M&P 2.0 9mm Compact, 3.6" Barrel
- Thread starter Dpris
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Huh, very interesting:
M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact | Smith & Wesson
M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact Manual Thumb Safety | Smith & Wesson
Did not see that coming.
M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact | Smith & Wesson
M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact Manual Thumb Safety | Smith & Wesson
Did not see that coming.
Last edited:
I would be a bit more intrigued if they had built it more the size of the gen 1 compact9 with a 12 round mag and sent a couple of xgrip adapters with it for the 15 round mags.
The 2.0 Compact with 15-round mag is just about as short as I want to go.
Half of my pinky extends down below the bottom of the frame already.
I ran into this same situation with a 4516 I carried at work for a couple years, and it's 50% of the reason I quit carrying that pistol & retired it.
One qualification I got going too fast, forgot to do the Teacup Pinky on a quick mag insertion, and welded my finger to the gun. Inserting the mag energetically, its baseplate caught enough skin between baseplate & frame to lock the finger when it locked the mag.
That was not fun, and fortunately the 4516 is stainless because I had to finish the rest of the qualifier with blood all over the thing.
I was used to several years of full-length frames where my finger rode well above the danger zone, and I never entirely 100% got used to doing the Teacup Pinky on fast reloads.
The 2.0 Compact 15-round frame creates the same potential, but I'm willing to deal with it here.
I would not personally want to shorten the frame any further, nor would I have any interest in a thinner single-stack version.
This just sounds like it has my name all over it.
There will, of course, be people who'll find it "wrong".
There will always be people who'll find ANY configuration "wrong".
And that's fine.
Denis
Half of my pinky extends down below the bottom of the frame already.
I ran into this same situation with a 4516 I carried at work for a couple years, and it's 50% of the reason I quit carrying that pistol & retired it.
One qualification I got going too fast, forgot to do the Teacup Pinky on a quick mag insertion, and welded my finger to the gun. Inserting the mag energetically, its baseplate caught enough skin between baseplate & frame to lock the finger when it locked the mag.
That was not fun, and fortunately the 4516 is stainless because I had to finish the rest of the qualifier with blood all over the thing.
I was used to several years of full-length frames where my finger rode well above the danger zone, and I never entirely 100% got used to doing the Teacup Pinky on fast reloads.
The 2.0 Compact 15-round frame creates the same potential, but I'm willing to deal with it here.
I would not personally want to shorten the frame any further, nor would I have any interest in a thinner single-stack version.
This just sounds like it has my name all over it.
There will, of course, be people who'll find it "wrong".
There will always be people who'll find ANY configuration "wrong".
And that's fine.
Denis
Cheapskait
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 115
Yeah, I think the chances of a subcompact 2.0 just went up a lot since they're gonna be making the short slides anyway and all they'll have to do is throw together a set of short frame molds, the cost of which can be amortized over the entire production run. They already have the 12/10 round mags in their inventory/supply system.
This (the 15/13 round 3.6") will be a good choice for the appendix guys because grip length isn't as important for that kind carry.
Although it might seem to over-do the proliferation of model types, I'd like to see the 4" slide on a short frame for hip carry. We shall see.
PS: The name, "M&P®9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact" is kind of unimaginative.
Last edited:
While I agree that I would rather have a longer barrel and shorter butt, I'm glad S&W is continuing to update the M&P 2.0 line. Myself, I'd rather see the 15rd Compact with the full sized barrel and slide, or possibly the older 12rd Compact frame with a 4" barrel and slide. I won't buy one of these new guns, but I hope S&W sells the **** out of them. New options are always good and, just because I don't want one doesn't mean that others won't buy them up. Good for them.
I didn’t think about the appendix market having never considered it. Makes sense now.
Last edited:
I hope not, the 4" is the sweet spot for me, I love mine. I can't imagine they would replace the 4" it's only been out for less than a year.
I can't imagine it will be replaced either since it is the same size as the Glock 19, one of the best selling pistol models of all time.
What's a bit interesting (though I don't see how this can be accurate) is that per the S&W site it weighs more than the 2.0 Compact 4" model.
M&P(R)9 M2.0™ Compact | Smith & Wesson Compact 4 inch shows 24 ounces
M&P(R)9 M2.0™ 3.6" Compact | Smith & Wesson Compact 3.6 shows 25.9 ounces
Last edited:
Well, "M&P9 M2.0 Compact X" might have gotten them sued
mscampbell2734
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 788
- Reaction score
- 864
What he said. No matter how you carry the grip is what sticks out and pokes through your shirt/jacket
Cheapskait
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 115
It wouldn't matter much in a horizontal shoulder holster or in a "clawed" or "wedged" appendix holster.
Clawing and Wedging Your Way to Perfect Holster Fit | Concealed Carry Inc
