M&P 2.0 9mm Compact, 3.6" Barrel

Register to hide this ad
Because S&W rolled this version out relatively early in the year I'm a bit more optimistic that they are working on an update to the original 9c.

Hopefully a 2.0 12/13 round 9mm hits later this year.
 
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
 
Ballanrk said:
Because S&W rolled this version out relatively early in the year I'm a bit more optimistic that they are working on an update to the original 9c.
Click to expand...

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:
Just saw this on my Flipboard App.

I'm guessing the 3.6 will be replacing the 4.0 barrel.
Looks good though from the web pics.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
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.
 
Cheapskait said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't think about the appendix market having never considered it. Makes sense now.
 
Last edited:
zephyr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Make it with the 12 round grip frame, make adapters available for the 15 AND 17 round mags, and I will add one to go with my 4.25" 2.0 9mm
 
If you have to have adapters to higher-cap mags, why don't you just start with higher cap to begin with? :)
Denis
 
I find the current M&P 2.0 Compact Grip very concealable with a tuckable IWB at 3 o'clock. I carry the 17 mag exclusively with a shirt not tucked at 3 o'clock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
With the 15 round (9mm or 13 round in .40) magazine, I just get a full grip on the pistol. Anything less than that and I rather just carry my single stack shield with 8+1 magazine
 
After coming from a Glock 23, I was thinking of a M&P 2.0.
But, that size, to ME, is simply too large for CCW. With my big self, it would be sticking out like a sore thumb.

However, it does look nice, and if I ever wanted another weapon to just have, it would be something like the M&P 2.0, and then my Shield for CCW :)
 
Not what I was looking for but more choice is a good thing.

I do wish S&W would decide on whether or not to include the weight of an empty magazine when they specify the weight of a gun on their website. According to the website the 3.6 inch gun is supposedly a couple of ounces heavier than the 4 inch model I have. I don't remember the specifics but when they came out with the first 2.0 guns it seems the published weight dropped by about the weight of a magazine.
 
Last edited:
This great news. I have the 1.0C and really like it as I have a 12 mag, a 14 (a 12 w/ Raisin's +2 adapter) and a 15, and a 17. This is definitely a step in the right direction as I have no interest in a 2.0C which is only 1/4" shorter than a full size. Wish they listed height though.
 
Dpris said:
If you have to have adapters to higher-cap mags, why don't you just start with higher cap to begin with? :)
Denis
Click to expand...

You carry concealed with the 12 round magazine, and when you get home, you use the 17 round with an adapter for home defense.

C'mon Denis... you know that answer
 
I would love to see a single stack or a stack and a half width compact sized M&P. I realize it would give up few rounds, but it would be an ideal EDC size. Fat may be where it's at, but thin is in!
 
Web,
Well....no, I don't. :)
That had never occurred to me.

Swapping mags around coming & going doesn't make all that much sense to me, but that's just me.
Denis
 
I'm still not seeing why they felt the need to make the "compact" bigger than the 1.0 9c. Perhaps the new (G19 sized) 2.0 isn't getting the reception they had hoped for....
 
Dpris said:
Web,
Well....no, I don't. :)
That had never occurred to me.

Swapping mags around coming & going doesn't make all that much sense to me, but that's just me.
Denis
Click to expand...
The other use is what I do. 12 or 14 in the gun and a 17 in my left front pocket as my spare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kiki
mp 3.6 slide question
Replies
1
Views
153
Ktyhawk
K
P
Hello all from KC MO
Replies
13
Views
280
snubbyfan
snubbyfan
G
  • Locked
Sold/Withdrawn M&P40 2.0 Compact: NIB, $450 Shipped CONUS
Replies
1
Views
459
BillsCamino
B
L
M&P 2.0 9mm site adjustment
Replies
2
Views
241
M1A4ME
M1A4ME
D
SHIELD X Series??
Replies
9
Views
588
dave148
D

Latest posts

Back
Top