Sorry, but this is gonna be LONG! I've posted this before, but I'll post it again because of my love of the M&P 2.0.
I carried Glocks for years at my LE job. Started out with an early, ancient 2nd Gen Glock 21 (carried for just short of 20 years with about 50,000 rds through it), then a Gen4 G22, then a 3rd Gen G19. The G21 was always flawless, the G22 had some rust issues when Glock changed from Tenifer to a general nitride finish and the G19 had some early ejection issues. I also carried an early G26 for quite a few of those years for backup and off duty use. Except for a few breaks when I was waiting for a nearby class, I've also been a Glock certified armorer for 25+ years. Needless to say, I was heavily invested in Glocks. I was never really happy about the ergonomics but they just worked and, usually, worked well.
While not necessarily what you asked about, for me the first cracks in the mask appeared a few years ago when S&W introduced the Shield. A friend let me borrow his for a couple of weeks and I was sold. Shields were very popular and very hard to find, but I bought the first 9mm one I could find (had to search for almost a month to find one in stock anywhere, as an indicator of how short the supply was). Several years later, I still love it and regularly carry it off duty. Reliable, accurate and great ergonomics, what's not to love?
I had always loved the ergonomics of the M&Ps but just couldn't stand the triggers of the original M&Ps. Squishy, mushy trigger with no discernible reset at all. Coming from Glocks, I learned to shoot from reset, so I never really considered the original M&Ps. My Shield had very tactile and audible reset from the factory, so I always hoped S&W would upgrade the M&P to have the same trigger.
When the 2.0 models were introduced, I kept reading how the triggers now had tactile and audible reset. I was intrigued, so as soon as I had the cash, I bought a full sized, 4.25" barrel in black. I LOVE this gun and, as soon as I could get a duty holster and arrange to get qualified with it, it replaced my G19 as my duty gun and I've carried it for almost a year now.
The trigger is very good. Reset isn't as good as my Shield or my Glocks, but it is more than good enough and WORLDS better than the original M&Ps. The reset is almost exactly where it is on a Glock, so my "muscle memory" from my Glocks carried over very well. The trigger is also lighter and MUCH more crisp than my Glocks, making it very easy to shoot well. It's not the best trigger I've ever felt, but it is the best poly framed trigger I've ever tried, although I'll admit that I've never tried a Walther PPQ, H&K VP9 or the CZ P-10C.
For me, the ergonomics are simply amazing. I have shot other guns that feel this good or, maybe, a little better, but not by much and only on guns costing a lot more. The grip angle is a lot different than a Glock, but for me, the change was easy, possibly because I already had and shot a Shield. Simply find the back strap that fits you best, put it on and enjoy. For me, despite the fact that I have large hands (I'm just a hair short of being able to palm a basketball), the medium back strap feels best.
The sights aren't the best, but are much better than stock Glock sights. Steel, three dot, very clear and easy to see. Not the best (at some point, I'm going to install Ameriglo I-Dot Pro night sights), but pretty good and much better than the plastic Glock abominations. Certainly good enough to use as is if you want.
The finish is simply amazing. I've been using my 2.0 on duty now for about a year and there is not a mark on the slide. I've been carrying my Shield for several years now and, like the 2.0, not a mark on the slide. On my Glocks, the finish wore very fast and they started showing slide wear very fast. I know that finish wear doesn't impact the nitride finish and wear shows use, but I kinda like how durable the finish is. The magazines are also nitride finished stainless steel, so they are proving very durable and rust resistant as well.
When compared to Glocks, accuracy is actually pretty close to the same. The real advantage the 2.0 has is that, when you take into account all the advantages it has, it is much easier to shoot well than a Glock. You can shoot a Glock just as well, just not as easily or as fast, at least not in my experience.
The big elephant in the room is the grip texture. On the 2.0 models, it is ROUGH! A lot complain because of how rough it is. Myself, I loved the texture. When I shot my Glocks in the summer, I sometimes had a little trouble with them slipping around when my hand got very sweaty. Not a big deal but it did happen. With the 2.0, the texture is so aggressive that the gun just doesn't move. My hands are kinda rough, so I never had any trouble with it tearing up my hands at all. The trouble is that it is so aggressive that, when I started carrying it on duty, it was snagging and wearing my polyester duty shirts and was uncomfortable when my forearm rubbed on the grip when walking. It was also VERY uncomfortable when carried IWB against my love handles. I ended up taking some sandpaper to the texture to tone it down a little. Still grippy, just not as rough on clothes, my forearms and my love handles. If you carry IWB and wear an undershirt, it may not even be a problem. The grip texture is, literally, the only problem I've had with it in about 1500 rds.
Overall, the M&P 2.0 is a very good alternative to Glocks. It is similar enough that transitioning is easy but different enough that it stands on its own as a great gun. Aftermarket support for M&Ps is second only to Glocks and, if you do find something that you don't like, it should be easy enough to find an aftermarket solution to your problem. Good luck with your decision.
