Shield vs glock 42 vs xds

[SOCOgunguy]

I enjoy my shield 9mm. A blast to shoot, very slim and I wouldn't feel underpowered with it. If 7-9rnds of 9mm won't solve your problem, you need a rifle with 30+ to better your odds 😂

[BluNorthern]

Just went through this very issue regarding a Shield vs. XD9 subcompact.

Went with the XD9.

[Killer Bee]

why not get one. with SSE ending, I doubt it's going to lose it's resale value anytime soon. There are already some fools out there trying to hock theirs for $700 PPT

obvious answer is; to use that last SSE slot for something more useful..

g42's are going to be littering the marketplace once the fad wears off..

[Group]

If you had one choice, and you wanted to get maximum defense capabilities out of it, then off of the top of my head I would say Shield. Here's why:

The Glock 42 certainly "feels" smaller, but it's 6 rounds of .380. You can have a Shield in 9mm or 40 and it's only a tad bit larger than the 42. The Shield fits in your hand more like a compact handgun, so you will likely shoot better with it. Is the Glock better looking? I think so. However, you have to ask yourself how much you care about looks vs. power.

[ad40]

OP. What guns do you normally shoot. If the majority of the pistols you've carried in the past, or done any training with are Glocks... like me... it made a lot of sense to go with g42. That way you dont end up pointing at the ground with your first sight picture. I have a keltec p3at (for summer day swimsuit carry). I throw way more lead down range accurately with my g 42 vs my p3at. As far as the shield and xds. You are comparing apples and oranges. I prefer to carry my Glock 23 everywhere i go (13+1)... I just picked up a glock 42 because I feel far more comfortable with it than the smaller .380's and it is way easier to conceal than my 23

What you said makes a lot of sense. I have only trained with Glocks. I'm just not a huge fan of the .380 but may end up going with it. In the end, shot placement is key. If SHTF I would almost certainly fair better with the trigger pull I have trained with. Good advice. Thanks

[Click Boom]

Shooting and xds well is very similar to shooting a glock well. The triggers are very similar.

[JazzyJames]

Shield. Ergonomic and not a .380.

[agent88]

I love my g42 and it feels noticeably smaller when carrying than my xds 9.

I really like the triggers in both of them. The xds was a great deal with the free mags. I wish that was still going because now I want the .45 too.

I can't decide between the xds .45 in 3.3" or 4"

[B!ngo]

I was surprised how softly the Shield shoots. As a reasonably small gun shooting 9mm (124 gr I believe) I expected a snappy piece that was hard to get back on target. In fact is wasn't significantly different than a 'normal' 9mm. Not sure how they do it (other than it not being that small) but it works for me.
B

I got my wife a g42, I liked it alot more than I thought. It is very easy to shoot and very little recoil. With that said I'd like to try the shield. If I don't like it ill probly go with a g26.

[Lead Waster]

I wouldn't lighten the trigger of ANY gun I was going to CCW.. bad idea.. I can just hear the DA spinning it to the jury as "having been modified to a hair trigger"..

Just Sayin

I don't get this. I you have to shoot someone and the DA says "He had a modified trigger", I'd say "what's the difference, he was attacking me and I shot him".

If you shoot someone, it's because you meant to, it's not "Oh he was pointing the gun at someone with his finger on the trigger and it went off" (Frank Magliato).

If the DA mentioned the trigger, you say "Yes, it was made smoother so I could shoot more accurately. What does that have to do with the thug rushing me with a knife?"

And no, IANAL. BUt the modified gun vs lawyer thing makes no sense to me. You shot a guy because you meant to shoot him, not because your trigger was super light and you had your finger on the trigger with the gun pointed at someone.

[CK_32]

Yea if you had a competition defender he should easily be able to squash any stupid trigger upgrades the DA uses.

I think it's just a common fear of the "what ifs".

[Libtard]

I don't get this. I you have to shoot someone and the DA says "He had a modified trigger", I'd say "what's the difference, he was attacking me and I shot him".



If you shoot someone, it's because you meant to



If the DA mentioned the trigger, you say "Yes, it was made smoother so I could shoot more accurately. What does that have to do with the thug rushing me with a knife?"

I don't want to get into any political debate, etc, but the answer to your question is basically this: If you shoot someone in self-defense, there's no telling what evidence will exist. For example, look at the Trayvon Martin case: There was little evidence one way or another. If a DA prosecutes you, he could bring up a gun modification. He could even bring up the caliber, if you're packing a .45 or even a 10mm instead of a 9mm. He might even argue that you chose hollow points over hard-nose ammo. He can argue whatever he wants. I think some of these can be aided by the fact that California has you register your gun on your CCW, so you're carrying a .45 because that's what the State approved you to carry. (Yes, that actually helps you). But it's possible that the DA could argue that a trigger modification was not necessary for self-defense.

Again, I'm on your side, but maybe the DA or the media will shout, "That Lead Waster is a trigger-happy vigilante murderer who was looking for an excuse to shoot someone with his highly-customized, light-trigger handgun."

You might rightfully respond: "I take the CCW responsibility very seriously and the last thing I want to do is harm an innocent bystander, in the unlikely event that I need to use this weapon. So I regularly practiced at a shooting range in order to ensure that I could shoot accurately, in order to prevent harm to others. I consider that an important civic responsibility. In doing so, someone suggested that the gun would be more accurate with this modification. I tried it, found that it did produce more accurate results, and so I carried the gun in this modified state in order to safeguard the innocent."

[S.P.F.]

Don't. Unless you love Glocks.

I adore Glocks, and would not get a G42.

While I once seriously considered one, far too many issues have been reported with them for me to want one any more. Maybe, after a time, I might reconsider.

This does not even take into account the practicality of the gun, for which I feel it is highly compromised. If this is a carry weapon, it really has to be for someone who just sees a 9x19, as too much. In my case, the "reason" was as rational as a jet-ski, for entertainment. Just as a jet-ski could be used for transportation, I suppose the G42 is better than "manual labor". But that's just me. I think a 9mm is about as close to non-lethal as you want to go, except for plinking. Especially, as people have noted, that there are 9mm carry weapons that have just as much ease in transport.

[Anti-Hero]

9mm close to non-lethal? That's a first.

[static2126]

But I can have a gun that's equal in size, but with 9mm..

.380 is a sacrifice you make in order to have a smaller gun.. the G427 is sized like a sub-compact 9mm, but chambered in .380

So, I too don't "get it" with the gun.. I would rather carry a Shield or Nano in 9mm.. the G42 would have been epic in 9mm..

I can shoot a G42 (friends) faster and more rapidly than my Shied or any XDS, nano, lc9s. That said I do not own a G42 but do own a Shield. I have no issues with the g42 though