medic15al
Member
The 3.6 is a good gun no doubt. The 4 in 2.0 Compact feels more balanced in my hand and my shooting drills are best with it.
4” vs 3.6” barrel 2.0 9c
- Thread starter spirit4earth
- Start date
rch27834
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2017
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 71
While I don't carry my SR1911 CMD, I prefer it to a full size 1911. I've always liked the commander length (4.25") over the full size (5.0") because I like the feel and handling better...and the grip length is the same on both.
If the 3.6" model had been available when I bought my 2.0 9mm I would have bought it...and I may end up buying one someday...but for now, I'm going to stay with my 4" model.
[emoji1303] I was making my comparison based upon having carried a Sig 226 and a Sig 229. The 229 being the shorter of the two but the grip is the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
rch27834
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2017
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 71
For folks that appendix carry it may make a big difference. I won't appendix carry as it places the gun in a position I don't want to be pointing a gun, but that's just me. I'd assume there is a fairly sizable number of folks who appendix carry.
Deadeye Dick
Member
Biggest difference is probably feel. If you were to compare the two side by side the 4" would probably feel a little more muzzle heavy to you and the weight of the 3.6" would probably feel more centered over your hand.
.4" will likely make a negligible difference in concealability, site radius or bullet velocity.
.4" will likely make a negligible difference in concealability, site radius or bullet velocity.
My 3.5" C9 get almost 4" fps and it will get enough fps from
a Speer Gold Dot to meet the needed energy to qualify for a +P loading.
Just a matter of what feels best and you think will fit your style
of carry and use.
I just know that a 5" pistol is a lot of metal to cover up and carry all day.
Enjoy.
a Speer Gold Dot to meet the needed energy to qualify for a +P loading.
Just a matter of what feels best and you think will fit your style
of carry and use.
I just know that a 5" pistol is a lot of metal to cover up and carry all day.
Enjoy.
OP
spirit4earth
Member
Were the 1.0 9c’s 3.5”?
Yes, I believe they were. I owned one several years ago, and IIRC the barrel length was 3.5". The grip felt too short for me on that particular pistol.
topwaterbass
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2015
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 10
I chose both and love both.
OP
spirit4earth
Member
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 5,021
Between my 3.6”, 4.25”, and 5”, not a lot of difference in actual shooting. Different trigger feels, different sights, all shoot well. I doubt the 4.0” is noticeable different.
OP
spirit4earth
Member
Are the full size 9’s cheaper just because the compacts sell better?
rch27834
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2017
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 71
That's what I guy at the local gun store told me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure I can make a good case for either gun over the other. But I had three very good reasons for going with the 4":
1. The M&P 9 Compact was $50 off, and they only had 4" in stock.
2 There was a store wide 10% off sale.
3. The M&P Compact series had a $50 rebate.
1. The M&P 9 Compact was $50 off, and they only had 4" in stock.
2 There was a store wide 10% off sale.
3. The M&P Compact series had a $50 rebate.
00 buck
Member
Of course it is subjective
But for accuracy zero difference
FPS velocity...10 fps difference
Well Armed
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,101
- Reaction score
- 1,358
Good choice. If I had to do it over again, I'd still would have gone with the 4" . I have the sneaky suspension that once the sales in the 3.6 did down, the G26 size 2.0 will be next which will conceal better plus be about to accept 15 or 17 round backup mags.
I see no point in owning a 3.6 and a Glock 26 sized, but the 4" and G26 size M& P will compliment each other.
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 5,021
I looked at Lucky Gunner's ballistics test just to make sure the 3.6" wasn't below some threshhold for reliable JHP expansion. Their test gun was a 3.5" M&P9C 1.0. The 3.6" barrel does just fine.
When the 2.0C came out, I carefully compared it to my 1.0 full size. The size difference was negligible, and I wondered why anyone would want the 2.0C with fewer rounds? The slide length is virtually the same. No beavertail, but is that really an issue?
Then the 3.6" came out and that's something quite different.
When the 2.0C came out, I carefully compared it to my 1.0 full size. The size difference was negligible, and I wondered why anyone would want the 2.0C with fewer rounds? The slide length is virtually the same. No beavertail, but is that really an issue?
Then the 3.6" came out and that's something quite different.
One can only hope! I have a 2.0 4” and a 9c 1.0, both I love, but really want to see an updated 9c 1.0 hit the market.
gaguideman
Member
I have reached a point in my life that makes a gun like the 3.6" version basically perfect for me. I really have started favoring pistols that have 15 or so rounds for capacity and have a 3.5-3.75" barrel length. The 2.0 3.6" Compact fits into that range nicely. My hammer fired P-07 also fits into that range very well. Basically the same footprint as far as height and length as some of the compact guns like a Shield or XDS but just a shade thicker. Still conceals well but offers the advantage of more rounds. Perfect for me.
