New M&P 2.0 SC being released.

gc70 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The issue is when you compare across different brands. This is nothing new in that there is no standard naming convention around "Compact", Subcompact", even "Fullsize".

So let's go with round count.

My M&P with a 4.25" barrel and 17 rounds would be a fullsize, but my Beretta M9 5" barrel with 15 rounds would be compact.

How would you classify "single stack" handguns?

A Gov't 1911 take 7/8 rounds, so does the Shield.
 
Well I love my 3.6” 2.0 9c. I don’t really “need” or like a shorter grip. But for the cost of a couple extra mags the new “sc” would be nice option. But I’m not trading or selling to start over!
 
kbm6893 said:
How much of a difference between the 3.6” 2.0? Seems kind of redundant.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in comparing the two side by side. With the finger extension I'm not sure there is enough difference to justify giving up 3 rounds. I have the 3.6" Compact and it's a great gun.
 
Another carry gun that you can only get in free America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Racer X said:
how can a 4" barrel be considered a compact? that's the size of a 5906/4006
Click to expand...

In the same fashion that the Glock 19 is considered a "compact"..... and it is probably about the first pistol labeled a compact which other makers AND shooters compare competitive models to when talking a size/capacity ratio.

Think this:
Glock 17... fullsize
Glock 19... compact
Glock 26... subcompact
 
Racer X said:
how can a 4" barrel be considered a compact? that's the size of a 5906/4006
Click to expand...
Because the M&P Compact with a 4 inch barrel is slightly smaller than the M&P full size 4.5 inch barrel. It's just a naming scheme with little relationship to the sizes of other pistols.
 
I think the S&W reasoning for naming it a compact has as much to do with the grip length as it does the barrel. The 4" compact has a 15 round magazine and grip, the 4.25" and 4.5" guns have 17 round magazines. I'd guess the frame length determines which class the guns fall under.
 
orangehole said:
S&W has it all wrong. The name of the game is Sig 365/Hellcat size and capacity. This looks like the old M&P9c which is too big if you ask me
Click to expand...

I don't agree especially now that I've seen at least one Hellcat striker break on Youtube just like we've seen on the P365. Maybe SIG has fixed theirs, or maybe they just bought a few more thousand rounds. Only time will tell, but I carried the original M&P40c for almost 8 years (the old version of the new "subcompact"), and it never had a failure of any kind, and I can say that about the two Glock 26 pistols and the Glock 33 I owned as well. The G26 has been around for over twenty years and never had that problem, so I don't think they're going anywhere. Yes, I sometimes carry a 9mm Shield, but I also carry a Beretta PX4 Storm Compact in 9mm and a SIG P229 Enhanced Elite in .357 SIG. I personally enjoy carrying larger pistols especially when colder weather permits. At the end of the day, you can hit faster, more accurately and more consistently under stress with more rounds on deck with even a modestly larger gun.
 
Last edited:
Backlighting said:
No thank you. I'll stick with my Ruger Security 9 Compact.
ikG0YIf.jpg
Click to expand...

Personally I think the Ruger Security 9 is a fine pistol. I don't have one, but I do have an Ruger LCP II with a similar trigger (if not identical) and it's pretty great. The Security 9 Compact is almost as small as the Glock 26 and a bit smaller than the M&P "subcompact", but there are still some advantages to the M&P (a couple of more rounds, arguable a better trigger and shooter given the weight , and a better finish). The blueing on my LCP II sucks, but I don't really care about that in a pocket pistol (or carry pistols in general). That said, although they fill the same role, they can also fill different ones. More the merrier!
 
kbm6893 said:
How much of a difference between the 3.6” 2.0? Seems kind of redundant.
Click to expand...

It can make a big difference, especially depending on what palm swells you you're using while mating it with a larger magazine and sleeve. It's one of those things you have to feel and decide on.
 
I see this as an attempt to offer something to compete with the 365, P365 XL, and the Hellcat. To me the game changer for these is the width. My S&W 3.6 is slightly thicker but is a nice carry also. I added a light to my 3.6 and use it for my home defense with my .44mag Marlin Carbine. As the interest in the smaller carry guns increases we will see cosmetic changes to facilitate name changes, ad nauseam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
New M+P 2.0 Compact and a couple questions
Replies
2
Views
86
Zoner
Z
C
M & P 2.0 Magazine Capacity
Replies
1
Views
362
Saudade
Saudade
JoeDice
M&P 2.0 Subcompact and
Replies
18
Views
1K
hardluk1
H
S
M&P 2.0 45 for duty/trigger pull
2
Replies
21
Views
379
WR Moore
W
B
M&P 2.0 Compact Metal
Replies
7
Views
2K
hardluk1
H

Latest posts

Back
Top