cmort666
Member
It's not awful, but the styling is kind of "busy".
I prefer the looks of the old guns.
I prefer the looks of the old guns.
All I see is my newly bought M&Ps 1.0 decreasing in value by approximately 50-60%. But seriously why do a 2.0? They have the trigger mechanisms in place. Just do them like apex!
I'll have to admit that I'm not very impressed with the new look... and I guess we'll just have to wait to find out what all those visible changes and do-dads are going to do for us.It's not awful, but the styling is kind of "busy".
I prefer the looks of the old guns.
Yes, it's what used to be called Melonite, but for some reason they can't use that name anymore. It's the same as Tennifer on Glocks.
Yes, it's what used to be called Melonite, but for some reason they can't use that name anymore. It's the same as Tennifer on Glocks.
I am just hoping that mags and holsters are backward compatible or Smith and Wesson will have made a huge mistake that will probably adversely affect sales to 1.0 owners!
..wondering what are those ports on the frame for, to cool off the RSA? maybe attach a light? looks weird.
I'm still not understanding the front of the frame where it looks like a bear bit down real hard on it.I like what they've done. Shame I can't get it here.
I'm still not understanding the front of the frame where it looks like a bear bit down real hard on it.I get the steel reinforcement thing but I don't see how it relates to those new holes.
![]()
It's taken me half the day to figure out what, "LCI", meant.
It's taken me half the day to figure out what, "LCI", meant.
Obviously, you two don't live in a moonbat state.I still don't know. Not sure I care.
I think they're just showing off that the front part of the dust cover has a steel core. Plus it looks "tacticool".![]()
Not impressed."Windows" in dust cover that are backed internally by the new steel skeleton, so not really windows that would allow **** into gun. Basically cosmetic, perhaps to quickly differentiate V2 visually.
Performance-wise, this better be a big winner because I don't think many are going to buy it just for the cosmetic changes.![]()
Can't really argue with you on that (although I can't say it ever bothered me). As you compare them side by side, that change does appear to be an improvement.I'll trade the frame holes for getting rid of the ridiculously large beavertail of 1.0. Seems like a net upgrade.
Not impressed.They better have some functional purpose in being there 'cause they sure don't add anything to the looks of the gun IMHO