Glock 19 and S&W Shield 9mm:  Use and Shooting Comparison

(C) LSA 2015

Folks new to the shooting world often wonder what is reasonable to expect from a firearm, especially when they begin the process of obtaining a CCW.  Advice is everywhere.  It ranges from the dictates of their CCW instructor to the advice of the gun store clerk to help from their friends to material they read in magazines and other sources.  The only thing they should be sure of is that there is such a diversity of ideas that somewhere somebody believes almost everything you can imagine.

This post is simply the result of taking a Glock 19 9mm and a S&W Shield 9mm shooting one day and noting the results in a systematic format.  Before the internet world descends upon these ideas, please note that, in general, a Glock 19 is a medium size double stack magazine 9mm duty pistol representative of the size and type.  S&W and Springfield have both copied Glock's general idea and make striker fired pistols in various sizes.  The Shield is a single stack magazine 9mm possibly pocket pistol likewise representative of the size and type.  It is similar in size to the Ruger LC9s and LC9s Pro, the Glock 43, and others.

What follows will be an effort to explain the pistols briefly, indicate some test ammunition, shoot the pistols, display the results in a visual format, and show a couple of holsters for size comparison.

Since the two pistols are apples and oranges in the firearm world, there is no bias as to Glock or S&W.  I do note that both of them are here in this post because they work.  There is no other criteria.  If a pistol does not work 100% of the time with the ammunition available, it is not of much value.  Needless to say, both of these well broken in pistols digested 50 rounds each of six types of ammunition with out the slightest bobble.  They work.  Glock is the Gold Standard of reliable function.  The Shield design has been debugged and works.

The first consideration with any new to the user pistol is to read the instruction manual, learn the parts, learn any quirks the brand may have, strip and clean it, lubricate it properly per the manual, and reassemble it.  After that a couple hundred hand cycles of the slide with perhaps another 50 or 100 being dry fired will loosen, smooth, and break in any component needing a bit of attention.  It is the functional equivalent of shooting 4 boxes of ammo, but in the process you learn the trigger pull and where the controls are without being distracted by recoil.  This applies to center fire handguns, not to .22LR rim fire handguns.  Follow the manufacture's recommendations regarding dry firing a rim fire handgun.

As to the Glock 19, there is a reason they are used and respected in civilian and police circles.  They work.  Once properly loaded, a Glock is the equivalent of a square revolver.  Pick it up, pull the trigger, it fires, put it down, it is safe.  There are no buttons to remember regarding the fire control system, no safeties to fool with, and nothing to remember to reset.  Very double action revolver like.  The standard 5.5 pound trigger pull is neither too heavy nor too light.  With a bit of shooting, it becomes quite smooth and easy to use.  The Glock system has an excellent reset "feel."  It goes "click" and you know it will fire again with a short pull.

The Glock 19 9mm is a medium size belt pistol for most people.  It can be carried in a down vest pocket type "pocket" holster.  It will generally be carried in a belt holster.  For most people, a Glock 19 is the largest and heaviest pistol they are likely to carry for CCW.  For the person with no handgun and only a modest level of experience, weight/recoil/size/shooting characteristic wise, the Glock 19 is an excellent beginners firearm after the basics are learned with a .22LR and proper instruction.  If the new to shooting world individual only had one center fire firearm, my vote would be for the Glock 19.  The NYPD officers most frequently choose the 19 as the required on and off duty firearm.

The 15 round plus one in the chamber magazine makes it a formidable firearm if capacity is needed.  As a general purpose do anything needed firearm, it is close to Glock's idea of Perfection.  (Fans of other brands will tell the new shooter the same thing about their favorites.)  I simply note that any fire arm bigger, more powerful, heavier, or lighter in 9mm will start to be too big, too powerful, too heavy, and suddenly too light because of recoil considerations if smaller and lighter.  A Glock 19 is at the balance point of many characteristics and is likely to be fun to shoot and shot well.  It is enjoyable to shoot one.



Photo:  Glock 19 and manual.  The pistol is a Gen2 19 and the manual is a Gen4.

The S&W Shield 9mm is a different beast.  It is lighter, thinner, smaller in profile, and holds one half the ammunition of a Glock 19.   On the other hand, it is just a bit too big for most people's front pants/shorts pocket, but does well while standing up in a cargo shorts/pants type pocket.  Sitting down, the rear of the slide starts to poke fellows in the wrong places.  It is light enough not to weight down one side of the pants, but heavy enough it can be shot enough for practice.

The Shield comes in more than one version.  The one I fired has a safety lever that can go up or down.  There is another version with no safety.  Makes no difference to me.  I regard the safety as useless in the Shield.  The safety version I have was put on and then off when purchased once to see that it worked and was never again used.  The frame protects the safety from accidentally being put on "safe" and is not easy to do even when you want to.  Disregarded, it just sits there unused in a striker fired pistol with a striker safety block.

The 7 and the 8 rounds magazines for the Shield make it like two pistols.  The 7 rounder plus one in the chamber makes 8.  The short magazine pretty much allows pants pocket carry if you wish, or very comfortable belt carry.  The little finger usually hangs off the bottom.  The 8 round magazine catches all three fingers and makes capacity 9.  Note that this is almost double the 5 shot J frame revolvers which abound for CCW.  While 8 or 9 is half of 16, twice a J frame is not a laughing matter capacity wise.  So the Shield has a good bit of its own utility.  

Of all pistols in this size category, the Shield is the most thought out by the factory.  Its operation and recoil characteristics have the best feel.  The two magazine sizes with extension from the factory reduce having to get some other system as an add on.  The 8 round magazine appears to be part of the pistol, not an after thought.  A Ruger LC9s Pro has a better trigger feel and the Glock 43 has a genuine Glock following.  The Ruger is very thin in the grip and the 43 only catches two fingers.  But it is noteworthy that the Shield has a better trigger than the larger M&P series S&W sells as a Glock copy.  Overall, the Shield is the easiest to shoot of the type.

As long as it is thought of as a big pocket pistol or a small belt pistol, the reference will not be too far afield.  The new shooter and his friends are unlikely to enjoy shooting 300 rounds in an afternoon through one, but 50-100 rounds in a session is manageable practice.



Photo:  Shield 9mm and manual.

I am not making a suggestion that these are the only two choices in the world.  That is the problem.  There are too many choices.  These two just generally work.  The Glock virtually always and the Shield almost always just a little bit less.  Both manufacturers are very aggressive at customer service and any legitimate problem is addressed.  (Yes, you can read of user disasters on any internet site.  In proportion to the volume sold, they are rare.)

When setting up a new CCW pistol, there should be magazines for CCW.  There should be other magazines for practice.  Test and then guard the CCW magazines so they are never damaged and so that they are rotated.  Then you know they will work.  The practice magazines are just that.  They are the ones you push the button and dump on the concrete and the bozo next to you steps on it.  Three for CCW and at least two for practice are a necessity.



Photo:  Glock 19 and 5 magazines, two with blue Glock practice magazines floor plates.



Photo:  Shield with 5 magazines, two with flat floor plates on 7 rounders and three with extended floor plates on the 8 rounders.  Note the smooth extension of the frame with the 8 rounder or the compactness if the 7 rounder is fitted.

Magazine function note for the Shield:  The Shield 8 round magazine is an extended magazine with an adapter sleeve to smooth the grip lines compared to the 7 round flush fit magazine.  When the longer magazines are used, the adapter sleeve should be used with the Shield.  Without the adapter sleeve in place, nothing prevents excess upward force allowing over insertion of the magazine which can damage the ejector stem if the slide is open.  Likewise, the magazine body and top round can be jambed higher than normal up against the underside of the slide and impair function while firing due to increased drag.  With the adapter sleeve in place, that is not possible because insertion is limited by the adapter sleeve.

Magazine function note for the Glock:   In the same manner, the Glock 19's 15 round magazine can be substituted with a Glock 17 magazine which holds 17 rounds.  Companies make an adapter that fills the extra length under the frame and above the floor plate.  Alternatively, Glock 19 fifteen round magazines can be used in a Glock 26 with a similar adapter.  When the longer than normal magazines are used within caliber variations, the adapter sleeve should be used for shooting comfort.  Features within the Glock frame and on the magazines themselves prevent over insertion even with magazines longer than factory standard.  The upper left side where the magazine body narrows has a squared off shelf which mates with a squared off shelf in the upper left magazine well.  The two surfaces make contact and the magazines cannot be over inserted.  Even when the magazines are pushed upwards, the cut out at the rear of the magazine does not strike the ejector stem.  The notes here are common to all the magazines I could find when used in the Gen2 Glock 19 noted above and in a Gen3 Glock 26 I checked.

As a separate matter from the 9mm magazines noted above, in some .40S&W variations of magazine length, it has been noted that longer magazines in a shorter grip frame can allow the magazines to rock impairing function.  With the adapter sleeves in place, that should not happen because motion is limited by the adapter sleeve.  But, yet again, it has been noted that even with sleeves in place, the rocking of a longer magazine has impaired function with some .40S&Ws.  If you choose to use non standard combinations of magazines and frames, it would behoove you to make sure your variation actually works.

For the Glocks of all sizes, the X-Grip is the best of the sleeve adapters.  It follows the frame contours and leaves the least room allowable when locked in.  There is a sleeve for just about every combination of long magazine in a short pistol butt.



Photo:  Although slightly off my own topic, this is a Glock 26 with a Glock 19 magazine in place with an X-Grip fitted.  The X-Grip is softer rubbery material and feels good in hand.  The magazine in the photo is another 19 magazine with three arrows pointing to the shelf discussed above preventing over insertion.  O'le Gaston Glock got another feature with Perfection.  

http://x-grips.com/products/glock-19-23/

Magazines in your pocket:  If you try to pocket carry a loose Shield magazine, unload and clean it periodically because dust bunnies will multiply faster than you can believe with the open holes on both sides of the magazine.  When I emptied the Shield magazine used for shooting this comparison, I was v e r y surprised at just how much dust had accumulated in a short time this past summer.  The Glock magazines with smaller holes on the rear side grow dust bunnies, but slower.  

A word on sights.  Black on black sights are not easy for many people including most older people to see.  The Shield has as factory standard a three dot white sight system that works well.  The Glock system uses a front white dot and a white square U to put the dot into.  It works very well.  Glock makes a standard plastic set, a steel Glock set with the same front dot and rear square U, and the factory installs night sight sets that appear as three dots.  Any factory combination is quite useable.



Photo:  Glock standard front dot and rear square U system as on a Gen4 19.

Even better are some of the light pipe systems that accumulate ambient light and make dots out of it.  The writer here is very near sighted and any sights are hard to see.  Both of these pistols have had changes in the sights.

The Shield shot here has had the front sight replaced with a HiViz green light pipe that works with the two rear factory white dots.  When using the green front and the two white rear dots, the 115 grain ammunition has an approximate vertical zero.  But if the black tops of the sights are used, the shots go high because the HiViz green front sight has the dot close to the top of the sight while the S&W factory rear has the white dots somewhat lower.  Aligning the top black portions is like raising the rear sight in concept.  The front factory Shield sight can be changed, but the S&W manual cautions not to casually fool with the rear sight.  The S&W sights are a bear to move to zero or to install other sights.  Very tightly installed in the dovetails.



Photo:  Shield sights with rear white dots and green HiViz light pipe front.  NOTE:  the actual front sight when seen at arms length appears to be the same size as the rear dots.  The camera perspective does not match the eye's. Having a different rear sight installed usually requires professional help.  The current manual on page 28 indicates removal of the rear sight is problematic and should only be done by someone familiar with the Shield.



Photo:  HiViz Shield front sight sleeve.  Note this is the older version front sight and not the newer version LiteWave style.

The Glock 19 actually shot has a front and rear HiViz light pipe system carefully matched so that the front is at least as large as the rear.  You specifically order the two items noted below.  The three bright green dots can be seen by my old eyes.  Seen is the wrong word.  You cannot miss seeing them.   They install just like regular Glock sights.  These again are the older HiViz Glock sights and there are newer versions on their website.



Photo:  Glock 19 HiViz sight set.  Again, NOTE:  the actual front sight when seen at arms length appears to be the same size as the rear dots.  The camera perspective does not match the eye's.



Photo:  HiViz Glock 19 front and rear sight sleeves of the sights actually installed.  Check the HiViz website for the most modern versions.

Ammunition is always a great topic.  In my experience, any pistol that will work, generally works with any proper American made ammunition.  Likewise, pistols that do not work rarely work with any ammunition.  If you have a pistol highly selective of its ammunition, you have a pistol operating on the verge of failure.  With a perfect hold clean and lubed, they may work.  Failure waits for the loose hold, a slightly weak powder loading, your thumb dragging on the slide, or just Mr. Murphy.  Baring the steel cased ComBloc cheapo stuff being sold today, they should operate with any in spec ammo for its stated caliber.  Do not bother asking me why steel cased Russian ammo fails to feed and extract.



Photo:  Various ammunition used and found very reliable.  Some of them were shot for this post.

Today, I shot the following:
-Winchester Western USA 115 grain FMJRN Q4172
-Hornady Critical Defense 115 grain expanding  (Shield "zero" loading")
-Federal American Eagle 124 grain FMJRN AE9AP
-Federal Hydra-Shok 147 grain HP  P9HS2G1 (Glock 19 "zero" loading)

-Reload using Precision Delta 115 grain full metal jacket and Bullseye Pistol Powder.

http://precisiondelta.com/

-Reload using Dardas Cast Bullets 124 grain lead round nose and Bullseye Pistol Powder.

https://www.dardascastbullets.com/

Both reloads are very accurate and shoot to the sights on both guns.  Both are more accurate than most factory loads.

As to shooting, IPSC sized targets were put up at 15 yards two at a time.  The shooter fired two handed with no support at a reasonable cadence, neither fast nor slow.  The Glock 19 was fired with factory ammunition at one target and the Shield with factory ammunition at a second.  

Then the Glock 19 was fired with reloaded ammunition at a third target and the Shield at a fourth.

All shooting was done in turns, Glock, Shield, Glock, Shield, within each ammunition type.  Each set of holes was marked with permanent marker for identification.  The legend of what color dot matches which ammunition was added to the targets which were then photographed.  The results are that of a real shooter in the real world with real guns on a real day.  Neither wonderful nor poor.  



Photo:  Both Glock 19 and Shield factory ammo targets.



Photo:  Glock center area showing all shots fired with factory ammo.



Photo:  Shield center area showing all shots fired with factory ammo.



Photo:  Both Glock 19 and Shield reloaded ammo targets.



Photo:  Glock center area showing all shots fired with reloaded ammo.



Photo:  Shield center area showing all shots fired with reloaded ammo.

Shooting the Glock is an easy process.  The pistol is heavy enough that small mistakes stay centered.  Different bullet weights land in the same area.  It can be shot rapidly with little problem recoil being minimal allowing rapid realignment and quick repeat shots.  The effect of recoil and the wide double stack magazine grip on your hand is that of a push, the trigger reset clicks, and you go again.  The force is spread out evenly.

The Shield is also easy to shoot, albeit slower to do so with the 8 round magazine and even slower with the 7 round magazine.  There is more recoil and of a different type.  It is more of a slap on a narrow part of your hand.  The lighter pistol moves about unless you are slightly slower and more deliberate.  Different bullet weights tend to hit in different areas.  Generally speaking, the heavier the bullet, the higher and lefter it impacts.  The Shield remains quite controllable and is the easiest and most accurate to shoot of all the single stack 9mms with any pretense of being a pocket pistol.

A good holster both protects the firearm and enhances safety.  Keeping the firearm in the correct position to draw and covering the trigger guard are necessities.  



Photo:  The Glock 19 and Shield in leather belt holsters for a size comparison.  The 19 is manageable and the Shield is quickly forgotten on a high quality pistol belt.  The Glock is in a DiSantis with a distinct tilt and the Shield in a Tauga that is pretty much straight up.  The Tauga had too much leather and was reduced in height just a bit along the top edge.



Photo:  The Glock 19 in a pocket liner type holster for in a down vest outside pocket and a Shield in a pants pocket holster for a size comparison.  The Glock remains up right and protected, but is distinctly not a pants pocket pistol.  The Shield can be used that way.

Which to buy?  After you have a good .22LR and have learned to shoot it, I would always believe a shooter should have the Glock for fun and general useage and CCW where weather and clothes allow AND the Shield for CCW in warmer weather and less clothes.  Considering of course weight and size as appropriate.

For any firearm purchase the shooter should borrow, rent, go with a friend, go with an enemy, but how ever they do it, shoot that which they think they might buy.  Try it.  See if you can work the slide, operate the buttons and bells, see if you like the sights, see if you can pull the trigger, and see if it fits your hand in actual firing, not playing in a gun store.  After you have your own experience, you can make your own choice.  The saddest new shooter experience is when an item is purchased and found to be not as expected.  Then its sold at a loss for hopefully 70-80% of its cost and another purchase made.  If that one is a failure, then another loss is suffered.  Pretty soon, a whole pistol has been lost in value just find one good one.  Better to try and shoot first and then decide.

The other problem is ammunition used in testing and familiarization.  It can quickly exceed the cost of the pistol.  Better to have a gun that you like the first time and a gun that works.  My 600 rounds of not replaceable .380acp through a small pocket gun that the factory finally junked is still a bad memory.  Experiment only after you have a really good first choice in hand.

For other information on other firearms posts that have marched off the front forum pages into where ever they go, the reader might wish to see:

Ruger SR22P:  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/148288_Beginner_Level_Set_Up_Of_A_New_Pistol.html

Ruger LCR38:  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_32/158221_LCR__38_Special__P_Review.html

Ruger LCP .380:  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/162173_Ruger_LCP__380acp_Custom_Test_Shoot___Excellent_Accuracy_and_100__Function__for_35_shots_.html

Pocket Holster Design:  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_5_4/162387_Pocket_Holster_Design__One_idea_anyhow_.html



Photo:  As a final note, since this post is useful for beginners, I call the above photo "Home Depot Bucket Filled With Sand."  Because that is what it is.  

The Advice and Direction from instructors, organizations, ranges, your buddy helping you, is always to keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction.  The Reason is so that if the safety between your ears fails or the safety in the gun fails or "stupid" happens in general, there is a safe backstop for your negligent screw up.

The Problem is that a safe direction does not often present itself in your house or apartment.  Most 9mm will go in one side and out the other.  So if you drop your slide to load the chamber, dry fire with an empty gun, or otherwise activate the firearm mechanism, you do so with no real safe direction.  (No, the television is not a safe direction.)  Mr. Murphy says that if a thing can happen it will.  Mr. Murphy also says that if a thing happens, it will happen at the worst possible moment.

The Answer is to buy a Home Depot bucket and lid, fill it with sand, and always point your firearm at its center, from the side or the top, when you do that which should ALWAYS give you just a moments pause to think, "What Am I Doing, and Am I Doing It Safely?"

With no levity, this means that anytime you do anything like dry firing or loading the chamber or checking the feel of your trigger, point the muzzle at the bucket's center.

Cheap.  Effective.  Colorful with any decor by your safe or lock box.  It will stop anything you can hand carry.  High powered rifles shatter all but AP on the sand and penetrate less than hand gun bullets.  Your ears may hurt, but nothing else will be damaged.  If you frequently do stupid, it is re-useable since the holes semi-reseal. (:>)

I personally know the bucket of sand works because I filled one and took it out and shot it.  Then I gave some away for Christmas Presents.

Good luck and good shooting.

(If you look below, there is an addendum that resolves the Shield rear sight questions raised above and shows a HiViz green rear installation.)

(C) LSA 2015

Excellent write up.

I much prefer the Gen3 and Gen 4 G19 to the Gen 2. The Gen 2 has that half-moon cut out at the bottom of the grip that drives me nutz.

Thank you for an excellent review and great pictures.

I have both the Shield and G19 and enjoy them both immensely.  The Shield is perfect for those times when absolute discretion and deep cover is essential and the G19 fit's the bill for everything else.

I prefer to have a carry gun with the ability to attach a light. I can conceal the G19 in any clothing by simply adjusting my holster to my needs.

Excellent post, LSA. I have and carry both. My 3rd Gen G19 is my duty gun at my PD job and sees off duty use when I am wearing enough clothing to effectively conceal it and the 9mm Shield is used for backup when on duty and for off duty use during the summer. I can attest that they are both excellent guns.

One small correction about the Glock factory magazines. If you look at the top of the magazine where it narrows to the feed lips on the left side, you will see a squarish projection sticking out of the magazine. That projection mates with a similar projection inside the frame, absolutely preventing overinsertion of the magazine. You do not need any aftermarket mag sleeves to prevent overinsertion. Now, on some .40 guns, you may need the sleeve to prevent a longer magazine from rocking back and forth and causing feed issues (I've seen several have feed problems with .40 guns due to the longer magazines rocking back and forth, even with magazine sleeves, but have never seen it out of a 9mm gun), but even there it is not necessary to prevent overinsertion. For some people, it may be a lot more comfortable to use a magazine sleeve with a longer magazine, but again they aren't necessary to prevent overinsertion.

Another issue I've had specific to the G19 size guns is the factory sights. Myself, I like to see some daylight on each side of the front sight when held in a shooting stance. With the full sized guns, like the G17, there is some light visible. With the G19, the front sight is just enough closer that the front sight completely fills the rear sight notch with no light visible on either side. I didn't have much trouble when shooting quick and dirty at close range, but did have some accuracy issues at longer ranges because I had trouble judging when the front sight was adequately centered in the rear sight. It was bad enough that I considered ditching the G19, until I decided to try some new sights. That, however is a personal issue and not a slam on the gun. I changed my sights out to AmeriGlo I-Dot Pros, which have a considerably thinner front sight and haven't had any more issues. In fact, there is enough light on either side of the front sight now that I can shoot it very well at longer ranges, but the dot on the front sight is big enough and bright enough that I can also shoot it pretty well up close, quick and dirty. Like I said, not really a problem with the gun itself, more of an issue with me, but I have heard others complain of the same thing on occasion.

Myself, I think the Shield is an outstanding gun. I have big hands, but my fingers are thin enough that I can get about half my pinky on the grip with the 7 rd mag. With the 8 rd mag, it feels like a full sized gun to me. I used to think that the saying was cliche, but it really is a small gun that shoots like a big gun. The only real gripe I have about the Shield is the fact that I bought mine before the model without the thumb safety came out. However, I agree with you that the safety is small enough, stiff enough and protected enough that I can't ever see a way that it could get accidentally activated. The factory sights work out fine for me on this gun, so I haven't needed to switch out the sights. Truthfully, if they are as tight as I've read about, I'd be afraid to even try. To me, the trigger is very Glock like. Take up the slack, a defined wall, then a pretty good break, followed by a very distinct tactile and audible reset. If the triggers on the full sized M&Ps I shot (admittedly all older, without any real reset and very mushy) were like this, I may consider switching from Glocks to M&Ps. Also, with the Shield, you most definitely do need the sleeve on the extended magazine. There is nothing there except the sleeve to prevent you from overinserting it and hitting the ejector, which could break it off. The issue is that the sleeve can slip up towards the feed lips when carried as a spare, which makes inserting the magazine difficult. I've considered either using epoxy to keep the sleeve in place or trying to drill a small hole and using a small screw to keep it in place, but possibly messing up a $30+ magazine makes me hesitate. I'll play with it one day, I just haven't gotten around to it yet and it isn't enough of a problem to make it a priority. Give it a good slam and the sleeve slips back down and the mag locks in place.

Bub75

Bub75:

Thank you.  As Ronald Reagan would have said, "trust, but verify," so I did checking numerous magazines against a Gen2 19 and a Gen3 26 in which I use longer mags with the X-Grip adapters.  I see the shelves limiting insertion.

You are absolutely right.  Thank you for the correct information.

As to the rocking .40S&W combinations, I made a note of the possibility and bow to your experience.

I re-wrote a couple paragraphs above so that the casual reader would have accurate information in one spot.  

And so they would not mix up Glock and Shield info.

The Shield dovetails are that tight.  I broke the face off two brass drifts taking out the front sight.  I ended up having to mill a square flat end on a steel punch to move it out.  The manual issue with the rear sight not to be adjusted is S&W's doing.

(:>)

LSA

This is a great thread.  Thanks LSA :)

I've already got a Gen 4 G19 and am in the market for either a Shield, G43, or maybe a CCP.  This thread will really help.  It was great to read that info on the Shield's rear sight as well.  I really like the Trijicon HD's and knowing now that I will likely not be able to switch out the rear sight to something without white dots that draw my eye is valuable info.

Thanks!

I am sure the sight is changeable, just not easily.  It probably needs a proper pusher.  I think there are loose parts under the rear sight also when it is removed.  Which makes it harder.  I only point out the manual reference because it is there.  It was on page 26 of my manual, but is now on page 28 of the .PDF version.

HiViz advises the correct corresponding fiber optic rear sight is the MPSLW11 in green.

LSA, believe me when I tell you that I have absolutely no problem with "Trust, but verify". IMO, if you blindly believe everything you read on the Internet without verifying the validity of the info, you are a fool.

I didn't see that warning in the manual when I bought my Shield. Most likely, it is built like the 3rd Gen S&W autos where the rear sight held in some of the fire control parts. I don't know that for sure, just supposition. It would make sense as to why they put it in the manual, though.

As for mag sleeves, I wasn't trying to say that you shouldn't use them. If you like them, then by all means, use them. I don't like them because they add (IMO) unneeded bulk to Glock magazines when carrying spares. They do, however, make using a large magazine more comfortable in, say, a G26. If you like them, use them, just know that they aren't really necessary for proper function.

Regarding the problems with longer mags in the smaller .40 guns, in my experience, it is about 50/50 as to whether they will cause issues. In about half the guns I have experience with (probably 30 total over the years), they work without issue. The other half (admittedly mostly older guns, either Gen 2.5 or early Gen3) had feed issues. I've never gotten a straight answer from Glock, but my opinion is that the tolerances are a little off on either the mag or the frame (or maybe both) and it becomes a tolerance stacking issue. The mag rocks forward at the top and, since the .40 round is larger in diameter than 9mm, it has less room for error when feeding. The nose of the round then hits the bottom of the feed ramp and fails to feed, locking the gun up. If the gun in question had been 9mm, the smaller bullet diameter means that it probably would have hit the feed ramp at a higher angle that would have let it feed. Again, just my supposition and I have nothing to back that up except seeing some of the feed failures in some of the guns. Even in those guns that had issues, it wasn't constant, it was intermittent. It happened often enough, though, that I would shoot at least a couple hundred rounds out of the individual gun with longer mags to make sure that individual gun didn't have issues before relying on the longer mags. If it had issues, no longer mags in that gun. Newer guns seem to have fewer problems, but even then they are not completely problem free. As an example, I did a qualification session for my PD this past Saturday. One of the Officers brought a pretty new G27 to qualify with for backup and off duty. In that individual gun, even with a mag sleeve, it failed to feed 2 or 3 times per 13rd G23 mag. It was shot by another, more experienced shooter, as well as by me, and failed to feed for all that shot it, so that ruled out shooter error. Several other Officers at my PD have G27s and none of them exhibit the issue with longer mags, with or without mag sleeves. On the other hand, several do have G27s that have issues with longer mags, so take it for what it is worth. There is no rhyme or reason to it that I can find, it is dependent on the individual gun.

Again, excellent info, LSA. Keep it up!

Bub75

S&W is not unique with the magazine insertion problem.

"Guns Magazine" August 2015 at page 45 notes that the situation exists with long XD magazines used in the subcompact XD.  You can chatter all day about the wonderful Croation stippling patterns, but pay attention to the info that the long magazines need the sleeve installed before use in a subcompact.  The penalty, with upward pressure, is mis-feeds every shot.

The metal lined plastic covered Glock magazines allow a lot of design features to be "engineered" and molded into the shell that a simple metal tube magazine lacks.

Stranger is the Guns & Ammo July 2015 page 56 test of a SIG P290RS.  Their test gun malfunctioned.  They determined that firm pressure on the factory supplied extended magazine, which lengthens the grip, causes the magazine to go low enough in the frame that the slide over rides the top round.  The slide jambs in the rim cut of the 9mm round.

Op, great (and honest) viewpoints. Thanks for posting.

I own Glocks.  I got to shoot a Shield once, though. Great little pistol.  I was hoping than once Glock released it's 43 that used Shields would be flood the market for cheap snatchin'.  That never happened. At least in my observance. Glock sold a ton of the 43's and folks still kept the Shields.  I take that as a testament to the quality of the Shields.

Although I was hoping the same thing, I highly doubt you'll see it. Yes, Glock has sold a bunch of G43s. However, it took so long for them to introduce it that a lot of people got fed up waiting and bought Shields. That's how I ended up with mine. Most people aren't brand fanboys, though. If the Shield works for them, they will just keep it and not worry about the G43. After getting to fondle one (but not shoot it) at the last Glock armorer's recertification class I took, I may well pick one up. But, since I have a Shield, I'm not in a hurry and may never do it. I'd be more likely to pick up another Shield (without the thumb safety, then relegate the current one with the thumb safety to a spare) since I already have holsters and mags for it, as well as having trained with it for a couple years now. They really are good guns and I trust my life, and my family's lives, to one every day.

Bub75

Nice review. My G19 and sheild are my 2 main carry pieces. Very happy with both

Excellent write up. While I think it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison ( the 19 being a holster gun while the shield close to a pocket gun.
A bit different set of capabilities in my view.
Despite the heresey many people put on shooting cast lead reloads in glocks the write up proves what I have known and seen for a long time glocks will shoot lead just fine and a quick bit of bore care after shooting them is all that is required

Exactly.  It was intended as an apples and oranges comparison to demonstrate capability.  Not better or worse, but different and you can reasonably expect this if you shoot them.

I have a couple of one inch at 25 yards groups with 6 shots in a S&W 629CDX and 8 shots in a P220 off a bench.  It tells you little about real world shooting.  More realistic is simple offhand like this comparison.  For defensive practice, you should shoot fast enough to miss sometimes.  80-90 % hits is your capability at speed.  It you never miss, you are too slow for your skill level.  But that's another story.

For cast bullets, in 9mm and 40S&W, in roughly a dozen Glocks tried, properly sized DardasCastBullets do not lead and are at least as accurate as FMJ.  And less expensive for general practice too.

The first time I tried them, I shot a magazine and looked in the bore.  No lead.  Same at 50-100-200.  Just dirty with powder and grease lube residue.  Cleaned like any normal Glock bore with jacketed.  Its a good idea to check your own gun anyhow as you shoot.

There is some smoke of burned lube not present with jacketed.  But for twice the shooting for the money, so what.  Dardas even delivered during the "famines."

Good use for the Pickle buckets out of Firehouse Subs.

Addendum regarding Shield rear sight:

Since I raised the issue of the Shield rear sights and replacing them with a diffeent rear sight, I thought I would investigate the matter and report back.  Rather then modify the original post which is complete as is, I am just making a short addendum to describe what you find if you do decide to change the Shield sight and replace it with a different rear or some other rear/front sight combination of your choice.

To have a chance of removing the Shield rear sight with out doing anything to hurt the slide, you first need a heavy vise padded so the slide is not damaged.  The dis-assembled slide separated from the frame, barrel, and spring should be trapped by the sold rear portion, not the slide rail parts by the ejection port.



Photo:  Shield slide in leather padded vise with rear factory sight installed.  The set screw is a 1/16" and you need a well made Allen wrench to SAE specs, not Harbor Freight's random sizes.  The set screw should just be removed as it goes down into a flat milled under the level of the dovetail.  You CANNOT just ignore the set screw and bang it out.

It is a good idea to note the position of the rear factory sight assuming you have a zero you wish to maintain.  In the picture note that the rear sight is just to the right of center of the top of the slide by the pencil arrows.  Just a little bit of the dovetail flat shows on the left while none of the dove tail shows on the right by the black arrows.  There is a pencil mark to note the center of the set screw.

As to removing the factory sight, forget your Lyman tapper hammer.  You need a solid brass drift and a 6 ounce brass hammer.  Once it breaks loose, it moves easier.  Expect to re-cut the face of the drift after the factory sight wrecks it.



Photo:  Shield slide with factory rear sight removed.  Since the striker block button is on the right side, I pushed the factory rear sight to the right to delay uncovering the small parts for as long as possible.  Note the button hole and the deeper shelf for the set screw.



Photo:  What you find when the factory rear sight is removed:  The striker block button, a spring, and the plastic top hat with a little retainer the spring fits over.



Photo:  The dovetail cleaned and with the three parts of the striker block re-installed.  Make sure there is no debris in the slide hole such as brass chips or other material.  Lightly oil the parts and drop in.  

If the rear sight is installed from right to left, you can use the initial slide-in by hand to depress and hold down the striker button spring cap.  As always, if you allow the cap and spring to self-eject, good luck on ever finding them.  They are small.



Photo:  rear sight started back into slide from right to left.

If you are using a dedicated sight pusher, follow the directions to move the rear sight into place.  

If you are using brass drifts, first use a square or rectangular face about the width of the dovetail in the slide.  Then make sure that the vertical face is cut at a slight back angle so that the pressure from the bottom of the drift is directed at the bottom of the dovetail of the sight.  Not at the exposed top corner.  That way the sight is pushed with little chance of reshaping the top corner outboard edge of the sight dovetail.

In the case of the Shield sight and slide pictured above where the sight is the full width of the dovetail, keep a slight angle just below vertical coming from the side so that the face of the drift keeps off the upper corner of the sight dovetail.  Keep the face of the drift cut flat so that its unevenness does not translate to the sight.



Photo:  rear sight installed about where the factory one was left-right speaking looking down the sights with both sights installed.

After all this, you still have to take it out and shoot your choice of new sight combination for windage and see how your eye aligns for elevation.  Different sight sets appear differently to different shooters and there is no advice I can give at this time on what you might find satisfactory as a combination compared to the factory three white dot set.

Shooting is the only way you know what the result will be.



Photo:  Factory 3 dot sight set with some changes.   The front sight is in focus here.  The rear is in focus below.  

Originally, the three white dots were deeply drilled and barely had a daub of white paint in the bottom of the holes.  The surface of the white paint was concave, showed every shadow, and the holes were so deep they created their own shadows.  Basically un-useable.  In addition, if you got a good square sight picture, they always shot 3" high at 15 yards and 5" high at 25 yards.  Kinda stupido.  The sight set in this photo has had the three dots added to with several layers of white finger nail polish until filled level with the holes.  They no longer automatically shadow and are way more visible.



Photo:  Factory rear three dot white paint concave dots with self induced shadows in dull paint.  Ignore the green front one.  At arms length, the white dots were hard to see and of various brightnesses.  The dots were concave and the rear sight has a hood built over the top and side edges for more shadowing.



Photo:  Finger nail polish enhanced rear dots with a flat surface level with the grooves so there is no inherent shadowing and a brighter paint.  At arms length, far easier to see and brighter.  The small imperfections don't show to my olde eyes.

In filling in the sight dots, get a large sewing needle.  Make a pile of polish on a 3x5 card or some such.  Use the thread end of the needle and make a little ball on the end.  With the slide held vertical, and with a good light, put the ball into the center of the concave and mush it up and down gently to spread the polish to the edges.  Repeat till level.  It shrinks as it drys.  Repeat till you are happy.

IF you screw up and over fill, alcohol will quickly remove the wet excess and you can try again.  Try hard to keep it out of the rear sight grooves.  Note that the polish skims a surface quickly and will not flow to the edges when skimmed.  If your pile drys at all, it won't flow.  Doing it gives you appreciation for the guys who do the factory jobs as well as they do.



Photo:  Shooting results with three dot factory system as modified above.  15 yards, two hands, off hand, 115 FMJ ammo, three groups of 9.  Centered within 1/2" left and right, BUT the same old 3" high at 15 yards using the top of the center dot at the bottom of the square aiming block.  The block is 1" in perspective on the IPSC repair center.  

The change of filling in the dot holes with finger nail polish made the result a lot more consistent.  Use nylon filled expensive stuff and it lasts a long time.  In general, the factory front sight is 0.03" too short for a decent vertical zero.  And you wonder why people want to change the sights!  I left this as is because I don't think a brass hammer can move the sight only 1/2" of adjustment at 15 yards.  They tend to jump more than that when they slip and go too far.  Still, a good result.  And clarity on what is under the rear sight.  

Good post, LSA. I had thought that the striker block was why S&W didn't want you to remove the rear sight. They have a history of using the rear sight to hold in the fire control components. On the S&W 3rd Gen semi auto pistols (maybe earlier, although I never took one apart), the rear sight holds in the firing pin safety and mag safety plungers and springs and has an oval piece of sheet steel that fits into a milled recess to keep the rear sight from catching and ruining the springs, same as the Shield has. Not really a big deal, just something to be aware of if you decide to change your own sights.

On a side note, and totally unrelated to the OP, I went out and qualified with my G19, my Shield and also with my Ruger LCP on Tuesday evening. All 3 ran perfectly and, as usual, I got a perfect score with all 3, not that Ohio's LE qualification course is all that hard to begin with. It just reinforces my opinion about the G19, Shield and LCP as all three being solid, dependable guns for personal defense or LE use. They just work, and work well.

Bub75

Thanks for the follow-up LSA.  Great post.  That info, and those pictures, are going to be awfully handy as I'm going to be picking up a Shield but really want to change out that rear sight.

Bump for the last bit of modifying the S&W factory Shield sights, reinstalling them, and a reasonable result when shooting them.  Yes, I know.  I have shot better and I have shot worse.  As my son says, there are no powder burns and no pasters.  Still, not too bad for a small gun.

I invested in an M&P and a Shield sight pusher.  Made life MUCH easier.  Took all of 5 minutes.

Totally agree.  Sight pushers are the way to go.  I've got both front and rear tools for Glock.  And now Glock has gone to a screw up into the bottom of the front sight.  I still have a few metal front sights that need the old style flaring tool.  After that, an antique.

As to the Shield, common tools can do it.  If its just a one off gun, hard to say buy a pusher.  Better to borrow one.

Just skimmed it.

This is a tag so I can actually read it later. Thanks OP.

I agree, but the Shield is a very common carry piece among my friends... especially my female friends.

More than willing to help a friend out.

Very Clear Advice!