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

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

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.

Well said imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cslinger]

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.

[dgludwig]

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.

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.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by cslinger

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.

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.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

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.

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

[Carl the Floor Walker]

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.

[amd6547]

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.

[jetinteriorguy]

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.

[wild cat mccane]

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.

[FITASC]

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

[KyJim]

Originally Posted by cslinger

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 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.

[wild cat mccane]

Minus that whole worst in class trigger that the Shield 1.0 had...

[Fishbed77]

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.

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.

[RWNine]

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................

[Forte S+W]

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.

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.

[dgludwig]

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.

If weight is such an issue with pistols having higher capacities, nothing says you have to load the magazine to the hilt. You have the option of having more bullets for self-defense or less bullets if you think having more of them makes the gun too heavy to carry comfortably. You have options with, say, the Smith Plus variant: from one to thirteen choices.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

but each of those rounds will most likely weigh at least 115grs

And each of those rounds is another shot. That's the tradeoff. As was mentioned, you don't have to load to capacity if the weight of those additional rounds was really that prohibitive, but you at least have the option.

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

Shot placement is, was, and forever shall be the single most decisive element of a gunfight.

I agree completely. That's why capacity is so important imo. It's another opportunity to make that critical shot. I also don't subscribe to the notion that more capacity means a person will waste the rounds he/she has (not saying you personally believe that, just heading off the inevitable comment that usually comes up in relation to capacity).

Originally Posted by Forte S+W

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.

First I'd point out that there are numerous examples of single assailants that have taken multiple rounds before being disabled as the person defending himself/herself has tried to make that critical shot. While I agree overcoming multiple assailants is a tall order, it has been done. Even if the odds are against me I'd like to still have the possibility of prevailing rather than just preemptively ruling that out.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

And each of those rounds is another shot. That's the tradeoff. As was mentioned, you don't have to load to capacity if the weight of those additional rounds was really that prohibitive, but you at least have the option.



I agree completely. That's why capacity is so important imo. It's another opportunity to make that critical shot. I also don't subscribe to the notion that more capacity means a person will waste the rounds he/she has (not saying you personally believe that, just heading off the inevitable comment that usually comes up in relation to capacity).



First I'd point out that there are numerous examples of single assailants that have taken multiple rounds before being disabled as the person defending himself/herself has tried to make that critical shot. While I agree overcoming multiple assailants is a tall order, it has been done. Even if the odds are against me I'd like to still have the possibility of prevailing rather than just preemptively ruling that out.

Not sure how many multiple shots are needed for a assailant, maybe some would need two, three, four, five, and on up.
But you comment that holds the most water for those that want a larger capacity is what you alluded to with your comment. "Even if the odds are against me I'd like to still have the possibility of prevailing rather than just preemptively ruling that out.
Which IMO is just peace of mind. If that makes you feel safe, then get a larger capacity gun. Same holds true with bigger caliber and even bigger guns like Duty firearms. If I truly believed more rounds was necessary for practical EDC, would carry my Compact SR9c with a 17+1 rd magazine and a spare mag.
I personally do not subscribe to the same logic as yourself, but then do you care? I do not care what others carry as well.
I think we are making more of what is carried than is necessary. Carry what gun you shoot the best with and gives you the peace the mind that makes you feel comfortable with your personal EDC.

It is my opinion, that what ever gun you do carry, is be quick to the draw. I believe the first round fired is the most crucial. You might not get a chance to fire the first round. And with any luck, you might be the guy that fired the second round and lived.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Carl the Floor Walker

Not sure how many multiple shots are needed for a assailant, may some would need two, three, four, five, and on up.

That's a fair point. In my head I was adding to the total round count any potential misses.

Originally Posted by Carl the Floor Walker

I personally do not subscribe to the same logic, but then do you care? I do not care what others carry as well.

I don’t know that I care per se, but I try not to disregard. What I am doing is discussing my thought process in this forum setting with other gun owners, something I don't get to do much otherwise. In this case I'm trying to walk through the potential thought process of prospective buyers of new pistols and how capacity might or might not influence their decision, as it relates to the OP. I do like to try to keep my mind open to other points of view and discussion helps me with that. Sometimes people do make points I never considered and I try to incorporate it into my thought process going forward.

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

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.

Then it would just be the normal process of how good it feels in my hand and whether the trigger felt good. But as always the final decision to keep it or not depends on how well I shoot it and how comfortable it is to carry. If it doesn’t pass these tests it’s gone, which is why I’m happy enough with the LC9s and it’s a keeper. I tried a few that at first felt great but failed when the rubber meets the road, so I sold them. But, I’m going to take a look at the Max-9 when I get a chance and may give it a try.

[eflyguy]

Originally Posted by Carl the Floor Walker

I do not care what others carry as well.

There you go. Every time I see this thread, I wonder where this "hubub" is.

My daughter and I shoot matches regularly with fairly large groups. We hang out and chat. Was USPSA, now rifle. The subject of personal carry has never come up.

Reminds me of the guy that signed up here and instantly had a list of modifications the G26 he didn't yet have needed. He read it all somewhere.

[Forte S+W]

Statistically speaking, most gunfights are settled within 3 shots being fired and in most cases in which more shots were fired, they were superfluous shots motivated purely by panic.
Granted that statistics can be skewed by uneven sample sizes such as the majority of the data collected coming from decades past when law enforcement was still carrying 6-shot Revolvers, but if the fights were actually settled within 3 shots as the statistics suggest, then it's irrelevant either way because obviously if 3 wasn't enough then an attacker would be all the more motivated to continue their assault with the knowledge that whoever was shooting at them only had a maximum of 2 shots left in the cylinder before they needed to reload.

Now I'm certain that someone will attempt to counter this statement by bombarding me with articles involving freak occurrences in which somebody who had just snorted bath salts took 2-3 dozen shots before he finally collapsed, but those articles were written because such is not a common occurrence hence why it was worth writing an article about in the first place, and if you should ever find yourself in such an outlandish situation, then congratulations, your Shield PLUS would be no more effective at stopping the attacker than my Shield 1.0, so it's completely irrelevant.

If folks want to carry more rounds and it makes them feel more confident doing so, then more power to them, but spare me your ridiculous assertions of superiority based on the flawed, unilateral reasoning that more is always better which evidently not even you actually believe, otherwise you'd probably be carrying a FN Five-seveN or Ruger-57 right now and trying to convince everyone that the larger size of the gun was more than compensated for by the sheer number of rounds in the magazine as well as the incredible stopping power of the 5.7x28 FN cartridge.

[TunnelRat]

One note I’d make is while I see that 3 shot statistic repeated often and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, I can never find the source of that statistic.

Not all people who take more than 3 shots to be disabled did so because they were on bath salts. Michael Platt in the 1986 Miami shootout was shot 12 times and kept fighting while he was bleeding out internally and had a collapsed lung. Despite sustaining this injury at the beginning of the fight he eventually killed two FBI agents. The autopsy showed no drugs in his system. He was former military as an Army infantryman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

Then there’s this story of an officer involved shooting where the suspect was shot 14 times with a 45 ACP, 6 of those shots in fatal locations. There was no evidence of drugs or alcohol in his system. https://www.police1.com/officer-shoo...BbLYpnqqHxwMq/

In this officer involved shooting the suspect was shot 7 times with a 40SW (in addition to 7 misses) before being disabled and the officer was shot 7 times with a 45ACP (in addition to 6 misses), including a shot to his mouth that knocked out his teeth, a shot to his arm, two shots to his legs/buttocks, and 3 shots to his chest that were stopped by his body armor. The officer continued to fight and survived. https://www.policemag.com/340305/sho...ida-01-26-2008.

Now am I suggesting we all need to carry 145 rounds? No, and frankly I don’t come close to that (nor do I think I have at any point claimed to be “superior” for carrying more ammunition than anyone else, as was suggested above). My point is there certainly are examples of single suspects that aren’t under the influence of drugs taking many rounds and they’re not entirely uncommon. Now a fair critique is, “But what percentage of all shootings are made up of such cases?”, and my answer is I don’t know. I’ve never seen what seems like a great database of shootings that encompasses all such information.

Carry a firearm is always at some level a matter of measuring the odds. There’s the decision to carry the firearm in the first place, and then the decision about which caliber, what capacity, etc. And those decisions are at some level based on the number of rounds we assume it will take to stop an assailant and the number of assailants we might encounter. There are no doubt people that look at my own choices and consider them inadequate.

What I think is important here is to keep in perspective the actual topic. Given the size and weight differences between a traditional single stack, one of the newer micro-compacts, and a subcompact, into which camp does a person fall? At what point does a person decide what weight and size is too much for a given capacity? And the answer seems to be (from our limited sample here) that that specific point varies quite a lot. I think the variability we see in the responses here in part explains the number of options out there currently and the recent trend of higher capacities in smaller and lighter pistols as compared to traditional double stacks, even if those size and weight differences might not seem relevant to some of us or worth it to some of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

Statistically speaking, a person doesn't need to carry any gun....ever.

[jetinteriorguy]

All this talk made me give my LC9s a range day yesterday, so I ran a hundred rounds through it. Yup, it’s still a keeper.