I am considering buying the midsize M&P. I owned a full size in the past. It was a great gun but felt a little too big. I sold it and some time later purchased a compact version. It was a much harder recoiling gun.

I have trouble many times with some 45's recoil. As an example I love the P220. The standard 220 has an alloy frame and causes me pain. I have a full stainless P220 ST which causes no pain. Unfortunately it (like my 4566) simply weighs too much to carry. I also have a Cougar 45 and a HK45C. Neither cause pain and are much lighter in weight.

But I prefer a larger magazine capacity. My HK has extra 10 round magazines but they are awkward. So I am considering the midsize M&P. I carried a full size M&P 40 at my job for years. I didn't like it mostly because of the 40 cartridge.

On a side note my company got rid of the M&P 40 after about 5 years of use. I could have purchased mine but didn't. I now have a CHP 4006 which I love. CHP got rid of their 4006 for the M&P 40. I turned down the M&P 40 in favor of the 4006. Strangely no pain but again to heavy to carry.

So I am looking for feedback on shooters of the M&P 45, particularly the midsize. Buy or keep looking for something else?

By midsize I guess you are talking about the compact version of the fullsize.
I bought a full size .45 this summer, shot it for a couple months and got rid of it. The recoil isn't bad, but I actually liked the recoil of the .45 Shield much more. And every time I shot the Fullsize, I could do no better with it accuracy wise than I could with the Shield.

The Shield is lighter, thinner and more compact but held almost as many rounds in it's single stack mag than the FS does in it's (kinda) doublestack.
My little Shield holds 7+1 of .45 and the fullsize and compact hold 10+1.
There is a 14 round magazine available for the fullsize and compact but it sticks down below the grip a couple inches.

S&W decided to reduce the magazine capacity of the FS and Compact in order to hold it to the same width as the M&P in 9mm and .40.
This makes for a slimmer doublestack that has a good feel, unlike some other brands of .45 like the Glock that are very thick.

But it is pretty big considering it only holds 2 more rounds than a 1911, and I just wasn't happy with 3 1/2 to 4 inch groups.
My fullsize 9mm on the other hand is 17+1, pleasant to shoot, and will group 2 inches at 25 yards with just about everything.
9mm on top, .45 on bottom:

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

If you have trouble with 45 recoil, don't like 40 and want larger capacity then why not go with a 9mm?

I have M&P compacts in both .45 and 9mm and use the 9mm as my carry gun. The .45 does have considerably more recoil and both guns have about the same accuracy in my hands. I could shoot the 9mm all day but after 2-3 mags I've had enough of the .45.

Unless you are one of those who think a larger caliber is better I can't think of any reason to choose the .45 over the 9mm.

Back when JHP was unreliable in expansion and feeding in some guns, FMJ was a good choice, and the bigger .45 ACP was a much better choice than 9mm ball.
Nowadays hollow point reliability is very good, and the top tier loads like the HST, Gold Dot and Ranger in any caliber perform similarly well.

The 9mm 124 +P grain HST I carry expand to .66 diameter and penetrate 18 inches. I don't doubt they will do the job, and after stubbornly sticking to hard kicking big bores for years, I've finally come to realize that I can shoot the 9mm more effectively and accurately.

The 200 grain +P Gold Dots I carry in my .45 Shield expand to .70 caliber and penetrate 14 inches. Yes, some more mass due to the heavier slug but not much of a ballistic advantage, at the expense of slower follow up shots and less magazine capacity, and more difficulty of shot placement.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/sel...llistic-tests/

__________________
U. S. Army Veteran

There are three versions of the M&P 45 not including the Shield. The full size, midsize and the compact. The compact size has an 8 round magazine. The FS and midsize both have 10 round magazines. The full size has a longer barrel than the midsize. Its kind of like the difference between a full size 1911 and the commander.

I generally carry a Glock 19 or a Shield 9 everyday. I use 124 Gold Dots as well as Hornady and HST. There are times when I feel the need to carry a 45. I understand the improvements in 9 mm bullet technology. But part of me still wants a 45. Bullet technology has improved for the 45 round too. Not interested in starting another caliber war thread.

In the past I have tried both the Glock 30 and 36 in 45. Both functioned perfectly but caused pain. Also had more than one Glock 21. No pain but too blocky for my taste.

The problem with my pains with the smaller guns is not the guns fault. I have relatively small hands for my size (6 ft 218 lbs). But I have had two carpal tunnel surgeries on my strong hand. I am also experiencing arthritis and neuropathy.

That is what has brought me to considering a midsize M& P45.

Skip the .45 and go 9mm. They both do the same job on bad guys.

I have four M&P45s. All 1.0s, one FS and the rest compacts. Suggest looking at the 1.0 compact, which essentially is a 2.0 subcompact. The 1.0 can easily be a "midsize" by simply using a 10 rd mag w/ spacer. Can also be converted into a FS by swapping out slides.

Have shot them in all the various configurations. Suggest a change in ammo if recoil is an issue. 185 JHP non +P would be very manageable in a M&P w/ full size frame. They're very manageable in my Shield 45s, so would be even more so in a larger frame.

The terminology used in the M&P 45 line is very confusing. Especially between the 1.0 and 2.0 versions.

The 45 I have is a 2.0 and it is called a compact, but it has a 10 round magazine and a 4" barrel.

I also have a 9mm 2.0 that's called a compact with a 15 round magazine and 4" barrel.

The two are almost identical in size, but due to the higher recoil of the 45, I prefer the 9mm for carry purposes. I'm not at all concerned that it would be any less effective at stopping a threat.

I believe that perceived recoil is personal to me. That is, most others do not necessarily experience it. While it is particular to me, it still is a real problem. The FS M&P 45 was never a problem recoil wise. I just did not like the size. The compact (8 round) was definitely a huge problem. I am just trying to decide if the midsize might be my answer.

I appreciate the 185 grain suggestion. But I have never understood why you would not use the 230 grain bullet.
The recoil of the 45 caliber always seemed more like a push rather than a sharp impact.

Two more things to consider.
Might a change in belt and/or holster allow for a more comfortable carry. OWB leather might mitigate the pistol size and weight problem. It does for me.
Also, shorter barrels have more negative influence on performance of the .45 acp vs the 9mm.