9 vs 40 FS Dims

[AZsh00ter]

Wondering if I screwed up somewhere.
When I upgraded from 1.0 to 2.0 fullsize, I also went from 9 to 40. The 2.0 .40 will not fit in my 5.11 level 2 holster that the 1.0 did fit in. Are the outside dimensions on the .40 bigger than the 9?

[PPS1980]

The 2.0 is different from the 1.0 from what I have been reading.

[Rastoff]

They supposedly kept the outer dimensions the same from the original to the 2.0 version. The intent was so you didn't have to buy a new holster.

[Ranger17]

thought they in general were to be similar, so the mags and backstraps could travel from 1.0 to 2.0.
But I wonder if their "extended stainless-steel chassis" could come into play in certain holster styles?

just thinking out loud

[AZsh00ter]

Originally Posted by Rastoff

They supposedly kept the outer dimensions the same from the original to the 2.0 version. The intent was so you didn't have to buy a new holster.

This is exactly what they've been verbalizing in their promos, and for that reason.
So are the outside dimensions of the .40 larger than the 9mm?
I have no tension adjustments on my holster.

[Rastoff]

I can't speak to the 2.0, but the original 9 and 40 were identical on the outside.

[WR Moore]

The slide on the 2.0 seems to have a slightly different profile than the 1.0. I don't know anything official about fitting the same holster, but it'd make sense.

The 1.0 series 9/.357/.40 slides were identical in outside dimensions as Rastoff notes. The 9 mm slide does have lightening cuts on the inside that the others don't. I'd expect the same with the 2.0, except for the changes between the series

You might try separating the slide & frame and see if they'll fit in the holster separately. That should at least give you some idea where the difficulty lies. The extension to the chassis may make the dust cover different enough to interfere in some holsters. I expect the fit standard may have been for widely sold duty type holsters.

If there's a problem, you'd best take it up with 5.11. Good luck with that.

[AZsh00ter]

Thanks WR, that separate fitting makes sense. But I'm sure 5.11 will tell me to take a flying leap, saying that 2.0 doesn't necessarily mean 1.0, no matter what S&W says, plus I've had it a year.

[WR Moore]

Expect the flying leap also, BUT: they might not be aware that the problem exists.

A good many holsters are made so that they fit several pistols that are similar in size/shape. When the M&P series was new, I called a major holster manufacturer looking for a concealment holster. They stated that (at that time) a holster made for a Sig 239 also fit the M&P 1.0. Note: SFAIK, that applied only to the particular model holster I wanted.

Who knows, you might get a good will gesture.

BTW, I know one of the changes between the 1.0 & 2.0 is texture on the frame/grips. When we were going through transitional training with the B series M&P many of us were howling about the abrasive texture on the 1.0. Especially on the bottom of the trigger guard. If the 2.0 is more aggressive, I truly pity the folks who may do transitional training with a 2.0. Gonna be a lot of surgical adhesive used.

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by WR Moore

...many of us were howling about the abrasive texture on the 1.0. Especially on the bottom of the trigger guard.

I don't think there is any texture on the bottom of the trigger guard. The grip is crazy abrasive, but the rest is OK.

I've only held one at the Shot Show. I can say right now that if I'm ever able to get my hands on a 2.0, I'll be taking some 220 grit sand paper to the grip right away. It's great for a shot or two, but a session of 100 or more shots will leave the average shooter looking for medical attention. Well, at least blister cream.