How does the sr40c compare to the S&W Shield?

With concealed carry coming soon to Illinois I have been thinking a lot about what I might carry on a daily basis. I already own a sr40c, LCP and a S&W 640, all of which seem carry-size, but reading other gun forums I keep seeing the S&W Shield mentioned. It seems about the same size as the sr40c, a bit lighter, but with less capacity. Just wondering how the two guns compare and whether or not it makes sense to just stick with the sr40c, or trade it in on the Shield.

I opt for the Ruger SR40-C which I rotate in the 3 of my carry guns. I do Concert security for performers and I carry it because of being in a close proximity and shoulder to shoulder with a lot of people in confined areas I Like the manual safety. Its one of the top compact carry firearms IMO and the price won't hurt you. Reliable, and a quality firearm plus a ton of Fun at the range

I have a sr9c and Shield in 40. Comparing the 2, the Shield is thinner making it easier to conceal and lighter due to capacity. The SR is much more versatile and I am much more accurate with it due to not only shooting it a lot more (my Shield if fairly new) but also because of the longer sight radius. Sounds like you are a Ruger guy and the Shield is really more like a LC9 with a better trigger. I also have to say, and just my opinion, it seems that Smith may have sacrificed QC somewhat to attempt to meet demand. There seems to be more issues with the Shields if you read the forums including a recall from Smith. If I had to choose one, it would be the SRc, that's me. If you want the gun to deep conceal only, the Shield would be worth considering. I do have to say, I am a Ruger guy and have a LC9 that I have modified with all the Galloway upgrades, night sights, and the new 9 round clips and I prefer my stock Shield over the LC9. It feels better in the hand and the trigger is much better.

The Shield and the SR series are two different animals.

Give up a little girth, and give up a little capacity, and you've got the Shield which is very carryable.

I've got LC9's, both sizes of SR's, and a Shield 40. I never carry or even shoot the LC9. Used to carry the SR40c, but the Shield has completely replaced the SR40c for the times I'm not carrying a real gun.

Ya just gotta decide what your priorities are. All of my above guns are flawless in operation, and mine are all equal in quality. They remain cheap little plastic guns, that do what they're designed to do. When a feller expects them to do more than that, that's when folks are disappointed.

I'll stick my neck out a little and say the Shield is the easiest-to-shoot of any of the sub-compacts.

The differences between length and width are obvious. Top of slide to bottom of grip, however, are nearly identical.






WAYNO.

I've rented the 40 M&P Shield twice from my shooting range and I found the 40 Shield to be snappy. I haven't shot the 9mm Shield so I can't make a comparison but it seemed to me to be a snappy gun in 40 S&W. But I did like the gun; it's small size, large sights, easy to shoot and easy to conceal, as others have said, it is a slim gun.

Given the ballistics of modern ammo, I'd opt for a 9mm Shield. Lighter and thinner than the SRc, I'm sure the Shield would render the SR40c into safe queen duty.