4” vs 3.6” barrel 2.0 9c

[medic15al]

I bought a 4.0" 2.0 9mm Compact and THEN (of course) I found out that S&W was releasing a 3.6" model. I would have preferred the 3.6" barrel model, but I'm not going to try to sell/trade to get one...and lose money in the process. I still haven't seen one in the stores around here anyway. I console myself with the fact that 0.4" just isn't that much of a difference, which it really isn't. It's just plain aggravating, is what it is.

To me in my hands the extra 0.4 of an inch makes all the difference in the balance and shootability. Everybody is different and some will feel the difference positively or negatively, or even neutral in the balance.

 

[Dpris]

In the vernacular of my youth: I can dig it!
Denis

 

[medic15al]

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.

The grip difference feels much better in my hands and the timed drills and accuracy shows it.

 

[Michael from Wynnewood]

What if I want to mount a Holosun 507K?

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.

I have a 2.0 4.25" (which I'm planning to have milled for a Holosun 507K). I also have 1.0 Pro 4.25 with night sights that have a TLR-8G mounted on when I carry it, and a TLR-2 mounted when it is at home on the night table. My usual EDC is a Shield 1.0 with a Dan Burwell trigger job, but I'm thinking I want more rounds. My IWB holster for ALL my pistols is a Milt Sparks VersMax II (pic attached with the Shield 1.0).

Now, here's the question - assuming that I want to mill the slide for a Holosun 507K, are the 4" and 3.6" Compacts equally suitable for that RMR? Your opinions and experience will be much appreciated. And BTW, if anybody has experience with vendors who mill slides for an RMR, I would also like to hear from them.

 

[Arndog123]

I like them both but prefer the 3.6” a little more. It just feels more balanced in my hands.

 

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

the most recent trends have vindicated the viewpoints of some in this thread. a 3.6 barrel/slides on a compact or preferable full size frame indeed does have numerous advantages. in terms of balance, agility, point-ability, lack of dipping, and holstering in confined spaces like a car, the short barrel helps a lot. with the proliferation of the mos and optic ready options, as well as continued advancements in ballistics, the traditional cons of short sight radius and lower velocity are specifically negated in shorter barrel/slide weapons.



an outcome or possible consequence of this trend and the advantages conferred is a simultaneous increase in grip length of recent production handguns. the glock 19x and the glock 45's popularity are a sign that full size grips are beginning to see renewed popularity in police and civilian applications.


and so too do i expect to see m&p 2.0 fullsize handguns coming in 3.6 inch barrel configurations optics ready, with silencer height sights, and front serrations. and i see this as becoming especially popular with police who have a requirement of patrolling in vehicles or operating in tight spaces on a routine basis, while retaining the capacity and margin of error allowed by a full size grip



the industry watches, the markets respond, and patterns emerge. front serrations and short barrels on full size frames are the future.

 

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

having the barrel/slide be proportionally shorter than the the handle not only helps in the draw, allowing the holster be shorter and more easily concealed/comfortable, but it also looks a lot better than having it the other way around as is traditional. look at the commander sized 1911s and how much better they look compared to full size 1911s

 

[Tiribulus]

I have and love a 3.6. As human nature goes, there are times I wonder if I should have gotten the 4.

However, I'm certain that if I HAD gotten the 4, there would be times I'd wonder if I should have gotten the 3.6

Ultimately I prefer the 3.6. Although the 4 would have been fine too. Unless I'd have gotten one and wished I had the 3.6. Wait. Nevermind.

 

[m&p2.0fdethumbsafety]

as short as possible is better, because current doctrine in gun manufacturing prevents companies from investing in risky moves like a sub 3 inch 9mm for anything but sub and micro compacts, but if you prefer a full size gun in terms of ergonomics and capacity, but a short barrel, the 3.6 inch is about as short as possible by current industry standards. with a custom magwell, it may be close to a full size grip but not fully.


when i first started researching and buying guns, i would always buy the 5 inch model if it was available,but recently i've sold all the 5 inch components and replaced them with 4 inch components. there really just isn't a real justification to go beyond 4 to 3.6 inches and i suspect in the near future, 3.6 inches might be the new compact standard and 4 inches might be considered a "range" gun as 5 inch guns proceeds into obsolescence, just as 6 inch revolvers had.