Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-05-2017, 08:47 AM
DBasye1 DBasye1 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 39
Likes: 23
Liked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Default Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?

Just wondering

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........

Last edited by DBasye1; 08-05-2017 at 08:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-05-2017, 08:55 AM
Americanpatriot Americanpatriot is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #3  
Old 08-05-2017, 09:00 AM
GSD2053 GSD2053 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Americanpatriot View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #4  
Old 08-05-2017, 09:07 AM
Ray1970's Avatar
Ray1970 Ray1970 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 552
Likes: 444
Liked 694 Times in 258 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 08-05-2017, 09:50 AM
Americanpatriot Americanpatriot is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSD2053 View Post
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 crappy trigger,improved the accuracy.. There's various other improvements as well

Last edited by Americanpatriot; 08-05-2017 at 09:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #6  
Old 08-05-2017, 09:57 AM
Shield9mm Shield9mm is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: South-FL
Posts: 990
Likes: 178
Liked 420 Times in 293 Posts
Default

I don't own a 2.0 neither have shot one, and honestly don't care much about the 2.0

I love my 1.0 with hogues grip, beaver tail, and the apex fss flat face trigger kit.
__________________
M&P 9, 9c, Shield9
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 08-05-2017, 10:18 AM
Hhenry Hhenry is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 186
Likes: 554
Liked 75 Times in 49 Posts
Default

The 2.0 has a much better trigger than the first M&P. I have a 9mm, 4.25" 2.0 and its trigger and accuracy are outstanding!

I sold an M&P VTAC a couple of years ago because of the trigger. I did not care for it at all.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol Inst.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 08-05-2017, 10:31 AM
kilroy2721 kilroy2721 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando,Fl. US
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times in 13 Posts
Default

I think that the grip on the 2.0 is a little too rough myself.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 08-05-2017, 11:53 AM
Disabled1 Disabled1 is offline
Banned
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: South Of The North Pole
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 491
Liked 705 Times in 425 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1970 View Post
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.

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-05-2017, 02:35 PM
M&P 87 M&P 87 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1970 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #11  
Old 08-05-2017, 04:39 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBasye1 View Post
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 View Post
...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.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-05-2017, 08:58 PM
gc70 gc70 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 145
Likes: 54
Liked 86 Times in 40 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-06-2017, 08:12 AM
Americanpatriot Americanpatriot is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
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.
Less recoil, improved accuracy
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-06-2017, 08:31 AM
Whisper Whisper is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 135
Likes: 175
Liked 80 Times in 36 Posts
Default

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.

Cheers,
Whisper
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-06-2017, 08:49 AM
Mark IV's Avatar
Mark IV Mark IV is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 430
Likes: 585
Liked 300 Times in 164 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-06-2017, 08:54 AM
Mark IV's Avatar
Mark IV Mark IV is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 430
Likes: 585
Liked 300 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70 View Post
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.

Last edited by Mark IV; 08-06-2017 at 08:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-06-2017, 10:22 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
...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!
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-06-2017, 10:35 AM
Screwball Screwball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 166
Likes: 20
Liked 84 Times in 30 Posts
Default

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.

If I didn't have two, then I'd go 2.0.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-06-2017, 11:12 AM
Farmer17 Farmer17 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 2,274
Likes: 50
Liked 1,373 Times in 599 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-06-2017, 02:00 PM
CBStuard CBStuard is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Liked 57 Times in 46 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-06-2017, 02:45 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmer17 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-06-2017, 03:15 PM
BlueArch91 BlueArch91 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 41
Likes: 11
Liked 27 Times in 16 Posts
Default

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-06-2017, 05:19 PM
Americanpatriot Americanpatriot is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-06-2017, 05:32 PM
DBasye1 DBasye1 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 39
Likes: 23
Liked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
The hinged trigger is a drop safety. What would you have put in its place if you removed the hinged part?
I would put the polymer trigger "type" that is on the APEX trigger

IMHO the takeup is too much with the hinged trigger

I always thought that the striker block was the "drop" safety on the M&Ps

All in all its STILL a much better trigger then the original crunch fest
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-06-2017, 07:35 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBasye1 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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:

__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #26  
Old 08-06-2017, 08:59 PM
Com 45acp Com 45acp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Va.
Posts: 258
Likes: 14
Liked 86 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Bought a M&P 2.0 9mm 4.25" and selling my gen 4 glock 17. If it shoots anywhere near as good as my pc 9 shield I will be pleased.

Last edited by Com 45acp; 08-07-2017 at 08:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-06-2017, 10:10 PM
A2 Stippling's Avatar
A2 Stippling A2 Stippling is offline
US Veteran
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 289
Likes: 127
Liked 54 Times in 36 Posts
Default

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!!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-07-2017, 10:48 AM
1sailor 1sailor is online now
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 875
Likes: 6
Liked 234 Times in 129 Posts
Default

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.

Last edited by 1sailor; 08-07-2017 at 11:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #29  
Old 08-07-2017, 11:12 AM
68Dave 68Dave is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 42
Likes: 9
Liked 21 Times in 12 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-07-2017, 01:29 PM
Mark IV's Avatar
Mark IV Mark IV is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 430
Likes: 585
Liked 300 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBStuard View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-07-2017, 01:34 PM
Mark IV's Avatar
Mark IV Mark IV is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 430
Likes: 585
Liked 300 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1sailor View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-07-2017, 02:40 PM
Ray1970's Avatar
Ray1970 Ray1970 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 552
Likes: 444
Liked 694 Times in 258 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1sailor View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #33  
Old 08-07-2017, 03:28 PM
Americanpatriot Americanpatriot is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1970 View Post
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.
But look at my skin abrasions on my delicate hands
Attached Thumbnails
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?-baby-hands-25001695-jpg  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #34  
Old 08-07-2017, 11:49 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1sailor View Post
I am always amazed at the complaints over the grip texture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1970 View Post
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.
See post #21.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:22 PM
DBasye1 DBasye1 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 39
Likes: 23
Liked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Default

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...........
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-13-2017, 11:02 PM
mley1 mley1 is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 25
Likes: 19
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-13-2017, 11:35 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better? Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 PM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)