Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-26-2018, 02:06 AM
Black Wolf's Avatar
Black Wolf Black Wolf is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Kansas
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default 3.6" why?

I mean this sincerely, I'm not being facetious. Could someone explain why they would want the compact with the 3.6" bbl and the same size grip? For me, it is the exact opposite of what I'd want. I find grips the difficult part to conceal and I like a longer sight radius. If anything, I'd want a G17 size upper half on a G19 size frame. What attracted those of you who chose this new one to move in the other direction?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #2  
Old 05-26-2018, 06:24 AM
45FMJoe 45FMJoe is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 108
Likes: 8
Liked 37 Times in 18 Posts
Default

The "Commander" style pistol concept originated by Colt appeals to a lot of people. To me, a full size frame and shorter slide balances better and there isn't as much weight hanging out front but rather the weight sits on top of your hands vs in front of them. I'm not sure I'm explaining that clearly. The Glock 19X balances better than a regular 19 for me, and I prefer my Colt Commander Rail Gun to my Government Rail Gun for the same reasons.

ETA - I just picked up an IOP M&P 2.0 Compact 4" on Wednesday along with a blue label Glock 19.5. I really like them both though I haven't had an opportunity to shoot either yet. When I can put eyes on a 3.6" M&P I might not be able to resist the urge to bring it home.

Last edited by 45FMJoe; 05-26-2018 at 06:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 05-26-2018, 07:53 AM
CBStuard CBStuard is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 300
Likes: 1
Liked 109 Times in 79 Posts
Default

Lighter weight.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:00 AM
MN2944 MN2944 is online now
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 322
Likes: 4
Liked 222 Times in 110 Posts
Default

I've never liked the "Commander" proportions. I agree that a long slide and short grip are much more appealing.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:00 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 555
Likes: 57
Liked 485 Times in 287 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Wolf View Post
I mean this sincerely, I'm not being facetious. Could someone explain why they would want the compact with the 3.6" bbl and the same size grip? For me, it is the exact opposite of what I'd want. I find grips the difficult part to conceal and I like a longer sight radius. If anything, I'd want a G17 size upper half on a G19 size frame. What attracted those of you who chose this new one to move in the other direction?
I dunno, but someone at S&W thought it was a great idea. For carry around the waistline or in a vertical shoulder holster, I agree, it is generally the grip portion of the receiver that is hardest to conceal. In a horizontal shoulder holster, the longer the barrel and slide, the harder it is to conceal.

One reason I have not traded my 6946 for an M&P (or even a Glock) is that it has a 3.5 inch barrel, which is a good compromise between concealment, a useful sight radius, and a barrel long enough to generate good velocity and the grip is short enough (especially with a modified 5906 magazine floor plate) to conceal. The only thing more concealable for me would be a 3913.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:09 AM
Photoman44's Avatar
Photoman44 Photoman44 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 4,763
Likes: 381
Liked 1,453 Times in 620 Posts
Default

The shorter slide carries more comfortable IWB. The longer grip shoots better than a short grip for most.
__________________
Centennial Every Day
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:10 AM
45FMJoe 45FMJoe is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 108
Likes: 8
Liked 37 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MN2944 View Post
I've never liked the "Commander" proportions. I agree that a long slide and short grip are much more appealing.
It depends on what you're using it for. For LE use, the Commander model makes a lot of sense. Longer slides are a pain in the *** because the barrel tries to dig into the seat of your patrol car and that in turn tries to push your gun belt up. It's very, very uncomfortable. Having a larger frame with larger capacity magazines and a shorter slide is a Godsend.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #8  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:20 AM
Flyingfool Flyingfool is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 2
Liked 120 Times in 61 Posts
Default

I carry the shield with either the 8 round mag, or have modified the 7 roind mags with a pinky grip extender. Which results in exact same height as the 2.0 compact height (see my other thread what would you do and why).

So for me, going to the 2.0 9c would result in an additional half in lomger barrel over the shield, plus the additional sight radius, plus an almost doubling of capacity. Adding another half and inch barrel would only add weight and a. It more sight radius. The weight gain from a shield to the compact is already a big jump. I would not want the additional weight for what I do not perceive much, or any benefit. In fact I view it as a detriment.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-26-2018, 09:13 AM
Black Wolf's Avatar
Black Wolf Black Wolf is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Kansas
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Weight distribution, ahhhhh, that makes sense. Thanks.

The Commander did have a nice feel to it.

Still surprised that is what S&W decided to do next but I guess they do have to sell guns to people other than me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:03 PM
k31scout's Avatar
k31scout k31scout is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MI
Posts: 192
Likes: 85
Liked 44 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Photoman44 View Post
The shorter slide carries more comfortable IWB. The longer grip shoots better than a short grip for most.
Right, especially if you carry appendix. I carry that way and the wing claw on my Kydex holster keeps the grip in tight to my body so I like a full grip on a handgun. Bending over with a long barrel is the problem AIWB. For me anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:35 PM
Saudade Saudade is online now
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 465
Liked 461 Times in 300 Posts
Default

Why not?

10char
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #12  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:49 PM
GKC's Avatar
GKC GKC is offline
US Veteran
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,148
Likes: 3,687
Liked 5,186 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

I just bought the 4.0" 2.0 9mm Compact, and actually I'm glad I did. I thought at first I'd rather have the 3.6" model, but since I couldn't find one, I bought the 4.0, which turns out is an excellent fit and very comfortable (balance and grip) in my hand. 0.4" isn't much difference, and I definitely want the 15 round capacity (which both have, though.)

I like Commander length 1911s (4.25" barrel with full size grip) because they balance better for me. The 0.75" difference between the Commander and full size isn't that much, but it feels better to me. Same thing with the compact versus the 4.25" and 4.5" M&Ps. A lot of it is personal preference, and kudos to S&W for trying to accommodate everyone's preferences.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:51 PM
okiegtrider's Avatar
okiegtrider okiegtrider is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 2,229
Liked 3,167 Times in 982 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saudade View Post
Why not?
This. Different strokes for different folks.
__________________
America First
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #14  
Old 05-26-2018, 05:17 PM
richbuff richbuff is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 108
Likes: 123
Liked 131 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Method of carry determines whether the grip length or slide length is the bigger factor in concealability. Ho-hum cartridge in full length slide is not my personal preference. 3.6" bbl and modern, pressure-optimized cartridges in double stack are what I feel happy about.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:59 PM
Flintlock1's Avatar
Flintlock1 Flintlock1 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 94
Likes: 123
Liked 52 Times in 27 Posts
Default

I'm in the "short barrel/full frame" crowd. Weight distribution, quicker rotation from the holster, better fit in a vehicle - where that last attribute matters since a full arm draw is not possible.

The Shield is my carry gun, and when they come out with a double stack version, I'm all in.

My 2.0C is for the house.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #16  
Old 05-26-2018, 09:08 PM
touchoneoff's Avatar
touchoneoff touchoneoff is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Indiana
Posts: 213
Likes: 153
Liked 88 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stansdds View Post
I dunno, but someone at S&W thought it was a great idea. For carry around the waistline or in a vertical shoulder holster, I agree, it is generally the grip portion of the receiver that is hardest to conceal. In a horizontal shoulder holster, the longer the barrel and slide, the harder it is to conceal.

One reason I have not traded my 6946 for an M&P (or even a Glock) is that it has a 3.5 inch barrel, which is a good compromise between concealment, a useful sight radius, and a barrel long enough to generate good velocity and the grip is short enough (especially with a modified 5906 magazine floor plate) to conceal. The only thing more concealable for me would be a 3913.
Yeah, I would agree.
__________________
Live free or die.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-27-2018, 01:16 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 2,139
Liked 13,266 Times in 5,258 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Wolf View Post
I find grips the difficult part to conceal and I like a longer sight radius.
I couldn't agree more.

However, the public doesn't agree with us. Most people look for a short barrel when thinking of concealment. I don't know why, but it's a fact.

The other reason could be to appease the AIWB crowd. When you carry a gun that way, you must have a short barrel or you won't be able to move.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-27-2018, 05:50 PM
mikesal34744's Avatar
mikesal34744 mikesal34744 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 114
Likes: 74
Liked 68 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Wolf View Post
I mean this sincerely, I'm not being facetious. Could someone explain why they would want the compact with the 3.6" bbl and the same size grip? For me, it is the exact opposite of what I'd want. I find grips the difficult part to conceal and I like a longer sight radius. If anything, I'd want a G17 size upper half on a G19 size frame. What attracted those of you who chose this new one to move in the other direction?


Options. I have both. The 3.6 is quicker to draw and overall feels quicker to get the sight in target. It’s a great feeling overall fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2018, 06:52 PM
GKC's Avatar
GKC GKC is offline
US Veteran
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,148
Likes: 3,687
Liked 5,186 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

Why are there different flavors of ice cream? Different models of cars? and so on...

It's trying to give consumers their preferences, insofar as it's practical and cost effective. If everyone wanted the same thing, then a manufacturer would only make that one thing.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2018, 07:57 PM
Truckin Truckin is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Likes: 109
Liked 48 Times in 30 Posts
Default

MP 45 Midsize with IWB holster. The perfect weapon for my big hands.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-27-2018, 08:21 PM
Scorpion520AZ's Avatar
Scorpion520AZ Scorpion520AZ is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Sonoran Desert, USA
Posts: 578
Likes: 972
Liked 1,476 Times in 402 Posts
Default

We're living in the age of endless firearm/caliber choices, M'erica.
__________________
Ad Astra Per Aspera

Last edited by Scorpion520AZ; 05-27-2018 at 08:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #22  
Old 05-28-2018, 06:11 AM
MN2944 MN2944 is online now
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 322
Likes: 4
Liked 222 Times in 110 Posts
Default

I'm probably just frustrated that they released this variation but I STILL can't get a black 5" 2.0.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-28-2018, 09:28 AM
angryelf22 angryelf22 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 53
Likes: 4
Liked 39 Times in 21 Posts
Default

It’s another option, and options are always good. Plus it’s also a beta test of sorts because if it runs well, I think we will be seeing a 2.0 subcompact (2.0 version of the 1.0 9c) using the 3.6” upper and a chopped down compact frame.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-28-2018, 11:37 AM
GKC's Avatar
GKC GKC is offline
US Veteran
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,148
Likes: 3,687
Liked 5,186 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MN2944 View Post
I'm probably just frustrated that they released this variation but I STILL can't get a black 5" 2.0.
Or a 4" 2.0 Compact .45...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 05-28-2018, 11:44 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 2,139
Liked 13,266 Times in 5,258 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MN2944 View Post
I'm probably just frustrated that they released this variation but I STILL can't get a black 5" 2.0.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKC View Post
Or a 4" 2.0 Compact .45...
This right here is why people build their own guns. It's the only way to ensure you get exactly what you want.

I'll bet if we wait long enough, S&W will eventually offer what you guys want. The 5" 2.0 is easily answered through Cerakote though.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #26  
Old 05-31-2018, 12:02 AM
smoothshooter smoothshooter is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 300
Likes: 12
Liked 198 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 45FMJoe View Post
The "Commander" style pistol concept originated by Colt appeals to a lot of people. To me, a full size frame and shorter slide balances better and there isn't as much weight hanging out front but rather the weight sits on top of your hands vs in front of them. I'm not sure I'm explaining that clearly. The Glock 19X balances better than a regular 19 for me, and I prefer my Colt Commander Rail Gun to my Government Rail Gun for the same reasons.

ETA - I just picked up an IOP M&P 2.0 Compact 4" on Wednesday along with a blue label Glock 19.5. I really like them both though I haven't had an opportunity to shoot either yet. When I can put eyes on a 3.6" M&P I might not be able to resist the urge to bring it home.
But the weight out front steadies the muzzle and makes it easier to hit the target, does it not?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:01 AM
GKC's Avatar
GKC GKC is offline
US Veteran
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,148
Likes: 3,687
Liked 5,186 Times in 1,874 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
This right here is why people build their own guns. It's the only way to ensure you get exactly what you want.
Exactly what I want is something I seriously doubt S&W will ever make...and that's a 4" 2.0 Compact in .45 WITHOUT rails. I know, if I don't like them, I don't have to use them...but I don't like the looks of them, and I don't want to hang lights or other doo-dads on the front of my pistol. I'm sure I'm in the very small minority...I know I'm not the only one, though, because I saw a thread here recently where a member sawed off the rails and filled the frame in with (I forget what...JB weld?) and filed it smooth. I don't have the skills to do that, without butchering my pistol. I doubt S&W would ever make one since it probably wouldn't be a big seller. Oh, and the frame would be FDE with a black slide, grip inserts, and magazine base pads.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #28  
Old 05-31-2018, 05:48 PM
dipperdave dipperdave is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upper East Tennessee
Posts: 60
Likes: 68
Liked 45 Times in 19 Posts
Default

It seems that whenever Smith introduces a new model that isn't made in the same cookie cutter mold as many others, there are those who are incredulous. Just look at some people's reaction to the .389 Shield EZ. Why? they ask, as if unable to wrap their mind around the fact that it and this shorter slide 2.0 compact are just options that:

(1) Are exactly what some shooters want in a handgun.

(2) Smith believes there are enough numbers of those people that they can make money producing and selling it to those people.

Not everyone thinks in the same small square box. Thank goodness for those who think of other options. That's the reason we are truly living in the "golden age" of handguns with many, many options from Smith and other quality makers.

I welcome this new addition to the 2.0 family, even though it is unlikely that I will ever buy one.

Well done, Smith & Wesson. Well Done.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #29  
Old 05-31-2018, 09:21 PM
45FMJoe 45FMJoe is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 108
Likes: 8
Liked 37 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothshooter View Post
But the weight out front steadies the muzzle and makes it easier to hit the target, does it not?
I do not believe so, no. The weight is further forward from your hands. Calisthenics are a pain! You can hold more weight closer to your body and less weight with your arms outstretched. So to me, the heavier muzzle does exactly the opposite. I can steady a shorter barrel more effectively.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-01-2018, 05:20 AM
MN2944 MN2944 is online now
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 322
Likes: 4
Liked 222 Times in 110 Posts
Default

^^^^^

Weight forward can reduce muzzle rise from recoil and get you back on target more quickly. The longer sight radius enhances precise aiming.

Shorter slides/barrels make you think you are more steady because the short sight radius doesn't give as much visual feedback of the movement that is occurring.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #31  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:38 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 13,068
Likes: 2,139
Liked 13,266 Times in 5,258 Posts
Default

Muzzle weight doesn't make it easier to hit the target, but it does help stabilize the gun. However, in a pistol the difference is really small.

If you want to see just how steady you really are, regardless of barrel length, put a laser on your gun. This will really open your eyes regarding stability.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #32  
Old 06-01-2018, 06:32 PM
Flyingfool Flyingfool is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 2
Liked 120 Times in 61 Posts
Default

^^^

Also is the reason I find lasers completely useless. All you do is try and “chase” the red (or green) dot all over. It is more distracting than helpful. At least in my opinion!

Wife has a laser on her 642. I tried it and shot all over the place. Shut the dam laser off and dramatically improved my accuracy!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-02-2018, 12:17 AM
Dpris Dpris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Liked 493 Times in 229 Posts
Default

This version is about perfect in my hand.
I like the capacity & grip, and I like barrel length for concealment.
For me, it ain't the grip that prints, it's the bottom end that sometimes exposes itself under an untucked shirt or a short jacket when I reach or bend over.

Shorter barrel is better concealment, for me.
Denis
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-02-2018, 09:13 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 555
Likes: 57
Liked 485 Times in 287 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyingfool View Post
^^^

Also is the reason I find lasers completely useless. All you do is try and “chase” the red (or green) dot all over. It is more distracting than helpful. At least in my opinion!

Wife has a laser on her 642. I tried it and shot all over the place. Shut the dam laser off and dramatically improved my accuracy!
And that likely explains why I am more accurate with iron sights than with a red (or whatever color floats your boat) dot optical sight. My AR has an optical red dot sight, I rarely turn it on.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-02-2018, 10:56 AM
Flyingfool Flyingfool is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 2
Liked 120 Times in 61 Posts
Default

^^^^

Hummm, I have been thinking about getting a red dot site for my sport 2.

Now you have given me serious reason to reconsider!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-02-2018, 12:07 PM
Stu Honea's Avatar
Stu Honea Stu Honea is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 825
Likes: 273
Liked 317 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Scorpion,nice video,thanks for sharing that. I had been looking for a vid all over the place on the 3.6 with no success. I like what I saw in this one,so again many thanks.
__________________
Blessed be the Lord,my Rock
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #37  
Old 06-03-2018, 01:01 AM
Flintlock1's Avatar
Flintlock1 Flintlock1 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 94
Likes: 123
Liked 52 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MN2944 View Post
^^^^^

Weight forward can reduce muzzle rise from recoil and get you back on target more quickly. The longer sight radius enhances precise aiming.

Shorter slides/barrels make you think you are more steady because the short sight radius doesn't give as much visual feedback of the movement that is occurring.
Even though I posted that I am in the short barrel/full frame group, I agree with this because it is true. Combat handguns sold to the military and police are usually of the full size variety, not only because of the capacity, but for the reasons in this post.

My experience with years of shooting traditional muzzle loaders applies: A long, heavy barrel out there will actually stabilize the aim by dampening the heartbeat and involuntary muscle movements. Important when you only have one shot. The same is true for handguns. I've yet to see a compact precision target pistol on the formal circuit, or maybe I've missed it...

My preference for snubbies is based mostly on a perceived quicker rotation from the holster - especially in a car, or other close quarters situation where a fast developing threat is within 5 feet and aiming may be secondary to initial suppression fire. This stuff happens. It can happen while you're pumping gas, or in the checkout line, or stopped in your car, etc.

To that end, most of my practice is based upon that scenario with the balance just for plinking and grins. I have the Shield 9 and I have the 2.0C 4" with the latter for home defense and pure shooting enjoyment at the range.

So, to me, the 3.6" barrel is almost like splitting hairs between the two, but to someone who does not currently own either, the 3.6 would be a great choice.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-03-2018, 01:05 AM
Flintlock1's Avatar
Flintlock1 Flintlock1 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 94
Likes: 123
Liked 52 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
Muzzle weight doesn't make it easier to hit the target, but it does help stabilize the gun. However, in a pistol the difference is really small.

If you want to see just how steady you really are, regardless of barrel length, put a laser on your gun. This will really open your eyes regarding stability.
I tried a laser sighted SIG once. Very humbling - and it sure wasn't the SIG.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-03-2018, 01:13 AM
Flintlock1's Avatar
Flintlock1 Flintlock1 is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 94
Likes: 123
Liked 52 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 45FMJoe View Post
I do not believe so, no. The weight is further forward from your hands. Calisthenics are a pain! You can hold more weight closer to your body and less weight with your arms outstretched. So to me, the heavier muzzle does exactly the opposite. I can steady a shorter barrel more effectively.
I respectfully disagree, but as Rastoff has said, it matters less in pistols. Barrel weight dampens nervous twitches, heartbeats, and involuntary muscle movements that are occurring as you try to hold still.

Same principle applies to high wire walkers. They use that long weighted pole to dampen everything down.

I mentioned my long barreled muzzle loaders in another post here. The weight seems excessive until you draw a bead, then, everything slows down out there at the front sight. Try aiming a modern open sighted Ruger 77 and see the difference in hold.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-03-2018, 02:38 AM
swsig's Avatar
swsig swsig is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Texas
Posts: 1,314
Likes: 1,753
Liked 2,230 Times in 833 Posts
Default

A better question is, "3.6" where?" I'm considering one, but in the DFW area, Academy and Cabelas don't sell them, GrabAGun only has them on backorder (with just an itty-bitty discount), and my range doesn't have one and doesn't know when it will get one. I'm one of those picky people that likes to at least hold a gun before I buy. Since these pistols don't seem to exist, the issue of "why?" is a moot point.
__________________
What, me worry?

Last edited by swsig; 06-03-2018 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-03-2018, 07:24 AM
00 buck 00 buck is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Travel ....
Posts: 66
Likes: 40
Liked 22 Times in 17 Posts
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by MN2944 View Post
^^^^^

Weight forward can reduce muzzle rise from recoil and get you back on target more quickly. The longer sight radius enhances precise aiming.

Shorter slides/barrels make you think you are more steady because the short sight radius doesn't give as much visual feedback of the movement that is occurring.
At best all things being equal let's evaluate the advantage
Time ....would be measured in milliseconds
Accuracy difference with ...0.4 inches at handgun self defense ranges negligible

The HK P30SK is 3.2
The Shield 3.1
Other guns 3.9
Anything at or over 3.0 seems to be the sweet spot
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #42  
Old 06-03-2018, 08:24 AM
topwaterbass topwaterbass is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 17
Likes: 2
Liked 10 Times in 2 Posts
Default

My dealer got ahold of one for me. The only one he has had so far. Not many out there. I like the balance of it.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #43  
Old 06-03-2018, 08:36 AM
jakebrake jakebrake is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: philly burbs
Posts: 79
Likes: 27
Liked 47 Times in 27 Posts
Default

to compete with the g19?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-03-2018, 11:24 AM
Flyingfool Flyingfool is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 2
Liked 120 Times in 61 Posts
Default

I have zero doubt longer barrels are more accurate. But the VAST majority of the self defense situations are within 20’ for sure. And mostly within 10’.

A self defense situation happens so fast, there is little time to take a bead and time to aim. It is reactive. Even in a home, how many people are really going to be shooting more than 20’? Especially in the dark?

So is the difference between 3.6” and 4” really any significance?

I don't know.

Last edited by Flyingfool; 06-03-2018 at 11:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #45  
Old 06-03-2018, 04:00 PM
Dpris Dpris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Liked 493 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Besides being easier in concealing the shorter barrel, I've found that a shorter sight radius tends to be (assuming good visible sights, which the pistol has) quicker to pick up & align on target than a longer sight radius.

I use sights whenever there's room, so that does have importance to me.

This pistol is very simply just "IT" for me, my hand, and my belt.
Denis
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #46  
Old 06-03-2018, 10:45 PM
Klatch Klatch is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13
Likes: 17
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyingfool View Post
I have zero doubt longer barrels are more accurate.
Barrels with a longer sight radius can be shot more accurately. Nothing inherent in length makes the barrel itself more accurate.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #47  
Old 06-03-2018, 11:22 PM
Dpris Dpris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Liked 493 Times in 229 Posts
Default

As a matter of comparison & context, this 3.6 with 16-round capacity is maybe an eighth of an inch taller & maybe a quarter-inch or less shorter than the new 9-shot .380 EZ.

The slide is close enough to the same length as the Walther PPQ2 SC (sub compact) to not quibble over, with the Walther barrel at 3.5 inches.
The little Walther, with extended 15-round finger rest mag inserted, is maybe 3/8 of an inch taller.

This new 2.0 3.6 Compact gives us a very concealable size with a full-sized grip and great onboard capacity.

The popular Glock 26 in 9mm has a 3.42-inch barrel, which is quite concealable up front, but looses grip coverage & control, unless you add something to the bottom to hang onto, which many people do & which adds length for those who have a problem with printing grip sections in concealment.

The 3.6 2.0 Compact just simply offers an excellent all-round package for many of us.
It doesn't appeal to everybody, but there's no reason why ANY new model should.

Out of the many years of shooting Smith autos I've done, this one strikes me as the best for my current needs.
Those who disagree need not buy.
Denis
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #48  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:20 AM
45FMJoe 45FMJoe is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 108
Likes: 8
Liked 37 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flintlock1 View Post
Even though I posted that I am in the short barrel/full frame group, I agree with this because it is true. Combat handguns sold to the military and police are usually of the full size variety, not only because of the capacity, but for the reasons in this post.

What if I told you the largest law enforcement agency in the United States of America issues a compact pistol? HK really got a sweetheart contract for their P2000 which is far from a full size pistol!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:27 AM
45FMJoe 45FMJoe is offline
Member
3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why? 3.6" why?  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 108
Likes: 8
Liked 37 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyingfool View Post
I have zero doubt longer barrels are more accurate. But the VAST majority of the self defense situations are within 20’ for sure. And mostly within 10’.

A self defense situation happens so fast, there is little time to take a bead and time to aim. It is reactive. Even in a home, how many people are really going to be shooting more than 20’? Especially in the dark?

So is the difference between 3.6” and 4” really any significance?

I don't know.
Like Klatch said before, a longer barrel isn't intrinsically more accurate. A longer barrel should, with all things equal, create more velocity.

I agree with DPris, too. I bought my first Commander 1911 a few months ago and I really like the shortened sight radius. For me it's faster and easier to line up the sights in comparison to a Government model. But, that is just an opinion. Your opinion might be opposite of mine and that's ok... you can be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-05-2018, 02:09 PM
Dpris Dpris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Liked 493 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Many who carried the Commander in the old days did so for the weight AND the dynamics.
It was considered to be a "quicker" pistol.

More dynamic in situational use.
Denis
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dinty Moore """Beef Stew"""" is more like: hamburger soup. the ringo kid The Lounge 131 01-16-2018 07:45 PM
Thinking of ordering a 686P 4" 7 round .357 .... "Help"!! Need some reviews on them... Is the 6" better or is the 4" equally good? .460V & XVR Magnum Man S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 37 07-06-2017 06:26 PM
For All You "Squids", "Swabbies", and "Anchor-Clankers" semperfi71 The Lounge 37 02-07-2016 03:06 PM
If you liked "Red Dawn" and "Jericho" - "Falling Skies" starts Sunday GatorFarmer The Lounge 15 08-14-2012 11:58 PM
Use caution when dealing with "roniva123", a.k.a. "PB Firearms", a.k.a. "Snubbies" allglock Feedback 17 08-07-2009 04:31 PM

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 06:05 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.42 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
© S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2018
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)