2.0 M&P 9mm

Northener

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
36
Reaction score
27
Started looking on-line at the 2.0 version in some configuration. Leaning towards a #11521. 4/14” barrel with 2-17 rd mags. Planning next week to make it to LGS to see and feel first had the differences if any from the 1.0 versions.

They claim a lower axle bore to hand relationship over the 1.0 plus a improved trigger and grip change, angle, size maybe both I am not sure yet until I handle one.

Anyone own both that can shed some light here?

Was looking at the new 9MM EZ but decided to wait until more reviews of it come in.
 
Register to hide this ad
Northerner,

I have one, along with the 1.0 and SD9VE. The 2.0 is the best
of the bunch- hands down. Its everything they say it is. The trigger is much improved, and the grip frame is redesigned
eliminating the overhang at the tang. Also the grips are a lot
more textured. Some like them, some hate them. The improved
trigger seems to make the accuracy a lot better.

2500 rounds thru it - no malfunctions. Needs the Uplula mag
loader as mag springs are very very stiff. Mine is bone stock.
See no need at all to upgrade sights or trigger. Great pistol.
Should you get one, I don't think you'll be disappointed in the least.
 
I have both. I would never recommend the earlier 1.0s to any serious shooter, though I’d guess they are adequate for “across the bedroom” or “down the hall” shooting. The 2.0 I own is a different animal. MUCH easier to shoot well and while not a target gun, still pretty good in the accuracy department.
 
I own the gen1 and the 2.0. Both full size in 9mm. I wouldn’t recommend the Gen1. The 2.0 is truly a totally different gun and I am very pleased with it. Highly recommend and you can’t go wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mostly an inexperienced enthusiast here, only put 200-300 rounds down range a year. Always have one with me or on the night stand. Looking for something a little more user friendly to help in the accuracy department to up the confidence level. Maybe I would shoot more if I would be more proficient with one. Thinking the 4 1/4” barrel along with longer grip area certainly would help, nice trigger would be really welcome.
 
I know most don't want to think about the software part... but some proper dry fire drills will help with accuracy and confidence with any gun.
On the 2.0 vs 1.0, my 2.0 Compact is a better gun overall than my 1.0 FS and Compacts were. More accurate and nicer trigger for sure.
 
I have both. I would never recommend the earlier 1.0s to any serious shooter....

"Any serious shooter" should be able to do quite well with either. It's the casual shooters that have issues. I've owned both the full size and 9c versions of the 1.0. Any of them would shoot 2.6" or better at 20 yards; not target accuracy, but not a target gun. The trigger is better on the 2.0. But the trigger doesn't make a gun more accurate. It simply makes it easier for shooters with marginal finger control to shoot better. For a range gun, I would recommend the 2.0. But for carry, I think the grip is way to abrasive against the body.
 
Last edited:
Meant in this context >>> A serious shooter will likely be disappointed. A beginner/casual shooter may not know any better. If they were selling new M&P9 1.0s for $200 I probably wouldn’t buy one. To each, his own. For me, I’ve had my fill. :rolleyes:
 
Started looking on-line at the 2.0 version in some configuration. Leaning towards a #11521. 4/14” barrel with 2-17 rd mags. Planning next week to make it to LGS to see and feel first had the differences if any from the 1.0 versions.

They claim a lower axle bore to hand relationship over the 1.0 plus a improved trigger and grip change, angle, size maybe both I am not sure yet until I handle one.

Anyone own both that can shed some light here?

Was looking at the new 9MM EZ but decided to wait until more reviews of it come in.

I have the 9mm Shield 1.0 and the MP 2.0 Compact. The Shield 1.0 has an Apex Flat Face trigger and accuracy is unbelievably good doing controlled pairs at 21ft. The reset is too long but I didn't adjust the "loop" mod that you are supposed to do with the apex.

The 2.0 I left bone stock because it is for ccw. But the 2.0 trigger is very good out of the box and frame is still because of the metal insert. The 2.0 does indeed shoot flat. I plan on maybe getting the full size 2.0 or possibly the 5" barrel
 
I have the M&P9 M2.0 with the 5" barrel. Very nice gun, 1000 flawless rounds through it. Eats everything despite some internet suggestions that it won't feed 115gr, it does and does it all the time along with 124 & 147gr ammo and +P as well.

For noro and everyone really. I don't think much of Uplula loaders.

Go buy the loading tool Ruger provides their semi auto buyers with. It's inexpensive, made of heavy stamped steel. Works beautifully on my Rugers and the S&W at a fraction of the price.

With some practice, I'm sure the Uplula is faster but not enough to make a difference. Don
 
If I were buying now, I would buy the 2.0, but at the same time, I do not believe the 2,0 is so much better that I would replace a 1.0 for most shooters. I do not own a 2.0, but have shot them several times and an LEO armorer friend agrees that the difference is not big enough to replace a 1.0, Others may disagree, God bless their hearts. I will stay pat with my ordinary original M&P9 1.000000.
 

Attachments

  • 9MMM&P9.jpg
    9MMM&P9.jpg
    71.3 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:
I have the M&P9 M2.0 with the 5" barrel. Very nice gun, 1000 flawless rounds through it. Eats everything despite some internet suggestions that it won't feed 115gr, it does and does it all the time along with 124 & 147gr ammo and +P as well.

For noro and everyone really. I don't think much of Uplula loaders.

Go buy the loading tool Ruger provides their semi auto buyers with. It's inexpensive, made of heavy stamped steel. Works beautifully on my Rugers and the S&W at a fraction of the price.

With some practice, I'm sure the Uplula is faster but not enough to make a difference. Don


Wish the 5" would have an RMR plate on it so I could put a Red dot sight. I have a P320 x5 legion so it would be pointless to get another similar gun. With an Apex Trigger the MP would be better than the X5 legion, but with iron sights it would lag behind even with better trigger the MP that is
 
Wish the 5" would have an RMR plate on it so I could put a Red dot sight. I have a P320 x5 legion so it would be pointless to get another similar gun. With an Apex Trigger the MP would be better than the X5 legion, but with iron sights it would lag behind even with better trigger the MP that is

You may get your wish soon. I’ve heard rumors...

As to the 1.0 vs 2.0 debate, I will put in my opinion, which is worth what you’ve paid for it. My department has around 8,000 1.0s in use and several hundred 2.0s now issued as well... probably closing in on a thousand. I have owned or been issued seven 1.0s and currently still have my two issued. I have 2.0s in 5”, 4” compact, and two LE COREs, with another CORE on order.

The 1.0 is a tank. I have found them to be extremely reliable and durable pistols. In an environment where the pistol could be exposed to dirt, mud, submersion, etc, I think the 1.0 is awesome and I know this because I tortured one of my issues pistols with exposure to all of that, saltwater spray, and something like four years and around 40,000 rounds with no cleaning or lubrication other than rinsing off the mud. That said... I don’t like it. There is something about the grip that doesn’t fit my hand and I was never able to get the accuracy I want out of the trigger (we can’t install aftermarket internal parts).

The 2.0 solved those issues and I love it! I can shoot them about as well as my Berettas and 1911s and certainly better than my Glocks. I haven’t torture tested any of my pistols but I would not expect them to take the abuse the 1.0 did. The 2.0 is a performance pistol... a shooters pistol, while the 1.0 would be the one to pick for tougher use.

Does this mean one has to baby a 2.0? Nope. I shot several thousand rounds through my 5” to the point that without a magazine inserted I could pull the slide to the rear and let go while watching it slowly move forward 1/4”-1/2” over about two to three seconds before finally snapping into battery. It still worked with 100% reliability... The slide just stopped locking to the rear.

Both are good guns and both have their advantages. Pick which you like best and be happy with the assurance it was a good choice.
 
From the far side the 1.0 9mm with a APEX Duty Trigger Kit makes it into a totally different gun. The Lady and I both have soft hands so we prefer the 1.0. Neither of us find the long tang on the back of the frame to be a handicap.
 
Last edited:
I shot several thousand rounds through my 5” to the point that without a magazine inserted I could pull the slide to the rear and let go while watching it slowly move forward 1/4”-1/2” over about two to three seconds before finally snapping into battery. It still worked with 100% reliability... The slide just stopped locking to the rear.

Sorry but the behavior you describe doesn't sound normal. Were it my gun it'd be on its way back to S&W for a checkup. Don
 
Sorry but the behavior you describe doesn't sound normal. Were it my gun it'd be on its way back to S&W for a checkup. Don

It’s not normal because I don’t treat my guns normal. Do you shoot somewhere between 5,000 - 15,000 rounds without cleaning? I do. Sometimes I do 40,000 rounds to see what happens. I also throw guns in puddles, bury them in mud, and spray them with salt water solution to see what happens.

I’m also a certified M&P 2.0 Armorer. The only thing that was necessary to return the pistol to proper function was a decent (albeit pain in the butt because it was so dirty) cleaning.
 
You may get your wish soon. I’ve heard rumors...

As to the 1.0 vs 2.0 debate, I will put in my opinion, which is worth what you’ve paid for it. My department has around 8,000 1.0s in use and several hundred 2.0s now issued as well... probably closing in on a thousand. I have owned or been issued seven 1.0s and currently still have my two issued. I have 2.0s in 5”, 4” compact, and two LE COREs, with another CORE on order.

The 1.0 is a tank. I have found them to be extremely reliable and durable pistols. In an environment where the pistol could be exposed to dirt, mud, submersion, etc, I think the 1.0 is awesome and I know this because I tortured one of my issues pistols with exposure to all of that, saltwater spray, and something like four years and around 40,000 rounds with no cleaning or lubrication other than rinsing off the mud. That said... I don’t like it. There is something about the grip that doesn’t fit my hand and I was never able to get the accuracy I want out of the trigger (we can’t install aftermarket internal parts).

The 2.0 solved those issues and I love it! I can shoot them about as well as my Berettas and 1911s and certainly better than my Glocks. I haven’t torture tested any of my pistols but I would not expect them to take the abuse the 1.0 did. The 2.0 is a performance pistol... a shooters pistol, while the 1.0 would be the one to pick for tougher use.

Does this mean one has to baby a 2.0? Nope. I shot several thousand rounds through my 5” to the point that without a magazine inserted I could pull the slide to the rear and let go while watching it slowly move forward 1/4”-1/2” over about two to three seconds before finally snapping into battery. It still worked with 100% reliability... The slide just stopped locking to the rear.

Both are good guns and both have their advantages. Pick which you like best and be happy with the assurance it was a good choice.

I tried out a Red Dot on my Sig P320 and absolutely was not impressed!! The red dot is harder to find while drawing from concealment and red dot while under recoil jumps up and down and distracting. I underestimated how good a good set of iron sights are. Red dots for Rifles are definitely the way to go but for pistols it requires too much practice. However, I will say for slow fire and at long distance, getting shots on target is easier than iron sights but at 75ft with a stock MP 2.0 I can hit 75ft

I was thinking about getting the Apex Trigger for my MP 2.0 but worried about light primer strikes.
 
I tried out a Red Dot on my Sig P320 and absolutely was not impressed!! The red dot is harder to find while drawing from concealment and red dot while under recoil jumps up and down and distracting. I underestimated how good a good set of iron sights are. Red dots for Rifles are definitely the way to go but for pistols it requires too much practice. However, I will say for slow fire and at long distance, getting shots on target is easier than iron sights but at 75ft with a stock MP 2.0 I can hit 75ft

I was thinking about getting the Apex Trigger for my MP 2.0 but worried about light primer strikes.


I get where you are coming from regarding the pistol mounted optic issues. I toyed with them for years and couldn’t understand how anyone could use them in fighting conditions because the dot was so difficult to find. Since 2013 I had tried to get some T&E samples for my department to investigate the feasibility because they seemed to be growing in popularity, but various other projects and logistical issues got in the way.

In September of 2017 the stars aligned a bit as I was driving down to get a Glock 17 exclusively for training. I pulled into the parking lot of the gun store and received a text from a friend that Cabellas had RMRs on sale for $260 shipped. I walked in and asked if they had any MOS Glocks - They had one left. I figured if I didn’t like the optic I’d still have a G17 for range use, and because I would never be using it in the field it didn’t matter that the MOS wasn’t approved at that time.

I began using the dot and at first I was disappointed like you. Then I watched a couple Sage Dynamics videos and the world opened up. All of a sudden the dot was easy to find, and became super consistent. With a bit of practice I find that any delay in finding the dot is overcome by significantly increased accuracy even at speed.

In fall of 2018 I held a range day where members of my department could come and compare a dot-equipped pistol (my Glock) to an iron sighted pistol (another one of my Glocks). Overall, with minor coaching over a few minutes, almost all shooters were interested in the dot. A few weeks later I attended a range day at LAPD that was focused on red dots (we call them pistol mounted optics, or PMOs) as LAPD was also looking into their use. Over the next two days, along with several LAPD officers, a couple of us attended a Sig Sauer Academy Red Dot Instructor Class, which further supported the advantages of the PMO in a fighting environment.

By early 2019 we had a formal proposal in development and a partnership with another big department in the area. Over the course of 2019 our instructor staff fired over 180,000 rounds through PMO-equipped pistols with something like 34 optics being used. Many of us attended training classes dedicated to PMOs, and used PMO-equipped pistols in other training classes with well known instructors which gave further perspective. We had the opportunity to introduce PMOs to many individuals who had never used them before and developed information and techniques to effectively and efficiently teach the concepts. In fact, this weekend our two-day training class was CA POST approved. I can’t say too much about the department approval process right now, but let’s just say I have high hopes for something good happening really soon.

Yes, there is a learning curve, but it’s a learning curve that is worth it for those people who are motivated to achieve proficiency. I have also found a side benefit to the PMO is that it significicantly helped with my iron sight shooting because it helped me increase my consistency in presenting the pistol to the target and understanding trigger control vs. sight alignment.

I think over the next year and beyond we will see an explosion of popularity in pistol mounted optics and I hope it will drive even better technology, equipment, and training techniques.
 
I get where you are coming from regarding the pistol mounted optic issues. I toyed with them for years and couldn’t understand how anyone could use them in fighting conditions because the dot was so difficult to find. Since 2013 I had tried to get some T&E samples for my department to investigate the feasibility because they seemed to be growing in popularity, but various other projects and logistical issues got in the way.

In September of 2017 the stars aligned a bit as I was driving down to get a Glock 17 exclusively for training. I pulled into the parking lot of the gun store and received a text from a friend that Cabellas had RMRs on sale for $260 shipped. I walked in and asked if they had any MOS Glocks - They had one left. I figured if I didn’t like the optic I’d still have a G17 for range use, and because I would never be using it in the field it didn’t matter that the MOS wasn’t approved at that time.

I began using the dot and at first I was disappointed like you. Then I watched a couple Sage Dynamics videos and the world opened up. All of a sudden the dot was easy to find, and became super consistent. With a bit of practice I find that any delay in finding the dot is overcome by significantly increased accuracy even at speed.

In fall of 2018 I held a range day where members of my department could come and compare a dot-equipped pistol (my Glock) to an iron sighted pistol (another one of my Glocks). Overall, with minor coaching over a few minutes, almost all shooters were interested in the dot. A few weeks later I attended a range day at LAPD that was focused on red dots (we call them pistol mounted optics, or PMOs) as LAPD was also looking into their use. Over the next two days, along with several LAPD officers, a couple of us attended a Sig Sauer Academy Red Dot Instructor Class, which further supported the advantages of the PMO in a fighting environment.

By early 2019 we had a formal proposal in development and a partnership with another big department in the area. Over the course of 2019 our instructor staff fired over 180,000 rounds through PMO-equipped pistols with something like 34 optics being used. Many of us attended training classes dedicated to PMOs, and used PMO-equipped pistols in other training classes with well known instructors which gave further perspective. We had the opportunity to introduce PMOs to many individuals who had never used them before and developed information and techniques to effectively and efficiently teach the concepts. In fact, this weekend our two-day training class was CA POST approved. I can’t say too much about the department approval process right now, but let’s just say I have high hopes for something good happening really soon.

Yes, there is a learning curve, but it’s a learning curve that is worth it for those people who are motivated to achieve proficiency. I have also found a side benefit to the PMO is that it significicantly helped with my iron sight shooting because it helped me increase my consistency in presenting the pistol to the target and understanding trigger control vs. sight alignment.

I think over the next year and beyond we will see an explosion of popularity in pistol mounted optics and I hope it will drive even better technology, equipment, and training techniques.

My sport rifle has a red dot and with a muzzle brake it is much faster than iron sights for sure. i do believe with lots of practice I can become good with red dot on a pistol but I think the principle is the same as when you draw from apendix carry, your going to keep gun close to your chest while pressing out once you get to eye level while prepping the trigger. I find iron sights are probably much faster than red dot at close distance in fact I would even be willing to bet in an emergency situation one would not even have time to aim and put two hands on the gun.

I have the Sig Romeo 1 and maybe that is just a piece of **** but I just returned it after one outing and I didn't like the red dot at all.

I feel a lot of people who rely on red dot will actually find it more of a detriment than an asset. What if the red dot fails to turn on? and while practice makes perfect under duress can a person deploy and use the proper technique to find the red dot? Instinctively I think most people will be pointing and shooting totally disregarding the iron sights all together.

By the way, do you know anyone using a Sig P226? I heard many bad stories about their finish not lasting, frame cracking after extended use, and I am just not going to spend $1400 on a gun that is not on par with others.
 
I bought my first M&P circa 2005 when they first came out. I've had three M1.0's and three M&P M2.0's:

Here are my General Thoughts:

Although I agree in general the 2.0 trigger is better, my full-size 1.0 that I bought months before the 2.0 was released was every bit as good as my M&P9 M2.0 Compact. This might have been because the updates may have made it into the final incarnations of the 1.0.

Conversely, my latest Performance Center M&P9 Shield M2.0 has the worst trigger of all my M&P's dating back to 2005 (6.5-7 lb. trigger), and I sent it to Smith & Wesson who returned it saying it's within spec. It's the first M&P trigger I've ever had where I experience front sight disruption when pulling the trigger with a full grip. Maybe I've just been lucky until now. You can always improve either a 1.0 or 2.0 trigger with an Apex trigger if you're willing and able.

The other standout for the M2.0 series for me is the grip texture. Everyone is different in this regard. I like a lot of texture, but I admit, it hurts at first, but your hands will adapt even just with dry practice or handling the firearm in general (without even having to pull the trigger). Here's the thing, not everyone's skin is the same in its ability to stick to a gun. Even with strong hands, the texture of skin differs among people. I have slippery hands even when dry, so I like the absolute most aggressive texture possible because I know my hands will adjust just as my fingertips adapt by growing calluses when playing a guitar with high action. You just have to give it time (perhaps one to two weeks of daily fondling).

That said, that is completely unnecessary for some people who naturally have a good grip on far less aggressive grip textures. As such, whether we're discussing the grip texture or trigger, little is set in stone between the two versions, so judge the gun as an individual based on what you need and feel is the best course of action.

As opposed to the M1.0's, the M2.0's have a steel reinforced chassis to remove flex, but Glock designed theirs to flex on purpose. These are competing theories pertaining to mitigating recoil, so one is not necessarily better or worse than the other in my opinion.

The slide stop on the M2.0 was also redesigned so that slamming a magazine in the magwell won't close the slide. Some people actually like that, others don't care, so it's individual preference.

The front slide serrations of the M2.0 are aesthetically pleasing, but they aren't worth the upgrade on their own in my opinion. Unlike some, I can grip them, but I'd rather press check using the rear serrations because it's much easier to do (and I am used to that shooting a variety of guns that don't have any front serrations anyway).

That's about all I can think of that I noticed with my various M&P pistols. My preference is the M2.0, but that's me given my needs.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top