http://palmettostatearmory.com...shieldtm-40-s-w.html

I'm looking at a used one 300 dollars. Opinions on reliability? It fits my hand well, feels better than my Sig P232.

For a few bucks more you can get a NIB with extras email me and I will send you the link if you want. It is a very nice weapon I have 2 a 40 S&W and 45 ACP

My shield .40 (no safety) failed at less than 200 factory rounds, when the frame cracked from the trigger guard to the mag release cutout. It's a paperweight now.

S&W refused to honor their warranty.

I can't recommend the pistol.

I have Shields in 9, 40 and 45. I prefer the 45 ONLY because it's slightly larger that the 9 and 40 and I really like the rough texture. With that being said, I installed the Hogue rubber stick on sleeve on my 40 and that one is my preferred CCW when IWB. On a positive for the 40, in all my research, I found that the 40 doesn't suffer to bad with velocity loss with the 3.1" barrel. It appears that despite being a high pressure round, the 40 in a 3.1" barrel still offers a pretty potent defense round.
I have no plans on getting rid of my Shield 40 anytime soon!

Spend a little more and buy a new Shield in 9mm. Skip the .40.

Not much difference in size.
Why would you choose. .40 over a .45?
Really like my shield .45 with the Hogue grip.

It came in as a trade in at the LGS that I help out at. Gun was part of a divorce case, wife transferred it to husband, he traded it in for a shotgun. It just feels right in my hand, quite a bit more comfortable than my P232. I'm right handed, usually carry crossdraw in left front pocket due to a some movement restriction in my shoulder. And with my body shape, right hip carry where it's comfortable prints pretty clearly while left front lays pretty flat and unseen.

And without going into a bunch of details, my buying this is some payback to the shop owner.

Can't see any marks or damage to it, comes with box and all accessories, brush never used to clean it. Second magazine probably was never inserted into it.

Has a safety and 6.5# trigger, I wanted to make sure it was not a Mass. gun with the heavy pull trigger.

Too snappy for me. Recovery for follow-ups really slows down if I expect/hope to hit anything beyond the first shot. I've tried them a couple of times; clearly found that it's not what I would want for a defensive weapon. These days a 9mm 2.0 would be what I'd pick if I needed it to be a S&W and this kind of size. More expensive yes, but for me it just works and shoots a hell of a lot better in the context of a defensive role.

I have one and carried it as a backup for years. It was reasonably accurate, 100% reliable and small enough to ride in a pocket. Recoil wasnt bad to me. We switched to 9mm so I picked up a Glock 19 but I dont have plans to sell my Shield 40. If you are MIL or exMil then they have a nice discount on new ones. I'd say spend the cash and get a new Shield but its not a bad option at all.

I have one in 40 cal. I have carried it a good deal in my front right pocket at the ranch. Good pistol but IMO it prints too much and is a little large for easy removal from my pocket to use for carry in town.

I like .40 in general. But this is too small for .40. Stay with 9mm.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
My shield .40 (no safety) failed at less than 200 factory rounds, when the frame cracked from the trigger guard to the mag release cutout. It's a paperweight now.

S&W refused to honor their warranty.

I can't recommend the pistol.

Let me ask you this. Why did S&W refuse to honor the warranty? It has a lifetime warranty and there was definitely something wrong for the frame to crack. I'd be on the phone with someone in upper management getting that BS resolved.
In the last 6 months I bought a pre-rebate 45 Shield then during the rebate a 9mm and 40 cal Shields. I've fired the 45 but haven't made an effort to try the 9 & 40 out as of yet. I started not even to buy the 40 cal but for the price w/t rebate I got weak.

I’m not a fan of Smith autos with the exception of the third gen steel / alloy guns but they are to known to have exceptional service. I am also curious to hear the warranty story.

As to the OP. I have no issues with .40 and like the caliber but getting into these tiny pistols they really take some effort to shoot well and you give up capacity vs 9mm which when we are already talking fairly low capacity could be an issue.

I say go 9mm in this size.

I had a Shield and sold it. I vastly prefer my PPS.

Their usual song and dance is to claim that the owner of the broken Shield was using over-spec reloads. I've seen similar posts on other gun sites referring to this 'tactic' of theirs. Usually however if the gun owner presses the issue they will relent and cover the damaged gun.

I also should add that there have been similar frame problems with their double-stack 1.0 guns in the past; S&W's response to owners of those broken guns were the same. However, if you were wondering why S&W added additional internal frame metal structure in the 2.0 guns...now you know.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
I’m not a fan of Smith autos with the exception of the third gen steel / alloy guns but they are to known to have exceptional service. I am also curious to hear the warranty story.

Funny you say that. In the 1970's I worked at a gun shop and we would get several of the old M 39 & double stack M 59's in for repairs. I bought a M52 and sold it sometime later never trying it. I said I'd never buy a S&W semi auto. I did buy a M 41 back in 1973 but that was before I saw the M39's and 59's.
I have to say that M41 is one of S&W greats. I don't know what the news ones are like.
I heard so much about the Shields and shot a couple of them I bought one of each.
I've never been a fan of Ruger semi autos either other then their SR 1911's. At my age and physical condition I really don't foresee buying many more guns. If these Shield's prove to not be what I expect they'll be gone.

I hope we find out why they refuse to honor the warranty. He said he fired factory ammo not reloads.

I have Shields in 9,40 and 45. I just don't really care for the 40. I do like the 9 and 45, especially the 45. IMHO the 40 is just too snappy. The 45's recoil is just enough slower to make it much more pleasant to shoot in my hand and my example is quite accurate for a small pistol.

I tend to use the 9x19 for less expensive practice and carry the 45 for more serious use.

I've had far fewer issues with M&P pistols than newer SIG's and feel that for the they are exceptional values for their excellent ergo's and performance at a bargain price.........dj

quote:

Originally posted by Ruger Redhawk:

Let me ask you this. Why did S&W refuse to honor the warranty? It has a lifetime warranty and there was definitely something wrong for the frame to crack. I'd be on the phone with someone in upper management getting that BS resolved.
In the last 6 months I bought a pre-rebate 45 Shield then during the rebate a 9mm and 40 cal Shields. I've fired the 45 but haven't made an effort to try the 9 & 40 out as of yet. I started not even to buy the 40 cal but for the price w/t rebate I got weak.

When the problem occurred, several of us at the range looked closely at the pistol and couldn't figure out why it was doing what it was doing (press the trigger, draw bar moves, but won't move the striker, won't fire). After some internet searches, I turned up a number of identical malfunctions, and it came down to a crack...I found pictures. I examined my pistol, and it had an identical crack. Very hard to see.

In every case, the owner sent it to S&W, who sent it to their "met lab," and then the company blamed the problem on ammunition and refused to warranty it. In each case, s&w offered a "replacement" pistol at a higher price than what could be bought elsewhere (full price).

I contacted s&w, told them what I'd found, they said sent it in, sent a label. I told them I didn't want to hear about it going to the met lab then being blamed on ammunition. It went to the "met lab" and then s&w refused to warranty it, saying it was ammunition.

Less than 200 rounds of Remington UMC, purchased at the range. No unusual sounds, pistol actions, no signs of overpressure in brass. No bulging cases, blown primers, flattened primers, etc.

When I called s&w, I was told they couldn't find any reason for the failure, and I was told by the rep on the phone that standard practice, when unable to determine a cause for failure, was to blame ammunition. I was told I could have a replacement pistol for 319 dollars. The replacement would come with a new serial number, and I'd have to pay the transfer fee. That's not a replacement; that's bait and switch with false guarantees, and attempting to sell me a new pistol. I said no.

Not trying to hijack the thread. Today I just purchased a Shield 45 new for $379. I’ve got one in 9mm. The trigger on the 45 is better for some reason. The trigger on the 9 is not bad at all but the 45 trigger is better.

Dependable but definitely snappy, I too have the 45 also and like it much better. Trigger much nicer.