Is the S&W Shield better than a LC9s? Why
- Thread starter rich56
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
It's not that the LC9s is bad. Most consider smith's build quality to be slightly better in general. I think even most Ruger people would admit that. The question is does it really matter in these very small compact 9mm's. I think probably not for most as they are close enough in performance. And both are "good enough".But neither are either companies flagship of quality so to speak. They built affordable small single stack 9's
While the LC9's sell very well I don't think they'll ever pass the number of units of the shields that are out there.
Speaking of the other guns Ruger offers compared to smith across the board in terms of build quality Ruger would lose generally speaking.
While the LC9's sell very well I don't think they'll ever pass the number of units of the shields that are out there.
Speaking of the other guns Ruger offers compared to smith across the board in terms of build quality Ruger would lose generally speaking.
OldePhart
Blackhawk
My LC9s is on it's way back to Ruger...permanently. I say that up front so you'll not think I'm being sneaky or something.
I loved the LC9s and selected it mostly for its trigger...the trigger is miles better than that on the Shield. S&W has never been able to get pistol triggers right, IMHO. The DA/SA pistol I had from S&W back in the late 80's or early 90's had a decent DA pull but SA was terrible with tons of creep, etc. I've not been impressed with their triggers on striker-fired pistols, either. It's ironic because both the DA and SA modes are pretty good on their DA revolvers.
Anyway, as I said I loved the trigger on the LC9s...it was better than a stock OOB Glock...and better then the trigger on my new Glock 26 even after doing a "carry" action job on the latter (i.e. no changes in components, just lightly stoning and polishing the surfaces).
On the first range trip I discovered that the LC9s really didn't like wide mouthed (i.e. "defensive") hollow points. They did not feed well. A few minutes with a felt wheel with some Flitz turned the ladder below the chamber into something resembling a feed ramp, and thereafter my feed problems were solved. Strike one, because I shouldn't have had to do that, but at least it was something fixed easily enough and, assuming one has the sense God gave a goose, so they test the gun with their defensive carry ammo, it's not something that is going to be a surprise at a bad time.
Then my IWB holster came in and I discovered that the magazine would release in the holster every time I turned my torso as when getting in or out of the car, etc. After a lot of research I discovered that the USA magazines are known for that problem and even for releasing under recoil (though mine never did the latter). I bought some Italian magazines and they worked fine. Strike two against the gun, but again not something that was likely to go unnoticed until a crucial moment so I could live with it.
Then, I discovered that if I shot under "simulated stress" (shooting around barricades, one handed grip, etc.) the gun would jam with a horizontal FTE...frequently. I actually thought initially that it might be me, even though I've done that kind of shooting for years with guns that recoil harder than the LC9s, and have never had an issue. Then I noticed that the extractor was not even close to touching the shell and that it didn't appear to be damaged...but actually had poor geometry. This was not only the third strike...it was something that A) I could not fix my self and B) could have gone unnoticed until I needed the gun in an emergency. The gun worked flawlessly standing at a firing line with a good hold...but with that "weak" extractor it was a jam-o-matic under anything less than perfect circumstances.
I have since discovered that there are several others who have a similar problem with the extractor...and I'm almost certain that there is a bad batch of slides out there. The (very nice) lady at Ruger said that they had been making some improvements "based on feedback similar to yours" but I explained that I simply could not carry a weapon that I cannot depend on. I don't mind an occasional issue with a plinker or even a hunting gun...but my carry gun has got to work every (*&& time. Furthermore, since no one person can test a pistol, especially, under every circumstance then one must have confidence in the company producing the pistol, that they have done that kind of testing. Once I have lost confidence in the company that makes the gun...as I have in this case...I simply am not going to carry one.
Again...I really wish it was otherwise. Carrying the Glock 26 that I replaced the LC9s with is nowhere near as comfortable as carrying the LC9s was...but at least I know that every one of my Glocks always goes bang every time I pull the trigger right up until the magazine is empty.
At this point, the only way I would even consider carrying an LC9s again is if Ruger issues a recall on them AND convinces me that they know exactly what the problem was and that they have A) fixed that problem and B) finally done some actual testing on the guns to make sure that there aren't other "gotchas" lurking in the background just waiting for the worst possible moment to turn your firearm into a not very aerodynamic paperweight.
Back to the Shield...I actually considered getting a Shield to replace the LC9s in spite of the fact that I'm not crazy about the trigger. But I did a lot of research on the internet (something I wish I'd done before purchasing the LC9s) and found that there have been some similar issues with the Shield. Nowhere near the extent that there have been with the Ruger, especially when one considers that the Shield is probably outselling the Ruger by a large margin. But...when it comes to a carry gun even the somewhat less frequent extraction issues mentioned for the Shield are too many, IMHO.
I loved the LC9s and selected it mostly for its trigger...the trigger is miles better than that on the Shield. S&W has never been able to get pistol triggers right, IMHO. The DA/SA pistol I had from S&W back in the late 80's or early 90's had a decent DA pull but SA was terrible with tons of creep, etc. I've not been impressed with their triggers on striker-fired pistols, either. It's ironic because both the DA and SA modes are pretty good on their DA revolvers.
Anyway, as I said I loved the trigger on the LC9s...it was better than a stock OOB Glock...and better then the trigger on my new Glock 26 even after doing a "carry" action job on the latter (i.e. no changes in components, just lightly stoning and polishing the surfaces).
On the first range trip I discovered that the LC9s really didn't like wide mouthed (i.e. "defensive") hollow points. They did not feed well. A few minutes with a felt wheel with some Flitz turned the ladder below the chamber into something resembling a feed ramp, and thereafter my feed problems were solved. Strike one, because I shouldn't have had to do that, but at least it was something fixed easily enough and, assuming one has the sense God gave a goose, so they test the gun with their defensive carry ammo, it's not something that is going to be a surprise at a bad time.
Then my IWB holster came in and I discovered that the magazine would release in the holster every time I turned my torso as when getting in or out of the car, etc. After a lot of research I discovered that the USA magazines are known for that problem and even for releasing under recoil (though mine never did the latter). I bought some Italian magazines and they worked fine. Strike two against the gun, but again not something that was likely to go unnoticed until a crucial moment so I could live with it.
Then, I discovered that if I shot under "simulated stress" (shooting around barricades, one handed grip, etc.) the gun would jam with a horizontal FTE...frequently. I actually thought initially that it might be me, even though I've done that kind of shooting for years with guns that recoil harder than the LC9s, and have never had an issue. Then I noticed that the extractor was not even close to touching the shell and that it didn't appear to be damaged...but actually had poor geometry. This was not only the third strike...it was something that A) I could not fix my self and B) could have gone unnoticed until I needed the gun in an emergency. The gun worked flawlessly standing at a firing line with a good hold...but with that "weak" extractor it was a jam-o-matic under anything less than perfect circumstances.
I have since discovered that there are several others who have a similar problem with the extractor...and I'm almost certain that there is a bad batch of slides out there. The (very nice) lady at Ruger said that they had been making some improvements "based on feedback similar to yours" but I explained that I simply could not carry a weapon that I cannot depend on. I don't mind an occasional issue with a plinker or even a hunting gun...but my carry gun has got to work every (*&& time. Furthermore, since no one person can test a pistol, especially, under every circumstance then one must have confidence in the company producing the pistol, that they have done that kind of testing. Once I have lost confidence in the company that makes the gun...as I have in this case...I simply am not going to carry one.
Again...I really wish it was otherwise. Carrying the Glock 26 that I replaced the LC9s with is nowhere near as comfortable as carrying the LC9s was...but at least I know that every one of my Glocks always goes bang every time I pull the trigger right up until the magazine is empty.
At this point, the only way I would even consider carrying an LC9s again is if Ruger issues a recall on them AND convinces me that they know exactly what the problem was and that they have A) fixed that problem and B) finally done some actual testing on the guns to make sure that there aren't other "gotchas" lurking in the background just waiting for the worst possible moment to turn your firearm into a not very aerodynamic paperweight.
Back to the Shield...I actually considered getting a Shield to replace the LC9s in spite of the fact that I'm not crazy about the trigger. But I did a lot of research on the internet (something I wish I'd done before purchasing the LC9s) and found that there have been some similar issues with the Shield. Nowhere near the extent that there have been with the Ruger, especially when one considers that the Shield is probably outselling the Ruger by a large margin. But...when it comes to a carry gun even the somewhat less frequent extraction issues mentioned for the Shield are too many, IMHO.
Oldphart sorry to hear about your lc9 but ironically I ended up with the glock 26 as well very recently for almost the exact same reasons, for me it was just problems with a different single stack 9mm that was giving me problems. (bersa bp9cc).
And fully agree it's nowhere as easy to carry but not too bad either.
The problems with the early smith semi auto's where before my time but I have heard others still talking about them to this day and not fondly. I don't remember the model number but I know it was 4 digits the 43xx or 42XX model? something? or something like that I think it was I can't remember.
And fully agree it's nowhere as easy to carry but not too bad either.
The problems with the early smith semi auto's where before my time but I have heard others still talking about them to this day and not fondly. I don't remember the model number but I know it was 4 digits the 43xx or 42XX model? something? or something like that I think it was I can't remember.
OldePhart
Blackhawk
I think the 9mm I had was a 5913 or 5916, something like that. The gun was actually very reliable and well built...it was just a horrible design for the SA trigger. Tons of creep and slop.
I probably should have stuck with a Glock from the beginning as I've trusted them for years but I let myself be seduced by the ease of carry and the great trigger on the LC9s.
I probably should have stuck with a Glock from the beginning as I've trusted them for years but I let myself be seduced by the ease of carry and the great trigger on the LC9s.
dlidster
Single-Sixer
OldePhart said:
This is pretty much a rehash of what you've been saying for some time now. However, if you really have sent your LC9s back to Ruger, I'm certain they're going to repair or replace it and return it to you. At that time (before you dispose of it), would you report back with what actions Ruger implemented to try to make you happy?
OldePhart
Blackhawk
Actually, based on the PDF document that I emailed them explaining my unwillingness to carry it after the problems I've had and with close up pictures of the slide and extractor the nice lady has already assured me when I called on the 19th or 20th of February that she has run it past her supervisor and that they are either going to let me choose another model or refund my money. As I said, it's going back permanently...not quite sure why you wouldn't believe that...I guess you just routinely call strangers liars...dlidster said:
I haven't decided yet whether to ask for my money back or maybe take this as an opportunity to get a revolver that I ordinarily probably wouldn't spend the money on. One thing is certain, I won't be asking for a pistol...well, maybe a .22 for plinking except you can't find ammo these days.
As for the timing, they provided me the shipping label on February 20th but with the weather and my schedule I actually didn't place the box in FedEx's hands until March 2nd...and when I checked the tracking number yesterday it was in Memphis (not sure why FedEx is sending it From DFW (major shipping hub) to Prescott, AZ (west of here) via Memphis (several hundred miles east of here) but I guess they know the shipping business better than I do. I'm not in any big hurry, I've already replaced the pistol with a nice reliable Glock 26. If I hadn't been able to afford to do that I'd have been in a lot more of a hurry and a lot more PO'd about this.
As for your being sure that Ruger will repair or replace it...that's the entire point...I don't want it "repaired or replaced" because I've lost faith in Ruger's ability (or willingness) to put in the kind of R&D and testing that it takes to ensure that a pistol is going to be reliable under typical defensive conditions. I still trust their revolvers...at least the ones that have been around for a long time without major design changes. But, a pistol is more complex and more "delicate" and there are simply more things that can interfere with it's normal functioning...all that means that a new pistol design needs a lot of "shake and bake" testing to ensure that it is going to be reliable under less-than-perfect circumstances. Some companies do that before they take the pistol into production...others let their customers do the "shake and bake" testing for them and that's kind of slimy on any product...on a purely defensive pistol it's pretty much unforgivable.
There are enough of these guns with serious enough problems (and problems that are insidious in that they won't show up for most shooters until the worst possible moment) that they should be doing a recall rather than just fixing onesies/twosies for the relative handful of purchasers who are active enough to discover that the pistol they are carrying is unreliable for defense before they need it for defense.
Ironically, if Ruger would step up and do the right thing, recall them and fix all of them, I'd be a lot more convinced that maybe this time they've done the "shake and bake" and I'd consider taking one. As long as Ruger is content to let their customers be their QA team for purely defensive guns like the LC9s I won't be carrying a Ruger.
jjmIII_Ruger
Single-Sixer
I had an LC9 (not an S) and sold it to get a Shield 9mm.
The LC9 frequently dropped magazines for me and I have never had that problem before. The trigger was bad enough that Ruger doesn't even make that gun now...they went to the "s" model. I never thought the gun felt good in the hand. With the pinky extension on, there was a gap at the bottom of the mag. Sloppy fit I thought. I couldn't hit with it and though recoil was harsh.
I shot my buddies .40 Shield and it felt better than the LC9. And I generally hate .40. Just in the hand the Shield feels perfect. Ergonomics is what the smart people call it
. I ordered a 9mm Shield right away. I carry it with the 8 round magazine every day, and the 7 rounder with a Pearce pinky extension as a backup. I have yet to have a problem with it. Not a one. Shoots steel, alum, and brass with no issues. Very easy to aim and hit with it. No goofy magazine disconnect. Perfect size and conceals easily for me. To each their own, but my Shield is a keeper!
Still plenty of Rugers in the safe, but not a carry 9mm.
The LC9 frequently dropped magazines for me and I have never had that problem before. The trigger was bad enough that Ruger doesn't even make that gun now...they went to the "s" model. I never thought the gun felt good in the hand. With the pinky extension on, there was a gap at the bottom of the mag. Sloppy fit I thought. I couldn't hit with it and though recoil was harsh.
I shot my buddies .40 Shield and it felt better than the LC9. And I generally hate .40. Just in the hand the Shield feels perfect. Ergonomics is what the smart people call it
. I ordered a 9mm Shield right away. I carry it with the 8 round magazine every day, and the 7 rounder with a Pearce pinky extension as a backup. I have yet to have a problem with it. Not a one. Shoots steel, alum, and brass with no issues. Very easy to aim and hit with it. No goofy magazine disconnect. Perfect size and conceals easily for me. To each their own, but my Shield is a keeper!Still plenty of Rugers in the safe, but not a carry 9mm.
The Shield is an M&P model. And I'm not sure what they would do to improve the quality. It is perfect IMO for it's intended task.Rei40c said:
I've fired hundreds of rounds through my LC9-S. Factory target, factory hollow points, and even my new reloads with different powder charges. All fired and extracted perfectly. Never had a mag come out yet. I love this gun. And the reloads were 115 grain hollow points.
OldePhart
Blackhawk
Some folks just have trouble thinking of a "plastic" gun as being an item of quality...having shot the bejabbers out of some Glocks over the years I'm not one of those folks.jjmIII_Ruger said:
I looked at a Shield before I got my LC9s and I didn't have any beef with the apparent quality of the Shield and fit and finish are noticeably better than what Ruger is producing these days...I just didn't like the trigger feel near as well as the one on the Ruger (or even as well as the typical Glock trigger, for that matter). If the Glock proves to be uncomfortable for carry on days I have to tuck-in I may still end up with a Shield for those days.
I didn't have any complaints with the LC9s grip for my hand...it was a bit snappy but not terrible and accuracy, while not quite as good as a Glock 26, was decent for a small pistol. As I said, and I've mentioned in other posts, I liked the LC9s well enough that I went to the trouble to shape a square trigger guard face to improve the two-handed hold. Some people seem to think I'm gloating over these troubles or something when really I'm just sad about it...I really wish it had worked out as I very much liked the pistol right up until I realized that it could have left me in the situation of having discovered that I'd just brought a paperweight (or, to be completely fair, maybe a single-shot pistol) to a gun fight...
BTW, for the folks who were real concerned about whether my LC9s was really going back to Ruger...just checked tracking and it was delivered at twenty minutes past noon, today. LOL
John
I bought the first LC9, the one with the two mile trigger pull, it shot well but the trigger pull was a little tough to get used to. However it conceals really well. I bought a Shield in 9mm later because, frankly for that time frame I got a really good deal on it. Shoots pretty well but frankly I haven't had the time in the past year to really put it though its paces. Hope to do that in the near future.
Between those two, I'd have to give the nod to the Shield but I've kept the LC9 it makes a good carry piece for certain situations and I've not had a reliability problem with it.
Right now my main carry pistols are a Ultra Carry in 45 an LCP or a CZ PCR.
Between those two, I'd have to give the nod to the Shield but I've kept the LC9 it makes a good carry piece for certain situations and I've not had a reliability problem with it.
Right now my main carry pistols are a Ultra Carry in 45 an LCP or a CZ PCR.
Roundup
Bearcat
dlidster said:
I was having trouble with my LC9 (not an LC9s). Had feeding difficulties, accuracy was poor, firing pin seemed damaged, this was after about 200 rounds of 115 gr fmj bullets, none HV. The piece was repaired free of charge. The slide was repaired, new firing pin and extractor installed plus a couple of other things. Mags, Italian made, were just fine.
Result? No jams, everything else works okay, accuracy improved 100%. I don't use the safety that much. The trigger pull being what it is, long etc.. works like a safety for me as with the LCP. I'm keeping it.
OldePhart
Blackhawk
Just to wind this little detail up and ease your troubled mind...got a call from the nice lady at Ruger a little bit ago (almost exactly 24 hours after they received the gun, not bad at all).dlidster said:
I do have to admit that their customer service is very good. If their QC and engineering staffs were half as good as their customer service a lot fewer people would have to find out how good their customer service, is. Anyway, the upshot of it all is that they're going to ship an SP-101 (.357, 3") to my local dealer. They said it could take up to six weeks if they are out of stock at the plant in New Hampshire. As I've mentioned, I'm not in a big rush since I will be carrying the G26 most of the time. I will probably carry the SP-101 mostly on longer motorcycle rides where the lack of a manual safety on the Glock could be a problem if some idiot in an SUV punts me off the bike and sends me sliding down the asphalt at highway speeds.
I came really, really close to choosing an LCR in 9mm but decided I just didn't want to be an early adopter again. (How close is close? I actually made up my mind while I was talking to the lady from Ruger.) The SP-101 has been around forever with relatively few problems and my son-in-law has one that is a very nice shooter.
I also considered choosing a Blackhawk in .41 magnum just because I've always wanted one. But, I think with my health my hunting days are probably pretty much done which would mean I might pull it out once a year for a trip to the range and it would be a safe queen the rest of the year.
John
44-357
Single-Sixer
let us know the quality on the sp101 357. at my local gunshop they got in one with 4 inch barrel and the finish work on it was bad. the barrel had chatter marks from the frame to the front sight. and the ribbed sight palne will cut you on the other side. he is sending it back to them.
OldePhart
Blackhawk
Thanks...believe me, I'll be checking it closely. Hopefully the nice lady at Ruger put a bug in the ear of the folks in NH who will be filling the replacement.
My son-in-law got one about a year ago that is perfect...so I've got my finger's crossed.
My son-in-law got one about a year ago that is perfect...so I've got my finger's crossed.
OldePhart
Blackhawk
I got a call from the LGS today and went down and picked it up.44-357 said:
The finish work in visible areas is quite good, actually. The machining inside the top strap is just a tiny bit rough at the corners and the breech face is also just a bit rough but nothing worth getting excited about. There is what appears to be a small mark from a tool on the outside of the barrel at the forcing cone (but the face is clear and straight). Lockup is rock solid and even the unlocked BC is only about .003 and no end shake at all.
The single-action trigger is pretty good...double action not so much, with about three very distinct rough spots. There is also a very loud chirp on trigger reset (the position of that chirp corresponds with the roughest part of the DA pull, too). So, it will need an action job but I can live with that - these days I'd actually be surprised to get a new gun that didn't need a little spit'n'polish.
Haven't had a chance to take it to the range. Will report on accuracy etc. after I do.
Fatdaddy
Single-Sixer
The Shield has a stainless slide and better finish
Bearcat
Blackhawk
OldePhart said:
To summarize this long post and answer your question....Yes, the shield is better. They work. LC9s have had a myriad of problems.
dlidster
Single-Sixer
. . . LC9s have had a myriad of problems.[/quote]
Interesting opinion. I've had several thousand rounds through mine. Saturday I used it for the fifth time as a CCP in an IDPA match. No problems of any kind.
Interesting opinion. I've had several thousand rounds through mine. Saturday I used it for the fifth time as a CCP in an IDPA match. No problems of any kind.
