New M&P 2.0 SC being released.
- Thread starter CDKJudoka
- Start date
snowman.45
Member
I posted a couple months ago that I was sure the moment I bought a gen 1 45c, they would release the 2.0 version.
Everyone who buys the 2.0 can go ahead and thank me for my sacrifice now.
Yep. Glad I've fought off the urge to get another .45c this long. I had been hoping to see a .45c in the 2.0. That will be my next purchase. Now, if they'll just get on the stick and come out with a RDS CORE style sight cut gun in 9 and .45 ACP, I'll be happy. Oh, wait, add a 10mm to that.
azdave
Member
Excellent.... I love all the choices we have now! Only mental midgets roll with the "why do we need this?" or "I don't see the point" mentality. This seems rampant on other forums.
Every week it seems something new hits the market and I love having options and trying new things... competition among makers is great!!
ONLY in America -- and despite constant strong talk about more gun control -- can someone generally walk into a gunstore and have a tough time deciding which new model they will take home, and I'm going to enjoy it while I can...
I will be buying the first one I see if it passes a cursory exam... and I already have 3 other 2.0 Compacts.
Every week it seems something new hits the market and I love having options and trying new things... competition among makers is great!!
ONLY in America -- and despite constant strong talk about more gun control -- can someone generally walk into a gunstore and have a tough time deciding which new model they will take home, and I'm going to enjoy it while I can...
I will be buying the first one I see if it passes a cursory exam... and I already have 3 other 2.0 Compacts.
Last edited:
CBStuard
Member
Now, if CT makes a laser grip for it, I will buy one. I have almost started looking for another Gen 1c for a backup but now no need.
That's the same comparison that I've been making in my mind. I've had my eye on a 6946 for a week now and I have spare 6900 series mags that will fit one. It would also cost substantially less than the new M&P. The trade-off to me would be support from Smith & Wesson should something break.
Last edited:
The issue of diminishing factory support on the metal receiver pistols has been weighing on my mind as well.
smith46wesson
Member
Exactly. Having options is a great thing.
kbm6893
SWCA Member
Am I the only one who thinks it’s stupid to name this a sub-compact? It looks like exactly the same size as the original Compact. Anybody have comparison specs between the original compact and the new sub-compact? Seems to me they took the Compact 1.0, added in the 2.0 features, and named it a sub-compact. Since when does a better trigger, forward slide serrations, and an aggressive grip texture convert something from a Compact to a sub-compact?
I’m sure it will sell. I might even get one at some point. But sub-compact, it ain’t. And if I had gotten the 3.6 Compact, I surely would not be getting it.
I’m sure it will sell. I might even get one at some point. But sub-compact, it ain’t. And if I had gotten the 3.6 Compact, I surely would not be getting it.
Last edited:
dirty & hairy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 1,151
Holster makers must hate S&W.
I'm sure they did with the constantly changing trigger guard, hammer, receiver, and slide dimension changes with the 2nd and 3rd gen metal receiver pistols too!
azdave
Member
Being that this 2.0 "Subcompact" version is an identical profile to the 1.0 Compact -- that's been around for what, 12 or more years -- shouldn't those existing holsters be a perfect fit?
Same for the 3.6" Compact... wouldn't that fit the existing 1.0 Compact holsters in the same fashion -- and the 2.0 fullsize fit the existing 1.0 fullsize holsters as well?
It would seem to me that only the 2.0 Compact 4" would require new holsters to be made, unless someone wanted to use the FS 1.0..... I had bought a IWB Kydex for my 4" 2.0 when I first got it... after picking up the 3.6" Compact, I decided that for 4/10'ths of an inch, they could both use the same holster if I decided to cary the 3.6".
Same for the 3.6" Compact... wouldn't that fit the existing 1.0 Compact holsters in the same fashion -- and the 2.0 fullsize fit the existing 1.0 fullsize holsters as well?
It would seem to me that only the 2.0 Compact 4" would require new holsters to be made, unless someone wanted to use the FS 1.0..... I had bought a IWB Kydex for my 4" 2.0 when I first got it... after picking up the 3.6" Compact, I decided that for 4/10'ths of an inch, they could both use the same holster if I decided to cary the 3.6".
Last edited:
Pretend for a minute that you had never heard of the M&P line before ...
This line of guns has a full-size model that uses 17-round magazines. A couple of compact models use 15-round magazine. What common gun term might be used to describe a model that uses 12-round magazines?
When S&W filled the space between the two 1.0 sizes with two new models, sensible names became a bit scarce.
Last edited:
Backlighting
Member
No thank you. I'll stick with my Ruger Security 9 Compact.
Last edited:
kbm6893
SWCA Member
Doesn't matter. The Compact 1.0 is a Compact gun, and aptly named. It is bigger than say a Glock 26, which is a sub-compact. If the new 2.0 sub-compact was smaller than the 1.0, I'd agree with the name. But you can't take something that was once a Compact, do nothing to change the size of the gun, and then call it a sub-compact.
It looks like a nice gun and I'm sure it will sell. But it is too big to be called a sub-compact.
As for a name for this new gun, how about S&W M&P 2.0 Compact? Worked for the M&P 2.0 vs the 1.0 and The Shield 1.0 vs. Shield 2.0. S&W is just adding words to the title. S&W M&P 2.0 Compact 3.6" surely doesn't roll right of the tongue.
Last edited:
Christopher67
Member
Cheapskait
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 114
The guns that use the 12 and 10 round mags were called the 9c and 40c and are now called the M&P M2.0 Subcompact. The ones that use the 15 and 13 round mags are called the M&P M2.0 Compact. If they had stuck with the 9c/40c nomenclature, it would have been fine by me.
The guns that use the 12 and 10 round mags were called the 9c and 40c and are now called the M&P M2.0 Subcompact. The ones that use the 15 and 13 round mags are called the M&P M2.0 Compact. If they had stuck with the 9c/40c nomenclature, it would have been fine by me.
M2.0 4" Compact, M2.0 3.6" Compact and #c Compact would also have been fine with me, but someone at S&W obviously did not share our opinion, thus we now have both a #c Compact and a M2.0 Subcompact that essentially share the same frame size.
