Has the 2.0 really stepped up a fine pistol to an upgrade?
I am not talking about 2.0 over the initial release M&P
The initial M&P was getting improvements all along the way to where it is today
I had an M&P compact 45 that had a horrible trigger a few years ago
I just recieved a M&P 40 compact that (after a little dry fire) has a much improved trigger
Is this a factor of a different color "racing stripe"?
Inquiring minds, would like to know
Lastly, I would probably have taken the step and dropped the hinged trigger........
There are quite a few upgrades and improvements. If I already had an original M&P maybe I wouldn't worry about upgrading. If I was making my first M&P purchase as was my situation, then yes I see no point in not purchasing the 2.0 and getting the original instead. As a matter of fact it was because the 2.0 was introduced that I even considered the Smith & Wesson M&P. In addition, the M&P 2.0 was one of the only handguns I've ever purchased that I haven't done any aftermarket or other modifications except installing Idot night sights. That's how satisfied I am with Smith and Wesson's design and execution of this model
Last edited by Americanpatriot; 08-05-2017 at 09:00 AM.
There are quite a few upgrades and improvements. If I already had an original M&P maybe I wouldn't worry about upgrading. If I was making my first M&P purchase as was my situation, then yes I see no point in not purchasing the 2.0 and getting the original instead. As a matter of fact it was because the 2.0 was introduced that I even considered the Smith & Wesson M&P.
What improvements were made on the 2.0 that made you want an M&P?
For me, the grip texture is what really sold me. I love it. Then, once I actually shot it, the accuracy is what kept me hooked.
I didn't upgrade from an original M&P but had previously owned two of them and just didn't care for them. I found the accuracy of my first two to be lackluster at best. My 2.0 is a real tack driver.
What improvements were made on the 2.0 that made you want an M&P?
Getting rid of the ugly beavertail, strengthening the frame, the grip texture, getting rid of the ****** trigger,improved the accuracy.. There's various other improvements as well
Last edited by Americanpatriot; 08-05-2017 at 09:55 AM.
For me, the grip texture is what really sold me. I love it. Then, once I actually shot it, the accuracy is what kept me hooked.
I didn't upgrade from an original M&P but had previously owned two of them and just didn't care for them. I found the accuracy of my first two to be lackluster at best. My 2.0 is a real tack driver.
What you typed is like being in my mind. You read it very well. Esp. your last sentence.
For me, the grip texture is what really sold me. I love it. Then, once I actually shot it, the accuracy is what kept me hooked.
I didn't upgrade from an original M&P but had previously owned two of them and just didn't care for them. I found the accuracy of my first two to be lackluster at best. My 2.0 is a real tack driver.
I hear ya. I had only shot a friends older model 2 years ago and picked up a shield last year. Really got sold on the M&P line when I moved out of my last state.
Wishing I had the money last month to get the 2.0, the 1.0 was 360 flat at my local store, plus the rebate (magazines, ammo etc...). I've only handled the 2.0, not shot yet. Couldn't say no to that cheap for the 1.0.
Just wishing the enhanced backstraps for core or 2.0's were available for the 1.0, the texture is what did it for me. I'd be lying if I didn't say I actually liked the beavertail on the older though.
The only bummer is the threaded barrels are still sold out and the customer service rep didn't feel like looking up a ETA.
I would probably have taken the step and dropped the hinged trigger........
The hinged trigger is a drop safety. What would you have put in its place if you removed the hinged part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Americanpatriot
...strengthening the frame,
Lots of guys mention this, but very few can say why it's better. The area of the frame they strengthened has nothing to do with how the gun operates. They extended the steel subframe out to include the dust cover. The dust cover only covers the recoil spring. It has no function beyond that. It doesn't stiffen the barrel or support the barrel. It doesn't make the grip or rear portion of the frame and more stiff.
I'm glad they did it, but it doesn't really make the overall gun any better.
Lots of guys mention this, but very few can say why it's better. The area of the frame they strengthened has nothing to do with how the gun operates. They extended the steel subframe out to include the dust cover. The dust cover only covers the recoil spring. It has no function beyond that. It doesn't stiffen the barrel or support the barrel. It doesn't make the grip or rear portion of the frame and more stiff.
I don't know why S&W extended the steel subframe, but I would guess there was a good reason.
While a dust cover may not appear to have a function beyond covering the recoil spring, Gen 3 Glock 22s were notorious for having problems when weapons lights were mounted - enough so to warrant revisions in Glock's Gen 4 guns.
The hinged trigger is a drop safety. What would you have put in its place if you removed the hinged part?
Lots of guys mention this, but very few can say why it's better. The area of the frame they strengthened has nothing to do with how the gun operates. They extended the steel subframe out to include the dust cover. The dust cover only covers the recoil spring. It has no function beyond that. It doesn't stiffen the barrel or support the barrel. It doesn't make the grip or rear portion of the frame and more stiff.
I'm glad they did it, but it doesn't really make the overall gun any better.
I just acquired a 2.0 to go along with my several original versions in 9mm and .45, which have seen thousands of rounds. I've only fired 20 rounds through the 2.0 in its initial outing (the Rastoff Challenge!) but I've also handled it a good bit, and here are my observations so far:
-- I like the new grip texture. I like it on Shield .45 and on the 2.0. I'm actively looking for 2.0 backstraps (found one set so far) so that I can put 2.0 backstraps on all my first generation M&Ps.
-- The trigger is better than the stock triggers on the first generation guns, but still noticeably inferior to a gun with the Apex sear. I have already decided I will be putting an Apex sear in my 2.0.
-- The extended beavertail on the first generation M&P was useless, so deleting it on the 2.0 harms nothing and decreases the overall length of the gun by a tiny amount.
-- I can't tell that the extended subframe makes any difference. Maybe I'll notice something long-term.
-- With only 20 rounds downrange it's too early to make any comments on accuracy. I'll be testing the 2.0 against my Apex first generation once I get a better trigger in the 2.0.
My opinions, and worth every cent you paid for them.
As I've mentioned a couple times already,for a while now I've been noticing an unexpectedly high number of these pistols on my state-wide classified sites, just recently 2 different versions being sold by the same guy.
I haven't heard anything genuinely negative about the 2.0, but given how new they are, and how many I'm already seeing back up for sale, there seems to be some disappoinment in them.
All that being said, I still wouldn't balk at one if a killer deal fell in my lap.
I don't know why S&W extended the steel subframe, but I would guess there was a good reason.
Possibly to provide a little forward weight ? I realize it's a miniscule,probably insignificant, amount, but gun manufacturers (and owners) often fixate on very small (and often imaginary) "improvements", so who knows.
While a dust cover may not appear to have a function beyond covering the recoil spring, Gen 3 Glock 22s were notorious for having problems when weapons lights were mounted - enough so to warrant revisions in Glock's Gen 4 guns.
Indeed, it may be just this. There were several reports of the dust cover not being straight or moving. To my knowledge, this never impaired function, but I can see how it might help with a mounted light.
For the record, I never had an issue with the light mounted on my M&P 45.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Americanpatriot
Less recoil, improved accuracy
While the laws of physics tell us that any increase in mass will result in a reduction of felt recoil, this addition is so small that no one would notice.
Accuracy? Please tell me how stiffening the dust cover improved accuracy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark IV
...but gun manufacturers (and owners) often fixate on very small (and often imaginary) "improvements",...
This is the real truth.
Don't get me wrong here, I think the larger sub frame is a good thing. It's just not an improvement that would make me dump my original M&P for a 2.0 version.
Things I like about the original:
I like the beaver tail on the original.
I like the auto forward (not really a feature, but more of a quirk of the design).
I like the original texture better. The 2.0 is too rough for extended use.
I have no issue with the trigger, but do like the Apex better.
For me it's a wash. I do think that the 2.0 is ultimately better. It's a more mature design. The fact that there is so little different tells us that the original was pretty well thought out. Would I trade in my original for a 2.0? No. Would I buy a 2.0? Absolutely!
I had a 5" Pro and Compact for a few years, both in .40. Did dry-fire the 2.0, and wasn't impressed.
That being said, both of mine have Apex Duty/Carry kits, and RAM. Did it so both would have the same pull. I don't see going to the 2.0, then doing Apex upgrades, as worth it.
I'm surprised so many people think the 2.0 grip is too rough. I go to the gym twice a week so maybe the knurling on the weight bars has toughed up my palms but I don't think the 2.0 grip is too rough at all. I think it is about perfect. I can see why S&W left the trigger pull a little heavy on the guns with no manual safety for liability reasons, but for guns WITH the thumb safety it should have a nice light pull. It's really annoying to have to pay over a 100 bucks to modify a gun to get a good trigger pull. My new $350 Rock Island 1911 .45 has a great 4lb pull right out of the box.
I don't know for sure what the extended frame does but I am pretty sure metal is more expensive than plastic. So for S&W to do it, they must have a good reason.
I'm surprised so many people think the 2.0 grip is too rough.
For 99% of the shooters in the US, the grip is fine. When you only shoot your gun a few times a year and then only 50 rounds or less, it's perfect. However, if you're going to use it a few times a week and 100-300 rounds per use, the grip can be a little too rough.
For self-defense use it's great. Excellent grip in wet weather or with wet or sweaty hands. Very positive grip even if the shooter's grip is a little loose.
Because I would generally use it a lot, I'd take some 400 grit sand paper to it. That would smooth it out enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmer17
My new $350 Rock Island 1911 .45 has a great 4lb pull right out of the box.
Yes, my RIA 1911 is much nicer as well. However, you simply can't compare the two triggers. Completely different mechanism. No matter what you do to modify the M&P, it will never be as good as the 1911.
I am a big fan of the grip texture and I thought the trigger felt much better than the 1.0 dry firing. I am looking forward to shooting it some day, as that is the most important measure of any gun.
Indeed, it may be just this. There were several reports of the dust cover not being straight or moving. To my knowledge, this never impaired function, but I can see how it might help with a mounted light.
For the record, I never had an issue with the light mounted on my M&P 45.
While the laws of physics tell us that any increase in mass will result in a reduction of felt recoil, this addition is so small that no one would notice.
Accuracy? Please tell me how stiffening the dust cover improved accuracy?
This is the real truth.
Don't get me wrong here, I think the larger sub frame is a good thing. It's just not an improvement that would make me dump my original M&P for a 2.0 version.
Things I like about the original:
I like the beaver tail on the original.
I like the auto forward (not really a feature, but more of a quirk of the design).
I like the original texture better. The 2.0 is too rough for extended use.
I have no issue with the trigger, but do like the Apex better.
For me it's a wash. I do think that the 2.0 is ultimately better. It's a more mature design. The fact that there is so little different tells us that the original was pretty well thought out. Would I trade in my original for a 2.0? No. Would I buy a 2.0? Absolutely!
Ok sure be happy too. Less twisting and flexing of the frame. No one here has suggested dumping your 1.0 for a 2.0
Last edited by Americanpatriot; 08-06-2017 at 05:21 PM.
I would put the polymer trigger "type" that is on the APEX trigger
So, a Glock style that still has the blade in the middle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBasye1
IMHO the takeup is too much with the hinged trigger
The take-up or slack is not related to the hinged portion of the trigger. It is related to the distance the trigger bar has to move before the sear hook (candy cane) contacts the sear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBasye1
I always thought that the striker block was the "drop" safety on the M&Ps
The striker block is also part of the drop safety. However, the hinged part (trigger safety) has only one function; prevent the trigger from moving rearward should the gun be dropped on the rear of the slide.
If the gun is dropped on the muzzle, the striker block prevents the momentum of the striker from going forward and striking the primer. However, if the gun is dropped on the back of the slide, the momentum of the trigger and trigger bar could move rearward enough to release the sear. This is the same as if the trigger were pressed by a finger.
If you think about it, it's easy to see that this is the only function of the hinged trigger that has any value. If anything got inside the trigger guard it would press the hinged part along with the rest of the trigger and fire the gun. Here's a video of a gun without the trigger safety:
The more I read...the more I want one of these guns. Sure, do I need it...wait, it's another gun so the answer is YES. Appreciate the thread and the information. Doesn't even look like I will need to stipple the grip...but I can try!!!
I am always amazed at the complaints over the grip texture. There must be a lot of guys out there who spent their lives working at a desk. Not putting anyone down because of their job so don't get the wrong idea. I just really find the new grip texture to be a non issue. I don't understand how I can go out and fire 300 rounds in a sitting with my new Shield .45 and never notice it and then to have someone mention that if they put a whole box of 9mm's through their new Full Size M&P it starts removing their hide. The new 2.0's I've looked at (actually only a couple of the 5" FDE's) did not seem nearly as aggressive as my Shield. If you're a hand model then maybe it's not for you but otherwise it's a non issue. Really, no issue at all.
My 9mm 2.0 is more accurate than my buddies stock 1.0 9mm.
It is more accurate that my 45c with talon grips and apex sear.
Thinking about getting a 5" FDE model.
David.
I don't know for sure what the extended frame does but I am pretty sure metal is more expensive than plastic. So for S&W to do it, they must have a good reason.
The value of the increased amount of metal in the new sub-frame might total all of .10 cents. I would agree that they probably had some good reason for doing it (stiffening the dust cover being most likely), but citing the insignificant cost of the extra material as proof of that, doesn't hold water.
I am always amazed at the complaints over the grip texture....
Same here. I had a M&P9L for a little while, and I stippled the large backstrap piece, which made it VERY abrasive, more abrasive than any pistol surface I'd ever handled, and I still never had an issue with it.
And besides, if you're doing such a volume of shooting that the grip surface is dogging you out, there's a very simple, economical, and commonly used solution: Shooting gloves.
I am always amazed at the complaints over the grip texture. There must be a lot of guys out there who spent their lives working at a desk. Not putting anyone down because of their job so don't get the wrong idea. I just really find the new grip texture to be a non issue. I don't understand how I can go out and fire 300 rounds in a sitting with my new Shield .45 and never notice it and then to have someone mention that if they put a whole box of 9mm's through their new Full Size M&P it starts removing their hide. The new 2.0's I've looked at (actually only a couple of the 5" FDE's) did not seem nearly as aggressive as my Shield. If you're a hand model then maybe it's not for you but otherwise it's a non issue. Really, no issue at all.
I want to click the "like" button on this post but I fear I may be attacked by a group of guys with soft hands.
I picked up and held a 2.0 at a Gun show today, and I fall in the category of not liking the feel of it. I am no stranger to hard work as I spend time working with Habitat for Humanity...... My hands aren't THAT soft
And if you give me any C-R-A-P, I will hit you with my purse...........
I like the new texture on the M and P's. My Shield 45 is very enjoyable to shoot. I didn't really notice any issue,...........until I carried it a while IWB. Then the abrasive nature of the grip decided to irritate my much more tender belly skin near my waist. For me to carry my Shield 45 IWB I had to tone down the texture of the grip a bit. So, that's what I did. I just knocked off the tips of the rough texture a bit so that it wouldn't be so rough on my tender belly skin. I enjoy carrying it much more now that it's not quite so rough. I suspect I'll do the same when I get a 2.0.
I agree mley1. I think S&W just went a little overboard with the aggressiveness of the texture. A little time with some 320grit sand paper and all would be well. I wouldn't let the texture stop me from buying a 2.0.
I agree that the initial 2.0 grip on the skin - for any duration of time - may be a bit rough. I stipple my grips and it provides less grip but a great hybrid - 1.0 + 2.0 plus my design makes me happy. Send me a note if you need something stippled.
Not trying to be insulting at all and no offense to anyone, but these complaints are what I traditionally heard from female shooters.
I like the grip texture. I don't find it to rough at all. Then again, I'm a life long blue collar worker. Seems like the modern male gun owners, compared to the men of the past who carried firearms of the past, can't shoot or won't own a gun unless it has a competition/target trigger, are complaining about the weight of sub 2lb polymer pistols, and they're complaining about texturing of grips... Men in the past carried much heavier guns with much worse triggers. I'm willing to wager that many of them would out shoot the men of today in long range sessions with out any complaints.
OP, I was never really interested in the 1.0s as we're many others. I'm seeing a lot of hard core Glock fanboys talking about switching, so S&W must have done something right with the 2.0..
Although there are other upgrades, I think the biggest selling points over the 1.0 are the new sizes that are offered, the grip texture, the better trigger, and the new styling. It hasn't really been mentioned, but what I see has people most excited are the new G19 and commaner sized offerings.
Last edited by Well Armed; 07-25-2018 at 06:16 AM.
I don't know if I'm qualified to join this discussion or not. In total, I've owned 3 M&P's. My first was an early .45. I didn't keep it long - I hated the trigger. The trigger pull was gritty and heavy and didn't like the gun enough to put in an Apex trigger. (I was and am a 1911 fan and was just getting started with striker-fired guns.)
My second M&P is a 9mm Shield. It seems to me that the trigger is still heavier than necessary, but there is no grittiness and it breaks clean. I really don't have any complaints about the Shield and I've put quite a few rounds through it.
I just bought a 2.0 9mm Compact with the 4" barrel. So far I've put 200 rounds thru it. I like the grip texture and it really has a pretty nice 5 lb trigger. It's not as nice as my HK VP9, but it's close. I'm not crazy about the hinged trigger, but then I'm not crazy about the glock-like trigger blade thingy either. I shoot it well, so for me, it's a nice addition to the flock.
I would like to swap my Shield for a 2.0 Shield, but probably won't. It's well broken in and has been accurate at realistic distances and it's 100% reliable. If I didn't have it already, I would probably buy a 2.0 for the grip texture and trigger.
My 1.0 is from about 2014 and the trigger is good. Smooth and fairly crisp with a definite tactile reset. That made me scratch my head when I read about M&P triggers having no tactile reset and being ******. I figured they'd changed manufacturing over time.
Then I got a 1.0 5" "Pro" model and it has a trigger with no tactile reset. It doesn't really bother me but given the choice I'd take a tactile reset.
Both have lackluster accuracy, but so do I.
My 2.0C 3.6" has a trigger that's just a tiny bit better than my 1.0s. Maybe more crisp. It's hard to quantify.
I put a bike inner tube over all my M&P grips. I like rubber grips, not porcupines. I even put a Hogue "beavertail" rubber grip on my Shield because its grip was so thin it seemed harder to control.
It's not that the 2.0 grip texture causes abrasion, I just find it annoying and uncomfortable, and I shoot sometimes 100-150 rounds a week.
Honestly, I believe the excitement over the 2.0 is largely hype. The gun rags are raving about it, it looks really sharp, so we all feel like we gotta have it. Brilliant marketing by S&W in a down market; well done. Not that it's not a good gun, but you know what I mean. Glock does the same thing - is the new "Gen" really better?
Well for me ....former LEO... SWAT... retired...the only smith I've bought in the last 20 yesrs was a 22 RF compact. It was ok...not great. As far as the product line is was imo just ok.
The the 2.0 came out I was mildly interested in thec4 inch compact....but never acted on it.
The the 3.6 9mm compact came out ...for ccw it tripped my trigger on
Ergonomics
Grip texture
Round capacity
Barrel length
Accuracy
Reliability
Bought one....was so impressed bought another for a back up if needed .
It will replace my EDC CCW glock...hk p30sk...
The 2.0 is a great weapon.
To bad mouth it in favor of the 1.0 is just gun envy IMO
My 1.0 is from about 2014 and the trigger is good. Smooth and fairly crisp with a definite tactile reset. That made me scratch my head when I read about M&P triggers having no tactile reset and being ******. I figured they'd changed manufacturing over time.
Then I got a 1.0 5" "Pro" model and it has a trigger with no tactile reset. It doesn't really bother me but given the choice I'd take a tactile reset.
Both have lackluster accuracy, but so do I.
My 2.0C 3.6" has a trigger that's just a tiny bit better than my 1.0s. Maybe more crisp. It's hard to quantify.
I put a bike inner tube over all my M&P grips. I like rubber grips, not porcupines. I even put a Hogue "beavertail" rubber grip on my Shield because its grip was so thin it seemed harder to control.
It's not that the 2.0 grip texture causes abrasion, I just find it annoying and uncomfortable, and I shoot sometimes 100-150 rounds a week.
Honestly, I believe the excitement over the 2.0 is largely hype. The gun rags are raving about it, it looks really sharp, so we all feel like we gotta have it. Brilliant marketing by S&W in a down market; well done. Not that it's not a good gun, but you know what I mean. Glock does the same thing - is the new "Gen" really better?
Is the 2.0 that much better than the first gen? No, but it has a few small updates but it's essentially the same gun, just a brighter shade of lipstick.
I'm waiting on the 3.0. I'm hoping for solid steel and walnut and a nice, crisp 3.5 lb trigger. I'll be happy with 2", 10 shot groups at 50 yards....from a Ransom rest, of course.
__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy
Last edited by mike campbell; 07-25-2018 at 10:57 PM.
I have put thousands of rounds through gen 1 full size, compacts, & COREs and see no pressing need to go to the 2.0. I like the beavertail and the auto slide feature on the 1.0 (especially for competitions) and the triggers smooth out over time so I do not use any Apex mods. I have full size M&Ps from year one that have had some trouble with roll pin drift and mag release issues but since Smith corrected them they have been problem free. The 2.0 size is nice but not a big enough difference for me to change. If I was just starting out I would likely go with the 2.0 over the 1.0's.
I really want to like the M&P, but to me, the trigger is still horrible due to the sharp hook shape of it. It just feels awful to me -- like a toy, or something. Not sure how else to explain it.
I'd much rather see a flatter trigger style, like the CZP10c has.
Everything else about the M&P 2.0 is a nice step in the right direction.
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?
Linear Mode
