Future of 9 Compact?
- Thread starter nanney1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
There might still be, especially if it's priced lower. I had one, at one time, but never really cared for it...but others still might. I believe it's a bit smaller than the 2.0 compact, isn't it? I wonder if S&W will continue production, if they haven't already discontinued it.
I cannot imagine them continuing to sell it. If they do that they increase the time it takes 2.0 sales to cover design and tooling costs. If they wanted to keep it in the line then why make the 2.0? I can see no reason to do so.
Rastoff
US Veteran
Sales.
The only reason S&W makes anything is to sell it and make money. As long as the original M&P 9c or .40c continue to sell, they will keep making it. The day they're not making money, they'll quit.
Why do they make any different guns? Because people like different things. Yes, I too would prefer the 2.0 compact, but can't get one. Even so, that doesn't mean others don't want the slightly smaller version.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,365
- Reaction score
- 1,597
I don't know about that. There is a pretty big gap between the Shield and 2.0 compact. I know a couple of guys that prefer the Glock 26 over the smaller G43 and larger G19. They find grip length matters more than thickness for concealment and like the ability to use larger magazines for reloads. Its not what I want but there is a lot to be said for a gun with a short double stack grip.
Last edited:
jejb
Member
The 2.0 is quite a bit bigger, almost the same size as the full size with the 4.25" barrel. Too big for me to carry the way I carry, so I'm sticking with the 1.0.
It will be interesting to see what they do. The slides on the new "not very compact compacts" is not marked with the C that the 1.0 version is. Not sure if that's a tell or not.
martybee
Member
It has already been archived by S&W and is No Longer in production!
ARCHIVE: Smith & Wesson M&P Compact 9mm | Smith & Wesson
Wee Hooker
Member
Too bad. I always found the original 9 and 45 compacts to be "just right" sized for their tasks. The 9c in particular is sized right between the Glock 26 and 19. I just don't see how making the 9 compact bigger is a good thing.
Last edited:
angryelf22
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2017
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 41
This is disappointing. I think the 9c fills the subcompact double stack role very well. Not to mention, it's far and away the best shooting subcompact out there. I've shot a bunch of different brands of subcompacts and have never shot one that is as easily controllable, soft shooting, and accurate as the 9c. If someone is looking for a subcompact I always recommend the 9c first.
martybee
Member
I believe if a poll were taken, most would opt for the MP9c.
That's just one product SKU. There are still 4 others on the main product page.
Someday? Perhaps. Plenty of guns no longer in production but still viable. My 9C 1.0 may have been superseded but it's not obsolete.
That's true I prefer smaller frames to conceal like g43/shield, also like the subcompact g26 and the 9c but can't conceal well. They are too big and heavy for me.
The 2.0 c is a true compact compared with the g19, sig p320c and others. I haven't handle one but definitely want one.
Now with the release of the 2.0 compact I guess people are still confused that includes myself about the future of the 9c, will S&W keep it as it is? meaning we won't see an uprade version or how they will call it? in case they release a new 2.0 version of it.
Rastoff
US Veteran
Except that they still make it: M&P9c Compact Thumb Safety | Smith & Wesson
Remember, there are many variations of the M&P and they all have their own SKU#. I believe the one you posted had the internal frame lock which got discontinued a long time ago.
lhump1961
US Veteran
I have the original C in 9, .40 and .357 but that didn't stop me from getting a new 2.0 compact. Can't wait for the threaded barrel for the 2.0 as I think it's a good candidate for suppression. The 9c suppresses well but more is always better!
The C and the 2.0 don't have a lot in common so I would assume the original will continue as long as it continues to sell...the full size mag with adapter takes the original C to 17+1 if a person so desires.
The C and the 2.0 don't have a lot in common so I would assume the original will continue as long as it continues to sell...the full size mag with adapter takes the original C to 17+1 if a person so desires.
Maybe the origional Compact will get a "marketing makeover" and become the ''New and Improved M&P 9mm sub-compact"?????????
martybee
Member
It's already here! It's called the M&P Shield 9.Maybe the origional Compact will get a "marketing makeover" and become the ''New and Improved M&P 9mm sub-compact"?????????
Ross3914
Member
S&W's move makes sense. They needed a direct competitor for the G19, and the other "compacts" out there that were the same size. They can leave the M&P9c 1.0 as the competitor to the G26, etc.
The G19 size makes sense from a marketing POV. You have to offer something that can go up directly against a G19, and others. I remember several times on this very board, people clamoring for a G19 sized M&P.
If a department wanted a G19 sized gun, they could buy Glock, Sig, Walther, HK, etc. They wouldn't buy S&W unless they could settle for only 12 rd capacity, or the mag spacer thingy and a shorter barrel. Why settle when there's so many 15rd, "almost-fullsize" offerings?
Now S&W has a full line of offerings to agencies. I think they'll just keep the 1.0 compact for now, and probably integrate a 2.0 version of it depending on how sales go.
The G19 size makes sense from a marketing POV. You have to offer something that can go up directly against a G19, and others. I remember several times on this very board, people clamoring for a G19 sized M&P.
If a department wanted a G19 sized gun, they could buy Glock, Sig, Walther, HK, etc. They wouldn't buy S&W unless they could settle for only 12 rd capacity, or the mag spacer thingy and a shorter barrel. Why settle when there's so many 15rd, "almost-fullsize" offerings?
Now S&W has a full line of offerings to agencies. I think they'll just keep the 1.0 compact for now, and probably integrate a 2.0 version of it depending on how sales go.
comiskeybum
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 277
There's a market. Look a springfield. You can get a Mod.2 in 5,4, or 3 inch barrel and still get 13+1 with a 2 finger grip using the flush mag. That is my preferred carry size.
Smith would do well to do a 2.0 9 Sub compact.
Smith would do well to do a 2.0 9 Sub compact.
greeenteeee
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 48
What's more important is how well the pistol works for you.
BlueArch91
Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 45
Shoot those three back to back to back and then decide where you want to put your money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MichiganScott
Member
I had a 9c when the Shield came out and decided the Shield was not enough smaller to dump the 9c when I would lose the double stack capacity.
Now the 2.0 Compact comes out and I compared it to my old 9c and have decided that the new compact offers nothing but increased size and a couple more rounds. If I want increased size, I will pull out my old 9FS.
After looking at the complete list of current S&W M&P's, I was reminded of their old "gun of the month" back when they had small runs of almost any configuration revolver that the engineers could dream up.
Now the 2.0 Compact comes out and I compared it to my old 9c and have decided that the new compact offers nothing but increased size and a couple more rounds. If I want increased size, I will pull out my old 9FS.
After looking at the complete list of current S&W M&P's, I was reminded of their old "gun of the month" back when they had small runs of almost any configuration revolver that the engineers could dream up.
Out West
Member
I think S&W will get around to updating the M&P compact line. It may not sell like the Shields - they've sold over 2 million of those. But the compacts have been strong sellers in that category. I don't see them giving up on any market segment just because it isn't the largest segment. If it were otherwise S&W would have walked away from revolvers a long time ago.
The compact segment is large and its significant to many shooters. The following is a list of competitors for share in this market. Can you see S&W letting go of market share to any of these? I don't think its likely.
FNS-9 Compact
Beretta Px4 Storm Subcompact
Glock 26 Gen4
Glock 30 Gen4
Kel-Tec P-11
Ruger SR9c
Sig Sauer P224
Sig Sauer P320 Subcompact
Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 3"
Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 3.3"
Taurus Millennium PT-140 G2
The compact segment is large and its significant to many shooters. The following is a list of competitors for share in this market. Can you see S&W letting go of market share to any of these? I don't think its likely.
FNS-9 Compact
Beretta Px4 Storm Subcompact
Glock 26 Gen4
Glock 30 Gen4
Kel-Tec P-11
Ruger SR9c
Sig Sauer P224
Sig Sauer P320 Subcompact
Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 3"
Springfield Armory XD Mod.2 3.3"
Taurus Millennium PT-140 G2
Last edited:
jejb
Member
Not sure that would make much sense. What are they doing to call the Shield then?
I know you're probably talking about some class made up by some competition organization. I'm talking about real world. To me, the new compact is a full size, in all but name. Gen 1 9C and 40C are compacts, Shield is sub-compact, smaller than that is micro.
I do understand why S&W is doing this, so they have a gun to compete in that made up classification. And I'm sure we'll all get used to whatever the names are. It's just going to be confusing for a while.
Shield is a single stack sub-compact, 1.0 9c is a double stack compact. I don't understand the confusion. A lot of other manufacturers follow this same model. Glock has the 17 fullsize, 19 compact, 26 sub-compact and 43 single stack sub-compact.
comiskeybum
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 277
It's simple. Look at Springfield and that's exactly what Smith should do.
Shield = Single stack/ thin conceal carry
The 4.6 inch barrels = full size
Compacts = G19 competition with 4 inch barrels and full grips
The new 40c/9c 2.0 = 13+1 sub compact. 3 inch barrel and two finger grip. Much like a XD MOD.2 Sub compact.
I'd be all over a new 9c if they actually do it this way.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Shield = Single stack/ thin conceal carry
The 4.6 inch barrels = full size
Compacts = G19 competition with 4 inch barrels and full grips
The new 40c/9c 2.0 = 13+1 sub compact. 3 inch barrel and two finger grip. Much like a XD MOD.2 Sub compact.
I'd be all over a new 9c if they actually do it this way.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Rastoff
US Veteran
I'm curious, why should S&W follow what other manufacturers do?
Cheapskait
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 115
