I saw a lot of post from members on this and other forums as well as in YouTube comments pretaining to the new M&P's... People who were upset S&W released the M&P 4" compact right after they purchased a fullsize. People who purchased a M&P 4" Compact who were disappointed that S&W released the 3.6" afterwards....

My question is, for those who only purchased the 3.6, would you have still puchased it if a Glock 26 size M&P 2.0 was available, and came with grip extensions for the 15 and 17 round mags?

I ask because I see a point in getting the 4" Compact maybe for the cooler months, and having the more concealabe Subcompact for summer months, but I don't see a point in owning the 3.6 Compact and the Subcompact when it's released... Seems like the subcompact or a subcompact with a with a 3.6 or 4" barrel would render the 3.6 kind of useless...

I apologize as I am not one of the target people to whom you are seeking as I haven't yet bought the 3.6; but, I intend to do so. I like the 2.0s so much that I wish they would come out with the M&Pc (1.0) version in the 2.0. If and when that hits the market, I will be first in line. Well, I'll try to be. I don't think they'll ever come out with the G26 size. Most machining for the original M&Pc size is there and the Shield is there. Who knows. They appear to be at the forefront of innovation. I say keep it up S&W.

I just went from a M&P 2.0 9mm Compact to a Shield 2.0 9mm...the Compact was a great gun, and I liked the capacity, but I wanted a smaller gun for carry. With the 8 round mag and the 7 round mag for the Shield, I've got 15 rounds (plus one in the chamber) so I figure that's enough.

If the 3.6" model had been out at the time, I probably would have bought it...but it wasn't, and I'm not going to now. I am saving for a Mossberg Shockwave, and that will be my home defense gun; the Shield is my carry gun. My SR1911 is my just because gun. So, I think I'm set.

I have a shield and awaiting delivery of my 2.0 9c. I had no real desire for the 4” 9c. If I csnnot comceal the 9c, that is what the shield is for. So I do not see any reason for the short grip 3.6” 9c. But that is nust me and maybe because I also already have a shield.

Choices are great!

I suspect the short grip subcompact 9c will be the next to come out. I applaud S&W if they do, bit don’t see myself buying one. But i’m sure there are a lot of people who would love to have it!

The thing is, it will be about the same size as the Shield, only a little thicker. Plus, you can carry a spare 15 or 17 rounder.

I'm thinking about getting a 3.6, but don't see the point if they come out with a smaller size that's capable of having the same capacity.

I had buyers remorse so bad i bought all the 2.0 models.

I don’t buy based on what Glock does. I bought the 3.6” because I liked it. I didn’t buy the 2.0C because it was virtually the same size as my 1.0 FS. I haven’t ruled out a 4”, but I’m fine with what I have.

Have you considered an AR-15 for home defense? I used to think a shotgun was best but I've changed my mind. The AR is easier to shoot and holds 30 rounds instead of just 6. American Rifleman | The AR for Home Defense: One Expert's Opinion

I just don't get how a 15 rnd, 4" gun is considered "Compact". Because it's a 1/4" shorter than the full sized?
I'll stick to my 1.0 Compact, thank you.

__________________
Dave

See? There's something for everybody. Is this a great country or what?

I bought the 2.0 compact mostly for a home defense and range gun but like that it would be easier to carry if for some reason I thought my Glock 43 was not enough. In reality I have not carried it once and likely never will. Everyone has a limit on how big a gun they are willing to carry and the compact is over mine.

A sub-compact with a 12 round magazine for carry and the option to use larger magazines would have been a better choice for me. I hope S&W makes a gun like that with a 3.6 inch barrel. There is a pretty big gap between the Shield and 2.0 compact.

I carry IWB at 4:00 so grip length and thickness matter more than whether a carry gun has a 3.6 or 4 inch barrel. If Smith made a 2.0 subcompact with a Shield width slide on a double stack frame I would order one sight unseen. Even if it just the 3.6 inch compact with a shorter grip I will certainly consider buying one but will wait until I can see one first. I have considered buying a 1.0 compact bur really prefer the 2.0 trigger and don't like putting aftermarket triggers in carry guns.

Technology evolves. If you decide what you need, buy it. If you're looking for "the best", you will always be disappointed when something new comes out.

Took me 1 1/2 years to buy a flat panel smart TV. Every month something new came out.

Not intending to offend anyone, but I'm not really a fan of the AR-15s and similar types....mainly just aesthetics. I'm not really into long guns, primarily handguns...but if I was going to go with a rifle, for me it would be a lever action. (I'm old fashioned in some ways.) I'm also concerned about penetration since we live in a retirement community, which is comprised of patio homes. There is also a central, high rise assisted living center, but we aren't there yet.

Frankly, there really isn't much, if any, crime in our location...this area is gated and pretty secure...so the desire for a HD weapon is largely theoretical. And, to be totally honest, I've always wanted a short barreled shotgun, but didn't want to go through the NFA permitting procedure. Since that isn't necessary with the Shockwave, I want one mainly just because.

^^^ My shotguns, pistols and AR15 all get along together just fine. I believe in firearm diversity.

Buyers Remorse, you say?

Yep, I've got it - remorseful that I am only buying one at a time!

No remorse for me. I have the 4" 2.0 Compact and love it. It's a great range gun and I have no problem carrying it concealed. I'm 5'7, 150 lbs. I carry it in an Alien Gear Cloak Tuck IWB holster. It's a comfortable carry and disappears under my shirt.

No remorse here. I’ve been waiting for a G19 sized M&P forever. I carry a Shield (1.0) or Shield .45 on days the Compact is too big. It’s really my nightstand gun this time of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The G19 sized 2.0 to big for you to carry?

Like you, I've heard what seems like thousands ask for a G19 sized M&P throughout the years. You know, the Holy Grail when it comes to pistol size many would say... Then S&W finally releases one, and the consensus is the 3.6 feels better and is a better size. Glock releases the G19x, and many bad mouth that size... Strange how things work...

The first to FINALLY release a 4" with a G26 grip will have a hit on their hands I'M HOME...

I kind of agree with you. I don't consider any 15-round handgun a compact and realize that's just my own opinion. But, the fact remains that there is no industry standard for descriptive words like "full size", "compact", "sub-compact" etc. The makers can call their handguns whatever they want.

I once read a funny, but kind of sad, posting on a Glock forum where a poster called a Glock 19 a mid-sized gun and the usual rabid fanbois piled on and said it was a compact because Glock said it was and all such sized guns were compacts as well. I guess Glock is the God of Language to them.

The fact is that the G19 sized guns are called mid-sized by some gun writers. Rightly so I think. Glock calls their 10-round G26 a sub-compact, while others makers call their 10-round handguns "compacts". Such as the Walther P99 compact, which I own. Also the 12-round FNS "compact" and 12-round M&P 1.0 compact.

So, Glock: If a 15 round handgun is a compact and a 10 round gun a sub-compact then what is a 6 round G43 called? Maybe a sub-sub-compact? Nope, they call it a single stack.

But wait. My 1911a are single stacks and so is the Gen 1 Smith autoloading Model 39 along with its second generation cousins and they aren't small guns, just single stacks.

And what is a really small Kahr CW380 or LC380 Ruger called? Glock calls their model 42 an ultra-compact, but my CW380 is a LOT smaller than my G42. It's a puzzlement.

Bottom line is that any maker can call their various models anything they want and be correct. Glock and Glock fanbois don't own handgun nomenclature regardless of how much they would like to.

Not yet, we'll see how my new 2.0C stacks up to my PPQ. Wasn't intersted in the 3.6 at all.

Smith should have made the compact with a 3.8 inch barrel from the beginning. There would be one size pistol right in the middle of both. I like my 4 inch compacts but a 3.8 would have worked just fine.

Then people would complain about how S&W should have made a G19 sized or a 3.6 sized M&P..

I can't comprehend someone being significantly upset when they learned of a 3.6" M&P after buying a 4" model.

Too little difference in length for anyone to honestly say 0.4" of an inch makes a meaningful difference in concealability. Don

^^^ yes! At least for comfort.

Especially for appendix carry. That half inch can make a huge difference when bending and sitting! For some, they would not be able to comfortably carry alpendix with the 4” but csn with the 3.6”.

What if the opposite process happened? What if S&W came out with the 3.6” first and then followed up with a 4”. Would people still be bickering about exactly what “gain” is there with the additional 0.4” of barrel?

I suppose so.

To me, I have the 1.0 Compact and do see the need for the Glock 19 size 2.0. S&W has missed out on a lot of sales to them over not having that perfect size as a lot of people see it. Me not so much. For range I like a full size but my 9C 1.0 is really comfortable to shoot. The trigger is really pretty good on mine. It's auditable and can be felt on reset. Really to me the 1.0 9C is the perfect size. I carry it quite a bit and when I don't carry it I carry the BG380 or my LC9S. I really do not see any big exciting mods to the 2.0 and not really looking to buy one really quick. I would like to have a 5" M&P so eventually I will purchase that in the 2.0

I'd bet $1mill that if the 3.6 came before the 4", some of the same people saying they prefer the 3.6 would sell or trade away their it to get the 4".... Everything would be reversed.

As far as appendix carry, lots and lots and lots of people have been doing that with s Glock 19 for years with little complaining.

They're saying it feels noticably "better in hand", has better "balance", and is a lot more comfortable for carry vs the 4"...

I'm disappointed that there is not a 2.0 version of the first generation compact.

I also wish I had never sold my M&P C in 357sig that also came with a 40 cal barrel and then I got a 9mm barrel so I could shoot all three calibers from the same gun with a quick barrel change. I also liked the fact that I could use full size mags with the X-grip spacer.

Now, I really like the Shield and I'm waiting for S&W to come out with a double stack version that can use full size magazines.

I normally dont have buyer’s remorse if I buy something and a different model comes out right after. That happens all the time to many products.
Have i found i prefer something about a new item after i made a purchase? Sure. Then its just time to bite the bullet as they say and trade up at some point.

I would not have acquired the 4.0 Compact if I'd known the 3.6 was coming out, but I have all three 2.0 sizes (Full, Compact 4, Compact 3.6) and I have no regrets.

Options is good!
Backups is great!
Denis