't even close to being comparable to the Shield & XDS, right?

OP, I've bought the XDS, Shield, and Glock 43. I still own the Shield & Glock but got rid of the XDS. I don't know what it was about that gun but I just could not get along with it. I couldn't shoot it as well and it wasn't comfortable to carry. I was really disappointed since XDs were my first CCWs. I guess I've just gotten too used to Glocks and M&Ps.

That said, if you like them equally and shoot them equally, it's a good gun. It is more easily concealed than the Shield but the Shield is a better value price-wise. One thing all 3 had in common is that they were all completely 100% reliable. If they're equal, decide what's more important: ultimate concealability or price.

[claydoctor]

I just bought the 9mm Shield and have rarely been so impressed. Like everything about it. I also like my Springfield 1911's but the various XDS guns (and I'm having trouble keeping track of them) just don't feel right in my hand .

[Jo6pak]

I think both are equally fine pistols, It just comes down to personal preferences.

I recently chose the Shield. I'm not a fan of grip safeties and the Shield just fit me better.

It's a tough choice for sure.

[mukjp22m]

I own an XDS primarily because it has a picatinny rail and can serve as my CCW during the day, and my nightstand weapon at night (because I can attach my TLR-1 light to it).
However, I have had problems with it. Prior to buying it, a youtube video post made me aware that it won't always fully slide forward when loading a round. Worse still, you can't necessarily tell that it hasn't slid forward (just a few millimeters short) and it will even allow you to pull the trigger, striking the primer off center and failing to detonate.
Sure enough, it was true. This happened to me several times at the range during live fire, and it can easily be replicated by hand if you don't slingshot the slide forward. During live fire, the slightest limp wristing can cause this.

That said, the reason I keep it is because it has the very rare picatinny rail in a single stack gun, but more importantly it has never failed on hot or HD ammo. The day that happens, it goes bye bye. So, for practice, some weaker ball ammo will occasionally cause this problem (PMC ammo, for example). But HD ammo, Blazer Brass, and Federal seem to run flawlessly.

[dirtd0g]

The Shield became my daily CCW after much deliberation, shopping, and testing.

It is rugged, reliable, compact, accurate, and required very little "modding" to get it to where I wanted it to be. I thought I was going to want an Apex trigger job; stock trigger is very nice especially after 300 rounds have been run through it.

The only "must have" accessories I got were some finger extension floor plates for the 7-round magazines and a Hogue Jr. grip sleeve.

The sights are nice and bright right out of the box, but I can see why some people drop $80 or so on a set of tritiums.

In my opinion and CCW shouldn't have rails or bells and whistles. It should be simple, concealable, and reliable. If you want a tactical pistol get one of those and go crazy. If you want a perfect CCW semi-auto get a Shield.

[Uncle Malice]

because I can attach my TLR-1 light to it

You can attach a TLR-1 to an XDS!? I didn't realize it had that long of a rail. The TLR1 can't even fit on the HK 45 Compact. TLR-3 can... not TLR-1. Too long. Can you post a pic?!

[mukjp22m]

My bad, it wasn't a TLR1. I had a TLR1 but it was too big, so I traded my friend for a TLR... 2? It was shorter and fit.

Point being, it has the capacity to accept a light, and I wanted that. I used to have a Kahr CM9, which was smaller and never failed, but I really wanted to consolidate my HD and CCW into one (for my own stupid reasons).

[SIMP]

Out of these three.....Shield all day long.

[Uncle Malice]

My bad, it wasn't a TLR1. I had a TLR1 but it was too big, so I traded my friend for a TLR... 2? It was shorter and fit.

Ah. TLR-3 probably. The TLR-2 is the same size as the TLR-1 with an added laser to the bottom. The 3 is shorter.

[Frankly]

I have the highest regard for the M&P Shield.

[Uncle Malice]

To me, this is more than offset by the potential terminal performance advantage of the 40...

There is none. How do you figure the 40 weighs less than the 9mm?


Shield 9
- less recoil
- more capacity
- cheaper ammo

Modern 9mm hollow points give up nothing in performance to a 40 s&w and are much easier to shoot. Why do you think many law enforcement agencies are making the transition away from 40?

[FreedomRocks]

I have both. The XDs 3.3 9mm I have had over a year, and the Shield for about 3 months. In my own side by side test (my first time out with the Shield), It thought for sure I would shoot better with XDs. Not so. The Shield was impressive right out of the box, and out-shot my older XDs, shooting like a much larger gun. And it carries much easier than the XDs due to its soft non-aggressive corners vs. the XDs. Now as far as looks and fit and finish, I think the XDs is the hand-down winner there. My opinion, you can't go wrong with either. I know I'm keeping both, though you will find me carrying more, the Shield.

Oh, and what looks like a fly-away shot on the Shield Target - is a fly.

[Frankly]

I thought I was going to want an Apex trigger job; stock trigger is very nice especially after 300 rounds have been run through it.

I've found that to be about the minimum break-in for these. After a few hundred more rounds you should find the slide relaxes nicely as well...

[Uncle Malice]

Ponder the only difference between the two barrels and the light bulb should come on...

Ahh, so you're speaking of unloaded weight... not the weight when loaded. Because 7 rounds of 40 weigh more than 8 rounds of 9mm. Also, S&W lists both guns at the same weight. So how much different are you speaking of? A gram or two?

How about letting the OP try both and decide?

Because he specifically stated he's looking at the gun in 9mm....

[Frankly]

I just bought the 9mm Shield and have rarely been so impressed.

Congrats on a great purchase!

[Uncle Malice]

this notion that "modern" hollowpoints benefit only the 9mm and not all calibers equally is laughable...

Fair enough. Surely you know better than law enforcement agencies, trainers, ballistics experts, et al. The mass exodus from 40 over the past couple of year is purely coincidence.

Please explain to me how the smaller, lighter version on the left of these otherwise IDENTICAL "modern hollowpoints" can match the maximum terminal performance potential of the larger, heavier one to the right, which deposits more energy on target while expanding to a greater diameter thus producing more devastation to the target = more stopping power in a critical SD situation.

In comparing top factory loads available for 9mm and 40s&w, there is a difference of 50ft/lbs or less in energy. Add to that the fact that you get more capacity and faster follow up shots in 9mm models of similar form factor, the 9mm comes out as the clear winner to most people. You're clearly not one of those people. Enjoy your middle-man.

[Bart Noir]

Let me fill a void in this conversation and mention that there are two XD-s pistols to consider.

The 3.3 and the 4.0. That extra .7 inches of slide and barrel gives the 4.0 a noticeable muzzle heavy feel, compared to the 3.3 model.

The extra length gives a better sight picture, at least for me. And the recovery from a shot is quicker also. The trade-off is that you have a little longer gun to pack around.

I currently have both flavors of the XD-s and am carefully comparing them against the Walther PPS, if I dare mention another pistol not asked about by the OP

The Kahr CW9 is for sale. I am not really thinking about the Shield since I have not shot one yet, actually turning down a chance at the range last weekend. What was I thinking?!

And now the Glock 43 is starting to show up in stores. So many small 9s, so little time. Err, I mean so little money.

Bart Noir

[marine6680]

I find the Shield more comfortable than the XDs. The XDs has a better trigger out of the box for sure.


The trigger on the shield is much better than the full size M&P, but was a little heavy and had more overtravel than I like. I fixed these issues with a little work on the trigger. I didn't go with Apex on mine, as I was able to improve the trigger well enough without the Apex parts.

An Apex kit will make a Shield into a very sweet little pistol though, the Apex triggers are great feeling... For the price of the Shield and an Apex kit, you would still be less than the XDs... last I looked at pricing.

I like my M&P compact as well. Just a little thicker, but holds 12 rounds vs 7 or 8. I had to replace the flimsy stock trigger with an Apex part, and do some work to smooth out and lighten the pull a bit... I didn't do the whole Apex kit though. I really like the pistol now... It shoots better than the Shield, but it is a bit thicker, so it may not work for what you want, but I have no issues with concealability. I see the compact on sale for less than $450 too.


As far as modern bullets and their improvement on 9 and 40... Yes, the 40 has improved as well, but not to the same extent as the 9 has. So the 9 has caught up to the 40 in performance, even though it too has improved.

When it comes to handgun calibers... projectile energy is pretty much a useless figure. As there is not enough energy in the rounds to impart "hydraulic shock" or whatever they want to call the effect now... Basically, they will never have the energy and velocity to affect a target like a rifle does; in which secondary wounding outside the direct path of the bullet, caused by energy transfer stretching tissues beyond their elastic limits, is a large factor in terminal effect.

The only thing that matters is that the round has the ability to penetrate to the recommended depth of 12-18in, with reliability and consistency. Expansion, and temporary cavity is only secondary concerns to the primaries of proper penetration and shot placement.

I feel... +p and +p+ rounds in 9mm are pretty much obsolete now. I have seen test after test for multiple rounds comparing the standard pressure to the +p, and the standard pressure stuff performs more ideally every time. The +p stuff tended to penetrate less by a couple inches or so. Average 12-13in for +p and 15-16in for standard pressure stuff. The extra 50fps, of +p caused added expansion that limited penetration, and did not significantly add to any temporary or permanent cavity damage. (and as I said, temporary cavity in handgun calibers does not do much to add to terminal performance, as it does not damage much additional tissue.)

I have not seen Federal HST 124gr +p available in a couple years, but I see standard pressure all over the place. So it seems at least Federal is realizing this fact too.

[Rangerrich99]

Hey guys, thanks for all the replies. There's plenty of food for thought here. I haven't actually tallied it up yet, but it looks like you guys are slightly more in favor of the Shield. Which is kinda how I was leaning due to price point, all other factors being roughly equal.

As for why not .40 caliber, that's simple. I have two full size .40s already (Sig P229, and Beretta Px4) that have some carry duties during our short winters here in AZ. So in part I feel I have enough .40s. The other reason I'm trying to talk myself into a 9 mm is that this gun is supposed to eventually supplant my LCP as primary warm weather CCW. So I wanted a bit more muzzle energy, an extra round or two, and yet just as concealable as the LCP. And of course, 9 mm is just cheap. So cheap that even if I wanted to reload it, I'd hardly save anything. Most of the other calibers i reload represent significant savings.

However, that said, I am curious to see how the .40 version of the Shield performs, so I'll probably go back to the range and test one out next week.

Anyway, carry on people; your replies have been very helpful so far.

[skizzums]

I have a shield .40 and almost never shoot it. it's not unpleasant, but the 9mm is a lot more comfortable and accurate, for me anyways. there is not enough benefit from the .40, especially from a short barrel to move me to it.

[Frankly]

I am curious to see how the .40 version of the Shield performs, so I'll probably go back to the range and test one out next week.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the 9mm. But some of us find that in the Shield, the 40 gives up nothing but one round in the mag while giving you more flexibility in terminal performance.

When you get ready to buy a Shield in either caliber, I can put you on to a dealer in Kansas who sells them at the lowest prices I have seen anywhere. I have bought most of my Shields from him. Just send me a pm when the time comes...

[garryc]

The 40 Shield works well, accurate and powerful. It does take a bit of getting accustomed to though.

[Uncle Malice]

The armchair theorists can sit around making unsubstantiated references to unspecified bullets that magically have elevated the 9mm's terminal ballistics beyond the immutable laws of physics. I prefer to get in a lot of range time and learn how things really work. Have been at this for nearly 50 years and am continually amazed by the silly urban myths folks will latch onto and perpetuate verbatim as if they were getting them from first-hand experience.

lol, such an operator. I probably don't shoot as much as you. I shoot maybe 2,000 rounds a month in 9mm. If I had time to reload, it would probably be more.

However if you have more training and experience than Todd Green, I'm certainly interested to hear your qualifications. Have you done a lot of fast-paced training or competition?

You speak of 40 as if you're referring to 10mm. It's not the same. Not even remotely close. As mentioned, the most you're going to get is about 50ft/lbs of difference in energy between 9mm and 40s&w. Considering the equivalent 9mm version of the same gun will carry between 1 and 3 additional rounds in most cases, you have more available 'terminal ballistics' available in the 9mm version of the gun. Complete with faster follow up shots and lower felt recoil.