Opinions on shield+ 9mm, m18, and fn 509 tactical 9mm

[gunrunner5.56]

Thinking these will be my next purchase just wanted to see any input good or bad and suggestions of other things to look at. Shield will be a carry gun and the full size a bedside gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goldstar225]

I can only comment on the Shield +. I've had mine for a couple of months. Perfect fit for my slightly below average sized hands with both the 10 & 13 round magazines. Uses the same holsters as my Shield 2.0. Conceals just as easily as the 2.0 Shield. It's been totally reliable and accurate in several hundred rounds. I bought the "bug out bag" that came with one 10 round mag and four 13 round mags. I've only been able to load 12 rounds in three of the 13 round magazines, even using a uplula. I have them loaded up now to try and compress the spring a bit. I would buy it again without hesitation.

[nicholst55]

I haven't yet fired an M18 Sig, but I have handled any number of them before I retired last November. I am really not impressed by the trigger on them. I could take 3 guns and dry fire them - all 3 have totally different trigger pulls. I tried that several times, and never found more than two guns in a group that had even similar trigger pulls. That probably wouldn't matter, once you became accustomed to the one that you have, but I wonder why they can't make a group of them with similar trigger pulls.

[35remington]

Can only comment on the Plus. Feels good in the hand, good texturing, light and compact and thin and comfortable to carry. Has been very reliable. After a layoff all guns for me in this size range require some refresher shooting before I am shooting it to my best. The extended magazine is how I prefer to shoot it as a nine in a light gun can be snappy. Especially after a layoff.

Regretfully no matter how hard I try I cannot shoot it better than my 2.0 3.6. Which is kinda what you’d expect. The balance of carryability and shootability is a personal choice. If you like this size of gun and shoot them well there is no reason not to consider it.

[gunrunner5.56]

Thanks for all the input so far, it is much appreciated!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rintinglen]

It seems to me that you are looking at 3 similar but different guns. The Shield, the smallest of the three, is perhaps the best CCW of them all, while the FN 509 is more suited for duty purposes and is clearly best for silencer use. The M-18 is sort of in-between, being larger than the Shield but smaller than the FN. Which you may prefer depends mostly on your personal preference and intended purpose.

I have a Shield, because I am long past needing a duty gun, therefore the FN is out as far as I am concerned. I am pushing 70, and no longer feel up to spending all day standing around to shoot an IDPA match. So for me, the compact Shield with its smaller profile and reduced (slightly) capacity are a better fit.

If I were looking at a duty weapon, I think the FN would get the nod. Ample mag capacity for anything short of the invasion of Iran, a longer sight radius and provision for optics, I an persuaded that it would be just about perfect in that role.

But I have a wall locker full of guns: if I did not, I would seriously consider the M-18. Slightly smaller than the Tactical FN, so it would serve better as a concealment arm, it still has high capacity (as an old revolver shooter, anything over 7 rounds seems pretty high to me) and would likely be the gun I would choose as a one-size-fits-all compromise, for carry, duty, and certain competition use.

You have to take your pick after handling each of the three to determine whether one or the other strikes a chord. Your hand and mine are different. Our guns likely will be as well.

[gunrunner5.56]

Went to local gun store today and found two more guns I really liked the hellcat rdp and P365 oh decisions, decisions……


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

I’d say consider a compact rather than a micro compact only and see if that suits you.

[gunrunner5.56]

The more I think about it the hellcat rdp was the most complete and comfortable and I really like the sight picture even with out the Red dot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PrestoColumbus]

Went to local gun store today and found two more guns I really liked the hellcat rdp and P365 oh decisions, decisions……


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering the powers-that-be chose the P365 for us Marines, it must be idiot proof. Can't go wrong with that choice.

[nicholst55]

Considering the powers-that-be chose the P365 for us Marines, it must be idiot proof. Can't go wrong with that choice.

Actually, the Marine Corps adopted the Sig M18 - a compact P320.

[PrestoColumbus]

Actually, the Marine Corps adopted the Sig M18 - a compact P320.

thanks for the reply, you are correct.

[winelover]

I own a P 320 Compact. Nothing compact about it. It's the size of a duty gun. You're not carrying that unless it's in a OWB holster. I purchased it as a bedside house gun.....since I didn't own a semi with a rail.

Winelover

[gunrunner5.56]

I really wanted to like the p320 as a all purpose gun but the size of the micros just make it better for edc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

There is a very noticeable difference in shootability between the micros and the compacts….and the compacts were designed for concealed carry as well. One of the fundamental truths I learned is that I can comfortably carry a little bigger pistol than a micro, and can shoot it better at both slow and fast rates of fire. That is where I wound up, and initially I thought I would want the smallest possible pistol in the micro format.

Then the reality of shootability made itself known and compact sized guns won me over. If you are thinking micro or nothing for carry I’m suggesting you might want to reconsider that just to know you covered all the bases.

[gunrunner5.56]

There is a very noticeable difference in shootability between the micros and the compacts….and the compacts were designed for concealed carry as well. One of the fundamental truths I learned is that I can comfortably carry a little bigger pistol than a micro, and can shoot it better at both slow and fast rates of fire. That is where I wound up, and initially I thought I would want the smallest possible pistol in the micro format.

Then the reality of shootability made itself known and compact sized guns won me over. If you are thinking micro or nothing for carry I’m suggesting you might want to reconsider that just to know you covered all the bases.

A very interesting way of thinking, food for thought for sure!! Much appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

A compact gun can be found in the 3.5-4” format. The hard to conceal part is the length of the grip, and compacts are comparable in grip length to the micros that have the longer magazine in place which makes them quite compact enough. This is enhanced by holsters that have concealment wings present.

I have micros of a number of different brands, but when it comes to being effective, which is a primary consideration to my way of thinking, the compacts do not sacrifice shootability and controllability to the same degree the micros do. I carry a 2.0 3.6 in the humid summer and felt no need to go smaller at the expense of effectiveness.

Don’t judge solely based on the smallest possible size. Shoot them first versus the appropriately sized compacts and make a better informed decision. It’s more than just a noisemaker.

[FergusonTO35]

I own a P 320 Compact. Nothing compact about it. It's the size of a duty gun. You're not carrying that unless it's in a OWB holster. I purchased it as a bedside house gun.....since I didn't own a semi with a rail.

Winelover

Agree 100%. Reminds me of the old Ruger P series "compacts" that were still as wide as an ocean liner. Although, I will say I like the grip length of the Glock 19 size guns over the Glock 17 size. The latter just feels like it has a bunch of extra space hanging off the bottom to me. If I was going to get a P320 it would be the compact grip frame with the full size slide and barrel.

[charlie b]

I agree about the 'shootability'. But, many times concealment means a sub-compact. At one time I carried a little .25 simply because I was in an area where guns were forbidden and concealment was paramount.

I rarely take my subcompact out for a full day of shooting. Every year I shoot it to make sure my muscle memory is still there and I can hit a target consistently. Maybe a box of ammo, maybe less. Otherwise it is in the holster.

If I am shooting at the range for fun I get out my full size pistols, eg, 1911 Commander or 4" .357.

These days you can get a subcompact and extra capacity magazines with extended grips. These are very good dual use pistols. Add a red dot and that removes the handicap of short sight radius.

[AnthonyB]

Through family members I have access to the 365XL with dot and Hellcat RDP. I carry the regular 365, but also have the 320 Compact, original Shields in 9mm and a 45 ACP Shield that was always a 2.0 from the beginning, and a Glock 48 with 15 round magazines from Shield arms.

I carry the regular 365 in the summer and can conceal it under a t-shirt. The 365XL, RDP, and Shields all conceal about the same for me. The others are more “shootable” than the 365, but the difference seems small to me and I can always use the extended mag to get the same grip length and capacity as the XL. The RDP is growing on me, but the trigger isn’t as good as the stock Sig. The 48 has an Apex trigger which is quite good but currently under recall and the trigger guard is a little too small for my trigger finger. I shoot the Shield 45 with Apex trigger and night sights more accurately, if a bit slower, than the 9mms.

You would be well served by any of them.
Tony