M&P 2.0 Compact 3.6" vs. 4"

[torchrider]

I am debating between these two for CCW. The 4" seems more readily available and at a lower price. There also seems to be more holster offerings for the 4". For someone carrying at the 3-5 position is there any real benefit going with the 3.6" over the 4"?

 

[Saudade]

The 3.6 may be more comfortable for people who appendix carry. Since you don't plan on it, IMO, there should be no real benefit.

 

[Flyingfool]

Some people like the balance of the 3.6" versus the 4". But that is extremely personal and independent subjective thing.

I chose the 3.6" and love it. It was a jump up in weight and barrel length from my shield. For me, the half inch additional barrel length over the shield and double the capacity (and bullet weight) I did not want the additional weight of a further 0.4" of slide and bareel weight. My thought was I may appendix carry and also for likely carry self defense situations being very close range, I didn't think the additional accuracy of the 4" site radius and weight would be significant.

Even in a home defense situation, the range of engagement was such that I didn't think there was any real advantage to have the added length and weight of the 4". To me the price difference was insignificant over a lifetime, or even a few years of ownership. I figure if I pack one linch cersus foing out to eat, I will have made up the difference. Which is not much of a sacrifice to make!

But that was just My thinking and how I reached my decision.

 

[Dpris]

If you don't mind using one of the abbreviated "belt slide" holsters with the barrel sticking out the bottom (like the Bianchi #5), the same holster will fit both versions of the 2.0 9mm Compact, as well as the full-sized 1.0 and 2.0 M&P 9mm, the full-sized 2.0 .45 ACP, the full-sized M&P .40, and so on.

IF you can use that type of holster, there are numerous samples available that fit, even if not specifically labeled for the 2.0 3.6 Compact.
Denis

 

[msjdgman]

I use a scabbard OWB holster from DeSantis. It works with my 4.25 inch full size as well as both of my 2.0 Compacts in 3.6 and 4.0 inch.

 

[Dpris]

The frame & slide "sizes" are the same on all three calibers; 9mm, .40, and .45.
You're just looking at different grip heights & slide/barrel LENGTHS.
Denis

 

[seebee62]

I have the 4 in M&P 2.0. Got it before the 3.6 came out.
The 4 inch conceals well at 3 o'clock for me even with a 17 round mag.
I use a Vedder Light Tuck IWB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[dpsk]

I'd vote for the 3.6. That little bit of extra barrel length doesn't make much of a difference in the pistol's ability to shoot accurately, but it certainly makes it easier to conceal. If you're interested in a specific holster, try to contact the company to see if they'll market one for the 3.6.

 

[murphydog]

I am debating between these two for CCW. The 4" seems more readily available and at a lower price. There also seems to be more holster offerings for the 4". For someone carrying at the 3-5 position is there any real benefit going with the 3.6" over the 4"?

It probably makes no difference, except it might.

A holster that retains at the trigger guard should accept any M & P model of that frame size, as noted above. In the carry position you mention the slide length matters less than the grip frame length. Probably trying both from a rental range or friends and seeing if you get along better with one or the other would help.

"I figure if I pack one linch cersus foing out to eat, I will have made up the difference."

Wonder what was in the glass at linch time?

 

[labloverva]

I've got the 3.6" barrel. The balance felt better to me than the 4".
It's a good shooter and I can do 3" groups with it.

Still looking for a comfortable holster for it.

 

[dan323]

I have the 2.0 4". I'm left handed and carry at the 8 - 9 o'clock position very comfortable. Get a good holster. I personally prefer the N8 tactical. I have the kydex professional and it's really nice. I just ordered the original because sometimes, even with practice the twist to pull the gun inhibits the draw. If ever needed to draw quickly this makes me nervous. On the other hand it will not just fall out and nobody could strip the weapon from your holster.

 

[3502dav]

I am debating between these two for CCW. The 4" seems more readily available and at a lower price. There also seems to be more holster offerings for the 4". For someone carrying at the 3-5 position is there any real benefit going with the 3.6" over the 4"?

Have you decided on which one to get yet? Can't make a bad choice between either. I chose the 3.6" because I like to AIWB and I feel no difference between this pistol and my usual G26 EDC.
The M&P 2.0 is the only pistol I have ever had in which I get an outstanding grip while drawing from a holster. Absolutely no need to adjust my grip as the grip texture locks the gun into my hand. As others have said the balance of the gun is outstanding and perfect for me.
It's nice to have so many great choices out there. We are all anatomically different and have different likes and dislikes. Good luck with your choice.
Here is a pick of my G26 with 15 round magazine and X-grip next to my M&P.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ultratec00]

I would think any holster for 4" will work with the 3.6". Which one you purchase is personal preference. You'll have a slightly longer sight radius with the 4" and I believe an extra slot on the accessory rail. There also seems to be a tad more parts available specific to the 4", not so yet with the 3.6".

The LGS had the 4" on sale, no 3.6" for comparison. That said, I went with the 3.6" because the barrel length seemed to be perfectly proportional to the frame. Not regretting the purchase.

 

[louisq]

Is there a significant difference in muzzle rise between the 3.6 and 4"?

 

[Dpris]

Not that I've noticed.
Denis

 

[Well Armed]

Funny that for years and years s&w fanboys as well as others cried for a G19 sized M&P... The off sized, in comparison to Glock, M&Ps weren't good enough for some because the G19 was the perfect size. Now that the G19 sized M&P has been released, now the 3.6 is the preferable size. If M&P had only released the 3.6, I'm quite sure and positive, even if they claim otherwise, that some of the same 3.6 champions would be crying for a 4.0. They would run to purchase one, and then would rationalize reasons who it's better than the older 3.6 model...

I also wish there was a way to do a blind "shoot test" to see if shooters could tell the difference or the "balance" between the two, and report which felt better to them.

 

[Dpris]

I have both, in 9mm.
I like both & could quite easily live with either as a carry pistol.
The 3.6 is simply "more" of what I want, without getting into too much "less" in capability.

When I bought the 4, it was with the intention of moving "down" to it from the full-sized 2.0 9mm I've been carrying.
When the 3.6 was announced, it was simply a better fit, for me, going forward.

My thinking was, as I get older, I prefer a lighter gun, but won't lose too much by going to something like a single-stack .380. Not yet, anyway.

The 3.6 is shorter than the 4 in both length & height while still carrying 16 rounds.
That little bit of length difference between the two leaves the 4 in the vault now.
The Shield EZ .380 sits as an eventual carry option when I lose more upper body strength, but I'm not ready for that yet.

And then I got the 2.0 .45 Compact in for testing.
Same size as the full-sized 2.0 9mm.
Same size, as it turns out, as my beloved Colt Commander & carries 11 .45 ACP rounds, while staying about five ounces lighter than the Commander with its 9 rounds.
Hmmmm…..
Denis

 

[CQB60]

3.6. I use it with the 4.0 mags. Great combination

 

[Dpris]

They are the same mags.
Denis

 

[XNARC]

On the 2.0, with the straight drop profile of the grip...has anyone tried the finger rest extension (pinky) ?