Now THIS one may very well be IT!
Looking forward to getting my hands on one.
Denis

Link? Pics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh, very interesting:

M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact | Smith & Wesson

M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact Manual Thumb Safety | Smith & Wesson

Did not see that coming.

I would be a bit more intrigued if they had built it more the size of the gen 1 compact9 with a 12 round mag and sent a couple of xgrip adapters with it for the 15 round mags.

Because S&W rolled this version out relatively early in the year I’m a bit more optimistic that they are working on an update to the original 9c.

Hopefully a 2.0 12/13 round 9mm hits later this year.

The 2.0 Compact with 15-round mag is just about as short as I want to go.
Half of my pinky extends down below the bottom of the frame already.

I ran into this same situation with a 4516 I carried at work for a couple years, and it's 50% of the reason I quit carrying that pistol & retired it.
One qualification I got going too fast, forgot to do the Teacup Pinky on a quick mag insertion, and welded my finger to the gun. Inserting the mag energetically, its baseplate caught enough skin between baseplate & frame to lock the finger when it locked the mag.
That was not fun, and fortunately the 4516 is stainless because I had to finish the rest of the qualifier with blood all over the thing.

I was used to several years of full-length frames where my finger rode well above the danger zone, and I never entirely 100% got used to doing the Teacup Pinky on fast reloads.

The 2.0 Compact 15-round frame creates the same potential, but I'm willing to deal with it here.
I would not personally want to shorten the frame any further, nor would I have any interest in a thinner single-stack version.

This just sounds like it has my name all over it.
There will, of course, be people who'll find it "wrong".
There will always be people who'll find ANY configuration "wrong".
And that's fine.
Denis

Yeah, I think the chances of a subcompact 2.0 just went up a lot since they're gonna be making the short slides anyway and all they'll have to do is throw together a set of short frame molds, the cost of which can be amortized over the entire production run. They already have the 12/10 round mags in their inventory/supply system.

This (the 15/13 round 3.6") will be a good choice for the appendix guys because grip length isn't as important for that kind carry.

Although it might seem to over-do the proliferation of model types, I'd like to see the 4" slide on a short frame for hip carry. We shall see.

PS: The name, "M&P®9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact" is kind of unimaginative.

Short barrel with a long grip is going the wrong direction for CC. Would rather see a 4” slide on a 12rd frame.

It was inevitable.
Wrong for you, perfect for me.
Denis

Just saw this on my Flipboard App.

I’m guessing the 3.6 will be replacing the 4.0 barrel.
Looks good though from the web pics.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While I agree that I would rather have a longer barrel and shorter butt, I'm glad S&W is continuing to update the M&P 2.0 line. Myself, I'd rather see the 15rd Compact with the full sized barrel and slide, or possibly the older 12rd Compact frame with a 4" barrel and slide. I won't buy one of these new guns, but I hope S&W sells the **** out of them. New options are always good and, just because I don't want one doesn't mean that others won't buy them up. Good for them.

I didn’t think about the appendix market having never considered it. Makes sense now.

I hope not, the 4" is the sweet spot for me, I love mine. I can't imagine they would replace the 4" it's only been out for less than a year.

I can't imagine it will be replaced either since it is the same size as the Glock 19, one of the best selling pistol models of all time.

What's a bit interesting (though I don't see how this can be accurate) is that per the S&W site it weighs more than the 2.0 Compact 4" model.

M&P(R)9 M2.0™ Compact | Smith & Wesson Compact 4 inch shows 24 ounces

M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact | Smith & Wesson Compact 3.6 shows 25.9 ounces

Well, "M&P9 M2.0 Compact X" might have gotten them sued

What he said. No matter how you carry the grip is what sticks out and pokes through your shirt/jacket

Make it with the 12 round grip frame, make adapters available for the 15 AND 17 round mags, and I will add one to go with my 4.25" 2.0 9mm

It wouldn't matter much in a horizontal shoulder holster or in a "clawed" or "wedged" appendix holster.

Clawing and Wedging Your Way to Perfect Holster Fit | Concealed Carry Inc

If you have to have adapters to higher-cap mags, why don't you just start with higher cap to begin with?
Denis

I find the current M&P 2.0 Compact Grip very concealable with a tuckable IWB at 3 o’clock. I carry the 17 mag exclusively with a shirt not tucked at 3 o’clock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

With the 15 round (9mm or 13 round in .40) magazine, I just get a full grip on the pistol. Anything less than that and I rather just carry my single stack shield with 8+1 magazine

After coming from a Glock 23, I was thinking of a M&P 2.0.
But, that size, to ME, is simply too large for CCW. With my big self, it would be sticking out like a sore thumb.

However, it does look nice, and if I ever wanted another weapon to just have, it would be something like the M&P 2.0, and then my Shield for CCW

Not what I was looking for but more choice is a good thing.

I do wish S&W would decide on whether or not to include the weight of an empty magazine when they specify the weight of a gun on their website. According to the website the 3.6 inch gun is supposedly a couple of ounces heavier than the 4 inch model I have. I don't remember the specifics but when they came out with the first 2.0 guns it seems the published weight dropped by about the weight of a magazine.

I'm waiting on an update for the 45 Compact.. It's the last one in my collection that is still a Mod 1.0.

This great news. I have the 1.0C and really like it as I have a 12 mag, a 14 (a 12 w/ Raisin's +2 adapter) and a 15, and a 17. This is definitely a step in the right direction as I have no interest in a 2.0C which is only 1/4" shorter than a full size. Wish they listed height though.

You carry concealed with the 12 round magazine, and when you get home, you use the 17 round with an adapter for home defense.

C'mon Denis... you know that answer

I would love to see a single stack or a stack and a half width compact sized M&P. I realize it would give up few rounds, but it would be an ideal EDC size. Fat may be where it's at, but thin is in!

Web,
Well....no, I don't.
That had never occurred to me.

Swapping mags around coming & going doesn't make all that much sense to me, but that's just me.
Denis

I'm still not seeing why they felt the need to make the "compact" bigger than the 1.0 9c. Perhaps the new (G19 sized) 2.0 isn't getting the reception they had hoped for....

__________________
Dave

The other use is what I do. 12 or 14 in the gun and a 17 in my left front pocket as my spare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheapskait View Post
This (the 15/13 round 3.6") will be a good choice for the appendix guys because grip length isn't as important for that kind carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballarnk
I didn’t think about the appendix market having never considered it. Makes sense now.

I'm with these two, just started carrying appendix 4-5 months back and the shorter slide is right up my alley. Less to stuff down my pants. The longer grip isn't an issue on my frame/body type. In fact I like having more grip, helps in recoil management and speeds up follow up shots for me.

Might try another brand of holster which utilizes a "claw". I've used them with TRex holsters and Raven Concealment. More than just a gimmick. They really flatten the grip out to lay flat against you. Just a thought.

I like it but if they made it like the 9 or 40c gen1 I would love it. They should've never did away with it. It was go between of the g19/g23 and h26/g27 size. To add it fits my hand sweet and shoots the same.

The 1.0C is still listed on the S&W website so there are still some out there I suspect.

Looks perfect for me. I have a full size 1.0 M&P9 and carry appendix and have been thinking long and hard about the first 2.0 compact. Now this new 3.6" is to the top of my list with the thumb safety.

Next up I'm hoping for a new M&P 2.0 .45 in this shape and size.

I think they wanted a "clear road" to launch the 2.0 compact to grab hold of that G19 size market. My speculations has been that the M&P9c 2.0 version would come out a year or two later. It may still happen. I do believe the 2.0 Compact is getting the reception they wanted. They are just timing the releases in a manner they have predetermined. It may be wishful thinking; but, I think and hope they will be coming out with the 2.0 version of the previous M&P9/40c.

I would be surprised if S&W doesn't come out with a short grip model, using this new top half before the end of the year. Maybe call it the M&P SubCompact as making the frame is probably the cheapest part of the gun.

All the new variations are cool, the names are getting silly though, M&P 2.0 9mm Compact No Thumb Safety with 3.6” Barrel

I've tried appendix with a couple of different guns and holsters. The only thing I could tolerate for more then 10 minutes with a J frame. I'm just not built for appendix. My belt line is only about 2-3 inches from the top of my thigh and the muzzle digs into my groin and thigh with anything with a barrel longer then 2 inches.

rfd339 I'm with you. I bought the 1.0 Compact after owning and carrying Glocks for some time. I needed something between the 27 and 23 but Glock did not build it. I always thought the 27 was too small.

While this new short barrel 2.0 compact doesn't appeal to me, I am glad they are making it. Choice is always a good thing. I am patiently waiting on the new 2.0 compact in .45. Hopefully that gun is coming soon.

Those of us who live in the state of NY need compact versions offered with 10 round magazines. ho hard would it be for S&W to do that??

Not hard at all, if you consider that there are already 10 round versions for the full-sized M&P. All S&W needs to do is make slightly shorter plastic extensions to fit the 4" Compacts' slightly shorter grip. Just something that they'll get to eventually.



If Cali's roster of approved guns was open to additions, there'd be more demand or sales possibilities for the 10rd versions and they'd probably make it sooner.

I dont agree with this direction by Smith at all. They need a 2.0 9c in the same size it was before.

Does not matter to me though since the P365 is exactly what I need in that size ish. And hey, maybe that's why Smith did this. They cant currently compete with the 365 directly so this is their new 9C. Who knows.

__________________
Smith all the things

You know what they say in situations like this: If it doesn't matter to you & the P365 Non-S&W Product is exactly what you need, why are you here disagreeing?
Denis

As a fan and advocate of the original compact, I find this variant intriguing. I’m in and shall be looking for one when released.

__________________
"Non sibi, sed patriae"

Yeah, they need to simplify:

M&P9 - 4.25" 17rd
M&P9L - 5.0" 17rd
M&P9 Compact - 4.0" 15rd
M&P9 CompactSB - 3.6" 15rd
M&P9 Carry - 3.6" 12rd
M&P9 SideCarry - 4.0" 12rd
M&P Shield9 - 3.1" 7rd
M&P ShieldX -3.1" 10rd* (w/ P365 compatible mag)

Sig has patents on the P365 magazines so Smith would have to buy them from Sig, not make their own. Sig magazines are not cheap and Sig could sabotage anyone making a gun that takes their magazines by not making enough. Smith is not going to take a chance on producing the next Bren 10.

Interesting.

I've thought that the 2.0 Compacts that I've handled were a bit bigfor what I'd use one for.

I'll wait a year and see if I can land a used one.

Do to my rebate battle over my PC .45 Shield.

Will never buy another new S&W product again.

Yeah well, any marketing program that both costs a lot of money AND angers the customer base is a sub-optimal business strategy.

Uh-huh, there's a lot of stuff in patent law about novelty, non-obviousness and the inventive step, so S&W's lawyers should take a close gander at SIG's patent filings.

After all, it's just a tube with a spring in it that costs about 4 or 5 bucks to manufacture.

Actually, longer barrels (to a certain extent of course) are more comfortable for AIWB. Keeper's Concealment recommends, and I agree, buying the full-size version of holsters, even when carrying the compact models. The extra length helps balance the holster at the belt line, and instead of digging into your thigh fits more along the crease of your leg. YMMV.