M&P 2.0 compact 3.6 inch.

mikesal34744

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
129
Reaction score
100
I got the new 3.6 inch model and shot it today. I love it. The size and balance feels amazing. I also got a chance to try my new Apex Flatty in the M&P 2.0 compact. Here’s a side by side for comparison
d6474a723bea29719cc7afff8f91f911.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Register to hide this ad
Congratulations! I sure did want a 3.6" model, but everywhere I checked they didn't have them, and I decided to just go ahead and get the 4.0" Compact. I may yet get the 3.6" model someday, if they ever become available locally, but 0.4" isn't that big a difference to wait on. At least that's my excuse for buying one now!
 
Congratulations! I sure did want a 3.6" model, but everywhere I checked they didn't have them, and I decided to just go ahead and get the 4.0" Compact. I may yet get the 3.6" model someday, if they ever become available locally, but 0.4" isn't that big a difference to wait on. At least that's my excuse for buying one now!



Either way you can’t go wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: GKC
I got the new 3.6 inch model and shot it today. I love it. The size and balance feels amazing. I also got a chance to try my new Apex Flatty in the M&P 2.0 compact. Here’s a side by side for comparison
d6474a723bea29719cc7afff8f91f911.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Here are some pics next to the Glock 19 and MP9c 1.0
42a64cc36e0e44d9376eae0b6ad2d96e.jpg
4c5a460c311f0ac9e0303c2deefba527.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hi OP. Different triggers aside, any real/noticeable difference in shooting the 2 compacts? I would think less than half inch in length wouldn't affect it much at defense type distances but who knows. Thx!
 
Hi OP. Different triggers aside, any real/noticeable difference in shooting the 2 compacts? I would think less than half inch in length wouldn't affect it much at defense type distances but who knows. Thx!



Not really. They all feel the same for me shooting. The 3.6 does feel nice with the slightly shorter barrel, but I’m the type that gets something new and it’s my favorite until the next something new comes along. It does conceal easier just a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hi OP. Different triggers aside, any real/noticeable difference in shooting the 2 compacts? I would think less than half inch in length wouldn't affect it much at defense type distances but who knows. Thx!



Accuracy was better with the 4 inch one, but I’m pretty sure that was from the trigger mostly and some from the longer sight radius.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Does the Compact 3.6 slide fit on the 1.0 compact frame? Just curious.
 
I guess I just don't get it. Why would Smith go to the trouble of machining a shorter barrel and slide for .4” shorter length? If there’s truly no difference other than length, why go to the trouble, and what is the target market?
 
curious...
Is the grip length any different between the original compact and the 2.0 compact?
 
I guess I just don't get it. Why would Smith go to the trouble of machining a shorter barrel and slide for .4” shorter length? If there’s truly no difference other than length, why go to the trouble, and what is the target market?

A lot of people said they think it’s for the appendix carry market, shorter slide, easier to carry in front.

While i think it serves that purpose, more likely I think it’s a pre release of the short slide because we are going to be seeing a 2.0 sub compact coming along here shortly using the 3.6” barrel on a chopped down compact frame, prob 12+1 like the 1.0 9c.

Plus all these different variations allow S&W from a marketing standpoint to be able to literally offer something for everybody.
 
A lot of people said they think it’s for the appendix carry market, shorter slide, easier to carry in front.

While i think it serves that purpose, more likely I think it’s a pre release of the short slide because we are going to be seeing a 2.0 sub compact coming along here shortly using the 3.6” barrel on a chopped down compact frame, prob 12+1 like the 1.0 9c.

Plus all these different variations allow S&W from a marketing standpoint to be able to literally offer something for everybody.

Makes sense, thanks.
 
What's the mag capacity on the 3.6" barrel version ?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
What's the mag capacity on the 3.6" barrel version ?

It's the same as the 4" Compact. 15rds for 9mm and 13 in 40.

scattershot said:
I guess I just don't get it. Why would Smith go to the trouble of machining a shorter barrel and slide for .4” shorter length? If there’s truly no difference other than length, why go to the trouble, and what is the target market?

I think it's because they've decided to produce a 2.0 version of the short grip 9c/40c (12rd/10rd mag) anyway, so why not.
 
I guess I just don't get it. Why would Smith go to the trouble of machining a shorter barrel and slide for .4” shorter length? If there’s truly no difference other than length, why go to the trouble, and what is the target market?

S&W makes (or made) a number of variations of the 1.0 series...the one I most liked for home defense was the midsize in .45 ACP. It had a 4" barrel and a full size grip, holding 10 rounds. There is also a 14 round extended magazine for it. I hope they come out with a similar version in 2.0.

S&W does give you choices...sometimes too many, for my wallet!
 
...I’m the type that gets something new and it’s my favorite until the next something new comes along.

You and me both!

I tell my wife that at least I don't apply that to her! (We're going on 40 years now.) She used to think that was a compliment...now she just laughs.
 
You and me both!



I tell my wife that at least I don't apply that to her! (We're going on 40 years now.) She used to think that was a compliment...now she just laughs.



Haha, I’m going on 21 years married. That’s awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top