Finally got to fondle a M&P 2.0 compact

[Edwardteach72]

So I love (and hate Glocks) and have debated moving over to a M&P and the 2.0 compact sure does it help with wanting to stay with glock.....

Well I randomly decided I haven't bought an actual new (or used) blaster in a while and have had this weird .357sig bug for a few months now, so I went on the hunt for a Glock 32 fun fact out of the 1 gun stores in this area there was no G32s

Well at the same time they did have a S&W M&P 2.0 compact, so I asked hey can I check that out.

Initially I was super impressed, felt reallly nice. I liked the grip texture, pointed real nice (reminiscent of my p07 but seemed to fill the hand a little better where the Cz seems a little on the thin side to me) granted it had the large grip on it which was to large for me I know the small or even medium would have been spot on.

Down side, man does that trigger suck, the break isnt bad and the reset is nice, but every other part is gritty and just bad (and this is supposed to be an improvement) but a simple fix or an apex which I prefer straight flat face triggers over curved (oh the curve on this one is way to much as well)


Now my other complaint (which isnt on the gun but the shop) it was used (no problem there) and they still wanted $445 for it.

I can find this gun online for $399 new all day long. I would have snagged it up if the price was decent, but the fact that I would need to drop the money into an all new holster to be able to rock the new blaster and then a whole new trigger off the bat the $45 over new just was not worth it.


All in all I still kinda want one and it really is a nice gun felt real good

 

[Acer-m14]

my bud and his wife just got new m&p 2.0's in 40 and 45 .. the trigger does feel weird to me .. might just need to get used to it ..
or hit up the top shot Julie G for the in and outs on the M&P series ..

 

[Edwardteach72]

I think one of the other odd parts of the trigger was it just felt crowded to me, but a flat face would fix that easily

 

[Saltwater60]

I didn’t like the tabbed trigger of the 1.0. Not sure if the 2.0 is the same or not. I liked everything else. I felt like when I pulled the trigger and it pivoted it was going to break. Every time I pulled the trigger I was like oh shot what went wrong there.

 

[MikeyCNY]

I must have lucked out because my 2.0 Compact has a nearly perfect trigger.. I also have a 2.0 Fullsize into which I installed a new Apex sear and flat-faced trigger, and I still prefer the 2.0 Compact. The takeup is still a little rough, but I still have less than 500 rounds through it (just barely). I might still replace the sear but the rear sight is being a bitch about coming out. (the gunshop kind of dinged the rear the sight a little installing it, dovetail was super tight)

My stock 2.0 Compact has a trigger pull of 3 lbs 6 ounces according to my trigger gauge. I don't remember exactly off-hand but the stock Fullsize was over a pound more. The flat face feels nice, but takes a little getting used to after using the hinged triggers.

Now if S&W would just get off their asses and release factory 10-rounders for the 2.0 Compact....

 

[nortatoga]

@MikeyCNY is there really a difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0 mags ? That would suck since 44mag.com has he for $8.00!

 

[Edwardteach72]

Oh dont get me wrong the break on the trigger was actually super nice same with the rest.

It's all the (and there is a lot) pretravel that felt absolutely disgusting, the metal part of the hing felt nice but idk it did feel weird when I first started to pull the trigger.

 

[Edwardteach72]

@MikeyCNY is there really a difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0 mags ? That would suck since 44mag.com has he for $8.00!

There are no 1.0 compacts

 

[nortatoga]

There are no 1.0 compacts

So the $8.00 S&W factory mags from 44mag.com should work?

 

[Edwardteach72]

So the $8.00 S&W factory mags from 44mag.com should work?

If they are full size I dont see why not, but if you are looking for actual flush fitting 10 rounders it sounds like you are shit out of luck. I haven't looked into mp all that much

(I do know a 1.0 slide can work on a 2.0 frame)

 

[nortatoga]

Smith & Wesson M&P Magazine 9mm Compact 10 Round Flat Bulk
Write a Review
Item# SW19462B
$41.82 Now $8.00
92.00 Available
Smith & Wesson M&P9 Compact 9mm 10 round capacity magazine. Flat base plate. Brand new original factory Smith and Wesson magazine. Bulk packed - no plastic package.


Attention customers: if your billing OR shipping address is located in CA, CO, CT, DC, HI, MA, MD, NJ, or NY you must review our updatedmagazine shipping restrictions[/a] before ordering. If you order items that are prohibited by our restrictions your order will be canceled and a 10% cancelation fee will be charged.







Qty


from 44mag.com, I bought full size 9mm and 40sw's from them all factory.

 

[nortatoga]

@MikeyCNY I just called S&W CS and was told the only difference is the butt-plate on the 2.0 mags! So the older ones will work!

 

[Edwardteach72]

Fair enough

 

[lethalweapon5]

My LGS straight up told me they couldn't sell me a 2.0 Compact because they couldn't get 10 round mags for it... I called bull shit, but they didn't seem to know or care.

And these new 2.0 triggers are supposed to be great but I've fondled them on a few different guns and I'm not sure if they really need to be worked in first or something, but they feel different depending on the gun. I tried a bunch of them specifically because I have a shield 2.0 and I've been meaning to call S&W because the reset doesn't feel right. The break seems fine, but the reset does not feel right at all... it has a separate "click" before the actual reset and I've put about 500 rounds through it thinking maybe it just needed to be broken in and it still feels funny. Even the actual resent point is very soft and hardly audible. Anyone else have this issue? Maybe it's just a me thing...

 

[GOYABEAN]

So I love (and hate Glocks) and have debated moving over to a M&P and the 2.0 compact sure does it help with wanting to stay with glock.....

Well I randomly decided I haven't bought an actual new (or used) blaster in a while and have had this weird .357sig bug for a few months now, so I went on the hunt for a Glock 32 fun fact out of the 1 gun stores in this area there was no G32s

Well at the same time they did have a S&W M&P 2.0 compact, so I asked hey can I check that out.

Initially I was super impressed, felt reallly nice. I liked the grip texture, pointed real nice (reminiscent of my p07 but seemed to fill the hand a little better where the Cz seems a little on the thin side to me) granted it had the large grip on it which was to large for me I know the small or even medium would have been spot on.

Down side, man does that trigger suck, the break isnt bad and the reset is nice, but every other part is gritty and just bad (and this is supposed to be an improvement) but a simple fix or an apex which I prefer straight flat face triggers over curved (oh the curve on this one is way to much as well)


Now my other complaint (which isnt on the gun but the shop) it was used (no problem there) and they still wanted $445 for it.

I can find this gun online for $399 new all day long. I would have snagged it up if the price was decent, but the fact that I would need to drop the money into an all new holster to be able to rock the new blaster and then a whole new trigger off the bat the $45 over new just was not worth it.


All in all I still kinda want one and it really is a nice gun felt real good

Did you see this package Smith & Wesson M2.0 Shield 9mm 3.1" Barrel 7+1 / 8+1 Crimson Trace Laser EDC Package 12395 - NO CC FEES- $349 (Free S/H on Firearms)

 

[Edwardteach72]

Did you see this package Smith & Wesson M2.0 Shield 9mm 3.1" Barrel 7+1 / 8+1 Crimson Trace Laser EDC Package 12395 - NO CC FEES- $349 (Free S/H on Firearms)

That's a shield

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

When I was looking for A pistol the past 2 weeks I specifically was looking to compare a 2.0 9c and couldn't find one in the buffalo area.

 

[GOYABEAN]

That's a shield

anyway

 

[MikeyCNY]

@MikeyCNY I just called S&W CS and was told the only difference is the butt-plate on the 2.0 mags! So the older ones will work!

Hmm... if that's so why are they taking so long to come out with new butt plates.. I had an original 9c that I sold a couple of years ago.

 

[GOYABEAN]

@Edwardteach72 Is this it there's a member from PAFOA he's in Jim Thorpe PA he's looking for M&P 2.0 trade or selling $350

 

[71velle]

I have some trigger time with the 2.0s but not the compact. If interested I could start a thread with the experience and comparing the 2.0 full size to the Glock 34.

Also have sone thoughts on the on the G32 if you interested in the Gun Blast opinion.

 

[Edwardteach72]

anyway

Wait I'm confused???

@Edwardteach72 Is this it there's a member from PAFOA he's in Jim Thorpe PA he's looking for M&P 2.0 trade or selling $350 View attachment 28535 View attachment 28536 View attachment 28537 View attachment 28538 View attachment 28539

No? I saw one (for $445) at my local gun shop in the cabinet, but that dude is asking a little more of a reasonable price, if I was actually in the market for one I'd consider that price

I have some trigger time with the 2.0s but not the compact. If interested I could start a thread with the experience and comparing the 2.0 full size to the Glock 34.

Also have sone thoughts on the on the G32 if you interested in the Gun Blast opinion.

I mean go for it, we all know its amazing right lol?

And why would I need someones thoughts on a G19/23/32? They are all the same gun

And again let me guess they are both awesome, and one is better than the other but then the other is better than the first because they are all just perfect no need to change anything lol

 

[71velle]

Ok, here we go.......

You are correct kinda right about 19/23/32. Dont bother with a 32 unless you are hung up on the numbers of the roll marks. Buy a G23 even tho you are a 40 hater. The 23 with a simple barrel swap is completely compatible with 357 sig. I know your thinking the 32 with a barrel swap is compatible with 40 but it not as ideal. The mags are slightly different between the two but is interchange. The advantage is the 40 mags are great with 357 but the 357 mags not so great with 40.

Now you might want to know why I would suggest 40 to a 40 hater. The cost of 357 ammo is crazy!! I assume you are a guy who likes to shoot and train and with a 357 you would go broke. The 40 recoil is similar to 357 so good practice and training is much more feasible. Also with a 9mm barrel you could have that option too. Now shooting 9 out of the 357/40 isnt perfect but changing the ejector will make it so, maybe something else too? But glock parts are cheap. 9mm will load and run in the 40 mags but I will warn you to count the number of rounds of 9 that might fit in a 40 mag. I cant say I would recommend the 40 mags for 9 in a carry pistol but I have done it at the range without issue when I forgot mags and borrowed some 40 mags to be able to shoot.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Ok, here we go.......

You are correct kinda right about 19/23/32. Dont bother with a 32 unless you are hung up on the numbers of the roll marks. Buy a G23 even tho you are a 40 hater. The 23 with a simple barrel swap is completely compatible with 357 sig. I know your thinking the 32 with a barrel swap is compatible with 40 but it not as ideal. The mags are slightly different between the two but is interchange. The advantage is the 40 mags are great with 357 but the 357 mags not so great with 40.

Now you might want to know why I would suggest 40 to a 40 hater. The cost of 357 ammo is crazy!! I assume you are a guy who likes to shoot and train and with a 357 you would go broke. The 40 recoil is similar to 357 so good practice and training is much more feasible. Also with a 9mm barrel you could have that option too. Now shooting 9 out of the 357/40 isnt perfect but changing the ejector will make it so, maybe something else too? But glock parts are cheap. 9mm will load and run in the 40 mags but I will warn you to count the number of rounds of 9 that might fit in a 40 mag. I cant say I would recommend the 40 mags for 9 in a carry pistol but I have done it at the range without issue when I forgot mags and borrowed some 40 mags to be able to shoot.

Hey thanks for the common knowledge that everyone knows and I have even brought up in other threads and talked about...

Oh and you can take a 19 change the ejector and have a 23/32.

And if i wanted .357 sig (which I could then just drop my agency trigger group into, no need to deal with changing electors, and then throw a 19 slide on, if I wanted to shoot something cheaper) why would I buy a 23 just so I then would have to go and spend more money on a new barrel, or instead just buy a 32 and as me mentioned before swap out slides when I wanted (and trigger groups since I'd have my 19 trigger group and the one that came with the 32)

 

[71velle]

Hey thanks for the common knowledge that everyone knows and I have even brought up in other threads and talked about...

Oh and you can take a 19 change the ejector and have a 23/32.

And if i wanted .357 sig (which I could then just drop my agency trigger group into, no need to deal with changing electors, and then throw a 19 slide on, if I wanted to shoot something cheaper) why would I buy a 23 just so I then would have to go and spend more money on a new barrel, or instead just buy a 32 and as me mentioned before swap out slides when I wanted (and trigger groups since I'd have my 19 trigger group and the one that came with the 32)

Common knowledge

"Oh and you can take a 19 change the ejector and have a 23/32."

I do not believe this to be true first off you would need a barrel and it would not fit into a 19 slide. Unless there are conversion barrels that I am not familiar with.

Common sence is another story

The barrel is cheap and 357 ammo is expensive. The first 1000 rounds of 40 ammo would pay for the barrel in ammo savings. I assumed you are a guy who likes to shoot your pistol more than you like to shoot off you mouth . But no biggie I have been wrong before

 

[Edwardteach72]

I meant as in the frame

 

[Edwardteach72]

Common knowledge

"Oh and you can take a 19 change the ejector and have a 23/32."

I do not believe this to be true first off you would need a barrel and it would not fit into a 19 slide. Unless there are conversion barrels that I am not familiar with.

Common sence is another story

The barrel is cheap and 357 ammo is expensive. The first 1000 rounds of 40 ammo would pay for the barrel in ammo savings. I assumed you are a guy who likes to shoot your pistol more than you like to shoot off you mouth . But no biggie I have been wrong before

But why would I shoot .40 if I have no use for it, the reason for .357sig would be the added ballistics over 9mm, which .40sw has practically none, especially if I was to do a complete roland special type build, a compensator on something shooting a .357sig would be awesome

 

[Edwardteach72]

So again not sure why I would buy a 23 when I'm looking to shoot both 9mm and .357sig, when I could buy a 32 and just swap out the complete slides from my 19 I already have?

 

[71velle]

To say 40 practically no better than 9mm is kinda silly. The big movement back to 9mm is not based on ballistic differences alone. The "big" agencies consider the couple extra rounds of capacity and less recoil major factors and of course cost. So they come to the conclusion that capacity, recoil, and cost dont justify the ballistic advantages. Now capacity means nothing to us thanks to AC. Recoil, the agencies have what less than a 50 % hits in the field mainly due to a lack of training and practice. Cost, when outfitting 100s of officers the ammo cost is more of an issue and 9mm pistols never seam to wear out. 40 and 357 do wear out and fail over time.

40 vs 357 is a whole different animal. On paper the 357 is a ballistic ass kicker but doesnt mean its an advantage in the field. The best advantage of 357 is it could potentially feed better due to its bottle neck design. After that the advantages start to break down. 357 does shoot flatter than 40 no argument there but a non-factor at what may consider pistol distances. 357 is better at barrier penetration no contest by a mile!! But, that leads to some disadvantages. Over penetration which can be a real liability. Also 357 tends to pass through the intending target much more often so is transfers less of its energy to its intended target. Some studies have shown that 40 has a better one shot badguy stop because of this.

Not sure if you have ever fired 357 but the blast is substantial!! Much more than 40. And yes I have fired 9mm, 40, and 357 back to back in the same frame pistols. Many reports conclude 357 is more difficult to shoot and I agree. But it could be more of a "training issue" I have read that in actually the 357 recoil impulse is not worse than the 40 but to be honest I cant confirm. I have not shot enough of both the added blast might cause a "mental trick". I am confident in saying that shooting 9 is not really good training for preparing for 357 or 40. I have shot a good reasonable amount of 40 to say I notably fall off compared to 9. I have back to backed fired my g34 and a g35 a few times and always see a considerable difference in accuracy performance. The owner of the g35 does not have this drop of but he is a far superior shooter.

The reason I recommended the idea of 40 even knowing you are not a fan is the whole training practicality. I know you say a lot of drastic stuff but it seems as you do take your training very seriously. As mentioned shooting 9mm imo is not good training for 357 or 40 but shooting 40 is close enough to 357 to be worth while. Now the cost factor, the $120 for the "extra" barrel does not mean much when factoring in the cost of ammo between the two. After less than 1000 rounds of 40 the barrel would pay for itself. If you actually like to shoot and train your first range trip with a new pistol would likely be 300-400 rounds. Maybe you dont really like to train or your made of money making this a nonissue.

 

[Edwardteach72]

To say 40 practically no better than 9mm is kinda silly. The big movement back to 9mm is not based on ballistic differences alone. The "big" agencies consider the couple extra rounds of capacity and less recoil major factors and of course cost. So they come to the conclusion that capacity, recoil, and cost dont justify the ballistic advantages. Now capacity means nothing to us thanks to AC. Recoil, the agencies have what less than a 50 % hits in the field mainly due to a lack of training and practice. Cost, when outfitting 100s of officers the ammo cost is more of an issue and 9mm pistols never seam to wear out. 40 and 357 do wear out and fail over time.

40 vs 357 is a whole different animal. On paper the 357 is a ballistic ass kicker but doesnt mean its an advantage in the field. The best advantage of 357 is it could potentially feed better due to its bottle neck design. After that the advantages start to break down. 357 does shoot flatter than 40 no argument there but a non-factor at what may consider pistol distances. 357 is better at barrier penetration no contest by a mile!! But, that leads to some disadvantages. Over penetration which can be a real liability. Also 357 tends to pass through the intending target much more often so is transfers less of its energy to its intended target. Some studies have shown that 40 has a better one shot badguy stop because of this.

Not sure if you have ever fired 357 but the blast is substantial!! Much more than 40. And yes I have fired 9mm, 40, and 357 back to back in the same frame pistols. Many reports conclude 357 is more difficult to shoot and I agree. But it could be more of a "training issue" I have read that in actually the 357 recoil impulse is not worse than the 40 but to be honest I cant confirm. I have not shot enough of both the added blast might cause a "mental trick". I am confident in saying that shooting 9 is not really good training for preparing for 357 or 40. I have shot a good reasonable amount of 40 to say I notably fall off compared to 9. I have back to backed fired my g34 and a g35 a few times and always see a considerable difference in accuracy performance. The owner of the g35 does not have this drop of but he is a far superior shooter.

The reason I recommended the idea of 40 even knowing you are not a fan is the whole training practicality. I know you say a lot of drastic stuff but it seems as you do take your training very seriously. As mentioned shooting 9mm imo is not good training for 357 or 40 but shooting 40 is close enough to 357 to be worth while. Now the cost factor, the $120 for the "extra" barrel does not mean much when factoring in the cost of ammo between the two. After less than 1000 rounds of 40 the barrel would pay for itself. If you actually like to shoot and train your first range trip with a new pistol would likely be 300-400 rounds. Maybe you dont really like to train or your made of money making this a nonissue.

Right but 40sw is gross, not to mention if I did go the .357sig route it would end up with a KKM barrel and compensator, which thanks to NY would mean the comp would need to be welded onto the barrel (comps are legal, threads are not, which I'm sure we can agree makes little to no sense, but hey we are safe now right) this would cancel out just a simple barrel swap in the slide