So I did some research on what optic combos to get for the M&P 2.0 full sized. Seemed like there were a lot of complaints about the C&H plates shifting around, but the DPP/Amazon plate actually got great reviews. I have a few RMRs and this time around I thought of going to the Holosun 407C which seems to get decent reviews and seems durable based on Sage Dynamics' on-going whitepaper results.


The SCS-MP2 was designed for the M&P 2.0 but I have seen more than once people saying the stock factory suppressor height sights being too tall - blocking most of the SCS-MP2.


Are there any issues with going down the DPP plate / 407C route? I could always go with the 407K/RMSc footprint DPP plate but the RMSc optics are even fewer in selection and more expensive for a smaller optic.

I've had a Holosun 407C for a couple of years on my Sig 365 XL and it has been excellent. The only negative is the brightness button on the side is very easy to touch and raise or lower the brightness level and sometimes my thumb hits it during recoil or handling. That would probably change if I practiced with it more but it's purely for the target and varmint shooting. I don't want an optic on a defensive handgun. The good news is, the tall sights on my M&P 10m/m 4" 2.0 are easy to see with my 65 year old eyes and I shoot it better than any handgun I own.

I have a bunch of Holosun optics - more than any other brand by far. The 407C is great… I have seen issues with many C&H plates, and also successes. I have no personal experience with the DPP plate but have also heard good things.

My favorite Holosun/RMR plate is the factory metal one, so if you have that it would be my recommendation. The plastic plates are OK, but not my favorite.

I don't know why they're using the SCS-MP2 with suppressor-height sights. I find that it works perfectly well with the standard-height sights. In fact, that was supposed to be one of the big advantages of the SCS sights in the first place.

Cheers,
Whisper

My guess: Probably because they are like me where the M&P 2.0 now comes from the factory with suppressor height sights, and we hear recommendations for the SCS-MP2 being designed for the M&P 2.0. Except apparently the older M&P 2.0's came with standard height sights for which the SCS-MP2 was originally designed around.

Interesting. I have the M&P 2.0 Metal, and it came with the standard-height sights. I guess I hadn't noticed that the plastic 2.0s now come with the suppressor-height sights. The SCS works well on my Metal.

because those are the sights that came on my pistol...

and yes, they are too high for best use of the SCS. I am on the hunt for a standard height rear to replace my tall one with.

__________________
Plastic has no soul

I do not want big sights on a carry pistol.

I think it started with the M&P 2.0 OR Compact, and then made its way to the 2.0 OR Full-sized maybe with flat trigger.


My M&P 2.0 OR also has a special screwed cap that holds the firing pin safety plunger. I know the M&P normally has this plunger retained by the rear sight, and my Shield Plus is the same way. But on the M&P 2.0 OR full-sized, the rear sight is moved further back and there's a screw holding down this shiny metal cap that covers the FP safety plunger - so no need to drift out the rear sight to swap the FP safety plunger.



I also check the iron sight zero for all the pistols with a laser boresight to see what type of hold to use (and this worked with my Glock 17 as I confirmed it with live ammo). The suppressor height sights seem to be combat hold where the dots need to line up. But this means the front post sits lower than the rear irons when this occurs at 18-25 yd. Very odd looking to me. My SIG P365X w/ factory low XRAY tritium sights is combat hold but when you line the dots, the tops of the irons are lined up. Maybe it is a coincidence or due to the shorter sight radius.

The Shield Plus OR w/ flat trigger and factory low TruGlo tritium sights seems to be either center-hold or 6 o clock hold.

I got my DPP plates and they are well made. Rounded at the front corners. The 407K plate actually sits flush with the slide like it came from the factory.

How is the fore and aft movement on that?

All my CHPWS plates would move just a bit fore and aft.

I've been thinking of replacing mine with the DPP's as I've heard good things about them.

I have 2100 rds on my CHPWS so far but my paranoid OCD wants to upgrade to a better plate.

I don't like all that torque on just the screws. Watched a guys RMR fly off using a CHPWS plate that he later told me was a bit loose in the 2.0 cut out with fore and aft play.

He made it to 7000 rds so that's not bad. If he maybe checked the screw torque or witness marked them it may have lasted longer.

Either way I don't like any loose tolerances with plates. My 45 2.0 that I had milled at Nameless Arms fits it's 507k like a glove, and it literally clicks in the cutout.

This is why I prefer a slide specifically milled to the optic.

The 407K/507K DPP plate was so tight that I almost couldn't remove it.


The 407C/RMR plate has a tiny bit of play. However, if you push the plate/optic forward (toward the muzzle) it should not shift during recoil (like pushing a mount forward on a Picatinny rail before you tighten it). Also, don't overtorque the screws. They should be about 10 in-lb regardless of what Holosun or others claim of 15 in-lb or more.

OK sounds like they are a bit better, especially the 407k one's.
At least yours anyway.

Thankfully I only need the DDP for my k model holosun, and I'm done with optics ready slides.

What FN and HK does with their pistols is phenomenal by adding a recoil lug to their plates so they are an exception IMHO.

The M&P 5.7 is cut for RMSc like the Shield Plus, so no plates/adapters are needed which is great. I'm not a huge fan of the M2.0 CORE system but I'll reserve judgement until after shooting it.