BLUF: We are getting Glock Gen5 G15 MOS or M&P 2.0 preferably CORE.
In the ongoing saga of our firearms program, we are down to the wire on the 9 vs. 40 debate and the Glock vs M&P debate. New debacle features include a desire not to buy new duty holsters. FML 

Anyway, there is strange fascination with the M&P and the .40. One of the central points of my program is to modernize for the next ten years. That means we need the pistols to be optic ready. On the Glock, that is easy: MOS. On the M&P... we have the CORE system. I cannot for the life of me get a straight story on whether the CORE is currently available in the 2.0 version.

Does anyone know for sure about the availability of the 2.0 CORE? If so, can you point me to a dealer that has them in stock? 

Original Post

I can’t answer your question but Gen 5 G15.   I have to believe a typo occurred. 

Mojo/Mark
__________________________
Yo homey, is that my briefcase...?
Vincent from "Collateral"
__________________________
You want the good life, you break your back, you snap your fingers, you snap your neck... Prong/Demon Hunter
__________________________

Because...I Can. 


Joined: 9/30/09
Location: Northern Nevada (Reno/Sparks)

Longeye posted:

Partly correct. The G15 is a new Glock PCC model with the shoulder thing that goes up. That is not what we want.

We are looking at the G17, then G34 or G45.

Interesting. I’ll have to take a look at that.  

Mojo/Mark
__________________________
Yo homey, is that my briefcase...?
Vincent from "Collateral"
__________________________
You want the good life, you break your back, you snap your fingers, you snap your neck... Prong/Demon Hunter
__________________________

Because...I Can. 


Joined: 9/30/09
Location: Northern Nevada (Reno/Sparks)

Update:

Chris Corino, our regional LE sales rep at S&W advises that the M&P 2.0 is available in a CORE version for LE, but that is not showcased on the S&W website. Distributors who carry the M&P 2.0 CORE LE are Proforce and Adamson's.

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

The saga continues... However this turns out, I am going to have a large Scotch when this is over.

FML. Again. Some more. And dammit.

I recommended Glock Gen 5 G17 MOS based on logistics, commonality with academy, easy availability of parts, durability, easy availability of holsters, etc.

So, naturally we are going with 9mm (Good move) and the M&P 2.0 CORE (At least it isn't a Sig, FN or a Beretta)

Reason is because "We have always issued Smith & Wesson"  and because the Sgt that take three attempts to qualify with his M&P says the Glock points low for him.

Small problem. The M&P 2.0 CORE is LE sales only, not listed on the S&W website. That means so few of them sell that Safariland doesn't list 6360RDS holsters for them...or any other holster for that matter. Somehow, I missed that little detail when I wrote the list of acceptable pistols.

I have an email out to Joe Strohman. If he can't find us holsters, nobody can.

Question:

Does anyone here run the M&P CORE 2.0 in a 6360RDS or 6390RDS holster designed for a plain CORE or a plain 2.0? Does it retain the pistol adequately in a ground fight for the pistol?

Longeye posted:

FML. Again. Some more. And dammit.

I recommended Glock Gen 5 G17 MOS based on logistics, commonality with academy, easy availability of parts, durability, easy availability of holsters, etc.

So, naturally we are going with 9mm (Good move) and the M&P 2.0 CORE (At least it isn't a Sig, FN or a Beretta)

Reason is because "We have always issued Smith & Wesson"  and because the Sgt that take three attempts to qualify with his M&P says the Glock points low for him.

Small problem. The M&P 2.0 CORE is LE sales only, not listed on the S&W website. That means so few of them sell that Safariland doesn't list 6360RDS holsters for them...or any other holster for that matter. Somehow, I missed that little detail when I wrote the list of acceptable pistols.

I have an email out to Joe Strohman. If he can't find us holsters, nobody can.

Question:

Does anyone here run the M&P CORE 2.0 in a 6360RDS or 6390RDS holster designed for a plain CORE or a plain 2.0? Does it retain the pistol adequately in a ground fight for the pistol?

..ANR or Nicky Dex..able/compatible to use Safariland hardware..

 

 

Kiko posted:
Longeye posted:

Question:

Does anyone here run the M&P CORE 2.0 in a 6360RDS or 6390RDS holster designed for a plain CORE or a plain 2.0? Does it retain the pistol adequately in a ground fight for the pistol?

..ANR or Nicky Dex..able/compatible to use Safariland hardware..


Those will be fine for admin folks, but I need duty holsters for the patrol guys.

Longeye posted:
Kiko posted:
Longeye posted:

Question:

Does anyone here run the M&P CORE 2.0 in a 6360RDS or 6390RDS holster designed for a plain CORE or a plain 2.0? Does it retain the pistol adequately in a ground fight for the pistol?

..ANR or Nicky Dex..able/compatible to use Safariland hardware..


Those will be fine for admin folks, but I need duty holsters for the patrol guys.

..they make duty holsters..particularly Nicky Dex..better than the Safariland.

 

 

We got this hammered out. 


We are getting the 2.0 CORE 9mm, the 6360 holster for it and a TLR-1 HL, plus the TLR-1 HL. Getting the RDS holster issued was a bridge too far because of looks. 

On the plus side, deputies are now approved to buy and use on duty their own RDS and RDS holster. We switched to 9mm. And getting the department to spring for standard issue weaponlights was a major step forward. On the balance, we are ending up in a better place than where we were.


Did I ever mention how much traditionalists and non gun people inserted into a purchase cycle bug me?

So far the evaluated CORE system has held up to a little over 1700 rounds with a RMR-06 mounted. It has been carried in both off duty leather holsters and Safariland 6360 holsters. The CORE system has held up to being used for a charging support and has not substantially changed zero during this evaluation. This includes removing the sight to change batteries. We will know more as the system is fielded after the first of the year.

Approved sights at this time are RMR-06 and -09, Leupold DPP, and Holosun507.

I will note that the trigger feel on the 2.0 non CORE sample pistol was exceptional for a poly duty pistol. It is close in feel to an Apex DCAEK trigger with Apex springs. It is clean and crisp... enough so that I will not be ordering Apex kits for my personal 2.0 yet.

The new 2.0 grip texture is a welcome improvement to the M&P line. It vastly improves the handling characteristics of the pistol. I compare it favorably to the texture on a Gen 4 Glock- something I would never have done with the legacy M&P.

I had kind of given up on poly duty guns, but the M&P 2.0 excites me enough that I am ordering a 2.0 5" in FDE for a personal gun.

Longeye posted:

So far the evaluated CORE system has held up to a little over 1700 rounds with a RMR-06 mounted. It has been carried in both off duty leather holsters and Safariland 6360 holsters. The CORE system has held up to being used for a charging support and has not substantially changed zero during this evaluation. This includes removing the sight to change batteries. We will know more as the system is fielded after the first of the year.

Approved sights at this time are RMR-06 and -09, Leupold DPP, and Holosun507.

I will note that the trigger feel on the 2.0 non CORE sample pistol was exceptional for a poly duty pistol. It is close in feel to an Apex DCAEK trigger with Apex springs. It is clean and crisp... enough so that I will not be ordering Apex kits for my personal 2.0 yet.

The new 2.0 grip texture is a welcome improvement to the M&P line. It vastly improves the handling characteristics of the pistol. I compare it favorably to the texture on a Gen 4 Glock- something I would never have done with the legacy M&P.

I had kind of given up on poly duty guns, but the M&P 2.0 excites me enough that I am ordering a 2.0 5" in FDE for a personal gun.

My dept went from the original in .40 to the 2.0 in .40 at the beginning of last year. Standard 4.25" barrel. Some officers run lights, some don't. We shoot HST 180gr. Everyone I've asked, and I've asked most of 'em, told me that they feel like they shoot this gun better. Anecdotal evidence during qualifications seems to support this. Despite our quasi 10mm loadout, I can run that gun pretty briskly. The trigger is a vast improvement over the original and the grip texture keeps it from walking out of my hands during rapid followup(s). The only bitch we've gotten is that the rough grip is tough on the forearm/sleeve, which it is until you get used to it.

I bought a 4" in 9mm for off duty carry. I like it very much.  I like the idea of a 5". I'll be interested to give it a going-over when I can put my hands on one.

S/C

 

"Mediocrity is lethal."

The 9mm vs. .40 thing was very controversial among the office leadership. I am a R.Moran disciple and go with the pragmatic approach.

I honestly didn't care one way or another from a terminal ballistic perspective which one we chose. They both work. And personally, the recoil of the .40 has never bothered me. Similarly, I am comfortable with the accuracy, reliability, durability and shootability of both the M&P and Glock pistol.

My recommendations during this project were all pragmatic. What is the best choice from a lifecycle cost, logistics, maintenance, supportability, and shootability standpoint? I looked at what the new hires were showing me on the range for ability and interest. I looked at our hiring pool. I looked at past scores and grouping locations. I looked at what scores guys were posting when they brought their own guns to the range and shot on their own time.  I looked at what guys are buying with their own money.

In order to bring some objectivity to the discussion I designed a evaluation procedure. We did a shoot off between M&P Gen 1 .40 with and without RMR / Glock 17,19, 22  with and without RMR06, and with and without fiber optic front sights. Each deputy shot an untimed five shot group with every combination at 15 yards. Target was a 4" black dot on white background. Eight deputies with varying levels of skill participated. Deputies had all fired our standard 50 round qualification with the issued M&P .40 immediately prior to shooting in the evaluation. I measured groups, but the data I presented at the office was simple analog: Bigger/Smaller for each variable.

Trends: 

 9mm printed smaller groups across platform brand, size and sight type.

RMR equipped pistols regardless of caliber or base shooter skill consistently printed smaller groups than non RMR.

Full size guns (G17/22) printed smaller groups than compact (G19) M&P fits in between the G22 and G23 in grip size, although it mirrors the fullsize G22 in magazine capacity.

Glock 22 .40 consistently printed smaller groups than M&P 40 unless deputy skill level was high. In the case of high skill, group sizes were statistically equal.

Fiber optic front sight equipped pistols tended to group better than night sight equipped pistols.

We really should have had a M&P9 included, but none were available. We should also have had M&P 2.0 pistols to include, again none were available.

Caveat: This is all based on analog scoring which allows us to look at trends. As I looked over the targets and compiled results, there was not a single combination that was objectively a poor performer. Any group fired was capable of staying within an 8" vital zone at 25 yards. This is a reasonable minimal performance expectation of any person capable of passing standard LE physical and cognitive tests. 

Based on the trends established within these parameters, I suggest LE agencies adopt 9mm full size pistols which are equipped with RMR type sights or at minimum fiber optic front sights. Within these results, Glock may have a slight performance edge over the Gen1 S&W M&P. 

We will likely repeat the evaluation once the M&P 2.0 CORE 9mm pistols arrive. Ideally, we will include a Glock Gen 5 so that we are comparing similar advancements in design. 

Every Henderson PD or  LVMPD officer I have observed has a WML on his/her gun.  Which I approve of.  If you have a light on your gun, and it works, then a night sight is probably not actually needed.  I have them on most of my guns and I think it may be more of a security blanket type of thing.  But your testing suggests individuals and departments might be better served by going to black rears with a fiber optic front and put that savings into reducing the cost of the RMR.  My most commonly carried (concealed) gun is a G19 with RMR.  I haven't found a good holster yet to carry it with a light attached, preferably the O-Light Mini.

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

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:

 If you have a light on your gun, and it works, then a night sight is probably not actually needed.  But your testing suggests individuals and departments might be better served by going to black rears with a fiber optic front and put that savings into reducing the cost of the RMR. 

I have been saying this for years. Night sights became obsolete with the widespread use of adequately powered weaponlights.

If an agency is not adopting an MRMR, but are issuing/allowing weaponlights they absolutely need to be putting F/O elements on the duty pistol. 

One combo we didn't mess with was fiber optic sight on a RMR pistol. I suspect that one would want a green F/O element to prevent confusion with the red dot of the RMR. 


Longeye posted:
Dorsai posted:

 If you have a light on your gun, and it works, then a night sight is probably not actually needed.  But your testing suggests individuals and departments might be better served by going to black rears with a fiber optic front and put that savings into reducing the cost of the RMR. 

I have been saying this for years. Night sights became obsolete with the widespread use of adequately powered weaponlights.

If an agency is not adopting an MRMR, but are issuing/allowing weaponlights they absolutely need to be putting F/O elements on the duty pistol. 

One combo we didn't mess with was fiber optic sight on a RMR pistol. I suspect that one would want a green F/O element to prevent confusion with the red dot of the RMR. 


I don't know if I'm "advanced", or riding the special bus.  I tried using suppressor height sights with the RMR and they really blocked a lot of the view through the RMR.  I decided to try some that were just high enough to see over the base of the RMR.  They work well.  It's easier to acquire the dot, yet I can use the irons if needed.  I will try a green FO for the front.  I agree that the color difference will preclude any confusion, plus it is so low.

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

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

I've spent quite a bit of time with the M&Ps in 40 and 9 and I'll say the 2.0 is a strong step up from the 1.0 trigger wise. The 2.0 also has a serviceable extractor. I'll let you decide the utility of that. If you go M&P I'd go 2.0 or nothing. I've seen very few issues with the M&Ps of either gen and consider them very reliable pistols even with bad shooters who dont do any maintenance. The issues I know about are rusty mags at times (poor maint for sure) and the tritium falling out of the front sights on the 2.0. There has been an issue with the slide stop lever shearing but it hasnt locked up the gun, just something that was noticed during inspection in a few cases.

I strongly prefer the Glock with the above being said. The Gen 5 isnt ground breaking but offers a different trigger system that I like compared to previous gens and works for the lefty kids (or non dom side) control wise. I can take or leave finger grooves so I'll stay out of that. I currently have been running a 507c on my MOS G19.5 and its been great once I learned to take it out of autoadjust. I like the Glock compared to the M&P due to easy serviceability  from user to armorer level maintenance without the need of tools, less internal complexity, every maker on earth makes accessories and holsters for it and the mags seem to do better vs rust. 

I shoot them both really well so its a wash for the guns themselves. I think it comes down to accessories and the offers. The only tipping point I can think of is you will likely see more data for issues, more variety of holsters and more accessories and training equipment centered around the Glock. 

I have a gen 1 M&P that has been APEXed out that wears a set of the 10-8 Performance FOs that have remained solid for several thousand rounds. Have a set of WCs on a G17 that popped out after a few hundred, but have remained solid  since I replaced the pipes and made sure the ends were flattened sufficiently 

Location: North Carolina

ANUBISMP,

You make good points. Those are all reasons I strongly advocated for Glock Gen 5 this time around.

But Sheriff wanted to stick with S&W because "That's what we have always used here". So I saluted, about faced, and am carrying out the Sheriff's Intent to the best of my ability.

Our M&P .40 Gen1  fleet is about 13 years old. It replaced a hated Sigma .40 fleet which was also picked "Because we always have issued S&W". The Sigma fleet replaced a hated 3rd Gen 5913 fleet (because we always issue S&W), which in turn replaced our beloved Model 66 fleet.

Our M&P fleet (20 pistols) was good for about nine years. Then I started to see problems like a broken trigger bar, 2x cracked frames, missing tritium inserts, missing front sight, broken follower legs 6x, worn out magazine catch and in several cases missing grip retention pins after the tension nub wore off.

Serial numbers ranged from MPExxxx (first twenty) to DPXxxxx (blue box commercial replacements for MPExxxx guns that were gifted to retiring deputies).

These are mechanical devices and wear is expected, so it is reasonable to chalk this up to end of service life expectations. Patrol weapons get used hard and tend to get highly variable maintenance outside of the annual armorer inspection.

The interesting thing is that our guns are not generally high round count guns. The typical pistol would not see more than 500 rounds per year. These guns then are around 6500 rounds. 

Recoil springs were not changed out at factory recommended intervals for a variety of agency related reasons. That combined with high frequency .40 recoil impulse would tend account for the damaged frames.

This will be changing with the new firearms program and leadership.

The M&P 2.0 CORE continues to be a pain in my ass. It is available to LE only, so aftermarket holster options are pretty slim. I brokered a deal with the Sheriff wherein we would buy RDS holsters for all the deputies fleet wide...if we buy a holster for the Sheriff that is not RDS or weapon light compatible for office wear. The suppressor height sights are pure plutonium to the holster world apparently.


I have an email out to JM Kydex about this. I will be checking with Peters Custom as well. Safariland has the universal fit GLS holster. Has anyone used it?

I am halfway tempted to call up El Paso or some other leather holster maker and commision a custom carved holster worthy of a western Sheriff. But it gags me to order it for a poly pistol rather than a classy 1911 or Model 66.

Any other ideas for M&P 2.0 CORE holsters for OWB admin/plainclothes type wear? Custom Kydex is ok, as is leather if I need to go that route.

Add Reply

Likes (3)
Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×