What difference does .4” of barrel length make? Taking carrying comfort out of the equation, why choose one over the other?
Thanks for your input.

If it's going to be your only gun then I'd go with the 4". If you have one of the larger versions and are looking for something more compact/easier to carry, I'd go with the 3.6".

I have the 4" and I handled the 3.6" last week. I like mine (my only personal M&P right now) but I also really liked the 3.6" and see how it fills a need.

I bought a 4.0" 2.0 9mm Compact and THEN (of course) I found out that S&W was releasing a 3.6" model. I would have preferred the 3.6" barrel model, but I'm not going to try to sell/trade to get one...and lose money in the process. I still haven't seen one in the stores around here anyway. I console myself with the fact that 0.4" just isn't that much of a difference, which it really isn't. It's just plain aggravating, is what it is.

Hasn't this already been covered & over-covered?
The shorter you go, the more concealable you go.
With a side benefit of a slight weight loss.

If you don't agree, don't buy one.
Srsly- the question is getting very old.
Denis

Then why waste your time clicking on the thread or responding....

I'm not a S&W guy
But ....I really like this 3.6 bbl pistol
It seems balanced just right....grip texture is the best out of my 10 or so pistols...the best.
I find myself carrying and shooting it a lot...
It is that good

As was already said...if you don't like the question then move on. Your post wasn't helpful or necessary.

As to the OP's question...I bought the 4" and love it. Haven't handled the 3.6 but I already have a 1.0 9c. Taking carry out of the equation then the 4" would be my choice. Can't go wrong either way. IMHO there isn't a noticeable difference in performance for most shooters.

The longer barrel gives a longer sight radius for increased accuracy as well as higher bullet velocity. I'm very happy with my 4" model.

Not to mention that the 4" is about 75$ cheaper....

__________________
John Wayne was right.....

Then move on and ignore the thread. I for one tried searching for a particular topic and I assume was unable to find it due to the way I worded it. I ended up posting something that had been discussed. I received some good opinions based on experiences of others and appreciated it. But there was that one guy that had to be a smart A and respond negatively. So try searching a topic and see if you always find what you're looking for on here.
"Seriously."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know how you feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just so you know, there are people on the forum who aren’t gun experts (real or imagined). If you don’t like the question, just ignore the thread.

Thank you to all who posted helpful replies. I think 4” is the way to go. If I carry, it’ll most likely be owb anyway.

Seems easier to find holsters for the 4" gun.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

Or possibly the OP could have taken the time to look farther down the same page & notice the other thread on the same subject.

Getting to be like the Glock 19X, with all of the "Why" questions.
Denis

Or possibly you could ignore it, move on and not seize the opportunity to be that guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But...the 3.6 would be a little easier to conceal. You know what they say... That 4/10ths of an inch is alot in some things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't it grip length that makes the difference? In terms of being easier to conceal? Both models have the same grip length, so if that's the case, neither one should have an advantage when it comes to being easier to conceal.

It's all relative. But yes..grip plays a huge part. Kind of like having a .38 snubby but putting giant .44 Magnum grips on it. They'd make it difficult to conceal. Overall dimensions are important. The longer the barrel / slide it could protrude from under your cover garment. Also some people would prefer a shorter slide for IWB carry. Just depends on what you as the individual wants and how you plan to carry it. Personally I'd go for the 3.6. Every little bit counts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I don't carry my SR1911 CMD, I prefer it to a full size 1911. I've always liked the commander length (4.25") over the full size (5.0") because I like the feel and handling better...and the grip length is the same on both.

If the 3.6" model had been available when I bought my 2.0 9mm I would have bought it...and I may end up buying one someday...but for now, I'm going to stay with my 4" model.

The 3.6 is a good gun no doubt. The 4 in 2.0 Compact feels more balanced in my hand and my shooting drills are best with it.

I was making my comparison based upon having carried a Sig 226 and a Sig 229. The 229 being the shorter of the two but the grip is the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I can't get used to that either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For folks that appendix carry it may make a big difference. I won't appendix carry as it places the gun in a position I don't want to be pointing a gun, but that's just me. I'd assume there is a fairly sizable number of folks who appendix carry.

Biggest difference is probably feel. If you were to compare the two side by side the 4" would probably feel a little more muzzle heavy to you and the weight of the 3.6" would probably feel more centered over your hand.

.4" will likely make a negligible difference in concealability, site radius or bullet velocity.

__________________
Life Member B.A.S.S., NAFC

My 3.5" C9 get almost 4" fps and it will get enough fps from
a Speer Gold Dot to meet the needed energy to qualify for a +P loading.

Just a matter of what feels best and you think will fit your style
of carry and use.

I just know that a 5" pistol is a lot of metal to cover up and carry all day.

Enjoy.

Were the 1.0 9c’s 3.5”?

Yes, I believe they were. I owned one several years ago, and IIRC the barrel length was 3.5". The grip felt too short for me on that particular pistol.

I chose both and love both.

What are the differences in actual shooting?

Between my 3.6”, 4.25”, and 5”, not a lot of difference in actual shooting. Different trigger feels, different sights, all shoot well. I doubt the 4.0” is noticeable different.

Are the full size 9’s cheaper just because the compacts sell better?

That's what I guy at the local gun store told me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure I can make a good case for either gun over the other. But I had three very good reasons for going with the 4":

1. The M&P 9 Compact was $50 off, and they only had 4" in stock.
2 There was a store wide 10% off sale.
3. The M&P Compact series had a $50 rebate.

Of course it is subjective
But for accuracy zero difference
FPS velocity...10 fps difference

Good choice. If I had to do it over again, I'd still would have gone with the 4" . I have the sneaky suspension that once the sales in the 3.6 did down, the G26 size 2.0 will be next which will conceal better plus be about to accept 15 or 17 round backup mags.

I see no point in owning a 3.6 and a Glock 26 sized, but the 4" and G26 size M& P will compliment each other.

I looked at Lucky Gunner's ballistics test just to make sure the 3.6" wasn't below some threshhold for reliable JHP expansion. Their test gun was a 3.5" M&P9C 1.0. The 3.6" barrel does just fine.

When the 2.0C came out, I carefully compared it to my 1.0 full size. The size difference was negligible, and I wondered why anyone would want the 2.0C with fewer rounds? The slide length is virtually the same. No beavertail, but is that really an issue?

Then the 3.6" came out and that's something quite different.

One can only hope! I have a 2.0 4” and a 9c 1.0, both I love, but really want to see an updated 9c 1.0 hit the market.

I have reached a point in my life that makes a gun like the 3.6" version basically perfect for me. I really have started favoring pistols that have 15 or so rounds for capacity and have a 3.5-3.75" barrel length. The 2.0 3.6" Compact fits into that range nicely. My hammer fired P-07 also fits into that range very well. Basically the same footprint as far as height and length as some of the compact guns like a Shield or XDS but just a shade thicker. Still conceals well but offers the advantage of more rounds. Perfect for me.

__________________
**Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fit**

Ditto.
Denis

To me in my hands the extra 0.4 of an inch makes all the difference in the balance and shootability. Everybody is different and some will feel the difference positively or negatively, or even neutral in the balance.

In the vernacular of my youth: I can dig it!
Denis

The grip difference feels much better in my hands and the timed drills and accuracy shows it.

I have a 2.0 4.25" (which I'm planning to have milled for a Holosun 507K). I also have 1.0 Pro 4.25 with night sights that have a TLR-8G mounted on when I carry it, and a TLR-2 mounted when it is at home on the night table. My usual EDC is a Shield 1.0 with a Dan Burwell trigger job, but I'm thinking I want more rounds. My IWB holster for ALL my pistols is a Milt Sparks VersMax II (pic attached with the Shield 1.0).

Now, here's the question - assuming that I want to mill the slide for a Holosun 507K, are the 4" and 3.6" Compacts equally suitable for that RMR? Your opinions and experience will be much appreciated. And BTW, if anybody has experience with vendors who mill slides for an RMR, I would also like to hear from them.

Attached Images

VersaMax 2 Shield.jpg (112.5 KB, 24 views)

I like them both but prefer the 3.6” a little more. It just feels more balanced in my hands.

the most recent trends have vindicated the viewpoints of some in this thread. a 3.6 barrel/slides on a compact or preferable full size frame indeed does have numerous advantages. in terms of balance, agility, point-ability, lack of dipping, and holstering in confined spaces like a car, the short barrel helps a lot. with the proliferation of the mos and optic ready options, as well as continued advancements in ballistics, the traditional cons of short sight radius and lower velocity are specifically negated in shorter barrel/slide weapons.



an outcome or possible consequence of this trend and the advantages conferred is a simultaneous increase in grip length of recent production handguns. the glock 19x and the glock 45's popularity are a sign that full size grips are beginning to see renewed popularity in police and civilian applications.


and so too do i expect to see m&p 2.0 fullsize handguns coming in 3.6 inch barrel configurations optics ready, with silencer height sights, and front serrations. and i see this as becoming especially popular with police who have a requirement of patrolling in vehicles or operating in tight spaces on a routine basis, while retaining the capacity and margin of error allowed by a full size grip



the industry watches, the markets respond, and patterns emerge. front serrations and short barrels on full size frames are the future.

having the barrel/slide be proportionally shorter than the the handle not only helps in the draw, allowing the holster be shorter and more easily concealed/comfortable, but it also looks a lot better than having it the other way around as is traditional. look at the commander sized 1911s and how much better they look compared to full size 1911s

I have and love a 3.6. As human nature goes, there are times I wonder if I should have gotten the 4.

However, I'm certain that if I HAD gotten the 4, there would be times I'd wonder if I should have gotten the 3.6

Ultimately I prefer the 3.6. Although the 4 would have been fine too. Unless I'd have gotten one and wished I had the 3.6. Wait. Nevermind.

as short as possible is better, because current doctrine in gun manufacturing prevents companies from investing in risky moves like a sub 3 inch 9mm for anything but sub and micro compacts, but if you prefer a full size gun in terms of ergonomics and capacity, but a short barrel, the 3.6 inch is about as short as possible by current industry standards. with a custom magwell, it may be close to a full size grip but not fully.


when i first started researching and buying guns, i would always buy the 5 inch model if it was available,but recently i've sold all the 5 inch components and replaced them with 4 inch components. there really just isn't a real justification to go beyond 4 to 3.6 inches and i suspect in the near future, 3.6 inches might be the new compact standard and 4 inches might be considered a "range" gun as 5 inch guns proceeds into obsolescence, just as 6 inch revolvers had.