Differences between .40 and 9mm M&P 2.0 models?

Russian Bot · Oct 15, 2018

Can anyone tell me if the .40 variant of the M&P 2.0 is built differently/more robustly than the 9mm version to handle increased stresses? Or is it perhaps similar to how the HK USP9 is a weapon originally designed to handle the .40 S&W round and then chambered for 9mm? (hope that's the case)

I have no idea. This is the first I've looked into the M&P lineup since it didn't really interest me at all until the changes made for the MHS trials, and now it's my most wanted weapon... would like it in .40 but probably leaning 9mm on assumption that that's the cartridge the gun was designed for, considering its intended role as the Army's MHS weapon. Could be totally wrong though. A definite answer to this would probably make up my mind.

CDKJudoka · Oct 15, 2018

IIRC, the M&P was designed around the .40S&W. The only differences would be the barrel (of course), breech face and maybe the recoil spring assembly. I have had a few M&Ps in .40 and they were super soft shooters. Best part about getting the M&P40 is with a conversion barrel, you can run 9mm and .357SIG.

Flyingfool · Oct 16, 2018

The magazines for 9mm and for 40/357 sig are different.

Buy a 9mm barrel and 9mm mags and you have the best of both worlds.

swsig · Oct 16, 2018

My 40c is robust!

If you're concerned about the robustness of the M&P 40, I can tell you it's pretty good. I have an M&P 40 compact, version 1.0. It is my everyday carry, and I practice with it a lot. It was flawless until it approached 10,000 rounds. It then began to have occasional light strikes. Smith & Wesson took it back and replaced every moving part except the extractor, at no charge. My 40c has since resumed its flawless performance, and it's currently approaching 13,000 rounds. I still carry it daily, which I would not do if there was the slightest hint of unreliability. If version 2.0 is built to the same standard, (and I can't imagine that it's not), robustness will not be an issue.

Russian Bot · Oct 16, 2018

swsig said:
If you're concerned about the robustness of the M&P 40, I can tell you it's pretty good. I have an M&P 40 compact, version 1.0. It is my everyday carry, and I practice with it a lot. It was flawless until it approached 10,000 rounds. It then began to have occasional light strikes. Smith & Wesson took it back and replaced every moving part except the extractor, at no charge. My 40c has since resumed its flawless performance, and it's currently approaching 13,000 rounds. I still carry it daily, which I would not do if there was the slightest hint of unreliability. If version 2.0 is built to the same standard, (and I can't imagine that it's not), robustness will not be an issue.

That is my concern, yeah. Thanks for the info, that's very reassuring.

CDKJudoka said:
IIRC, the M&P was designed around the .40S&W. The only differences would be the barrel (of course), breech face and maybe the recoil spring assembly.

Exactly was I was hoping, thank you.

Think I'll go ahead and get the .40

WR Moore · Oct 16, 2018

As noted, the M&P was originally designed as a .40. The slides have differences besides breech face. The 9 mm has a long central rail under the rear of the slide ala 1911 and lightening cuts forward of the chamber area of the barrel. The .40 has no lightening cuts and the central rail is modified to allow 15 round capacity. There's just a stub rail to pick up the rounds from the magazine.

Pretty much everything else is the same except for roll marking on the slide and magazines.

Walt Sherrill · Oct 17, 2018

The 9mm version of the M&P 1.0 had a slightly less robust slide than the .40 and .45, with less metal around the chamber area.

One of the designers working with APEX to develop a new M&P barrel noticed, using very high speed imaging, found that the slide was stretching a little with each shot, and it appears that S&W has beefed up that area of the 9mm 2.0 slide.

(Metal is more flexible and resilient than many folks realize, and when the slide stretched, it quickly returned to its original position -- so quickly that even noticing/finding the "stretch" wasn't easy. That stretch could affect accuracy, but it wasn't always an issue with every M&P.)

The 2.0 versions of the 9mm has the potential to be a bit more accurate than the 1.0, and many 1.0 9mms were VERY accurate.

If someone likes .40 but wants 9mm too, it would make sense to buy the .40 version and get a 9mm conversion barrel (along some 9mm magazines and maybe a 9mm recoil spring assembly.)

Differences between .40 and 9mm M&P 2.0 models?

Russian Bot

Member

CDKJudoka

Member

Flyingfool

Member

swsig

Member

Russian Bot

Member

WR Moore

Member

Walt Sherrill

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts