I am debating about getting either a used 1.0 9c or a new 2.0 9c in the 3.6” version. Both no thumb safety.

Which would you go with and why?

I suspect a used 1.0 would be cheaper, but I MIGHT consider an apex duty carry for it. But the price of the kit, may wipe out any savings.

BYW: I currently have a 1.0 shield 9mm.

Opinions?

I would definitely go with the 2.0 3.6" compact versus the 1.0 Compact. For one thing, the 2.0 holds 15 rounds versus 12 for the 1.0, and the 2.0 grip has much better texture and the trigger is better. The 1.0 9mm compact always felt too small for my hand, while the 2.0 compact (I have a 4" version, but the grip is the same as the 3.6") feels exactly right. It may be more money, but you won't feel it once it's spent, and you will always feel the gun.

I prefer the 1.0 compact. The shorter grip makes it much easier to conceal. I don't have a 2.0c. I did have an SD9VE which I assume is similar in size to the 2.0.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I sure wish S&W published the heights of the guns in the specs. But they only seem to give length.

I wonder how my current shield with 8 round mag compares in height to both the compact 1.0 and 2.0 versions.

I have pretty small hands. And even the 1.0 9c would be 4 rounds more than the shield.

While I have not handled a 1.0 version I can say that I love the 2.0 9C.

The trigger is good, out of the box, and the grip texture is very nice. I do have a couple early Shields and paid to have both grips stippled.

The ergonomics and feel are better than my issued Glock 19. I like it much better than the stock 19.

S&W does provide dimensions
https://snwcdnprod.azureedge.net/sit...eets/11683.pdf

Here is for all handguns:
S&W Product Spec Sheets | Smith & Wesson

I no longer have a 1.0 Compact (9C) to compare, and a brief search didn't turn up any height (grip length) comparisons, but one reviewer did say that the 1.0 Compact was similar in size to a Glock 26 and the 2.0 Compact is similar in size to a Glock 19, if that helps. Maybe someone here has both and provide some actual measurements.

Just took this shot of my Shield 1.0 against my 2.0 Compact. They are identical in height with the 8 rnd mag in the Shield. The Shield is significantly narrower, which is why I added the leather grip panels.

Attached Images

IMG_0722.JPG (106.7 KB, 61 views)

I am quite happy w/ my 1.0c w/ Apex duty/carry kit. I have no need to go to a 2.0. I have the OE 12 rnd mag, a 14 rnd made w/ Raisin's +2 extension, a 15 rnd mag from the 2.0c and, of course a 17 rnd. So a wide variety and once in a while the 12 is handy for better concealment.

Thanks for the pic. That is exactly what I was looking for. Is the 2.0 the 3.6” version? It appears to be but just wondering.

I assume the mag mod to +2 add adds length to the grip.

I could see myself doing the same you did with the 1.0. But wimder by the time I add the cost of a apex kit, plus the cost kf the +2 mag kits, I would end up with essentially with a 2.0 gun and about the same investment and without the grip texture. But maybe I’m wrong about that.

I prefer the concealability of the shorter grip of the 1.0, but we are all built different with different requirements. I've owned an "original" 40c for a long time now and can shoot it well. Others I know have tried it and hate the short grip, but for me it works.

Holster, belt, clothing, body shape, environment, all things to consider. If you can conceal the longer grip of the 2.0 to your satisfaction, that is the way to go.

I like the concealability of the shorter grip. But I really don’t like the feel of it when I shoot with the short grip. Even on my shield. So I am more comfortable and thus believe I will shoot more accurately with the bit longer grip.

I will have to call the local range and see if they have a 2.0 compact to rent. I would love to shoot my shield, and both the 1.0 and 2.0 compacts side by side one after the other. But the range is a smaller facility and may not have either compact, let alone both!

For deep conceal, I am thinking about a Jframe style revolver; either a 642 or LCR.

They’re both good guns. I be got an original 40c and just bought a 2.0 9c off gunbroker. The 2.0 is very close in size to my G23. I really like the textured grips on the 2.0, and the trigger is an improvement over the original. I’ve found that holster shopping is a little different. Some holster makers don’t list the 2.0. That’ll probably change as they become more popular. I’ve got the 4 in version of the 2.0 and because of the length the gun won’t fit the holsters I have for the older version. All in all I really like the 2.0. It kind of makes me think of selling off my Glocks & getting a few more M&P’s in 2.0. I bought my 2.0 right before the shorter barrel version was introduced. If I had known about it I would haven waited & opted for the 3.6 in version. Just my .02.

They’re both good guns. I be got an original 40c and just bought a 2.0 9c off gunbroker. The 2.0 is very close in size to my G23. I really like the textured grips on the 2.0, and the trigger is an improvement over the original. I’ve found that holster shopping is a little different. Some holster makers don’t list the 2.0. That’ll probably change as they become more popular. I’ve got the 4 in version of the 2.0 and because of the length the gun won’t fit the holsters I have for the older version. All in all I really like the 2.0. It kind of makes me think of selling off my Glocks & getting a few more M&P’s in 2.0. I bought my 2.0 right before the shorter barrel version was introduced. If I had known about it I would haven waited & opted for the 3.6 in version. Just my .02. Here’s a picture that shows size difference between the 1.0 & 2.0

3659D659-B5BB-41F6-8E58-A27A9693F468.jpg

I put an Apex in my 1.0 and fiber optic sights in my Shield 1.0 and feel I have the best combo. I think it may have a safety... but who uses that?

Barrel length depends on where you measure. My 2.0C barrel is 4-1/8 +/- a hair, if you mean the entire over all length. I don't measure it that way. I go with the bore length, not including the chamber length that beds the brass case. So, if I have the 4" model, then the actual usable barrel length on a 9mm is about 3-1/4".

If that is valid, then a model with the 3.6" barrel will be about 3/4" shorter in actual bore length by subtracting the case length.

Same applies with the Shield: Usable bore length is only 2-3/8".

Well, I just went with a used 40c in great condition.
Why?

I like the short grip on 9/40c and even with the flat base plate Half my pinky is supported. With the extended one, no problem.

I am also in a non gun friendly state so my mags are limited to 10 rounds. Well, with the 40 I've got 10 rounds in there anyway. If I jumped to the 45 there is only 8 and if I went with the 9mm I feel like I am being ripped off. LOL No reason for the full size grip of the M2.0 in my opinion.

The used one I picked up seems to have a pretty good trigger. If I don't care for it down the road I can go the APEX route and still be in it for less money than a new M2.0 as well as a more concealable package.

The after market is also huge for original 9/40c. I would assume it will catch up for the M2.0 but it'll take a bit of time. I would think anything you may want for the original is out there and readily available, especially holster options.

Well, those are my "whys" but I suppose it just depends on what you want it for. You mentioned you already had the Shield. So if you are comfortable with that for carry maybe you'd like the extra rounds of the M2.0?