M&P 2.0 9mm 25 yard accuracy test results

Today I acquired an M&P 2.0 9mm 4.25" barreled "full size" handgun. I wanted to test the pistol for accuracy so I set up some NRA slowfire bullseye targets at 25 yards. Temperature was approximately 80 degrees, 5-10 mph quartering headwind, sunny, 500 feet above sea level. The M&P had the stock sights. I am certainly not the most talented handgun shooter in the world, having put downrage only somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40k rounds in my time. To compensate for that, I used a handgun that has a reputation for accuracy, the Heckler and Koch P30L in .40 S&W w/ the Light LEM trigger, as a "control", by which to measure the M&P's performance. The H&K has truglo night sights. I shot 5x 5 shot groups with the S&W, then shot 5x 5 shot groups with the P30L, then shot 5x more 5 shot groups with the S&W to establish a rough accuracy baseline for the pistol (50 rounds S&W, 25 rounds HK). My technique is to throw out the smallest and largest groups for each pistol to try and eliminate the role of luck and then average the remaining group sizes. The S&W used Federal P9HST4 147gr +p and the HK used P40HST1 180gr ammunition. Shooting position was resting on sandbags from a bench, shooter seated (distance 25 yards as stated).



The results were as follows:

S&W M&P 2.0 9mm = 3.3256" average 5 shot group
H&K P30L = 3.6197" average 5 shot group

Here are the targets for those interested. Maybe the S&W benefited slightly from my method because it had a 6" group thrown out, but likewise the HK had a 5" group thrown out. There was no cherry picking, all fired groups are displayed. I did fire a cold bore sight off target with both pistols to warm them up before testing. I fired a total of 330 rounds of P9HST4 through the S&W with no malfunctions doing other drills after this test. I will commence from here with a 2000 round challenge as I am pleased with it thus far. The stock rear sight seems like it might need to be drifted slightly to the right, however I expect to be installing trijicon night sights on it soon enough so probably won't bother. The trigger pull weight on the M&P 2.0 measures a consistent 5.5 pounds.

S&W M&P 2.0 9mm, groups 2 and 8 thrown out, remainder averaged











HK P30L 40 S&W Light LEM - groups 1 & 4 thrown out, remainder averaged

That's a lot of good work, clearly explained and shown. Good shooting for open sights. Thank you.

Thanks for posting this thread.

On Wednesday I took a new 2.0 9 to an indoor range with static air conditions, good lighting, an old MTM pistol rest, a folding chair, and 7 commercial loads running 115, 124, and 147 grains.
FMJ, TMJ, JHP.

No malfunctions, pistol was Breakfree'd before shooting.

At 25 yards with both me and pistol as solidly braced as possible, it made shotgun patterns with a Blazer aluminum 147 TMJ, no cohesively measurable group between three bullseye targets stapled up to tell which hole was from which target aiming point.

Blazer aluminum 115 did better, at 3 3/4 inches.

The other 5 loads produced best 5-shot groups each at 3 5/16 Ins, 4 Ins, 2.5 Ins, 3.5 Ins, and 1 15/16 Ins.

This 2.0 9 will be replacing my older .40 M&P for regular carry.

What kind of 9mm accuracy results are others getting?
Denis

Very interesting. Thank you for posting. For comparison, I get 3 to 4" from my "old" M&P Pro 5" with its favorite handloads at 25 yd from a rest. I don't see much change on the 2.0 that I would expect to much change basic mechanical accuracy.

Yeah, randy lee of Apex said on another forum:

"If you look at the interior side walls of the slide where the ejection port is, you will see an appreciable step in the machining closer to the breech face. Our barrels run .600" nominally when you measure the width of the barrel's chamber area. With a tolerance of .003+/- that means our barrel will range between .597 and .603 wide in that area.
The M2.0 tightened up the spec where you see the step, so that .600 is the max width allowable. This means that you might have to sand or polish down the sides of our barrel by 0.002 on each side in order th let the barrel slip past the step.

The factory tightened up this spec to increase torque stabilization of their barrel, which helps improve consistency shot to shot thereby improving accuracy."

So they have made a few changes. I think this 2.0 shoots slightly better than my old .40 pros, the fliers seem to be a little less extreme. It's not a huge difference though, maybe 10%. Certainly not seeing any of the old 8" groups that people used to complain about in some of the 9's.


I did some groups with blazer 124gr range trash ammo a few days ago. It shot well in the 2.0 as well, average 3.3" 5 shot groups at 21 yards. I now have 1291 rounds through the pistol without cleaning (only cleaned and lubed it w/ breakfree CLP when I first got it) with no malfunctions.

Best group with the blazer, 1.448" at 21 yards:

Very helpful.
The 2.0 feedramp is also fractionally wider & fractionally longer than the First Gen M&P 9s, I'm hearing.

I only have two older .40s, so can't compare new 9 with old 9.

Having heard several years' worth of accuracy complaints about the older M&P 9s, I was going to shoot one of the 2.0s before committing to it.

I'll be keeping this sample & it'll replace the .40 for regular carry.

Still interested in seeing other results.
Denis

I'm glad to see someone testing accuracy at 25 yards. To me it's a much better test of accuracy than those folks posting groups shot at 7 or 10 yards and bragging "look how great my gun shoots!".

What a full-sized defensive handgun does at 7 yards is completely irrelevant to me.
25 yards is my standard basis for testing & comparisons.

I'll only drop down to 15 yards in a tinygun.
7 I won't bother with, tells me nothing useful.
Denis

Guess i am guilty as one who posts 7-10yd pix but wont apologize. After all i have 1 indoor range near me and 10 yards is the limit. Not one who enjoys winter in WI so i sure as heck aint gonna go outside to shoot except for in warm months. Then i have more options for ranges and for distances. But until those warm months hit, i will be running rounds at shorter indoor distances and yeah may still post pix.
After all, i have my disclaimer, that i am just an avg shot who is out having fun

LoneStarWings: I'm not familiar with the M&P semi-autos, but your groups are likely a fair representation of what one can expect in terms of accuracy with non-target-type semi-auto handguns. It's refreshing to see several groups rather than one selected "best" group.

Multiple twenty-five yard benchrested groups will actually tell one something about potential accuracy, while the same done at shorter ranges provides virtually nothing in the way of useful information. An inaccurate gun fired by an unskilled shooter using cheap ammo should turn in good groups at 10 or 15 yards.

I will have a hard time convincing a jury I feared for my life at 25 yards. Not so much at 7 yards. The house I live in isn't 25 yards wide or long. But to each his own.

A threat is a threat, at any distance.
If somebody's shooting at me from 26 yards out, I will have no difficulty explaining why I shot back.
And I want my gun to be able to engage that far out.

The purpose of a 25-yard test is not to sidetrack from the accuracy issues in this thread, it's just a much more valid test of real accuracy than 7 yards.

I would prefer to be able to engage at 30 & 40 yards if I had to, and if it were a bear gun, I certainly would not want to wait till the critter was within 7 yards to commence firing.
Denis

The previous generation of M&P 9's were often criticized for accuracy deficiencies at 25+ yards, plus I shoot the M&P in IDPA where there are sometimes 25+ yard shots required at 8" circular targets. That's the reason I chose 25 yards for the accuracy comparison to the H&K (that and I had the 25 yard NRA targets). 25 yards is also the short range distance for NRA bullseye competitions, and while neither the M&P or the P30 is really suitable for that (I think I'd want a Les Baer 1911 for that), the targets still work and I have access to a fixed distance bullseye range where those type of contests are held.

Excellent work. I especially like that you compared it with another gun you shoot well. I didn't look at the numbers, but it seems you shoot both guns close to the same.

25 yards is my max distance I will use a defensive gun. Yes, I shoot further now and then for fun, but I just don't see the point for a defensive gun.

Dpris said:

A threat is a threat, at any distance.
If somebody's shooting at me from 26 yards out, I will have no difficulty explaining why I shot back.
And I want my gun to be able to engage that far out.

The purpose of a 25-yard test is not to sidetrack from the accuracy issues in this thread, it's just a much more valid test of real accuracy than 7 yards.

I would prefer to be able to engage at 30 & 40 yards if I had to, and if it were a bear gun, I certainly would not want to wait till the critter was within 7 yards to commence firing.
Denis

Click to expand...

Bears pose absolutely no threat to me. No reason to train for them. Someone in my house poses a threat to me. 7 yards is what I train for the remove that threat. It is all about your objective. Now if I can get the intruder to pause while I get my sandbag out, line up the shot and take his button off at 25 yards why I guess that is worth practicing as well.

As I said I was not posting to divert this thread into a pointless side argument.

I would be interested in further 25-yard accuracy results if anybody has them.
I would not be interested in any further discussion regarding threats.

Denis

Quick question that i hope is on track. For those who routinely shoot from a sitting position with a rest; do you use it just to check the capabilities of a gun but sight it in while in your normal shooting stance? Or do you actually sight the gun in using the fixed rest and adjust your form to allow for any variation you may end up with when at the range or in competition.

As one with just 4yrs shooting and who has never used a rest, just curious. Thx!

I found out years ago that sighting a handgun in off a rest, with both ends supported, will produce a different elevation point of impact than when fired unsupported (freehand).

The gun's natural tendency is to pivot around its center of mass as the bullet travels through the bore & exits; the muzzle will go up, the grip will try to go down.

The grip's travel is directly restricted by the hands holding it.
The muzzle is not restricted, directly.

Freestanding, the gun can still pivot slightly.
With the hands & back end of the gun supported on a pistol rest's platform, the gun can't pivot as much at the rear on ignition, since the platform gives it nowhere to go.

End result, in answer to the question, is that when I test for accuracy for a living, I do it off a rest, and I do not sight the gun in for elevation.

When I sight a handgun in for personal use, once I've settled on a working load for that gun, I do it from a braced position, sitting for stability, with my hands extended well forward of the rest, the rest just in front of my elbows, allowing my hands & the gun to pivot more naturally, simulating a total freestanding position.
Denis

This a great test. Thank you!

I am waiting on permits (NJ) so I can pick up the 5" model. wanted to get into IDPA with it and this confirms that I made a good choice. I may not be as accurate but at least I know its me and not the gun.

Did you use an app or computer program for the measurements?