Forgive me if this has been gone over several times before, but the search feature on this forum is turning up no results whatsoever and keeps telling me to "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms." no matter how I attempt to word it.
I very much doubt that's accurate, but nevertheless, I'm not getting any search results. Besides, it's probably more accurate now because the M2.0 Models have actually been out for many years, ergo folks are going to have more experience with them.

So yeah, I'm looking to buy a Full-Size M&P Pistol in the near future and have been seeing a lot of Police Trade-ins on both Late Production 1.0 and Early Production 2.0 Models at attractive prices, but there's roughly a $130 difference between the two.
I've looked into the differences/improvements on the 2.0 Models, so I'm aware that the 2.0 is definitely an overall improvement over the 1.0, but are the improvements worth an extra $130?

Personally, I kind of prefer the 1.0s less aggressive Grip Texture to the 2.0, I'm not really much of a trigger snob, so it being lighter with an audible/tactile reset doesn't really thrill me, and I don't plan on attaching any lasers/lights to it either, so the extended chassis probably won't make any difference to me.

But I'm curious what folks who have owned both generations think.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Handling (and firing if possible) both the 1.0 and 2.0 versions of the same gun you will see differences. The most significant thing will be the different feel of the guns. The 2.0 has a very aggressive grip texture that I find to be very comfortable, but others have found it to be excessive, and the trigger which I like much better flat than the hook.

Unfortunately I cannot speak to any of the differenaces as all of mine are 2.0 versions, but I cant recommend a 2.0 highly enough. If the 1.0 is half as good itll still be a great gun. My only full size without the new blade trigger is my m&p40 m2.0. Of all of my hand guns my buddies and I tend to gravitate to it over my rugers and glock. The grip texture being more aggressive and the interchangeable backastraps is likely why. The gun just feels really nice in the hand and even when were at the farm in the middle if the summer, it doesn't slip or move in your hand when you shoot it. I've never put a light or laser on it though tbh. The rail gets 0 use. With no experience with 1.0 models, I would spend the extra money on another 2.0 but that's me.

__________________
Please no more EZs...

I bought one of the very early first generation M&P pistols in .40 S&W when the M&P series was first released. At the time, I was a deputy sheriff who was issued an all metal DA/SA hammer fired pistol in .45 ACP, but I had already had quite a bit of experience with other polymer pistols from Glock, as well as the H&K USP. To be honest, the original M&P was pretty underwhelming. The triggers on them weren’t just a little worse than those on the later models. They were bad. As for the grip texture, that’s an easy enough fix with aftermarket products but having it done right by the factory is a great thing. And while it might not seem like a big deal on a climate controlled indoor range, the guns are designed to be used by people who might be conducting a field search in the middle of August, or possibly be fighting for their lives after already sustaining an injury that has left their hands bloody. In those scenarios I can assure you, the rougher grip texture is a welcomed feature.

Moving on to the steel frame inserts toward the muzzle end of the pistol, they are there to enhance the durability of the gun. Yes, they help with frame stability while using a weapon mounted light, but they also add strength to the overall design of the pistol which is helpful for guns that might see higher round counts, or somewhat frequent use of higher powered cartridges (like +P rated ammo). The M2.0 models also brought with them, a frame that is without the old beaver tail that protruded from the rear of the originals. It is still plenty enough to keep the web of your hand from being chewed up by the slide but it is far less likely to get hung up on clothing when drawing from a concealed carry holster, and in my opinion at least, it improves the overall aesthetics of the gun.

Since purchasing that early M&P full size in .40 S&W, I have owned several others to include models in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP from both generations as well as a few Shield models as well. All of my first generation M&P’s have been traded away, but I have never allowed an M2.0 to leave once it lands in my collection.

Perhaps the best way that I could put it is by saying that the difference between the first generation M&P and the M2.0 is a matter of what you intend to do with the gun. If you intend to fire a box of target ammo through it at an indoor range once or twice per year, and leave it in the safe or a sock drawer the rest of the time, either will do. If you intend to carry the pistol for defense, use it in competitive shooting, or fire the gun a lot, I believe that the M2.0 is a far superior firearm. Are the differences between them worth $100.00? To me, they absolutely are.

I have a 1.0 full size M&P40 and two 2.0
0 M&P9 3.6 Compacts. The 40 had a decent trigger from the get-go. The 2.0's (both with the curved trigger), broke too far back for my liking. The 2.0's both have APEX FFS triggers now because they work better for my really long fingers (I used the large backstraps on all of my M&P's). I haven't fired a 2.0 with the new flat triggers so I have no idea how they are.

The 2.0's grip texture is great in my opinion. I have Talon rubber grips on the 40 because the stock texture is too slippery.

The 40 is mostly a safe queen because I can no longer focus on iron sights. Both 9's have been milled for RMRs so I shoot then exclusively.

Way back when the M&P first came out I was the main proponent of getting them approved for duty use at my agency. At that time, we authorized only .40 S&W and .45 ACP for duty carry, and issued Glocks. I had carried a 1911 my whole career to that point, but switched to an M&P in .40. I never really fell in love with it, and switched back to a 1911. A couple of years later, we added 9mm as an authorized cartridge, and I picked up a 1.0 M&P in 9mm. Everything fell into place, and I carried a 9mm M&P up until my retirement this January. Shortly after the standard M&P, I bought a Pro CORE 1.0, also in 9mm. I put an optic on it and ran it in USPSA Carry Optics for a while. Eventually I picked up an optics ready 2.0 in 9mm, to replace my 1.0 duty gun. It was run with an optic from the start, as I was one of the instructors responsible for developing our handgun optics transition and training curriculum.

I never really noticed a big difference in the 1.0 and 2.0 triggers, though it seems everyone else does. Maybe it's because I came from 1911s, and all striker guns are pretty mediocre by comparison. I do prefer the grip texture on the 2.0 for combat shooting. These days, the 1.0 gets shot the least, mostly because it doesn't have an optic... the Pro CORE gets shot mostly suppressed and the 2.0 is my nightstand gun. All of them have run flawlessly with all types of ammo for thousands of rounds, clean or dirty.



I would definitely spend the extra $100 on a 2.0 if it gets you the optic cut. Otherwise, while the improvements in the 2.0 are very real, I don't think there's all that much difference to the average shooter. Spend the $100 on a couple of extra mags and some ammo.

I have had a 1.0 full size 9 since ‘15 and have several thousand trouble free and fun rounds thru it. When the 2.0 came out i checked it out and could not get past that texture. I hated how it felt and would not consider buying something that the first thing I needed to do was cover it up or sand it down just to use it. My gun ownership ideals mean I own what I enjoy shooting, not what I dont. And as I am perfectly fine with the stock trigger, it was a quick “nope” on adding the new gen.
Now if I never owned or held a 1.0 perhaps i’d have a different thought process. But for now it is a hard pass. Just my .02 of course.

For $100.00 consider modifying the 1.0 with trigger or set sear and trigger kit from APEX Tactical.

Brownells has the polymer action enhancement trigger listed as in stock and is $47.50.

Brownells has the polymer action enhancement trigger and duty carry kit is listed as in stock and is $94.95. The specs says 5.0 - 5.5# trigger pull and shorter trigger reset. This is a little heavier than I prefer.

However APEX Tactical factory direct has curved forward set sear and trigger kit for $110.00. It gives you the option of 4.0 - 5.0# trigger pull and shorter trigger reset. It is $10.00 over your budget but it gives you more trigger pull choices.

We have a APEX Trigger Kit in a 1.0 9mm and it totally changed the gun. We like the smooter grip and improved trigger pull and shorter reset. In fact I have a spare 1.0 on my project list that I want to install this kit in.

p.s. There a good, clear videos for d-i-y installation of the kits on Youtube.

My only PM&P is an early "1.0" with Burwell trigger job.
I wish I had stuck it out and waited for the 5" Pro or 9L but otherwise it is just to my taste.

Give me a 2.0 and I will rub down the raspy texture and try to find an extended slide stop lever... one advantage of the 1.0 is that it will "Auto close" by firmly inserting a fresh magazine; the 2.0 has that blocked.

There are plenty of YT vids that cover the differences albeit, most of them are about 6 years old (when the 2.0s came out).

The ones I see mentioned a lot here are:

Grip texture: very aggressive on 2.0. Many ask about "dulling" as i trips the skin while cc'ing it. I see you're aware of this

Slide lock: 2.0 has a positive detent to reduce/eliminate "auto forward" where you slam a mag in while slide is locked, and the impact releases the slide without slingshot, or pressing the slide lock. Some liked the auto-forward.

Trigger: While S&W retained the hinged trigger initially, the sear housing and parts are different. 1.0s used a loop on the trigger bar to engage the sear and release the striker. This led to most complaining about a gritty feel. Also how it reset made the reset itself somewhat "mushy" (hard to hear and feel). 2.0's ditched the loop using an "improved" method with a sear release lever.

Another thing to consider: not all 1.0s are the same. S&W made improvements to sear housing, trigger bars, slide locks and other parts during the 1.0 production. In the 9mm models, even the barrel twist rate changed. While no hard date/serial number marks the improvements, they seem to have phased in around 2010-2013. My 2013 full and compact 1.0s had the new barrel and sear housing but the old slide lock and trigger bar. (I've updated them). So you may try to verify the age of the M&P, if you can.

My 2013 M&P 1.0 now wears the 2.0 trigger (trigger bar/sear housing) and a 5" Ported CORE slide kit with an RMR. It ain't no APEX and I'm still not a fan of the hinged trigger but works well enough for me.

My 2.0 does that. It's not really a design feature, just a consequence of physics if you seat the magazine enthusiastically. I don't recall a 'block' for that ever being mentioned in the S&W armorers' school, but it's been a couple of years.

The 2.0 slide lock was supposed to reduce the chance of it happening. I've seen vids where it still does but they either have to smack it harder or several times to get it to release.

Admittedly, I have to really "Mike Tyson" a mag in to get my slide to drop on my 1.0. Some of my other handguns will do the same.

The search function has been pretty much useless to me.

Thanks for the information, I'm aware of the differences between the two models, but I wasn't aware that there were generational changes.

This makes a significant difference because upon looking into the matter further, I've found that the M&P trade-ins I've been looking at are Late Production 1.0 — as evideced by the late of the "Stainless" stamp on the slide which was omitted sometime around 2013 — and Early Production 2.0s without optics cuts.

In addition, the $100 price difference was apparently part of a Memorial Day Sale, so now the 2.0 models are $130 more than the 1.0s.

By the way, does anybody know if 2.0 grip inserts will fit a 1.0 M&P? I ask because if they do, then couldn't one simply purchase 2.0 grip inserts to at least partially upgrade the grip texture?

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

IIRC, the grip inserts are interchangeable.

I have seen shooters so wedded to the auto close, usually on Glocks, that if it does not release immediately, they will pound on the magazine rather than reach for the lever or the slide.
Something intermittent like that is the worst outcome.

Confirmed. I have some 2.0 backstraps and 2.0 frame tools for my 1.0. They all fit. You don't need the 2.0 frame tool though.

So I've decided not to get a Full-size M&P because I happened upon a much better deal that I just couldn't pass up.

I found an M&P40 Compact 1.0 with 3 Magazines and Night Sights for for $269.99! Needless to say, I jumped on that immediately, and I absolutely will not regret it because I always wanted an M&P40c but could never find one for a good price, so this is awesome.

Thanks for all of the help and information though, I really appreciate it.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

Is it a 1.0 or 2.0?

The 1.0 Compacts are essentially 2.0 Subcompacts.

It's a 1.0 Model, but at the price I paid, I could easily get an Apex Trigger or something to improve it and still spend substantially less that a 2.0.

Besides, seeing as I'm upgrading from a SW40VE, even an M&P 1.0 is going to be a step up.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.