New S&W 2.0 M&P Compact 9mm, 3.6" Barrel - Page 2

Blade37db · May 1, 2018, 07:27 AM

Thanks for the replies.
For my body shape, the grip length is more important. I would have preferred a shorter grip length somewhere between a Shield and a Glock 19 (which I already have and carry). As others have said, something like the old M&Pc would have been right (for me).
Hope you guys enjoy 'em!

DPris · May 1, 2018, 12:22 PM

Parenthetically in passing, I happen to have tested the new Walther PPQ2 SC last week.
I'm a great fan of the full-sized PPQ2, but not so much the SC.

I did all my accuracy stuff with just the short mag in the short grip, to test control & feel.
After which I also did a pair of speed dumps at 5 yards, with the longer mag & adaptor that comes with it.

Slowfire, the short grip was not a control problem, but it would be in rapid fire dynamics.
In the speed dump, the bigger mag allowed better control.

My way of thinking would hold that if you need to add a longer mag to control the pistol well, or for the capacity, I'd just go with a gun that came with a longer grip & mag to begin with.

The single-stack width appeals to many, but it's not an issue with me.
I prefer capacity & a grip that actually affords me full control.

This is just me & my preferences, not knocking anybody else's.

I had considered buying the PPQ2 SC, till I worked with it. Quality-wise, nothing at all wrong with it, I just can't deal with that short grip.

If a slight pinky extension were available (no additional rounds, just an extension "hook"), like the Pearce extenders I have on my Glock 26s, it could change that game, but Walther only has the longer mag with adaptor, and if I were going to have to use that on the pistol for control, I'd just go with a pistol with a bigger grip.

I have to say that I don't quite understand the appeal of a short-gripped pistol where you have, or want, to carry full-length mags & adaptors in it.

That sorta gets us back to this new M&P, where it's got a shorter front end, but a better grip & the greater capacity to begin with.
Denis

TunnelRat · May 1, 2018, 12:30 PM

That's a fair point and one people have made before. If you end up adding extensions that get you to full-size in the end, why not just start there?

For me with the old M&P 1.0 Compact even with the pinky extension magazines the difference in grip height compared to say a G19 was enough that I felt even with the extensions it was more concealable than a G19. I know some people don't get the point of the pinky extensions for the G26 and say to just carry a G19 at that point. Again for me the difference in concealability is still there between those setups and the pinky extensions give me a bit more control that I like. So some like the smaller extensions, and some just prefer the larger extensions because they don't see a difference in carrying but like the option to make it smaller if they had to.

It's hard to determine ahead of time for everyone whether those small differences in dimensions will make a subjective difference to the shooter.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

DPris · May 1, 2018, 01:13 PM

The Glock 26 is, as an example of a class, nice & short at both ends for concealment.

In my hands, anytime you go TOO short in the grip, I lose performance.
I can accept the loss of velocity in trade for the concealment, but I can't comfortably drop down to a 2-fingered hold.

My 26s are a matched pair I bought 20 years ago, and after initial testing I quickly did those no-extra-round Pearce extenders.
Those elevate the pistols just barely into practical levels of hand fit & control, for me.
Not ideal, but still concealable in adding maybe half an inch to the grip area, and making them into a more realistic defensive piece than they were out of the box.

In discussions comparing the Glock 26 with the Walther PPQ2 SC, at my house the 26 wins because it has a workable grip extender.
So far, the only apparent way to get any support for the pinky (which I find important) is that longer 15-round mag & adaptor.

If I were going to have to use the 15-rounder, on a short barreled pistol, what would be the gain in not just going with a 15-rounder grip to begin with?

None of which knocks either the Walther or anybody who likes it.
Just not a candidate for me.
We all have our own reasoning behind our preferences.

And as for the question "Does a mere .4 inches justify the new Smith?", for me it's a yes.
It's not the back end that's hard to conceal, it's the front, under jackets in winter & untucked shirts in summer.
Again, emphasizing this is for me. I will not argue which end's what for anybody else.

The 2.0 Compact with 4" barrel is a whole quarter-inch shorter than the full-sized 2.0, which means realistically you're buying that model for its shorter back end, with a 2-round mag reduction.

While I did buy that 2.0 Compact (and the full-length 2.0), I thought at the time that to be more of a true compact the front end should have been more than a quarter-inch shorter.
Here, in the 3.6" version, it is.

That'll give me a full 16 rounds in a grip that provides full control, shorter by two rounds & maybe half an inch than the full-sized 2.0, and with a front end well over half an inch shorter than the full-sized pistol.

Choices for concealment always involve compromises & trade-offs.
For some a 1911 is not too big, for others a Bodyguard .380 is just right.

I'm more enthusiastic about this new 3.6" 2.0 than most other intros nowdays because it appears to be dimensionally perfect for what I want, accepting the compromise of lesser velocity than a full-sized pistol and the greater bulk as opposed to something like the Walther PPQ2 SC.

If function & accuracy check out positive, I'm in business.
If the package doesn't add up for you, then you're not in business.

Denis

vba · May 1, 2018, 01:19 PM

I agree, and would like both ends chopped to mimic the M&P9c. I had a M&P9c but had accuracy issues with it. Since the 2.0's seem to have fixed this issue it would be worth it to me.

TunnelRat · May 1, 2018, 01:26 PM

Out of curiosity are you carrying OWB? Not saying I have an issue with that, just understanding how in that case barrel length would make a difference. I carry OWB and I have to cherry pick holsters for ones that ride high enough on my body to not print if my shirt were to lift.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Blade37db · May 1, 2018, 03:09 PM

Since I'm in a 10-round limit state, I think the new Sig 365 may be the answer for me. I have small hands and can get my pinkie on he 365 (like I could with a Shield). The G26 with the grip extender is almost the same size as the 19....+ getting pinched.
The other I may look into is the FNS9c. The Ruger American has the right dimensions except for being too heavy for what it is.

DPris · May 1, 2018, 04:13 PM

In a belt gun, it's always OWB.
That's the thing- always have to consider a jacket or shirt riding up to expose the gun if I reach or bend wrong.

That's one reason I gave up on the idea of carrying my 6-inch Smith 66 .357 Mag 35 years ago.

And that's one reason why if I ever go back to a .357, it'll be a snub.
Same deal on this new 3.6" Smith.
Barrel length is the primary consideration for me.

I don't want the thing to be seen if my shirt rides up.
Denis

Brian48 · May 6, 2018, 05:36 AM

I appendix carry. The shorter barrel guns are more comfortable to me. I'm considering this gun to replace my SR9c, which has been very reliable, but the ergo is not as good as the smiths.

PP99 · May 6, 2018, 09:25 AM

I like it, just like FSN-9c with 3.6" barrel lenght, but with up to 17 Rd. capacity.

Uncle Malice · May 6, 2018, 08:36 PM

Quote:

I like it, just like FSN-9c with 3.6" barrel lenght, but with up to 17 Rd. capacity.

No, it's not. That's what we are saying S&W should have done with this gun. Replicate the size of the old 9c with 12+1 capacity and then the option of running the 15rd, 17rd, etc magazines.

If I were a betting man, I would guess that S&W will actually be releasing that size gun once again in the M2.0 configuration.

What we are saying is that this minor reduction in barrel length without also reducing the grip length doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. My guess is that this was kind of an afterthought on the development path to creating the usual 12rd 9c. They developed the slide and realized they could just shorten the dust cover on the compact frame and have a new model, so they released that while they finalize the M2.0 '9c' grip dimensions.

TunnelRat · May 6, 2018, 08:58 PM

I'm with Uncle in that to me releasing a 2.0 version of the 1.0 9c fills a much bigger niche than this particular model. I probably would even pick up such a pistol even if for very limited carry.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

PP99 · May 7, 2018, 12:14 AM

Sorry guys, but I'm with DPris +1 about this:
"I prefer capacity & a grip that actually affords me full control. I'm more enthusiastic about this new 3.6" 2.0 than most other intros nowdays because it appears to be dimensionally perfect for what I want, This is just me & my preferences, not knocking anybody else's"

Siggy-06 · May 7, 2018, 08:15 AM

I was checking prices online for the new model, and all are $450+ at the moment(listed/preorder). I can get the full size or compact 2.0 for $399. I dont know if less barrel is worth $50 more. I would like to shoot it side by side next to the compact model though...

TunnelRat · May 7, 2018, 08:23 AM

My guess is they'll come down in time.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Uncle Malice · May 7, 2018, 09:30 AM

Quote:

My guess is they'll come down in time.

Yep, no doubt. I paid $510 for my 2.0 compact when they were first announced on the Brownell's pre-order... and I'm happy that I did. I could've saved $100 by waiting 2-3 months but meh...

TunnelRat · May 7, 2018, 10:02 AM

I paid $450 OTD for one Compact, and then bought another from Brownells a month later for $396 before the $20 transfer. I think they're a pretty good bargain, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Siggy-06 · May 18, 2018, 07:16 AM

If anyone has a chance to get their hands on the new model, please weigh it if possible. S&W's website says the 3.6 model weighs more than the normal compact. I assume its due to a different recoil spring and possible different barrel dimensions.

DPris · May 18, 2018, 02:28 PM

Should be picking it up maybe tomorrow, if I can make it into town.
I'll try to remember to weigh it.
Denis

Black Wolf · May 19, 2018, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

My ideal carry gun would be the opposite of the direction S&W went with this -- shorter grip (like G26) with a 4" barrel. I have no problems concealing the length, but grip makes a lot of difference!

The new PPQ SC is about this same overall length, but with a chopped grip that can also take full mags. That's a more flexible option, I'd think...I also like Walther a lot...

But I've been truly impressed with the 2.0 line. The texture is crazy rough but sure gives you a firm grip, and can be easily covered over with Talon rubber or one of those little grip sleeves.

But on this, I think I join the chorus asking "is 0.4" enough to justify a whole new model?"

Completely agree. Glock also thought short slide, long grip made sense. I do not. I'd want a conceal able grip and and long sight radius. Just makes more sense to me. Maybe not a sub compact frame and and compact slide, maybe a size up - G17 slide on a G19 grip

Throw in The fact there are other things S&W should be working on right now. M&P 10mm? 2.0 Core?

jjs · June 20, 2018, 10:29 PM

Actually, the 1.0 Compact barrel is 3.5" not 3.6".

DPris · June 20, 2018, 11:12 PM

I get 25.5 ounces on my postal scale.
Denis

WestTex · June 21, 2018, 02:47 AM

Speaking for myself only -

I prefer the newer version with 3.6” barrels, and same grip as previous.

Same reason I enjoy my 19X. 19 slide & 17 frame.

The shorter sight radius is of no consequence to me. Neither for aiming purposes, or in velocity ratings at true self defense ranges.

I can not stand a longer slide with shorter grip. To me, it does not have a balanced feel.(again just speaking for myself. Whatever someone else has / prefers /. shoots better is fine with me.).

I am glad S&W gave us a choice.

If there is a weight difference, might it have something to do with the full length, internal rails?

May 6, 2018, 05:36 AM	#34
Brian48 Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2001 Location: Boston, People's Republic of MA Posts: 1,616	I appendix carry. The shorter barrel guns are more comfortable to me. I'm considering this gun to replace my SR9c, which has been very reliable, but the ergo is not as good as the smiths. __________________ Proud to have served.

May 7, 2018, 08:15 AM	#39
Siggy-06 Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 1,148	I was checking prices online for the new model, and all are $450+ at the moment(listed/preorder). I can get the full size or compact 2.0 for $399. I dont know if less barrel is worth $50 more. I would like to shoot it side by side next to the compact model though... __________________ Flicks just like a lighter, just a different kind of fire.

May 18, 2018, 07:16 AM	#43
Siggy-06 Senior Member Join Date: September 2, 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 1,148	If anyone has a chance to get their hands on the new model, please weigh it if possible. S&W's website says the 3.6 model weighs more than the normal compact. I assume its due to a different recoil spring and possible different barrel dimensions. __________________ Flicks just like a lighter, just a different kind of fire.

May 1, 2018, 07:27 AM	#26
Blade37db Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2005 Posts: 282	Thanks for the replies. For my body shape, the grip length is more important. I would have preferred a shorter grip length somewhere between a Shield and a Glock 19 (which I already have and carry). As others have said, something like the old M&Pc would have been right (for me). Hope you guys enjoy 'em!

May 1, 2018, 12:22 PM	#27
DPris Member Emeritus Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 7,133	Parenthetically in passing, I happen to have tested the new Walther PPQ2 SC last week. I'm a great fan of the full-sized PPQ2, but not so much the SC. I did all my accuracy stuff with just the short mag in the short grip, to test control & feel. After which I also did a pair of speed dumps at 5 yards, with the longer mag & adaptor that comes with it. Slowfire, the short grip was not a control problem, but it would be in rapid fire dynamics. In the speed dump, the bigger mag allowed better control. My way of thinking would hold that if you need to add a longer mag to control the pistol well, or for the capacity, I'd just go with a gun that came with a longer grip & mag to begin with. The single-stack width appeals to many, but it's not an issue with me. I prefer capacity & a grip that actually affords me full control. This is just me & my preferences, not knocking anybody else's. I had considered buying the PPQ2 SC, till I worked with it. Quality-wise, nothing at all wrong with it, I just can't deal with that short grip. If a slight pinky extension were available (no additional rounds, just an extension "hook"), like the Pearce extenders I have on my Glock 26s, it could change that game, but Walther only has the longer mag with adaptor, and if I were going to have to use that on the pistol for control, I'd just go with a pistol with a bigger grip. I have to say that I don't quite understand the appeal of a short-gripped pistol where you have, or want, to carry full-length mags & adaptors in it. That sorta gets us back to this new M&P, where it's got a shorter front end, but a better grip & the greater capacity to begin with. Denis

May 1, 2018, 12:30 PM	#28
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,214	That's a fair point and one people have made before. If you end up adding extensions that get you to full-size in the end, why not just start there? For me with the old M&P 1.0 Compact even with the pinky extension magazines the difference in grip height compared to say a G19 was enough that I felt even with the extensions it was more concealable than a G19. I know some people don't get the point of the pinky extensions for the G26 and say to just carry a G19 at that point. Again for me the difference in concealability is still there between those setups and the pinky extensions give me a bit more control that I like. So some like the smaller extensions, and some just prefer the larger extensions because they don't see a difference in carrying but like the option to make it smaller if they had to. It's hard to determine ahead of time for everyone whether those small differences in dimensions will make a subjective difference to the shooter. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

May 1, 2018, 01:13 PM	#29
DPris Member Emeritus Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 7,133	The Glock 26 is, as an example of a class, nice & short at both ends for concealment. In my hands, anytime you go TOO short in the grip, I lose performance. I can accept the loss of velocity in trade for the concealment, but I can't comfortably drop down to a 2-fingered hold. My 26s are a matched pair I bought 20 years ago, and after initial testing I quickly did those no-extra-round Pearce extenders. Those elevate the pistols just barely into practical levels of hand fit & control, for me. Not ideal, but still concealable in adding maybe half an inch to the grip area, and making them into a more realistic defensive piece than they were out of the box. In discussions comparing the Glock 26 with the Walther PPQ2 SC, at my house the 26 wins because it has a workable grip extender. So far, the only apparent way to get any support for the pinky (which I find important) is that longer 15-round mag & adaptor. If I were going to have to use the 15-rounder, on a short barreled pistol, what would be the gain in not just going with a 15-rounder grip to begin with? None of which knocks either the Walther or anybody who likes it. Just not a candidate for me. We all have our own reasoning behind our preferences. And as for the question "Does a mere .4 inches justify the new Smith?", for me it's a yes. It's not the back end that's hard to conceal, it's the front, under jackets in winter & untucked shirts in summer. Again, emphasizing this is for me. I will not argue which end's what for anybody else. The 2.0 Compact with 4" barrel is a whole quarter-inch shorter than the full-sized 2.0, which means realistically you're buying that model for its shorter back end, with a 2-round mag reduction. While I did buy that 2.0 Compact (and the full-length 2.0), I thought at the time that to be more of a true compact the front end should have been more than a quarter-inch shorter. Here, in the 3.6" version, it is. That'll give me a full 16 rounds in a grip that provides full control, shorter by two rounds & maybe half an inch than the full-sized 2.0, and with a front end well over half an inch shorter than the full-sized pistol. Choices for concealment always involve compromises & trade-offs. For some a 1911 is not too big, for others a Bodyguard .380 is just right. I'm more enthusiastic about this new 3.6" 2.0 than most other intros nowdays because it appears to be dimensionally perfect for what I want, accepting the compromise of lesser velocity than a full-sized pistol and the greater bulk as opposed to something like the Walther PPQ2 SC. If function & accuracy check out positive, I'm in business. If the package doesn't add up for you, then you're not in business. Denis

May 1, 2018, 01:19 PM	#30
vba Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2008 Posts: 357	I agree, and would like both ends chopped to mimic the M&P9c. I had a M&P9c but had accuracy issues with it. Since the 2.0's seem to have fixed this issue it would be worth it to me.

May 1, 2018, 01:26 PM	#31
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,214	Out of curiosity are you carrying OWB? Not saying I have an issue with that, just understanding how in that case barrel length would make a difference. I carry OWB and I have to cherry pick holsters for ones that ride high enough on my body to not print if my shirt were to lift. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

May 1, 2018, 03:09 PM	#32
Blade37db Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2005 Posts: 282	Since I'm in a 10-round limit state, I think the new Sig 365 may be the answer for me. I have small hands and can get my pinkie on he 365 (like I could with a Shield). The G26 with the grip extender is almost the same size as the 19....+ getting pinched. The other I may look into is the FNS9c. The Ruger American has the right dimensions except for being too heavy for what it is.

May 1, 2018, 04:13 PM	#33
DPris Member Emeritus Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 7,133	In a belt gun, it's always OWB. That's the thing- always have to consider a jacket or shirt riding up to expose the gun if I reach or bend wrong. That's one reason I gave up on the idea of carrying my 6-inch Smith 66 .357 Mag 35 years ago. And that's one reason why if I ever go back to a .357, it'll be a snub. Same deal on this new 3.6" Smith. Barrel length is the primary consideration for me. I don't want the thing to be seen if my shirt rides up. Denis

May 6, 2018, 09:25 AM	#35
PP99 Member Join Date: August 16, 2013 Posts: 85	I like it, just like FSN-9c with 3.6" barrel lenght, but with up to 17 Rd. capacity.

May 6, 2018, 08:58 PM	#37
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,214	I'm with Uncle in that to me releasing a 2.0 version of the 1.0 9c fills a much bigger niche than this particular model. I probably would even pick up such a pistol even if for very limited carry. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

May 7, 2018, 12:14 AM	#38
PP99 Member Join Date: August 16, 2013 Posts: 85	Sorry guys, but I'm with DPris +1 about this: "I prefer capacity & a grip that actually affords me full control. I'm more enthusiastic about this new 3.6" 2.0 than most other intros nowdays because it appears to be dimensionally perfect for what I want, This is just me & my preferences, not knocking anybody else's"

May 7, 2018, 08:23 AM	#40
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,214	My guess is they'll come down in time. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

May 7, 2018, 10:02 AM	#42
TunnelRat Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2011 Posts: 12,214	I paid $450 OTD for one Compact, and then bought another from Brownells a month later for $396 before the $20 transfer. I think they're a pretty good bargain, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

May 18, 2018, 02:28 PM	#44
DPris Member Emeritus Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 7,133	Should be picking it up maybe tomorrow, if I can make it into town. I'll try to remember to weigh it. Denis

June 20, 2018, 10:29 PM	#46
jjs Junior Member Join Date: January 8, 2018 Posts: 5	Actually, the 1.0 Compact barrel is 3.5" not 3.6".

June 20, 2018, 11:12 PM	#47
DPris Member Emeritus Join Date: August 19, 2004 Posts: 7,133	I get 25.5 ounces on my postal scale. Denis

June 21, 2018, 02:47 AM	#48
WestTex Junior Member Join Date: May 15, 2018 Posts: 11	Speaking for myself only - I prefer the newer version with 3.6” barrels, and same grip as previous. Same reason I enjoy my 19X. 19 slide & 17 frame. The shorter sight radius is of no consequence to me. Neither for aiming purposes, or in velocity ratings at true self defense ranges. I can not stand a longer slide with shorter grip. To me, it does not have a balanced feel.(again just speaking for myself. Whatever someone else has / prefers /. shoots better is fine with me.). I am glad S&W gave us a choice. If there is a weight difference, might it have something to do with the full length, internal rails?