M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact

Attached Images

IMG_3832.jpg (235.1 KB, 266 views)

So, you got rid of all 3 and got a 2.0 M&P compact model? (that's not a Shield)

It's a subcompact. The original version with a slightly shorter barrel (3.5 vs 3.6) was called the M&P9c (compact). It's the same dimensions of the compact but it is more properly referred to as a subcompact now.

I installed an Apex Fully Machined Sear today and it took the approximately 5-1/2 lb. trigger down to 4 pounds .01 ounces (let's just call it for what it is, a four pound trigger). I'm really impressed with this pistol now. The mod was only $45.

Attached Images

IMG_6164.jpg (139.9 KB, 216 views)

I have a Shield in 40 and a P365. Personally, The Sig is more accurate and less recoil but that's nothing new when it's a 40 vs a 9. Like the Sig so much, my next purchase will be the P365XL.

What didn't you like about the other 3?

I have owned two version 1 Shields, and a V 2.0 Shield. I will say that the Shield Plus models fixes every issue I had with the Shield.

I have a 3.1" and 4" Shield Plus pistols - but the Performance Center versions. I will say that they (the two Shield Plus handguns) are my favorite carry guns I have ever owned, and I've had 3 digits worth of guns over 30 years. They shoot AMAZINGLY well for their size.

But, everyone likes their own thing. Glad you found what works for you!

Nothing. They're all great pistols. For me it's about priorities. I carry a number of firearms. Five, actually. I needed another pistol with a short handle to replace my G26 for carrying OWB at 3 o'clock occasionally when it suits me. I normally carry larger guns AIWB. The Shield plus does not offer me any real benefit carrying OWB because it's grip is a little longer (I also carry a PC M&P9 M2.0 Shield when I prefer a thin pistol depending on what I'm wearing). It just simply came down to the fact the M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact is concealable enough (I also carry a Ruger LCP II when I need to pocket carry), but it shoots better than the other three pistols because of the extra weight and surface area. It's actually a significant difference in my opinion, but like you said, everyone is different and has their own preferences. I could be perfectly happy with a P365, Hellcat or Shield Plus. I really couldn't go wrong.

The bolded is how I feel. I love the P365, and even moreso the 365XL, but aside from my beef with S&W customer service, if I'd found a great deal on the Glock 43x/48, Shield Plus, Hellcat, or similar, or if one just felt better to me, I don't think I'd be too mad about not having the Sig. Lot of damn good carry options out there for us today, and with these recent offerings we're quibbling over pretty minor differences.

I’ve owned literally dozens of different handguns over the years. Of the more popular, modern pistols designed for concealed carry specifically, I have owned a few Shields (originals and M2.0 models), a Glock 43X, and a P365. All of them are fantastic carry guns, and if I were choosing one over all others on their own merits it would be tough.

I look at more than that though. Rather than jump between several different types of handguns for various purposes (range use, CCW, night stand gun, woods gun, etc), I find it preferable to choose one family of firearms and stick to them across the board... like a system if you will.

With that said, I like the M&P series over all others. I can run an M2.0 Compact 9mm for my range/night stand gun, an M2.0 Shield 9mm for general CCW, an M2.0 10mm for a hunting/hiking/camping sidearm, and an M&P Bodyguard .380 for those times when deep concealment is the main priority. The only one that really differs from the others is the Bodyguard with its long heavy trigger pull but I actually find that to be a good thing on such a small pistol that might find itself simply dropped into a pocket on occasion.