Is the 2.0.... really all that much better?

[DBasye1]

Just wondering

Has the 2.0 really stepped up a fine pistol to an upgrade?

I am not talking about 2.0 over the initial release M&P

The initial M&P was getting improvements all along the way to where it is today

I had an M&P compact 45 that had a horrible trigger a few years ago
I just recieved a M&P 40 compact that (after a little dry fire) has a much improved trigger

Is this a factor of a different color "racing stripe"?

Inquiring minds, would like to know


Lastly, I would probably have taken the step and dropped the hinged trigger........

 

[Americanpatriot]

There are quite a few upgrades and improvements. If I already had an original M&P maybe I wouldn't worry about upgrading. If I was making my first M&P purchase as was my situation, then yes I see no point in not purchasing the 2.0 and getting the original instead. As a matter of fact it was because the 2.0 was introduced that I even considered the Smith & Wesson M&P. In addition, the M&P 2.0 was one of the only handguns I've ever purchased that I haven't done any aftermarket or other modifications except installing Idot night sights. That's how satisfied I am with Smith and Wesson's design and execution of this model

 

[GSD2053]

There are quite a few upgrades and improvements. If I already had an original M&P maybe I wouldn't worry about upgrading. If I was making my first M&P purchase as was my situation, then yes I see no point in not purchasing the 2.0 and getting the original instead. As a matter of fact it was because the 2.0 was introduced that I even considered the Smith & Wesson M&P.

What improvements were made on the 2.0 that made you want an M&P?

 

[Ray1970]

For me, the grip texture is what really sold me. I love it. Then, once I actually shot it, the accuracy is what kept me hooked.

I didn't upgrade from an original M&P but had previously owned two of them and just didn't care for them. I found the accuracy of my first two to be lackluster at best. My 2.0 is a real tack driver.

 

[Americanpatriot]

What improvements were made on the 2.0 that made you want an M&P?

Getting rid of the ugly beavertail, strengthening the frame, the grip texture, getting rid of the crappy trigger,improved the accuracy.. There's various other improvements as well

 

[Shield9mm]

I don't own a 2.0 neither have shot one, and honestly don't care much about the 2.0

I love my 1.0 with hogues grip, beaver tail, and the apex fss flat face trigger kit.

 

[Hhenry]

The 2.0 has a much better trigger than the first M&P. I have a 9mm, 4.25" 2.0 and its trigger and accuracy are outstanding!

I sold an M&P VTAC a couple of years ago because of the trigger. I did not care for it at all.

 

[kilroy2721]

I think that the grip on the 2.0 is a little too rough myself.

 

[Disabled1]

For me, the grip texture is what really sold me. I love it. Then, once I actually shot it, the accuracy is what kept me hooked.

I didn't upgrade from an original M&P but had previously owned two of them and just didn't care for them. I found the accuracy of my first two to be lackluster at best. My 2.0 is a real tack driver.

What you typed is like being in my mind. You read it very well. Esp. your last sentence.

 

[M&P 87]

For me, the grip texture is what really sold me. I love it. Then, once I actually shot it, the accuracy is what kept me hooked.

I didn't upgrade from an original M&P but had previously owned two of them and just didn't care for them. I found the accuracy of my first two to be lackluster at best. My 2.0 is a real tack driver.

I hear ya. I had only shot a friends older model 2 years ago and picked up a shield last year. Really got sold on the M&P line when I moved out of my last state.

Wishing I had the money last month to get the 2.0, the 1.0 was 360 flat at my local store, plus the rebate (magazines, ammo etc...). I've only handled the 2.0, not shot yet. Couldn't say no to that cheap for the 1.0.

Just wishing the enhanced backstraps for core or 2.0's were available for the 1.0, the texture is what did it for me. I'd be lying if I didn't say I actually liked the beavertail on the older though.

The only bummer is the threaded barrels are still sold out and the customer service rep didn't feel like looking up a ETA.

 

[Rastoff]

I would probably have taken the step and dropped the hinged trigger........

The hinged trigger is a drop safety. What would you have put in its place if you removed the hinged part?

...strengthening the frame,

Lots of guys mention this, but very few can say why it's better. The area of the frame they strengthened has nothing to do with how the gun operates. They extended the steel subframe out to include the dust cover. The dust cover only covers the recoil spring. It has no function beyond that. It doesn't stiffen the barrel or support the barrel. It doesn't make the grip or rear portion of the frame and more stiff.

I'm glad they did it, but it doesn't really make the overall gun any better.

 

[gc70]

Lots of guys mention this, but very few can say why it's better. The area of the frame they strengthened has nothing to do with how the gun operates. They extended the steel subframe out to include the dust cover. The dust cover only covers the recoil spring. It has no function beyond that. It doesn't stiffen the barrel or support the barrel. It doesn't make the grip or rear portion of the frame and more stiff.

I don't know why S&W extended the steel subframe, but I would guess there was a good reason.

While a dust cover may not appear to have a function beyond covering the recoil spring, Gen 3 Glock 22s were notorious for having problems when weapons lights were mounted - enough so to warrant revisions in Glock's Gen 4 guns.

 

[Americanpatriot]

The hinged trigger is a drop safety. What would you have put in its place if you removed the hinged part?

Lots of guys mention this, but very few can say why it's better. The area of the frame they strengthened has nothing to do with how the gun operates. They extended the steel subframe out to include the dust cover. The dust cover only covers the recoil spring. It has no function beyond that. It doesn't stiffen the barrel or support the barrel. It doesn't make the grip or rear portion of the frame and more stiff.

I'm glad they did it, but it doesn't really make the overall gun any better.

Less recoil, improved accuracy

 

[Whisper]

I just acquired a 2.0 to go along with my several original versions in 9mm and .45, which have seen thousands of rounds. I've only fired 20 rounds through the 2.0 in its initial outing (the Rastoff Challenge!) but I've also handled it a good bit, and here are my observations so far:

-- I like the new grip texture. I like it on Shield .45 and on the 2.0. I'm actively looking for 2.0 backstraps (found one set so far) so that I can put 2.0 backstraps on all my first generation M&Ps.

-- The trigger is better than the stock triggers on the first generation guns, but still noticeably inferior to a gun with the Apex sear. I have already decided I will be putting an Apex sear in my 2.0.

-- The extended beavertail on the first generation M&P was useless, so deleting it on the 2.0 harms nothing and decreases the overall length of the gun by a tiny amount.

-- I can't tell that the extended subframe makes any difference. Maybe I'll notice something long-term.

-- With only 20 rounds downrange it's too early to make any comments on accuracy. I'll be testing the 2.0 against my Apex first generation once I get a better trigger in the 2.0.

My opinions, and worth every cent you paid for them.

Cheers,
Whisper

 

[Mark IV]

As I've mentioned a couple times already,for a while now I've been noticing an unexpectedly high number of these pistols on my state-wide classified sites, just recently 2 different versions being sold by the same guy.
I haven't heard anything genuinely negative about the 2.0, but given how new they are, and how many I'm already seeing back up for sale, there seems to be some disappoinment in them.
All that being said, I still wouldn't balk at one if a killer deal fell in my lap.

 

[Mark IV]

I don't know why S&W extended the steel subframe, but I would guess there was a good reason.

Possibly to provide a little forward weight ? I realize it's a miniscule,probably insignificant, amount, but gun manufacturers (and owners) often fixate on very small (and often imaginary) "improvements", so who knows.

 

[Rastoff]

While a dust cover may not appear to have a function beyond covering the recoil spring, Gen 3 Glock 22s were notorious for having problems when weapons lights were mounted - enough so to warrant revisions in Glock's Gen 4 guns.

Indeed, it may be just this. There were several reports of the dust cover not being straight or moving. To my knowledge, this never impaired function, but I can see how it might help with a mounted light.

For the record, I never had an issue with the light mounted on my M&P 45.

Less recoil, improved accuracy

While the laws of physics tell us that any increase in mass will result in a reduction of felt recoil, this addition is so small that no one would notice.

Accuracy? Please tell me how stiffening the dust cover improved accuracy?

...but gun manufacturers (and owners) often fixate on very small (and often imaginary) "improvements",...

This is the real truth.

Don't get me wrong here, I think the larger sub frame is a good thing. It's just not an improvement that would make me dump my original M&P for a 2.0 version.

Things I like about the original:

• I like the beaver tail on the original.
• I like the auto forward (not really a feature, but more of a quirk of the design).
• I like the original texture better. The 2.0 is too rough for extended use.
• I have no issue with the trigger, but do like the Apex better.

For me it's a wash. I do think that the 2.0 is ultimately better. It's a more mature design. The fact that there is so little different tells us that the original was pretty well thought out. Would I trade in my original for a 2.0? No. Would I buy a 2.0? Absolutely!

 

[Screwball]

I had a 5" Pro and Compact for a few years, both in .40. Did dry-fire the 2.0, and wasn't impressed.

That being said, both of mine have Apex Duty/Carry kits, and RAM. Did it so both would have the same pull. I don't see going to the 2.0, then doing Apex upgrades, as worth it.

If I didn't have two, then I'd go 2.0.

 

[Farmer17]

I'm surprised so many people think the 2.0 grip is too rough. I go to the gym twice a week so maybe the knurling on the weight bars has toughed up my palms but I don't think the 2.0 grip is too rough at all. I think it is about perfect. I can see why S&W left the trigger pull a little heavy on the guns with no manual safety for liability reasons, but for guns WITH the thumb safety it should have a nice light pull. It's really annoying to have to pay over a 100 bucks to modify a gun to get a good trigger pull. My new $350 Rock Island 1911 .45 has a great 4lb pull right out of the box.

 

[CBStuard]

I don't know for sure what the extended frame does but I am pretty sure metal is more expensive than plastic. So for S&W to do it, they must have a good reason.