Glock 26: 9mm, Capacity: 10 + 1, Length (Overall) 6.42 inch, Weight without magazine 550 g | 19.40 oz
Why go .380, when you can get 9mm in a smaller package?
You missed this from the article:
"The gun snobs may look down their noses at the EZ, but those of us trying to teach beginners, women and senior citizens are rejoicing. Just the fact that a gun manufacturer is paying precise attention to this segments wants and needs is wonderful that the gun actually performs as promised is even more significant. A few of the EZs notable achievements include a genuinely easy-to-rack slide, a crisp, comfortable trigger pull, a price south of $400, recoil rivaling that of a .22 mag firearm, an easy-to-load magazine featuring a load assist button like you might see on a .22 LR such as the Ruger SR 22 or the Walther P22, and the added assurance (for those who still need it) of an optional ambidextrous manual safety. Its like Smith & Wesson actually talked to firearms salespeople and instructors before designing this piece revolutionary!"
Not everybody is a tactical operator like you.
For what it's worth, Ruger did this first with their LC380, which is the larger LC9 frame and slide, with a lighter recoil spring and chambered in .380ACP, with a very easy to rack slide.
I own and carry a G26, so I'm a snob as well, but my latest purchase was a Ruger LCP for pocket carry. Much smaller than the S&W Shield 380 EZ or the Ruger LC9/LC380, and smaller even than my wife's G42.
It also seems large for its type. Compare Beretta Pico @ 5.1 & 11.5oz.
Not vs. 9mm as this is not an or question but an and one :)
The mid sized 9s and 380s work very well for older/less strong folks.
Too many, gals especially, get a mini-380 and hate them- sure they fit under ladies clothes or disappear into the abyss of the purse well, but shootable ( blast, recoil and just too small to hold well) they are not for most.
I went with a G27 long ago- 9+1 of 40 cal in a 20 oz package for rough EDC, it is now an ugly worn and nicked thing of (relative) beauty.