Among the many possible drills and exercises available, we can use state qualification standards. We can all disagree about what show be tested and how, but they seem to have a few advantages. One is that "someone else" came up with the test; we can't skew the test for one or another gun or shooter. Another is that many of the agency quals use varying distances. Consider also that the typical qualification exercise is mostly an endurance contest: the preponderance of courses are 50-60 rounds – more than the typical officer carries into battle.
Are they the best tests?
Like the bench rest accuracy standard, the quals serve a purpose. They're a piece of the puzzle, something designed to let people know how a particular gun works for the intended mission.
I recently used our state's qualification to close the loop on two recent test samples from Smith & Wesson. One was the M&P9 M2.0 Compact and the other was the Shield M2.0.
The 15-shot M2.0 Compact was used from the http://www.safariland.com/>Safariland GLS Pro-Fit Model 575 with the 1.5" belt loop attachment. The Shield was drawn from the CrossBreed MiniTuck. A down-sized SuperTuck holster, the holster is a kydex shell for the gun mounted to a premium leather back which is "combat cut" to allow a firing grip on the pistol.
Reluctantly place the gun back into the holster; do that deliberately, not forcefully.
I used Federal American Eagle Syntech range ammunition for the qualification firing. Shooting the M2.0 Compact first, I found it almost too easy to shoot well. This provided the opportunity to "hurry," causing some shooter-induced errors. I had four out of the scoring rings of the IALEFI-Q target. I'd intentionally turned some of the close-range three-shot strings into "failure drills," placing the last shot of the string into the "softball" circle in the face of the target.
They were all there.
As the state counts only hits inside the "bottle" as scoring, it was clean. In a more rigid scoring scenario, we'd call it a 92%.
As to the Shield M2.0, I didn't shine. A bit of convulsive jerking on the trigger didn't help matters and when the target backer gave way, the target folded. I quickly shot, but pulled the hit low. I'd be calling this 72% -- barely past minimum. The state would still have called it a 100% target.
So my standards are higher.
The gun was quick from the CrossBreed MiniTuck in spite of how closely to the body the gun is held. I was mindful of reholstering and had no problems.
I could say it was a miserable performance for the Shield, but consider the differences between a 15-shot service grade auto and the compact nature of the Shield. Consider also that accuracy work had been done in advance: while this gives a clue about practical application, careful accuracy work showed the Shield M2.0 to be quite accurate. On a bullseye workout, the little gun fired a 93% score.
Conclusions?
The Shield M2.0 will be considered an improvement by some and "no big deal" by others. I see it as the logical continuation of the line which amounts to the ideal compact form factor for a pistol of this caliber. It is as small as I'd go with a 9mm pistol and it performs overall like a larger 9mm pistol. It may not be your cup of tea – but that would be because you prefer something else.
With factory-installed night sights, it's about as good as it gets. I can't see it replacing the "Retail Shield," about which we reported in recent months – but it could take over with no worries about reliability or accuracy.
With more gun owners than ever before – shooting more now than ever in our history – we are seeing more good, reliable guns now than ever. It's a great time to be a handgunner.
- - Rich Grassi