We're transitioning from TDA Sigs to the M&P platform. I recently picked up a compact 2.0 4" Compact for familiarization and practice before the transition. I'm our PD Rangemaster and responsible for training.

Our issued duty gun will be the 4.25" 9mm 2.0. I'm considering picking up a 5" gun as well for fun and my favorite aspect of handgun shooting, long distance steel and paper (over 100 yards).

For those of you that own (or have shot) both the 4.25" and 5" guns of either generation like the standard, CORE and PC guns, are there significant advantages between the two barrel lengths in ballistics, recoil or other aspects to make the 5" purchase viable? If not, I'm thinking about going with a Shield to replace the compact as an off duty piece.

For those you that have shot both generations, are there significant differences between a 1.0 5" of any type with the Apex trigger or a 1.0 Pro, versus a 2.0 5" with the factory trigger?

I've also never shot a manual safety M&P. How definite is the movement on or off safe? Is it easily pushed back on safe by recoil if you don't ride the safety while shooting?

I have no interest in buying a 4.25" as I'll be issued one soon.

I'm looking for an excuse to get another handgun, so help a brother out!

Honestly, I don't think there is major difference in handling between the 4", 4.25" and 5". The longer barrel will give a slightly better sight radius. Ammo will be using the 1" difference for better accuracy and increased velocity. The manual safety may be a bit tight at first but settles in with use. The biggest excuse for the 5" is you could pattern the stock pistol and upgrade with various improvements and not the difference. Use it as a competition gun. IMHO.

I think there is a difference between the compacts (both 1.0 and 2.0), and the 5". I have had all shapes and sizes of M&Ps over the past 7 years, and I LOVE my 5" guns more. I am definitely more accurate with them than the compacts. I'm not sure I've noticed much of a difference between the 4.25 and 5.0 though. The 2.0s, IMHO, are much improved from the 1.0s. I've sold two 1.0s to make way for 2.0s...

The PC 1.0s are nice, and I still have a couple of them just because, but I think the 2.0 is a better choice than even the 1.0 PC (the grip texture, the full-frame steel insert, the trigger reset, etc.).

I shot 1911s forever, so I'm used to a thumb safety. I prefer it, in fact. However, I always ride the thumb safety, so I can't comment on how easy it is/isn't to accidentally switch on while firing. It is a positive click (although, not as positive as a 1911), but ... IDK.

The Shield 2.0 is excellent. It makes the Shield much more manageable than the 1.0 was. I rarely carried my 1.0 Shield, because I preferred the controllability of the 1.0c over it. I'm not a LEO, but I still barely carry my Shield over any of the Compact models; the Compacts have more rounds, are more manageable, and more accurate for me.

I have not Apex'd (changed) anything except sights (I like night sights) on my M&Ps. Personally, I'd rather spend the money and time shooting than trying to "upgrade" anything. I've shot Apex'd M&Ps, and the trigger is amazing, but for me, as a CCW'er, I don't want to mess with my carry weapons. YMMV.

The difference in ballistics between the 4.25" and 5" is none. The only benefit/difference is sight radius. The extra .75" sight radius will allow greater precision, but only a few will be able to realize that difference.

All the 2.0 models have a better trigger mechanism than the original. An Apex FSS kit eliminates the difference between the original and 2.0 and is still better than either stock trigger.

The thumb safety is easy to operate. It is also easy to flick back on if the shooter's thumb is under it. The thumb should always be on top of the thumb safety on any gun that has one. It promotes better grip position and safety operation.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I don't really have anything to add to the above posts, except to add that it is good to see another PD go to the M&P 2.0. The small PD I work for allows personally owned handguns and, although I am carrying a personally owned 4.25" 2.0 in 9mm, most of the guys carry various Glocks, mostly .40, and the issued gun if you want one is the Gen4 G22. Just curious what PD you work for. If you prefer not to say, I understand, and if you prefer to IM me, I also understand. Thanks.

PM sent

Rastoff: I'm interested in the statement that "the difference in ballistics between the 4.25" & 5.0" barrels is none": is a 17% increase in barrel length really not relevant in a handgun? I'm 100% in agreement about the sight radius increse, BTW.

The reason I'm asking is that I'm contemplating a Storm Lake 40 S&W to 9mm Conversion barrel for a M&P PC 4.25": they list three (all non-threaded) that I would appreciate your opinions on...

A). 4.25" Part # 34131, B).5.01" Part # 34150 (Black, also further described as "M&P Pro), and C). 5.01" Part # 34149 in SS. I'm not interested in ports, either.

Biggest questions are is there any reason the 5.01" barrels won't work with a 4.25" M&P PC & is there really no difference ballistically with the longer barrel? Is there any significance in the "Pro" designation for barrel B).? Is that one's black finish basically only cosmetic?

I've also read that the only other change needed is the proper use of 9mm M&P magazines: no need to mess with different extractors?

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration!

P.S. I was going to start a new thread but this one was so close to being on point I thought it was worth a try.

I would agree with Rastoff. While there is "technically" a ballistic difference (generally the longer barrel will generate higher velocities assuming the powder hasn't all burned prior to the bullet exiting the barrel - this generally doesn't become an issue until you get to carbine/rifle length barrels), the difference isn't big enough to make any significant difference.

I participated in ballistic testing of several different rounds for our department. The rounds were tested in a 4.9" barrel Beretta 92FS, 4.25" barrel M&P, and the Shield's 3.1" barrel. There was no appreciable difference in terminal ballistics until we got to the Shield.

As for barrel length and sight radius, I would again agree with Rastoff. Not much of a difference.

Where I would say there is a difference is in recoil tracking. Years ago when I had many more M&Ps, I took my standard 4.25 and my M&P9L out and shot them side by side. Bill drills, 5rd strings at 25yds, switching back and forth. I couldn't tell a difference in recoil and sight tracking. I decided I just "liked" the longer barrel.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to attend an industry demo day for pistol mounted optics and fired several different handguns with several different optics. I'm not new to optics, and wasn't new to the M&P, but hadn't shot an M&P with a dot (I have a Glock 17MOS with an RMR). I had the opportunity to directly compare a 5" and 4.25" M&P with identical optics and the same frame (we swapped slides) and while I couldn't tell a difference with the irons, I could immediately tell a difference with the dot.

As for the 1.0 vs 2.0, I personally think it's a BIG difference. The grip texture and feel fit my hand much better than the old M&P did. Also, intrinsic accuracy seems way better. This is (in my best guess) a combination of the more solid chassis, longer frame rails, better barrel, and certainly better trigger. If one can't modify the trigger (and I can't while staying dept. approved), the 2.0 is the way to go. I picked up a 5" 2.0 and absolutely love it!

To me there are two downsides to the 2.0. If you're carrying concealed the grip texture is "aggressive". I'm planning to fix that on my 2.0C with some judicious application of fine sandpaper. The other is that the 1.0 is an absolute tank. I have buried it, drowned it, frozen it, thrown it in mud, covered it in sand, shot it until the slide melted the plastic chair the shooters were setting it on so the next shooter could take their place, sprayed it over and over with salt water solution, and shot tens of thousands of rounds through it over four years with no cleaning or lubrication until the recoil spring broke and I buried it in super-fine sand which caused malfunctions every round or two. Five drops of oil and a new recoil spring and it's running again - I've shot several hundred rounds since over the past four months (with no additional cleaning or lubrication) with no malfunctions. If I had to take a pistol to war somewhere with minimal logistical support, the 1.0 would be it. In fact, I think it would still run with the broken recoil spring and may have to try this week for fun. Remember that Glock with the RMR I spoke about? It choked with some rain and mud while the RMR trucked on like nothing...

Well, everything is relative. In this case, it's relative to how the gun is used.

Two barrels that are identical except for length will have identical ballistics with only one exception; muzzle velocity (as SoCalDep said). This then begs the question, how much of a velocity change? What we won't see is an increase in velocity that is equal to the barrel length difference. In other words, a 17% increase in barrel length will not give us a proportionally increased velocity. Here's how I know:

I like to shoot long distance. I was fortunate enough to get to use a radar chronograph to measure some factory loads. Out of my barrel they averaged 2,580fps. According to the box they were 2,650fps loads. The difference can easily be attributed to barrel length. My barrel is 20" long and the barrel they used to test velocity was 24" long. So, a 20% change in barrel length only resulted in a 3% change in velocity. Knowing that change in velocity was the difference between a hit and a miss at 750 yards. Also, because powder burn isn't linear, a barrel that is 4" longer than the standard won't give an increase of 3%. It will be less than that. This is why you rarely see barrels longer than 24" or 26".

Normal people don't shoot handguns 750 yards. We mostly shoot 15 yards or less. The difference in POI for my rifle was about .2mil or 5.4" at 750 yards. Since 15 yards is 50 times less distance than 750, it would make .1" of difference at 15 yards. That's less than a third the diameter of the 9mm bullet you want to use.

So, when talking about handguns which are mostly used unsupported, the difference in barrel length is insignificant to ballistics. There is 1,000 times more influence from the shooter than that tiny difference in muzzle velocity. There's more benefit from the increased sight radius.


Having said all that, I too would buy the 5" over the 4.25" barrel. I guess I just like the longer barrel. However, I'm not sure that a 5" barrel will fit in the 4.25" slide properly. It will depend on how the barrel is made and what the diameter of the barrel is where it comes out the front of the slide.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Rastoff... I've missed you man!

Above post is good stuff!

As for a 5" barrel fitting in a 4.25" slide, I'd say it sorta depends, based on my experience. The 1.0 M&Ps have an "accuracy ring" (S&W's term) at the end of the barrel. That's a slightly increased diameter of the exterior of the barrel around the last 1/2" to assist with slide lockup. I don't have any 5" 1.0s any more to check but the 4.25's certainly do.

Both my 5" and 4" (C) M&P 2.0 do NOT have that ring.

One of my partners had a 4.25" 1.0 slide milled for a Leupold DeltaPoint Pro. He used his 5" 2.0 barrel and 2.0 frame and put it all together and he hasn't seen any issue in accuracy.

I have a M&P 1.0 slide as well and a DeltaPoint Pro on the way. I'd love to throw a 5" barrel on there (because it looks cool...), so I'm gonna have a talk with S&W.

Ballistics by the inch for some barrel length comparisons.

BBTI - Ballistics by the Inch :: 9mm Luger Results

__________________
Release the Kraken

I think the 2.0 has the better grip texture and trigger.
The safety I like and use but some don't.
That said, I bought and shoot the strikers but I miss the DA/SA.

__________________
Some assembly required..

OK, obviously velocity won't be increased by 17%, nor will the sight radius...

The 5" 9mm barrel will however be noticably longer and easily identifiable, so grab those 9mm magazines.

But which one: is the "Pro" designation on the black one meaningful or basically just cosmetic?

And what about there being any other changes (i.e., extractors, etc.) needed for reliable use?

Cheers!

The Performance Center guns supposedly have a better trigger. I have not shot or handled one so, I don't really know. Personally I don't think they are worth the extra $$. Neither am I a fan of porting. Color is a tertiary consideration to me.

So, I'd be getting the FDE version if I could, which I can't, so I won't.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I have both the 4.25 and 5" Pros, which come with lighter triggers and special sights: FO on the 5" and NS on the 4.25".
The Pros seem to be a big mystery to people that don't have them, but they are a best buy if you are going to shoot them pure stock. If you are going to rip off the sights and switch to APEX trigger anyway, they are a waste of money. Pros, CORE, PC all use the same trigger parts.

I use the 5" Pro in SSP with FO sights, and carry the 4.25 on a duty belt that allows me to sit comfortably in a vehicle, unlike the 5".

__________________
Science plus Art

Thanks! That's the kind of experience I'm looking for. Are yours 1 or 2.0s? If 1.0, do you see any advantage to switching to the 2.0s?

The Pros are neither 1.0 or 2.0; Pros, CORE, PC, have their own trigger parts NOT the same as 1.0 or 2.0, but IMHO, BETTER. Both of mine settled down a touch over 4#. I have no use for the 2.0, but if you like the rough grip and somewhat improved 6# trigger, go for it.

The current mania about 2.0 with its somewhat better trigger and rough grip overlooks the fact that the Pro, CORE, PC version was already there before 2.0, but the Pro costs a bit more. I first bought the 5" Pro because it came all set up for SSP, nothing to add, just go shoot. They are very popular for stock action pistol games.

__________________
Science plus Art

Well, eventually went with C). the 5.01" SS conversion barrel #34149: read it was dimentionally the same as the 40 S&W vis'-a-vis' the "lockup(?) area" (i.e., the part of the barrel that surrounds the chamber), in that a standard replacement (or factory) 9mm barrel (which most agreed will "work") is thinner in that area...

We'll see. At least there shouldn't be any confusion as to which magazines to use with the extra 3/4" of SS protruding from the slide?

Next, a couple Arredondo extensions to REALLY insure the above?

CHEERS!