M&P 2.0 compact accuracy vs Glock 19 Gen 5
- Thread starter mdrd375
- Start date
9mmPatriot
Member
My son tried my 2.0 9c 4" and after one 15rd mag he looked at his glock in disgust and simply said " Sh*t."
9mmPatriot
Member
Loosen set screw and use a site pusher. You can get them for around 50 bucks on Amazon.
sousana
Member
Judging by what I see in gun stores, new shooters ask for Glock because that's the brand they hear about, and if not the sales people push Glock like it's a drug
That said, I doubt many new shooters will buy an M&P. Now if S&W had won the military contract, I think the M&P would have flown off the shelves!
If people buy Glocks because they "hear" it's da bomb, then I call them IDIOTS. You find the gun that suits YOU best. Hit a range with rental and try the ones your looking at and find out on YOUR OWN.
Not long ago I picked up a S&W M&P 2.0 Compact. Hit the range with various types of ammo and found she shoots her best using 154gr JHP and FMJ-FP. After shooting 50 rounds of 154gr FMJ-FP at a target from 31ft the accuracy was 2.542", 50 rounds of 154gr JHP at 31ft the accuracy 2.436"
The same test using my Glock 17 gen 1 showed 3.025" at 31ft using FMJ-FP and 3.263" using JHP ammo.
ultratec00
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2011
- Messages
- 762
- Reaction score
- 347
Bottom line, a handgun needs to have a level of accuracy from a rest in order for it to be accurate offhand. All my initial evaluation is off sandbags or a rest. Sometimes it's trial and error to determine what ammo groups the best in a particular firearm.
Once you find an accurate combination, any inconsistencies offhand can be attributed to the shooter and how they shoot that particular firearm. My general rule of thumb is double the group size for an average person shooting offhand compared to shooting off a rest.
How accurate one is with their firearm is purely speculative per individual. What a person may consider "plenty accurate" for their purposes may not be acceptable for someone else.
The world we live in is not what it was a decade or so ago.
Once you find an accurate combination, any inconsistencies offhand can be attributed to the shooter and how they shoot that particular firearm. My general rule of thumb is double the group size for an average person shooting offhand compared to shooting off a rest.
How accurate one is with their firearm is purely speculative per individual. What a person may consider "plenty accurate" for their purposes may not be acceptable for someone else.
The world we live in is not what it was a decade or so ago.
Last edited:
I also start from a rest. I need to know what the gun will do before I waste ammo trying to figure out if something is off, whether it's me or the sights.
It's just how I've always figured out my rifles and it works for handguns.
It's just how I've always figured out my rifles and it works for handguns.
marathonrunner
Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Messages
- 899
- Reaction score
- 224
I have a Glock 19x with the overwatch precision trigger, safety plunger, connector and the glock accuracy is still kind of meh. It's accurate combat accurate but for distances past 35ft not my favorite gun to shoot.
sousana
Member
50 rounds through each weapon, ammo was IMI 158gr FMJ and 50 rounds of IMI 124gr FMJ shot at 31ft, indoor range 74 degrees.
Glock 19 with IMI 158 averaged 3.126" groups
Glock 19 with IMI 124 averaged 2.671" groups
M&P 2.0 Compact with IMI 158gr averaged 2.541" groups
M&P 2.0 Compact with IMI 124gr averaged 2.316" groups
Glock 19 with IMI 158 averaged 3.126" groups
Glock 19 with IMI 124 averaged 2.671" groups
M&P 2.0 Compact with IMI 158gr averaged 2.541" groups
M&P 2.0 Compact with IMI 124gr averaged 2.316" groups
Sheepdogged
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 300
I've owned six M&P's (M1.0's & M2.0's) since circa 2005 and and six Glocks (Gens 3, 4, & 5) since 2012. The truth is, in my opinion, accuracy is usually subjective and dependent on how a person biomechanically interfaces with the pistol, and even this is largely dependent on taking the time to warm up to the pistol. In fact, if you own both and haven't shot either one for a long time, you can find yourself having to get used to it again.
There are a few exceptions. Sometimes you can get a trigger or a barrel that might have a minor flaw that can sacrifice a bit of accuracy (the M1.0 had some barrels like this at one time as discussed by mrgunsngear, but they've always been supremely accurate (both M1.0 and M2.0).
Moreover, you can also dial in both Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps to be more accurate if necessary by changing the grips and/or trigger. If you're still not happy with the results, SOME (certainly not all) aftermarket barrels can improve accuracy as well.
If you're worried about the accuracy of an M&P, for example, you can get an "Apex Grade" barrel which improves accuracy by improving the lockup (which I think they've patented). Remember, however, that Apex Tactical also makes non-Apex Grade barrels which do not claim to do this but have a threaded barrel. If you have a S&W with a barrel they don't make the Apex Grade for (e.g. 3.6"), then you can certainly get an excellent barrel from companies like Bar-Sto (but to get the greatest accuracy, you'll have to get it handfit by the company which can get expensive because of the shipping).
I have a Bar-Sto for a SIG P229, and it is excellent, however, I did not get it hand fitted, so while the vertical lock up is excellent, there is some lateral movement that may or may not sacrifice accuracy (for competition, but not practical accuracy such as for self-defense). I carry the gun in .357 SIG, so I only needed a decent barrel for practicing with 9mm (as .357 SIG is expensive). But even if I plan to carry it for self defense, only practical accuracy is necessary for self-defense, and tighter tolerances can also make a pistol less reliable (not usually, but sometimes).
I had to handfit the Bar-Sto barrel to get it to fit (which is expected and actually a good sign that the vertical lock up is nice and tight, but the more important thing I want you to understand is that practical accuracy is not a cop out. Like I said, looser tolerances can make a pistol more reliable especially when facing the elements (mud, dirt, water, sand, etc.), and on the flip side, the difference between match-grade accuracy and practical accuracy won't normally translate to better self-protection, and not only is this an age-old maxim in the gun world, but I know of at least one study that bares this out (An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association).
The Buckeye Firearms study comparing calibers looked at about 1,800 bodies shot in gunfights, and it tracks such metrics such as the inability to incapacitate a person, how many hits it takes on average, accuracy looking at head and chest shots and other data. The more accurate calibers typically did not provide and advantage, and in some cases, were technically less effective (though certainly within the margin of error in most cases). Some clearly had greater accuracy than others but did not stop people as well because of other factors such as over penetration or under penetration. Simply put, slightly tighter groups do not seem to translate into better stopping power, at least in terms of comparing calibers. Making consistent center of mass hits and headshots is good enough. Again, we're not talking about ballistic gel tests here, the study actually shows what happened with 1,800 bodies shot with various calibers in real gunfights and accuracy was absolutely not an indicator of effectiveness. No study is perfect, but the law of large numbers in statistics makes 1,800 a much better number than the number of rounds as individuals we are likely to shoot making comparisons.
Depending on your ability to warm up to either Glock or Smith & Wesson, you may not find upgrading anything on your pistol at all necessary either in terms of practical or match-grade accuracy in competition (which is often not permitted in certain competition anyway).
That all said, there have been times outside of Glock and Smith & Wesson where I just couldn't warm up to a pistol no matter how much time I had behind it. My two FN FNS pistols come to mind. For whatever reason, sometimes it's not possible to warm up to a pistol because the ergonomics are not a good match even when you change the backstrap or trigger (e.g. trigger reach). In fact, I was slightly less accurate with my Gen5 Glock even though it is supposed to have a better barrel because my trigger wasn't as good as my Gen4's. The difference was so minimal that it wouldn't show most of the time. But there is something about at least my sample of a Gen5 G26 that wasn't quite as good as my Gen4 G26, but we have to keep in mind that even samples of the same exact gun (generation and all) can be individuals and even prefer different ammunition. So when someone claims they received better accuracy with one or the other using the same ammunition, all they can really say is that they are capable of getting better results with one or the other using that ammunition, but they're not even coming close to proving it scientifically. They would have to shoot many rounds comparing ammunition to find what ammo a particular pistol favors. Then they can compare guns using their best loads to put many more down range to eliminate other variables (like waking up on the wrong side of the bed that day).
I'm not trying to talk people out of seeking the best accuracy possible, but I am trying to put it in its proper context because more times than not people waste a lot of money "upgrading" firearms and buying & selling them in pursuit of the greatest pistol on earth when in all actuality practice is going to have a far greater impact on practical accuracy than the pistol itself. Generally speaking, a reliable firearm is the most important thing when discussing these types of pistols for their normal use outside of competition. Most of the firearms built today are plenty accurate in terms of effectiveness in a self-defense situation. You just want to make sure it is going to work when you need it. Take it from someone who has spent thousands and thousands of dollars on dozens of concealed carry pistols over the last 16 years.
Last but not least, I did end up selling my last Glock almost two years ago. For concealed carry I've maintained two Smith & Wesson M2.0 M&P9's (3.6" Subcompact and a Performance Center Shield), a SIG P229 Enhanced Elite in .357 SIG/.40 S&W, and 9mm), a Langdonized Beretta PX4 Storm Compact in 9mm, and a Ruger LCP II in .380 ACP. The reason being that, in my hands, the way I biomechanically interface with a pistol, these firearms shoot (point) more intuitively for me than Glocks. Don't get me wrong, I shoot Glocks very accurately, but when you're switching between platforms (and grip angles) all the time, Glocks require you to cant your wrist more than others, so while I am strictly focused on Glocks, this isn't a problem, but when I am bouncing between many different firearms, I sometimes shoot a bit too high with a Glock. People who put more rounds down range than I do may overcome this switching between platforms, but for me, there are only so many rounds I can buy and only so many hours in the week I can dry practice, so I made the decision to go with a set of firearms that work best for my concealed carry needs. But I will say that, for me, even though my M&P's point more naturally than the Glocks I've owned in the past, it's not by much and my SIG P229, Beretta PX4 Storm, and Ruger LCP II are marginally better (point more naturally). Again, that's my hands and certainly not necessarily yours or anyone else's.
Anyway, good luck and I hope this long comment I just wrote at least gave you and some others some information that is useful.
There are a few exceptions. Sometimes you can get a trigger or a barrel that might have a minor flaw that can sacrifice a bit of accuracy (the M1.0 had some barrels like this at one time as discussed by mrgunsngear, but they've always been supremely accurate (both M1.0 and M2.0).
Moreover, you can also dial in both Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps to be more accurate if necessary by changing the grips and/or trigger. If you're still not happy with the results, SOME (certainly not all) aftermarket barrels can improve accuracy as well.
If you're worried about the accuracy of an M&P, for example, you can get an "Apex Grade" barrel which improves accuracy by improving the lockup (which I think they've patented). Remember, however, that Apex Tactical also makes non-Apex Grade barrels which do not claim to do this but have a threaded barrel. If you have a S&W with a barrel they don't make the Apex Grade for (e.g. 3.6"), then you can certainly get an excellent barrel from companies like Bar-Sto (but to get the greatest accuracy, you'll have to get it handfit by the company which can get expensive because of the shipping).
I have a Bar-Sto for a SIG P229, and it is excellent, however, I did not get it hand fitted, so while the vertical lock up is excellent, there is some lateral movement that may or may not sacrifice accuracy (for competition, but not practical accuracy such as for self-defense). I carry the gun in .357 SIG, so I only needed a decent barrel for practicing with 9mm (as .357 SIG is expensive). But even if I plan to carry it for self defense, only practical accuracy is necessary for self-defense, and tighter tolerances can also make a pistol less reliable (not usually, but sometimes).
I had to handfit the Bar-Sto barrel to get it to fit (which is expected and actually a good sign that the vertical lock up is nice and tight, but the more important thing I want you to understand is that practical accuracy is not a cop out. Like I said, looser tolerances can make a pistol more reliable especially when facing the elements (mud, dirt, water, sand, etc.), and on the flip side, the difference between match-grade accuracy and practical accuracy won't normally translate to better self-protection, and not only is this an age-old maxim in the gun world, but I know of at least one study that bares this out (An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association).
The Buckeye Firearms study comparing calibers looked at about 1,800 bodies shot in gunfights, and it tracks such metrics such as the inability to incapacitate a person, how many hits it takes on average, accuracy looking at head and chest shots and other data. The more accurate calibers typically did not provide and advantage, and in some cases, were technically less effective (though certainly within the margin of error in most cases). Some clearly had greater accuracy than others but did not stop people as well because of other factors such as over penetration or under penetration. Simply put, slightly tighter groups do not seem to translate into better stopping power, at least in terms of comparing calibers. Making consistent center of mass hits and headshots is good enough. Again, we're not talking about ballistic gel tests here, the study actually shows what happened with 1,800 bodies shot with various calibers in real gunfights and accuracy was absolutely not an indicator of effectiveness. No study is perfect, but the law of large numbers in statistics makes 1,800 a much better number than the number of rounds as individuals we are likely to shoot making comparisons.
Depending on your ability to warm up to either Glock or Smith & Wesson, you may not find upgrading anything on your pistol at all necessary either in terms of practical or match-grade accuracy in competition (which is often not permitted in certain competition anyway).
That all said, there have been times outside of Glock and Smith & Wesson where I just couldn't warm up to a pistol no matter how much time I had behind it. My two FN FNS pistols come to mind. For whatever reason, sometimes it's not possible to warm up to a pistol because the ergonomics are not a good match even when you change the backstrap or trigger (e.g. trigger reach). In fact, I was slightly less accurate with my Gen5 Glock even though it is supposed to have a better barrel because my trigger wasn't as good as my Gen4's. The difference was so minimal that it wouldn't show most of the time. But there is something about at least my sample of a Gen5 G26 that wasn't quite as good as my Gen4 G26, but we have to keep in mind that even samples of the same exact gun (generation and all) can be individuals and even prefer different ammunition. So when someone claims they received better accuracy with one or the other using the same ammunition, all they can really say is that they are capable of getting better results with one or the other using that ammunition, but they're not even coming close to proving it scientifically. They would have to shoot many rounds comparing ammunition to find what ammo a particular pistol favors. Then they can compare guns using their best loads to put many more down range to eliminate other variables (like waking up on the wrong side of the bed that day).
I'm not trying to talk people out of seeking the best accuracy possible, but I am trying to put it in its proper context because more times than not people waste a lot of money "upgrading" firearms and buying & selling them in pursuit of the greatest pistol on earth when in all actuality practice is going to have a far greater impact on practical accuracy than the pistol itself. Generally speaking, a reliable firearm is the most important thing when discussing these types of pistols for their normal use outside of competition. Most of the firearms built today are plenty accurate in terms of effectiveness in a self-defense situation. You just want to make sure it is going to work when you need it. Take it from someone who has spent thousands and thousands of dollars on dozens of concealed carry pistols over the last 16 years.
Last but not least, I did end up selling my last Glock almost two years ago. For concealed carry I've maintained two Smith & Wesson M2.0 M&P9's (3.6" Subcompact and a Performance Center Shield), a SIG P229 Enhanced Elite in .357 SIG/.40 S&W, and 9mm), a Langdonized Beretta PX4 Storm Compact in 9mm, and a Ruger LCP II in .380 ACP. The reason being that, in my hands, the way I biomechanically interface with a pistol, these firearms shoot (point) more intuitively for me than Glocks. Don't get me wrong, I shoot Glocks very accurately, but when you're switching between platforms (and grip angles) all the time, Glocks require you to cant your wrist more than others, so while I am strictly focused on Glocks, this isn't a problem, but when I am bouncing between many different firearms, I sometimes shoot a bit too high with a Glock. People who put more rounds down range than I do may overcome this switching between platforms, but for me, there are only so many rounds I can buy and only so many hours in the week I can dry practice, so I made the decision to go with a set of firearms that work best for my concealed carry needs. But I will say that, for me, even though my M&P's point more naturally than the Glocks I've owned in the past, it's not by much and my SIG P229, Beretta PX4 Storm, and Ruger LCP II are marginally better (point more naturally). Again, that's my hands and certainly not necessarily yours or anyone else's.
Anyway, good luck and I hope this long comment I just wrote at least gave you and some others some information that is useful.
Last edited:
marathonrunner
Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Messages
- 899
- Reaction score
- 224
accuracy is subjective but I own both the 2.0 compact and a Glock 19x and the MP 2.0 is by far much more accurate and faster to shoot then the Glock. The glock is combat accurate but even with a aftermarket trigger the slop and mushy feel is a total distraction and more difficult to shoot fast
hostler
Member
Accuracy of mass manufactured pistols pretty much depends on operator interface, sights, trigger, grip.
I've had Glocks for years, my first Glock was a gen2 19 I bought new in 1990. I got the itch to try something different a couple of years ago so I bought an M&P 2.0 compact. I took it to the range a few times and was so disappointed, I couldn't hit a barn with it. I switched the factory night sights out for TruGlo sights (same as my Glocks wear) and all was well, I'm just as accurate with the MP as I am with my Glocks.
Point is, both guns are accurate if the operator interfaces work well for you.
I've had Glocks for years, my first Glock was a gen2 19 I bought new in 1990. I got the itch to try something different a couple of years ago so I bought an M&P 2.0 compact. I took it to the range a few times and was so disappointed, I couldn't hit a barn with it. I switched the factory night sights out for TruGlo sights (same as my Glocks wear) and all was well, I'm just as accurate with the MP as I am with my Glocks.
Point is, both guns are accurate if the operator interfaces work well for you.
sipowicz
Member
The 2.0 is more accurate than the Glock here. The Glock is way more accurate on Glocktalk.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 2,483
There is mechanical accuracy, which is what the gun is capable of.
Then there is you/me...the shooter. How the pistol interfaces with
the hand, and the trigger feel/release, reset etc.
I can rock a G17 pattern, but feel less capable with a 19. That's more pronounced on the Gens 1-4, as the finger grooves are more cramped.
The Glocks have a wider, fatter trigger blade. The serrated surface of the
19's trigger, combined with the safety-blade, tend to irritate my finger.
I'm just starting to get experience on my 2.0 compact, but initial results
indicate I may do better with it.
Then there is you/me...the shooter. How the pistol interfaces with
the hand, and the trigger feel/release, reset etc.
I can rock a G17 pattern, but feel less capable with a 19. That's more pronounced on the Gens 1-4, as the finger grooves are more cramped.
The Glocks have a wider, fatter trigger blade. The serrated surface of the
19's trigger, combined with the safety-blade, tend to irritate my finger.
I'm just starting to get experience on my 2.0 compact, but initial results
indicate I may do better with it.
I carried a Glock 23 (.40), same size as a G19, for the last several years of my career. After retirement I purchased a S&W 2.0 Compact 9MM for LEOSA qualification. If there's much difference in accuracy or reliability between the two it escapes me.
I've owned both and shot the 2.0 Compact more accurately than the Gen 5 19. More than anything I attribute it to the difference in how the grip fits my hand.
Never put either in Ransom Rest to test their mechanical accuracy.
Never put either in Ransom Rest to test their mechanical accuracy.
I had a brand new Glock 17 Gen5. I could group well at all with it. Used my son's M&P Full size 9 and outperformed my new Glock so well, I sold the Glock and bought the M&P 2.0 Compact on accident. It was before they put "Compact" on the slide and I thought it was a full size. I still group very very well with it and it's my EDC
