M&P 2.0

CWM11B posted:

Trying to verify, but do not believe modularity ala the 320 is part of the package. Not in the new product lit nor did our rep mention it, and he would have.

I was working on a response and managed to find some photos and a video that showed the internals.  The chassis with the serial number IS molded into the dustcover portion of the frame, so no modularity.  Sorry for taking it off track.

-------------------------

Mark

Swear allegiance to the flag Whatever flag they offer

Never hint at what you really feel

Teach the children quietly For some day sons and daughters

Will rise up and fight while we stood still

 

Joined:  2/24/2003                          Location:  Nevada, USA

Thanks for that update, CWM11B. There is a lot of speculation about this pistol. Much of it seems to be hype rather than substantial fact.

The proof will be when the pistol gets into the wild, but I am seeing this as more of "putting lipstick on a pig" or an evolution in design rather than anything that would necessitate running out and trading off old M&P versions at a loss.

The M&P is a decent 85% design, but S&W seems to have addressed things with 2.0 that were not common problems, and did little to take 85% to 90%.

My take.

Props to S&W for actually adding some texture to the grip. It was badly needed. Of all the changes, this is the single one that may justify trading a M1.0 for a M2.0

And good on S&W for moving the SN to the front of the frame. This prevents having to remove the Crimson Trace laser unit and disturbing the zero of the laser during inventory inspections.

However.

The grip shape appears still to suck.

The beaver tail was removed.

The trigger appears still to be a hinged middle.

Height over bore is still excessive.

Slide and frame thickness were not reduced. 

The takedown tool was retained. Why?

The slide release lever is still obtrusive, and will result in the slide running forward on an empty magazine with thumbs forward grip types.

The magazines are apparently still coated in the hi tech "flake off finish" that rubs off on the inside of the frame and makes the mags stick in the weapon when trying to eject.

The magazine floor plate still has the long protruding lip. 10-8 and Apex fixed this problem years ago.

The mag release is now metal. On the Shield, this is the one part of the gun that rusts. Hopefully, they made this from stainless or aluminum, and coated it with something better than PVD or Cerekote.

 

What remains to be seen:

What form the striker assembly geometry takes. On the 1.0 there are at least two generations of striker. The older non chrome version produces a better trigger job when using Apex upgrades.

What shape the M/L grip option takes. With any luck S&W realized that grip length is more critical than grip width. Hopefully, they did not put swells on the M/L grip. 

With any luck the pistol will still operate reliably with a weapon light. That was one of two advantages of the M&P over the Glock prior to the Gen 4. The other is that the Apex kit does a lot more for the M&P than any of the Glock trigger upgrades I have seen.

Hopefully, Apex will be able to respond rapidly with a trigger upgrade kit for the 2.0. While many initial reports call the trigger vastly improved, many of the reporters are gun writers, not shooters. And many of the gun writers compare a trigger to a Glock, rather than a well tuned 1911 or M19 of yesterday. There are some reports that the M2.0 uses the Pro trigger geometry. If that is true, it still needs an Apex upgrade- the Pro trigger is not much better than stock. 

Im really interested in wringing one of these out in 9mm.

One of my SWAT officers is also a 3 Gun competitor and has well over 10  thousand rounds through an early 9mm MP. The only significant parts breakage was the more common ambi slide stop lever breaking off. He has rebuilt it once about 2 years ago.

I am using that particular pistol as a very general barometer of durability as it is the only one that I have personal knowledge of with that round count.

I prefer to have armorer level certification on all of the weapons that I carry on duty. Having gone through the MP armorer course several times, I am very comfortable with compete disassembly.

However, one of my hang ups has always been the small parts (sear housing) and the fact that a rear sight pusher is necessary for complete slide disassembly. I do not like how the firing pin safety is held captive by the rear sight.

This is the one area that the GLOCK continues to excel as far as armorer level maintenance and complete disassembly.

Right or wrong it is a factor that ultimately influenced my switch back to GLOCK (gen4) along with the accuracy issue of the 9mm's which has seemingly been addressed.

"Without training they lack knowlege, without knowlege they lack discipline , without discipline they lack victory"

 

“Go as hard as you can, for as long as you can, and then quit.”

Longeye posted:

Thanks for that update, CWM11B. There is a lot of speculation about this pistol. Much of it seems to be hype rather than substantial fact.

The proof will be when the pistol gets into the wild, but I am seeing this as more of "putting lipstick on a pig" or an evolution in design rather than anything that would necessitate running out and trading off old M&P versions at a loss.

The M&P is a decent 85% design, but S&W seems to have addressed things with 2.0 that were not common problems, and did little to take 85% to 90%.

What do you think is the other 15% that is missing?

My take.

Props to S&W for actually adding some texture to the grip. It was badly needed. Of all the changes, this is the single one that may justify trading a M1.0 for a M2.0

I never found the Glock checkering, and numerous other guns very grippy..so..uh...

And good on S&W for moving the SN to the front of the frame. This prevents having to remove the Crimson Trace laser unit and disturbing the zero of the laser during inventory inspections.

Pretty minor if you ask me...and outside of a few agencies, probably not an issue at all

However.

The grip shape appears still to suck.

Perhaps for you...I find the grip shape to be far preferable to Glocks..I actually like the SD9 grip over both of them. 

The beaver tail was removed.

How long did it take Glock to put one on? It appears at least one of the grip inserts has a beavertail. I cut mine off, and preferred the compact in that area to the full size.

The trigger appears still to be a hinged middle.

Thank God!! I prefer the curved and hinged trigger. Doc Roberts has noted the same.

Height over bore is still excessive.

Compared to? A Glock? 1911?....it's no worse then a Sig or Beretta...I think it was the late Todd Green that declared it didn't matter anyway. And, it's not considerably taller then a Glock

Slide and frame thickness were not reduced. 

This is an issue in a full size gun? I haven't taken calipers to either a Glock or M&P, but I don't see one as better or worse then the other.

The takedown tool was retained. Why?

To disassemble the gun w/o pulling the trigger, which is a requirement for some. It's nice to have a "tool" on the gun to do it. My current issue M&P40 has the mag disconnect, so I have to use the internal lever as opposed to pulling the trigger like I do on my personal guns.

The slide release lever is still obtrusive, and will result in the slide running forward on an empty magazine with thumbs forward grip types.

Obtrusive? LOL...I wish it was bigger. I have not kept my slide from locking back. Vickers said he liked the slide stop, and his Glock one is very similar 

The magazines are apparently still coated in the hi tech "flake off finish" that rubs off on the inside of the frame and makes the mags stick in the weapon when trying to eject.

"appears"...either way, I have not experienced any of this. With about 25 mags in two full size and one compact.

The magazine floor plate still has the long protruding lip. 10-8 and Apex fixed this problem years ago.

Yup, I switched mine to either the compact base plate or 10/8's..that are ridiculously  priced. I'm thinking the actual complaints about this are few. It does match the front of the gun....but, I'll give you that one....me..I got over it.

The mag release is now metal. On the Shield, this is the one part of the gun that rusts. Hopefully, they made this from stainless or aluminum, and coated it with something better than PVD or Cerekote.

I have not had the rust issues every one else seems to have over the years. Guns rust...I mean...really?

 

What remains to be seen:

A lot remains to be seen

What form the striker assembly geometry takes. On the 1.0 there are at least two generations of striker. The older non chrome version produces a better trigger job when using Apex upgrades.

I thought it was fractured strikers that were the reason for the change. Either way, the trigger is reported to be better, and Apex parts were not needed...and I doubt making it easier for you to change parts was not fore most in S&W minds. 

Not just gun writer reports mind you.  A poster on the other forum reports the trigger is improved. A friend dry fired one and reports is is "light" and gtg. Poster on the the other forum posted pic and reported good accuracy.

What shape the M/L grip option takes. With any luck S&W realized that grip length is more critical than grip width. Hopefully, they did not put swells on the M/L grip. 

Willing to bet three of the grips are the same. Either way, grip fit is an individual thing, and no gun can make everybody happy. All the big players will have people that don't like the grip. It wasn't long ago when grip reductions, stippling and adding a grip force adapter to a Glock was common...still is...why is that not an issue? Or is it?

With any luck the pistol will still operate reliably with a weapon light. That was one of two advantages of the M&P over the Glock prior to the Gen 4. The other is that the Apex kit does a lot more for the M&P than any of the Glock trigger upgrades I have seen.

Any luck? For real??..there is no reason to believe it won't....I mean..the G22 has a craptastic rep in that regard, and when they fixed the 40, they ruined the 9mm. I'm sure Apex and others will be able to produce aftermarket parts to yield whatever trigger you would like. I mean, it didn't take long for Gen4 Glock parts to show up.

Hopefully, Apex will be able to respond rapidly with a trigger upgrade kit for the 2.0. While many initial reports call the trigger vastly improved, many of the reporters are gun writers, not shooters. And many of the gun writers compare a trigger to a Glock, rather than a well tuned 1911 or M19 of yesterday. There are some reports that the M2.0 uses the Pro trigger geometry. If that is true, it still needs an Apex upgrade- the Pro trigger is not much better than stock. 

You are already assuming it's going to suck..way to go in with an open mind. Hopefully it won't need any after market parts. The reports I read, was it's not a pro sear, and the poster that has the 2.0 and a pro said the 2.0 is better.

What else would you compare it to? Every other facet of the gun is compared to the Glock, but now the trigger should be compared to a 1911?...I mean a Glock doesn't compare to that either. It's a striker fired polymer frame gun, that cost about $400...what do you expect for a trigger? Either way..it's closer to, if not really a single action gun, so I'm betting in the end, when a talented smith puts his efforts to it, it will produce a better trigger overall....but then, why not just buy a 1911?

 Comments in yellow. If you don't like it, cool...get a Glock, or what have you. But, let's be a bit...more objective?

Yup, I like the M&P, and have some hopes for the 2.0...and may be a bit biased...but, they make different guns for different people.

It seems like people are mad the S&W didn't make a Glock 

 

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

While I've looked many times at the M&P line, I've never bought one because I felt is wasn't 100% (as has been mentioned) what I'd want. At a minimum, I'd have to add $100+ to get the trigger group up to snuff. If I could get a 2.0 Shield for the same price they are at now, that may be a deal maker. If they're targeting first time buyers, these changes make sense. Additionally, if I could buy a G43 in MA I would, but I can't, so the Shield is a viable option.

---------------------------------

It's not that life is so short, it's that you're dead for so long.

The .45-70 is the only government I trust

 

Joined: 1/30/06 3:34 PM - Location:MA

Regarding the beavertail (which I like), I forgot to mention I was told it was removed to meet the overall length requirement of the MHS. It was the simplest change to make to meet the spec. 

A lot of the complaints I hear about the M&P are subjective. If one doesnt like it, and has a choice in what they carry, then I say dont buy one and drive on. I have not seen many issues with the series, and it has been dead nuts reliable for us. I manage a fleet of about 600 of them. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Neither is my truck, house, fitness level, wife, etc. Nothing is (except my dog). I would like it to be more accurate, but it is perfectly acceptable and far more capable than the average shooter regardless of their station in the gun toting world. 

At the beginning of each firearms block in our academy, I tell the kids that if their identity as a cop is wrapped up in the issued firearm, go work where your favorite one is issued/authorized. However, be prepared to move on or get butt hurt when someone above makes a change without consulting you. The first four pistols I was issued would never have been my choice, and when given the chance to buy them I passed. I learned live with them and carried on.

It is interesting hearing about how S&W should do this or that to the platform, but I see the Glocks get sent off for all manner of grinding, melting, polishing, etc. Subjectively, I'm not a fan of that platform although I shoot it pretty well. The trigger geometry doesnt work for me and my trigger finger drags along the bottom of the trigger guard. At the end of a long range session I usually have a pretty significant hot spot. If I was ordered to carry one, however, I would.

Look at all the changes they have quietly made. Take their beaver tail. Slide bite was always an issue for me. GFAs and the Gen 4 backstrap fixed that issue. The Glock rep for our area told me the beaver tail was added at the request of DEVGRU. I have no way of knowing if that is true or not, but someone saw a need for it. A couple of former employees have told me since the company is privately held they can keep stuff quiet, whereas a publicly traded one has to make disclosure. 

Bottom line, I like it, and I am looking forward to trying the new variant. But I tell every rep that comes knocking I am not wedded to any product. If someone comes along with a genuinely better product that can give an officer an advantage in the performance of their duties then change will come if it is practical. 

Location: North Carolina

I handled one at the Smith and Wesson booth and the Dallas Safari Club a few days ago.  I am not a safari kind of guy, but went to take a look at optics.

The grip texture on the new Smith was very sharp to the point that I would not be comfortable with it--but I don't like sharply textured grips.

The break of the trigger was crisp, but boy did it drag like it was rubbing on something. This was the case with the two samples I handled.  I  asked the S&W rep if it had the sear from the custom shop and was told that it doesn't.   The S&W rep directed me to  some M&Ps from the custom shop that were next to the Newer Smiths. I tried them and the trigger break was just as good if not better and there was no drag.

I should have pointed it out to the guy from S&W, but was in a rush.

I asked the representative about the new groves in the front of the frame under the slide and he said that the new frame had some metal reinforcement and those new groves had something to do with that. I probably should have taken notes and asked more questions.

Here is a picture of the gun itself:

And here is a picture of the  new groves in the front of the frame under the slide:

 

 

 

 

"The break of the trigger was crisp, but boy did it drag like it was rubbing on something. This was the case with the two samples I handled.  I  asked the S&W rep if it had the sear from the custom shop and was told that it doesn't.   The S&W rep directed me to  some M&Ps from the custom shop that were next to the Newer Smiths. I tried them and the trigger break was just as good if not better and there was no drag."

Having worked on a half dozen or more of the pre M2.0 M&Ps, I found that the drag was due to the shape of the striker block.  The bevel is more angular than rounded and the Apex striker block is in my opinion, the major improvement in the smoothness and lack of grit in the trigger pull.  The camming surface on the trigger bar is flat and not particularly smooth since the trigger bar is a stamped piece.  Spending some time with a stone on that surface can also pay dividends. Some people talk about smoothing the hole in the slide where the striker block sits, but in all the guns I've worked on, I've never seen any burrs or roughness there.  Doesn't mean it isn't possible though.

I've dry-pressed the pro-shop guns in comparison with the standard and I'm in the same boat as everyone else.  No difference.  Yes, it's extra money, but an Apex kit does a far better job than a Pro or Performance model, and for less money.  It's a bit more than a week till SHOT.  If I don't finger-fuck one at the store, I'll do it at SHOT.

-------------------------

Mark

Swear allegiance to the flag Whatever flag they offer

Never hint at what you really feel

Teach the children quietly For some day sons and daughters

Will rise up and fight while we stood still

 

Joined:  2/24/2003                          Location:  Nevada, USA

Dorsai posted:

...not particularly smooth since the trigger bar is a stamped piece.  Spending some time with a stone on that surface can also pay dividends...

I have stoned several other guns of various types to get various bits of the drawbar (trigger transfer bar) smooth. MAN does it help. Most guns have a lot of contact area or components there and it's just a dumb stamped piece. I miss metal guns just for the added benefit of stoning the bits, then sending the frame to be NP3'd. That's a smooth drawbar. 

Dorsai posted:

I've dry-pressed the pro-shop guns in comparison with the standard and I'm in the same boat as everyone else.  No difference.  Yes, it's extra money, but an Apex kit does a far better job than a Pro or Performance model, and for less money.

It is possible to get a ("1.0" I guess we now call them?) Pro that is noticably good. My personal gun is lovely. I bought it as an upgrade because Apex had just released their stuff and with no reviews I didn't want to mess with fire control, and it was not much more money at the dealer I bought from.

Others who have clicked it accuse me of having an Apex upgrade, so I assume it is not just my opinion. 

Eager to see an upgrade that makes this consistent. Not happy to hear the feedback from the early 2.0 models. Been thinking of getting another to dotify as a counter to my shitty eyes, sometime. Wait for the 2.0.1 service pack maybe.

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

So my big bitch with the m&p and everyone at my works is the lack of a more distinct trigger reset....

 

Anybody handled one yet and care to comment on the reset?

Also waiting to find out for sure someone who's actually tried these with the m&p1 Safariland ALS holsters for fitment  

 

Like how it all looks other than they got rid of the beaver tail.  

There is a youtube vid out there showing the audible and tactile re-set. A poster on another forum has said it is better or pronounced, etc..

Me...I never cared and think it is over rated..

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

Bob, I understand all your points. I have been issued an M&P since 2009. At one point, my personal fleet was all M&P .40. It is workable in COTS form. That's how the Sheriff says we carry them on duty. It works. However, all of the things I have noted for change are things I have seen across the Dept's fleet of M&P40, most with only typical cop round counts.

I am not advocating that Smith make a Smith&Glock. What I do want a company to do is make the next large step in handgun design. The M2.0 is not that. It will simply be another solid choice in a small field of service grade handguns that generally outshoot their owners and the people assigned to carry them.

"The grip texture on the new Smith was very sharp to the point that I would not be comfortable with it--but I don't like sharply textured grips."

I've got a M1.0 that was custom stippled and it was pretty abrasive.  The nice thing about a polymer frame is that a couple of careful minutes with some fine sandpaper resolves that issue.

-------------------------

Mark

Swear allegiance to the flag Whatever flag they offer

Never hint at what you really feel

Teach the children quietly For some day sons and daughters

Will rise up and fight while we stood still

 

Joined:  2/24/2003                          Location:  Nevada, USA

Longeye posted:

The proof will be when the pistol gets into the wild, but I am seeing this as more of "putting lipstick on a pig" or an evolution in design rather than anything that would necessitate running out and trading off old M&P versions at a loss.

The M&P is a decent 85% design, but S&W seems to have addressed things with 2.0 that were not common problems, and did little to take 85% to 90%. 



I'm probably looking at this a whole lot like R. Moran and with the caveat that I haven't handled any of the 2.0 guns yet. In no certain order ... 

- A lot is going to be revealed when these guns get into the hands of working shooters, not gun writers. As I mentioned in other discussions, if S&W addressed the barrel / accuracy issues and concerns with the trigger (regardless of validity) and they get the actual price down, then they may succeed with 2.0.

- Completely agree with you regarding the lip at the base of the front strap & on the base pads. I started removing it from frame before anything else;

- I have a couple generations of magazines. I wasn't seeing flaky finish issues, but I did have the odd follower hanging up concern;

- The magazine release problems, I thought, only affected the very early 9mms. Were there continuing concerns?

- Apex already has a page up with 2.0 items, including triggers. The Glock is the easiest trigger to compare any other striker fired gun to as it is probably one of the most common ones out there. My complaints were about grit in the press not the hinged design;

- From whats been printed so far, I can't see why the concern about the frame and WML use;

- The 9mm M&Ps grip size & shape is one of two parts of the gun that lured me into switching to this platform from the 1911. I have no issues with the shape or size as my small hands can get on a double stack pistol with a thumb safety without grip compromise issues;

- You're the first gentleman I  have heard express concerns about the bore height, can you expand on this?

- Striker geometry concerns are not something I recall but I went to the armorers' course in 2010 and have spent the last 2 & 1/2 years with Glocks for organizational reasons. I'd be interested in hearing more of this; 

A common theme I have heard over the years with Glock triggers is the best trigger job is about a thousand dry fire coupled with a case of ammo through it. I have had the same experience with my issued M&P. 

I would genuinely be interested in what folks think the next evolution in service pistol design would be. I am no gunsmith and for the longest time thought engineers just drove trains. Personally, I am of the opinion until something other than the metallic cartridge comes along in a practical form, we're pretty much done. Functionally, most of of our guns are the same as they were 100 years ago. Same for cartridges. Sure, powders and projectiles are more refined, but the basic cartridge design has been around since the US Civil war. Where do we go from here?

 

Location: North Carolina

Erick posted:
Longeye posted:

The proof will be when the pistol gets into the wild, but I am seeing this as more of "putting lipstick on a pig" or an evolution in design rather than anything that would necessitate running out and trading off old M&P versions at a loss.

The M&P is a decent 85% design, but S&W seems to have addressed things with 2.0 that were not common problems, and did little to take 85% to 90%. 



I'm probably looking at this a whole lot like R. Moran and with the caveat that I haven't handled any of the 2.0 guns yet. In no certain order ... 

- A lot is going to be revealed when these guns get into the hands of working shooters, not gun writers. As I mentioned in other discussions, if S&W addressed the barrel / accuracy issues and concerns with the trigger (regardless of validity) and they get the actual price down, then they may succeed with 2.0.

For Sure!

- Completely agree with you regarding the lip at the base of the front strap & on the base pads. I started removing it from frame before anything else;

Yes, that lip gets in the way of manipulations badly. The new Apex/10-8 polymer pads fix this and does it at an affordable price.

- I have a couple generations of magazines. I wasn't seeing flaky finish issues, but I did have the odd follower hanging up concern;

Any of the mags that have the poly finish on them with any length of time on service have wear spots located at the same places as the internal rails in the magwell. I could care less about the finish wear, but we are seeing mags hang up in the magwell as that finish builds up on the polymer rails. A trip with a stiff brush helps but does not eliminate the problem. I have seen the stalled follower as well a few times.

- The magazine release problems, I thought, only affected the very early 9mms. Were there continuing concerns? 

Not sure. The Shield with that problem that I am aware of is a 9mm from two years back. It is carried extensively by it owner, who is anal about maintenance. My 40 Shield has not shown this same problem, but I have only had it in use for about a year.

- Apex already has a page up with 2.0 items, including triggers. The Glock is the easiest trigger to compare any other striker fired gun to as it is probably one of the most common ones out there. My complaints were about grit in the press not the hinged design;

I object to the stagey feel of the original trigger, and the roller coaster feel of both pull and return. (~Circa 2005 .40) FS Apex parts fixed this. The recent production M&P have decreased the roller coaster effect but still have poor trigger feel. The way I see it manifest itself is in the front sight dropping in unpredictable directions during dry practice evolutions. Adding the Apex parts lowered the frequency and severity of the problem, but it still occurs at a rate disproportionate to my Glock and 1911 practice. Because of this, I attribute a portion of this to the grip shape. I have made use of all three grip sizes, as well as custom grips and have not uncovered a reliable solution. By degrees, the smaller grips in the Pro format are best, even with my size 11 hands.

- From what's been printed so far, I can't see why the concern about the frame and WML use;

May not be a problem, but the current design has been utterly reliable with a WML.   

- The 9mm M&Ps grip size & shape is one of two parts of the gun that lured me into switching to this platform from the 1911. I have no issues with the shape or size as my small hands can get on a double stack pistol with a thumb safety without grip compromise issues;

- You're the first gentleman I  have heard express concerns about the bore height, can you expand on this?

The bore is nearly 1/4" higher than the center point of the trigger, compared to a Glock. Applying physics, this equates to recoil applied to a lever at a further point. That means recoil acts with greater force, all other things being equal. I also notice that the gun tends to balance forward with a neutral grip. This is probably partially due to HOB, partly due to inadequate grip texture and  due in part to grip shape.

- Striker geometry concerns are not something I recall but I went to the armorers' course in 2010 and have spent the last 2 & 1/2 years with Glocks for organizational reasons. I'd be interested in hearing more of this; 

It is something I noticed when I had a box full of M&P's show up on my bench to add Apex DCAEK and FSS kits to a couple years ago. Depending on the age of the pistol, the quantity of improvement I was able to achieve varied noticeably. I traced it to two areas: one was the generation of striker and the other was minute variations in the angle of the loop on the trigger bar where it interacted with the sear.

The old black strikers had a flat interface, there is a silver version that has an actual hook interface, and the newest silver striker is back to a flat interface. The hook version interacted with the sear in such a way that it was actually pushed rearward by the sear as the sear lowered out of engagement. It created a heavier and more progressive trigger pull with excessive tension.

Short story long is that S&W has had a lot of incremental things going on with the M&P line and not all of them have been positive. I do not follow the M&P forums online, this is just what I have seen on my bench over the last seven years, as I have worked on different vintages that have come in. There are things that I like a lot about the M&P, but it is a quirky platform to work on, and I find it to be harder platform for green cops (or anybody) to shoot well on compared to the Glock. It also seems to require more effort to maintain proficiency on for higher level shooters.

At the end of the day, I am glad we were issued the M&P and not the XD or the legacy SIG which were also in the running at the time.

 

 

 OK, rather then go tit for tat about what features we prefer or don't, why don't we keep this thread limited to updates on the M&P2.0.

We can start another thread on what we/you would like to see in a combat handgun.

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

More pics off the web -

 

Previous speculation of a modular frame setup seem largely unfounded. Instead, S&W has firmed and strengthened the frame with embedded metal inserts that also include the gun’s serial number and QR code. Also important to note is that version 2.0 is backwards compatible with previous magazines, holsters and accessories.

Not a fan of the huge LCI on top of the slide.

The standard M&P 2.0 includes white three-dot sights.

Lengthened locking block rails and strengthened/lengthened slide stop levers

IMG_5393

 

 

 

 

M2.0

"Without training they lack knowlege, without knowlege they lack discipline , without discipline they lack victory"

 

“Go as hard as you can, for as long as you can, and then quit.”

Erick posted:
arcticlightfighter posted:


Not a fan of the huge LCI on top of the slide.

The standard M&P 2.0 includes white three-dot sights.



Hmmm, the placement and length of the LCI looks like it would adversely impact adding a RDS to the slide. 

It would.  But since it isn't required to operate the gun, I'm sure if someone wants to put an RDS on it, they'll simply remove the LCI.  And I'll bet someone will come up with a spacer to fill the gap.

-------------------------

Mark

Swear allegiance to the flag Whatever flag they offer

Never hint at what you really feel

Teach the children quietly For some day sons and daughters

Will rise up and fight while we stood still

 

Joined:  2/24/2003                          Location:  Nevada, USA

Or, a mount that just uses the hole for the indicator bar. Too bad it's the wrong way around to be a recoil lug.

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

 

 Report I read, were the LCI was only on the 5" gun. Think it was part of the MHS requirements. 

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

Per our factory rep, all models will be available without the LCI. I do not see it as being very popular and would not be surprised if it went away. I believe it may (again) have been a part of the MHS, but not sure. Will try and verify.

Location: North Carolina

I would not be surprised if the LCI is part of the CALI or MASS compliant models.

___________________________________________________________________

I'm either dead right, or horribly wrong. Either way the results should be entertaining.

 

"Shoot the MOTHERF$%^ER until he changes shape or catches fire"  the PAT ROGERS

cd228 posted:

I would not be surprised if the LCI is part of the CALI or MASS compliant models.

That is correct, at least for MA

---------------------------------

It's not that life is so short, it's that you're dead for so long.

The .45-70 is the only government I trust

 

Joined: 1/30/06 3:34 PM - Location:MA

My local gun shop has one for sale and everything! 

Didn't get to shoot, but fondled it as much as I wanted. 

  • Trigger is immensely better. Really like it now. one of the things that makes me want to trade in.
  • I think the best part may be the overtravel stop. That really works well and now by comparison I hate the overtravel on my 1.pro, dammit.
  • Grip texture is perhaps too aggressive, so use it or sand it. It's plastic. Had ones like this before. It goes away slowly. 
  • Miss the beavertail, but it reminds me more of a VP9 than a glock now. I could get used to it. 
  • Many small roundings, relief cuts, etc. I dunno how many (e.g. ejection port) are for reliability, but I love the additional lack of snag they provide. Vigorous manipulations are that much easier and more positive as the only thing on the slide to grab are the cocking serrations. 
  • The front cocking serrations are my new standard for Minimum Useful. They work, but if you do not need them, pretend they are not there. Well done, that. 

 

 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

Attachments

Photos (6)

I got to shoot the 4.25" this weekend.

Observations (with a grain of salt  because I work for an M&P agency, and we aren't getting the 2.0s):

Trigger reset was audible and very noticeable tactilely.  The trigger is still very close to the standard M&P IMHO, and nowhere near the Apex stuff.

The texturing/stippling on the frontstrap/backstrap and grip modules is frankly, the shit.  We've been texturing backstraps and using skateboard tape for years now, and it's about time that S&W does it from the factory on something other than the CORE and Performance guns.

It shot as to be expected for an M&P, none of the accuracy issues that plagued earlier M&P series guns.  I shot 115, 124 and 147 ammo that I had on hand and it liked it all.  No failures.

The mags were interchangeable with the current M&Ps, but when I took it apart, there are noticeable differences internally.  I didn't tear it all the way down (it's a rental gun and not mine to do with), so I couldn't point specifics at differences, I think they've been discussed already.

Is it worth running out to buy, probably not...unless you're dying for the newest thing, or really want factory stippling.

 

Add Reply

Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2016
×
×
×
×
×