ken_mays

Yes, it is awfully light. A friend also has one and he's loading 80 or 90 grain .380 bullets for it. The powder charge is very light as well but he told me he's going to go a little higher because when the charge is that light, ignition is inconsistent and he'll occasionally get a stovepipe.

I've had one for a few months. The notable thing about it (other than the general "well-thought-out-ness" of it), is that it will run reliably on really light loads. I ran a batch of 115gr FMJ on top of 2.2 grains of Titegroup (this is about half of what my standard 9mm load is for pistols) and the Ruger was still ejecting cases 5 feet away. I have a Tasco PDP5 red dot on mine for Steel Challenge and it's just the ticket IMHO.

Price?

I see them in a couple of pawnshops from $250 to $280 routinely. With the introduction of the 2.0 models, the Shield 1.0s seem to be have lost some value.

The Glock 26 seems to be very accurate given its size. Many folks have found themselves shooting tighter groups with G26 vs G19 or G17.

My only experience with the Phoenix was about 10 years ago when someone brought me one to fix. The hammer had worn a divot in the underside of the pot metal slide, and it was causing a noticeable hitch when the slide would move forward or back. There wasn't much to be done about it aside from telling the owner to contact the factory for repair. I never heard whether they replaced it or not.

When it isn't difficult to find used M&P Shields for well under $300, I would give Taurus a pass. The PT111 gets some positive reviews but there are also plenty of complaints, and for years I've heard Taurus may or may not end up fixing the problems with a particular gun. I wouldn't mind owning a PT92 but I'd rather not take a chance on any "native" Taurus design. If you are still interested, you can often find the PT111 under $200 on the used market.

My thoughts: I don't the idea of using a Government length frame with an Officer's sized slide. I'd rather it be the other way around, if anything. No texturing on the mainspring housing means it will try squirm around in your hand, and the bobtail makes it worse. I'm not really a fan of the Series 80 firing pin safety. The safety lever seems mighty wide for a carry 1911. Clark/Para ramped barrel in .45 means it will probably be more finicky than a standard unramped barrel. Ramped barrels are great for 9mm / 10mm but in .45 they're more of a headache than anything. I like the new XS rear sight; I personally found the old express-style rear nearly useless. Accuracy results seemed good. 3" from steel cased ammo at 25 yards from a Ransom rest (which I assume they used) isn't bad for a production 1911. MSRP is $1250 but there is just no way. I would be looking at a Dan Wesson for close to that kind of money. For $800, it would be worth a look.

My imaginary S&W product managers

Yeah it's hard to imagine what they were thinking. "We are getting a flood of complaints about the 4.0 version; everyone says they wish it were .4" shorter."

Complete BS that they won't ship to C&R FFL holders.

Consider: - Budget - Uses (which will drive caliber) - Operating system (bolt, lever, semi, etc.) If you can answer these, you should be able to narrow it down pretty well.

The .40 gained a lot of popularity during the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban. The thought was, if I can only carry a gun with a 10 round mag, may as well carry the bigger rounds. LEO agencies were also going to .40 in large numbers at the time. Now the trend has swung the other way, with the development of more effective 9mm JHP ammo. .40s are sitting on the shelves in droves.

PM sent.

I'd keep the M&P 2.0. Mine is very accurate and I happen to prefer it over anything CZ makes.