Opinion: Shield vs Nano?

[hipower]

Did a little reading on the 938. Could be perfect for many. I'm a current multi-Sig owner and devotee. But in my senior years I'm not trusting myself with the cocked-and-locked SA set-up as a carry piece. Great for home defense. I still have an EMP of that persuasion.  I really like this DAO with no safety for carry purposes. Less thinking I suppose. This Nano is the first I've had of that type(I think). Been soooo many over 40+ years.  But no Glocks. No offense Glock fans.

 

As one old fart to another...try a Glock. Probably a 19 would be the ideal place to start.

 

With the things you commented on. it would be a very good option for you.  And yes...I do have a few Glocks. They have been one of the easiest shooting, most trouble free guns I've ever owned. Outside of a good wheel gun that is.

[ncldwell]

Like them both but prefer the Shield.

[THneo]

Have a Nano. Never had problem with it. No FTE or FTF.

[HvBikeWlTravel]

You like the Nano but you don't like Glocks? The Nano is awfully Glock like.

And here's the REASON I've never had a Glock; natural point! Put a 17 in my hands when they first came out. Grip angle had me pointed in the trees. Tried a 19 when it came out. Same result. Tried the 21(?). Better but not a natural point in my hands. I can't think of any other handgun that is as "off" in my hand as the Glock. The early Rugers(P85/89) felt pathetic but at least the sights came close to lining up. Steyr GB and CZ-99 were big ass grips but at least the sites lined up. Hi-Powers were the absolute winner when it came to natural pointability. IMI Baby Eagle and 1911s (with the right grip) are keepers for me.  P229 is nice. P220 requires Hogue grips. I have zero negatives to say about Glock fit/finish, function or reliability. There's a reason Law Enforcement uses 'em. But that doesn't mean I have to.

But I can say some of the more recent models have felt better. In fact after shooting a 36 I was slightly tempted to buy. I was impressed with the control for a sub-compact spitting out 220 grains.

 

EDIT: I will add this about my Nano. I put one of those Pachmayr Rubber Bands on the grip. Helped in my case.

Edited February 27, 2014 by HvBikeWlTravel

[Patton]

And here's the REASON I've never had a Glock; natural point! Put a 17 in my hands when they first came out. Grip angle had me pointed in the trees. Tried a 19 when it came out. Same result. Tried the 21(?). Better but not a natural point in my hands. I can't think of any other handgun that is as "off" in my hand as the Glock.

Before I got big into handguns I was in a Sig course while in the Army, I told the instructor some guns pointed more naturally for me than others. His response as to why I had that issue: I was not focusing on my front sight post.

[HvBikeWlTravel]

Before I got big into handguns I was in a Sig course while in the Army, I told the instructor some guns pointed more naturally for me than others. His response as to why I had that issue: I was not focusing on my front sight post.

 

OK. I'll assume that advice helped you. I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding the instruction.

I had next to  zero instruction on proper handgun shooting. I am basically an instinctive shooter going back to early days of wingshooting. I have both eyes open and focused on the target. When I bring a weapon up under that line of sight, to my mind the the sights should naturally line up. Works both for shotguns and pistols, at least in my case. If a weapon doesn't line up with proper grip, then I'm not likely to be able to shoot that weapon  proficiently.

Edited February 26, 2014 by HvBikeWlTravel

[chances R]

OK. I'll assume that advice helped you. I'm having a little bit of a hard time understanding the instruction.

I had next to  zero instruction on proper handgun shooting. I am basically an instinctive shooter going back to early days of wingshooting. I have both eyes open and focused on the target. When I bring a weapon up under that line of sight, to my mind the the sights should naturally line up. Works both for shotguns and pistols, at least in my case. If a weapon doesn't line up with proper grip, then I'm not likely to be able to shoot that weapon very proficiently.

If you read about the famous lawmen/gunmen of the past; they all advocated focus on the front sight.  They may not always get the first shot off, but they did get the first accurate shot off.  

[HvBikeWlTravel]

If you read about the famous lawmen/gunmen of the past; they all advocated focus on the front sight.  They may not always get the first shot off, but they did get the first accurate shot off.  

 

I don't doubt that I've been doing it wrong for many years. Yet when my eyesight was good I hit a lot of targets. Chalk it dumb luck I guess. But I still maintain there are guns with which I'm going to have way better accuracy because of their natural point FOR ME.

And no, the Nano is NOT one of 'em.

 

Frankly, when it comes to handgun combat stance, NONE of the gun is in my sight pattern. I sometimes practice a two-hand stance from the hip. As taught to me by a not so famous Chief of Police.

Edited February 24, 2014 by HvBikeWlTravel

[Patton]

I think we all have guns that feel more like an extension of our arm more so than some others do. I only brought up focusing on the front sight post to be helpful. I have even been taught as an officer to draw looking over the sights to engage targets within close proximity, feet squared with shoulders squared... With that said, any gun should hit a target within a reasonable area up or down from another brand. Those targets further away would require sight alignment.

[Guest Gruffy]

Shields are fantastic for what they are designed for.  Also, the walther pps, IMO, is underrated and worth a look. I have shot the nano and shield/carried the shield, and would take the shield over the nano for my personal fit, etc.  I have also carried the walther, and between it and the shield I would take the walther.

[HvBikeWlTravel]

I think we all have guns that feel more like an extension of our arm more so than some others do. I only brought up focusing on the front sight post to be helpful. I have even been taught as an officer to draw looking over the sights to engage targets within close proximity, feet squared with shoulders squared... With that said, any gun should hit a target within a reasonable area up or down from another brand. Those targets further away would require sight alignment.

 

Completely agreed. And there can be those hopefully very rare moments when you have less than a second to defend yourself and getting the firearm pointed in the right direction and 1 0r 2 rounds sent is critical to survival. Not every situation allows for sight alignment or even pushing gun out into "proper" stance. I suggest to anyone that wants to be really effective with a defense weapon to practice numerous positions. And practice with one favorite is recommend over numerous.

[drivenfrmwithin]

So here's a question then...sounds like Shield is the way to go. If all the 9mm versions are gone (for now), would you jump on a 40 or wait for a 9mm? I know there is a 1 round difference in the mags. Sent from my iPhone

[Patton]

I have owned the 40 version of the Shield and now I own the 9mm. There is not much difference in shooting the two, obviously a one round difference. I would not hesitate to buy the 40 again. Besides, if you don't own a .40 you need one because of availability. If you found a new Shield for under $435 OTD just buy it no matter what caliber it is.

For a short while S&W was selling factory 9mm barrels for the 40 version for $80 but they are not now. Hopefully we will get 9mm conversion barrels from the aftermarket soon.

[cgun86]

I agree with Patton, at that price buy no matter what the caliber. They're still a hot commodity right now and can be sold/traded with little if any loss of value. I personally don't like the .40 S&W round in small gun, so I'd still try and hold out for a 9mm. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - [URL=http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1]now Free[/URL]

[Patton]

. I personally don't like the .40 S&W round in small gun, so I'd still try and hold out for a 9mm.
now Free

I would agre as well, the Keltec P40 was punishment, it is my belief that the the Shield in 40 is as mild as a full size 40.

[Guest copperhead_1911]

I have shot both and really do not like either. The wife just got a post recall springfield xds 9mm. Seems more easy to conceal and more accurate. If you are looking for a small gun the ruger lc9 is also nice. The best I think is the small one by sig that looks like a 1911 I thnk its called the p938, but it is way too expensive.

[drivenfrmwithin]

I ended up purchasing the Shield 9mm from KY Gun Co yesterday. Should be at my FFL next week. Thanks for the help and input! I'll let y'all know how it goes once I get. Sent from my iPhone

[musicman]

Awesome!!! In your honor, I'm gunna blast a hundred rounds through mine tomorrow! ;-) I freakin' love it! After my PC629 and M&P Pro, the Shield has become my 3rd favorite gun to shoot!

[drivenfrmwithin]

[quote name="musicman" post="1121716" timestamp="1394253763"]Awesome!!! In your honor, I'm gunna blast a hundred rounds through mine tomorrow! ;-) I freakin' love it! After my PC629 and M&P Pro, the Shield has become my 3rd favorite gun to shoot![/quote] Awesome! I appreciate it! Have fun Sent from my iPhone