[river251]

I am new to pistols and chose a PPS M2 because it felt great in my hand. However, I now realize it has not captured the market or interest that the Shield has. There are limited sights and holsters, and no triggers or trigger modifiers, mag extensions, and generally not much available for the PPS. The Shield, and the M&Ps overall, seem to have captured "the alternative to Glock" niche, which is huge, and results in lots of aftermarket upgrades, parts, modifiers, etc.

The PPS seems like a higher quality, smoother shooting, better pistol Why do you think they have failed to capture the market that the Shield has?

The Active Self Protection guy, John, had a poll and about 2/3 - 3/4 carried Glock, and the rest carried M&P, except everything else amounted to 5%. This reflects what I see on the internet.

Thank you for your thoughts, I'm quite baffled by this.

Jim

 

[Baldie2u]

At the time the Shield came out S&W were the agents for selling the PPS. I have often wondered if they used the PPS as a base for the Shield and then Americans being Americans they went for the Shield as a home grown product.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wormraper]

1. S&W was first on the scene in the U.S. with the single stack compacts. They gained their market share much like how glock gained their share by beating the rest of the pack.

2. Price, back then the PPS was was $500+ and the shield $400 and less.

3. The Shield is a damn robust little gun, the difference between it and the PPS is not that great, if there's any real quality difference at all.

4. It's less complex. The M1 was like most german guns, overly built and it had the paddle release which is not WIDELY liked (many of us like the paddle, but the general u.s. populace is used to thumb buttons)

5. bore axis is pretty high, I notice more muzzle flip with the PPS's that I've owned than the 9mm shield and so has several other people. The slimmer (depth wise) slide is more visually appealing and visual appeal to most rubes is almost more important than actual functionality

6. It's gotten a bad rap the last 2 years due to the barrel peening issue. I've heard it discussed on forums all over, as well as even IN a local gunshop once.

 

[Baldie2u]

There wasn’t a small single stack comparable to the PPS in thickness when it came out, yes S&W had/has a well deserved reputation but they had nothing comparable to the PPS when they became Walther distributor. Call me cynical but if you were to lay the Shield on top of the PPS it would be amazing to see their similarities! I do not say the Shield is a bad gun just in my belief they used the PPS as the mould.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[marc82much]

I am new to pistols and chose a PPS M2 because it felt great in my hand. However, I now realize it has not captured the market or interest that the Shield has. There are limited sights and holsters, and no triggers or trigger modifiers, mag extensions, and generally not much available for the PPS. The Shield, and the M&Ps overall, seem to have captured "the alternative to Glock" niche, which is huge, and results in lots of aftermarket upgrades, parts, modifiers, etc.

The PPS seems like a higher quality, smoother shooting, better pistol Why do you think they have failed to capture the market that the Shield has?

The Active Self Protection guy, John, had a poll and about 2/3 - 3/4 carried Glock, and the rest carried M&P, except everything else amounted to 5%. This reflects what I see on the internet.

Thank you for your thoughts, I'm quite baffled by this.

Jim

Maybe the same reason McDonalds sells so many hamburgers. Their burgers are terrible and no one can argue it. In every survey they are last in food quality, yet sell billions. No accounting for taste. I wouldn't eat there on a bet (their fries are good, though!). Would not have a Glock. I have CZ (several) Sig, Walther. I lived in Milwaukee and bought three motorcycles. Two BMWs and one Yamaha. No Harley. Why does Harley sell so many bikes when they can't touch BMW in fit and finish, style, ergonomics, technology, looks....?

 

[wormraper]

Personally I find the shield the better gun out of the big 5 single stacks

 

[Grunt67]

Partly due to media exposure, in my opinion. Look at the exposure the gun mags give to S&W, as compared to Walther. S&W has been around in this country longer than Walther.
Both are good guns, personally, I have always preferred Walther. Not all like the same thing. That's why both are still on the market.

Until Walther decided to put more into advertising, that's not going to change.

 

[Tenbones]

I think you answered your own question in the first paragraph of your post.

Walther has not done a very good job of marketing the PPS.

 

[Chief1297]

I held both and liked the walther ergos better. I am not brand loyal either so.....every one is different...

 

[Doogie85]

I suspect the answer is marketing and exposure. Pretty much all the gun shops in my area have Shields while it is quite rare to come across a Walther of any flavor. Being a fan of Walther pistols I had to search to find a physical store where I could fondle a Walther and there are many gun shops, both locals and big box stores, in my area.
I own both and like both. I just think that Walther is not nearly as well known or available as S&W.

 

[wturri78]

Once something has attained market leadership through whatever process, unseating or even encroaching upon it requires products that are game changing in some way. Otherwise momentum is just too hard to overcome. I like the PPS M2 better than the Shield, but not THAT much better. I can't say the PPS has anything that is fundamentally an improvement over the Shield. And honestly the Shield is a really, really good product.

The only real game changer has been the P365. The capacity blew everyone's mind. I'm sure in time others will emulate it, but I will bet that over time Sig will become the one to beat. Gun to gun, there's nothing especially remarkable about the Sig really. It's a micro 9 striker gun. Big deal, but the capacity sets it apart.

Walther to their credit changed the game by being first to market with an RDS equipped single stack. The price point on the RMS-C model is awesome. To me it's game changing because the RDS is so much better than irons. Personally I'll take 8+1 with the RDS over 12+1 with irons because I'm so much more likely to be accurate under stress with those 9 rounds.

 

[Jaake]

I’ve noticed that Walther doesn’t get the attention or love that other manufacturers get. “Gun guys” know and respect them but I think to the general public buying a gun the first time is usually going to be a Glock, M&P or Ruger.

Even the so called YouTube experts, which I’ve watched literally hundreds of videos of review the pps and even the ppq and rave about the ergonomics, the trigger, accuracy, build quality. Then when they pick a best this gun or a best that gun they forget all about the Walther.

 

[leadcounsel]

1. Competitive advantages. SW is an American company that already had deep roots in the LEO community with the M&P duty and carry guns. They had edged out other companies like HK, Sig, and Glock due primarily to lower costs and American company.

It was natural that the Shield would make the same inroads being the same basic platform in a single stack, with similar ergos and controls.

2. Marketing. Period.

3. Cost. Retail on the SW is lower than PPS, and that sells guns.

As for holsters, I might be wrong but I think the PPS mod 2 shares the same dimensions with the Shield and therefore same holsters (at least leather). I have a Shield holster that is a perfect fit for my PPS m2.

I actually prefer the gen 1 PPS due to the ergos, styling, and paddles. And no peening. And no recall. YMMV.

 

[wormraper]

I'm with you on the PPS classic. I wish I had grabbed one before they went out of stock instead of the two M2's I owned and sold

 

[Baldie2u]

I am convinced the Shield was modeled on the PPS, remember S&W were the original distributors of the PPS in the US!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DukeIronHand]

If I was King For A Day Walther’s Marketing and PR Department would be out of a job.
They could be hardly be doing a worse job.

 

[surrealone]

2. Price, back then the PPS was was $500+ and the shield $400 and less.

Back when, exactly? I'm asking because I paid nearly $700 for my PPS in the 2009-2010 timeframe. $500 would have been a much easier pill to swallow -- but I don't recall that sort of pricing until a number of years later … AFTER single stacks became substantially more popular than they were in the 2007-2010 timeframe (i.e. after some real competition appeared in the single stack space).

 

[Bassackwards]

Back when, exactly? I'm asking because I paid nearly $700 for my PPS in the 2009-2010 timeframe. $500 would have been a much easier pill to swallow -- but I don't recall that sort of pricing until a number of years later … AFTER single stacks became substantially more popular than they were in the 2007-2010 timeframe (i.e. after some real competition appeared in the single stack space).

The + after the $500 covers 700. And it's a valid point. When I first held a PPS a few A years ago it was a used (like new) gun in pawn shop and priced at $499. A new Shield was quite a bit cheaper. Neither was worth it to me then. Last year I got a windfall $$ and started looking again. Grabbed an M2 LE for $330. But by then the Walther was so far behind in popularity there was no catching up. Love my PPS though.

 

[1942bull]

I bought my PPS M2 just two weeks ago. In deciding what single stack 9 mm to buy I considered manufacturer reputation, warranty, size, capacity and weight. The two guns were equal in every respect except weight with the PPS slightly heavier. I rented both at mt LGS’ Range, and found the two equal in accuracy. But, the PPS had less recoil due to its increased weight. I also saw that the slide rails on the PPS were heavier and longer. I MUCH preferred the ergonomics of the PPS, and that is important to me. So I was leaning to the Walther.

Then I watched YouTube comparative reviews of the two guns. I discriminate among reviews by considering the reviewers’ skills and knowledge. It is not too hard to weed out the bad and find the very good. Out of nine comparative reviews the PPS M2 won out as preferable. The other one was a tie. The wins were based on feet recoil (weight) and ergonomics.

I did not consider aftermarket accessories. I think if you do not like a trigger do not buy the gun. I do not buy guns to rebuild them. As for holsters I found dozens of Kydex and leather holsters for the PPS M2. I bought both IWB and OWB once I purchased the gun. Now two weeks later with 150 rounds through the gun I have to say I like it better than any gun I have owned. It is a damn good gun, and that is what I care about.

 

[Kar98]

The only aftermarket accessories you'll need are decent sights and a holster 😉