2.0 Subcompact

[nanney1]

M&P(R)9 M2.0™ SUBCOMPACT No Thumb safety | Smith & Wesson

Seems too close in size to the Compact 3.6, but always good to have choices. A slightly smaller barrel would make this pistol allowable for IDPA BUG competition and make it a little more concealable.

Haven't seen them compared, but I guess with the pinky extender mag, this pistol will be the same size as the 3.6 with the 15 round mag.

 

[Saudade]

There's already a thread.

Check out:

New M&P 2.0 SC being released.

 

[mmb617]

I take it this is something brand new?

I can see hardly any difference from the compact according to the listed specs. Looks to me like it's a tiny bit shorter overall and a tiny bit lighter but with 3 less rounds capacity.

So what market does it fit that the compact hasn't already filled?

Or is it just one of those cases where people like to think they have lots of choices even if some of them are basically the same thing just with a different name?

 

[nanney1]

Didn't see the previous thread when I searched for 2.0 Subcompact instead of 2.0 SC.

 

[ukcats]

Choice is good. The .45 version will be mine.

 

[gc70]

I take it this is something brand new?

I can see hardly any difference from the compact according to the listed specs. Looks to me like it's a tiny bit shorter overall and a tiny bit lighter but with 3 less rounds capacity.

So what market does it fit that the compact hasn't already filled?

Or is it just one of those cases where people like to think they have lots of choices even if some of them are basically the same thing just with a different name?

Brand new? Not if you recognize it as a very lightly modified 1.0 Compact.

And it would be proper to ask the question of what niche the 2.0 Compact 3.6" filled that the 1.0 Compact had not filled years ago.

But it turns out that different people have different views on different things, so choices are good.

 

[azdave]

With the flat baseplate of the 1.0 compact, this 2.0 sub makes sense with enhanced concealability and only a loss of 3 rds.
With the finger rest baseplate, it is about the same as the 3.6" compact in height which negates any advantage... may as well stick to the compact at that point. Good thing is the 1.0 flat baseplates are plentiful.
Odd that for the 1.0, it shipped with one flat and one fingerest mag... the 2.0 does 2 finger rest mags.

IMO, the 3.6" compact compared to the 4" compact makes little difference... I own both and bought the 3.6" just to see if it mattered... for me, they're equal.
BUT, the 3.6" topend on shorter 12 rd frame makes for a perfect M&P as long as I can have flat based mags.

 

[Saudade]

Didn't see the previous thread when I searched for 2.0 Subcompact instead of 2.0 SC.

No worries. Just wanted you to be aware so you read the other comments.

 

[gc70]

With the flat baseplate of the 1.0 compact, this 2.0 sub makes sense with enhanced concealability and only a loss of 3 rds.
With the finger rest baseplate, it is about the same as the 3.6" compact in height which negates any advantage... may as well stick to the compact at that point. Good thing is the 1.0 flat baseplates are plentiful.

Based on specifications, you have reached exactly the same conclusion I initially reached when comparing specifications on similar variations of another pistol (SIG P320).

The P320 Subcompact with a flat baseplate held 12 rounds. The Subcompact with a finger-rest baseplate was as tall as a Compact with a 15-round magazine. Although the specifications said the Compact should be as easy to conceal as the Subcompact with a finger-rest baseplate, the Compact's extra height at the back of the grip was what stuck out the most.

 

[azdave]

Based on specifications, you have reached exactly the same conclusion I initially reached when comparing specifications on similar variations of another pistol (SIG P320).

The P320 Subcompact with a flat baseplate held 12 rounds. The Subcompact with a finger-rest baseplate was as tall as a Compact with a 15-round magazine. Although the specifications said the Compact should be as easy to conceal as the Subcompact with a finger-rest baseplate, the Compact's extra height at the back of the grip was what stuck out the most.

Yea, I see that the overall "profile" (for lack of a better term) of the grip can be different in a way that the actual measurements don't display... yet I still feel that the idea of a subcompact should be reduced in all dimensions to minimize printing to the absolute max.
I shoot a sub with a flat baseplate as well as with a fingerest... so for me I would rather lose that extra length at the front of the grip and gain that bit of concealability. But I also see where for some, the loss of that length would impact there shooting ability enough that it would not outweigh the benefit.
For a different perspective that I see:
The "fastback" idea that has come into the 1911 world does illustrate well how a reduction in the backstrap can enhance concealment to a degree... but going with an Officers length grip really maximizes concealability. just my thoughts on it .

 

[xray 99]

I note the barrel is 3.6 inches long versus 3.5 Inches on the 1.0. Do other dimensions vary? I'm thinking about holster compatibility, etc.