An answer about the new 2.0

[Rastoff]

I've been out for a while because I was at the Shot Show last week. My first stop was at the S&W display where I got to handle my first 2.0 and .45 Shield.

I asked them about the mysterious square holes on either side of the dust cover. The first speculation on this site was that they provided a place for the serial number. While it's true that they do put the serial number and bar code there, that was just serendipitous. Because they extended the steel sub-frame the length of the dust cover, those holes assist with bonding the plastic to the metal. They weren't able to tell me the specifics behind why this helps the bonding process, just that it does.

One mystery solved.


On another note, the grip texture is extremely aggressive. If I were only going to shoot a mag or two, it's great. However, a full three day class will leave you with hamburger for hands. The same goes for the .45 Shield. The texture on that one is just a tad less aggressive (at least it seemed that way on the demo gun), but still pretty serious.

If I owned either gun, they would be sanded down to take off the grip high points. I like the older design better.

[lrmnut]

I've shot two M2.0's a 4.25" and 5" and put over a hundred rds through
each plus shooting another two hundred rds in four other pistol's I thought
the Grips were great. IMO

[Shield9mm]

I haven't handled the new 2.0, but have shot the shield 45, IMO the texture is amazing, specially for a carry gun.

[palmettostate1]

I can see them being a little rough for some. I learned to appreciate rough grips during a 3-gun match in Florida. It was raining and my gen-3 G17 was difficult to hold on to. By the last stage there was 4 inches of standing water on the range.

IMMEDIATELY after the match I drove to my LGS and bought another G17 in RTF2 with the fish gills. Many more rainy IDPA, USPSA and 3-gun matches have followed with no more grip problems.

I see one of the 2.0 in my future this year.

[CB3]

I find very rough textures and soft tacky rubber ones to be a problem for concealed carry. Covering garments hang up on these surfaces, so the clothing may not hang or fall naturally. As well, clearing the cover garment on the draw can be more difficult.

I've handled a 2.0 here locally.

I would reduce the grip texture and disable the extra slide lock that prevents auto forwarding. I think an Apex flat faced trigger/sear/striker block/spring combo is better than any factory S&W trigger set up so I would likely replace the 2.0 trigger. Given these preferences, I see no advantage to a 2.0 for me.

The frame stiffening is nice but not critical. If the mag release is now metal, that is another "eh" feature.

And it appears the 5" cannot take an RDS because of the wanky long tactile Loaded Chamber Indicator.

Narrowing the slide is simply cosmetic. Shaving 2-3 oz is not significant for me.

The addition of small relieved areas at the bottom of the grip to help remove a mag is nice, but something I already have done to my 1.0's, although more aggressively than S&W does theirs.

I already reduce the too-long beavertails on my 1.0's and improve the grip with stippling (but not sandpaper texture).

The 2.0 is probably a good first FS M&P for some. I don't think there will be a whole lot of people unloading (pardon the pun) their 1.0's to get a 2.0. I bet S&W will support the 1.0 for a long time, and even make 1.0 5" slides for the Performance Center and CORE models.

[fallhunter]

I bought both over the weekend. They are amazing in the hand.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Flyingfool]

Are they going to continue to make the 1.0 or is this new design a complete replacement?

If complete replacement I may have to get a 1.0 before they are no longer available.

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by Flyingfool

Are they going to continue to make the 1.0 or is this new design a complete replacement?

They were a little fuzzy on that, but I suspect the original will be around for a while.

[steamloco76]

Originally Posted by Rastoff

I've been out for a while because I was at the Shot Show last week. My first stop was at the S&W display where I got to handle my first 2.0 and .45 Shield

On another note, the grip texture is extremely aggressive. If I were only going to shoot a mag or two, it's great. However, a full three day class will leave you with hamburger for hands. The same goes for the .45 Shield. The texture on that one is just a tad less aggressive (at least it seemed that way on the demo gun), but still pretty serious.

If I owned either gun, they would be sanded down to take off the grip high points. I like the older design better.

Try an Under Armor glove for extended shooting sessions. Same type of glove NFL players wear. I have a pair for cool weather shooting and discovered they are great for taming aggressive grip textures too. Very good dexterity too.

[Disabled1]

While at ACADEMY last week I handled the 2.0. I find the grip a bit aggressive, but overall, not a problem. I like it!

[palmettostate1]

Originally Posted by jackrabbit000

G17 RTF2 was too rough for me. Sold it and bought a G17 Gen4. Way better IMO but it's basically preference. There's a reason why the RTF2 was discontinued, most people didn't like it.

Yea, RTF2 would be too rough if you are only static shooting in a lane, I agree.

Good thing I don't have tender skin. I guess too many "men" are slathering their hands with lotion...LOL

The new Vicker's RTF2 guns are selling like crazy. It appears some are either changing their minds or a new generation values shootability above a silky epidermis.

[bblhd672]

Originally Posted by steamloco76

Try an Under Armor glove for extended shooting sessions..

Not after Under Armor bowed to leftist anti-hunter demands.

Under Armour Dumps Hunters, Hunters Returning The Favor - The Truth About Guns