I started out circa 2005 or 2006 with the M&P Subcompact in .40 S&W (back when it was called the "Compact", or in this case, the M&P40c). I had one pistol before this, a Taurus 24/7 (which was/is a full-size pistol), but this M&P40c was my first concealed carry firearm (and my first quality firearm). I sold it in 2013 to go with a Glock 19. About two-dozen pistols later I'm thinking about getting an M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact, which I believe is a better designation than "compact" (at least with the flush magazine).
I have been a big fan of the G26 having had both the Gen4 and Gen5 versions, but after owning six Glocks I noticed something about them I'm not happy with. Even though I trained on the Glock grip angle to where I was proficient, I noticed that when I started owning a lot of different pistols from other manufacturers, I started missing more in my initial draw (shooting too high). This is a well known phenomenon due to the grip angle as we all know, but I had thought I'd overcome it. I have since sold all of my Glocks and started transitioning to pistols that are less prone to do doing this. My reasoning is that in the heat of having to draw my pistol to defend myself, I have no idea if I am going to be prone to sailing a round over someone's head if they're not right on top of me.
Anyway, after 15 years of owning pocket pistols, "single stacks" (most of which not truly being single), subcompacts, compacts, and full-size guns, about a month ago I started thinking that I need to try the Smith & Wesson M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact (again). If it works out, ironically I would be coming back to the pistol I started with. If the G26 grip angle was that of the M&P or classic SIG P series, I would have been fine sticking with it as I love the 4.17" height, but most G26 owners aside from myself put the extension to get twelve rounds anyway, but it makes the G26 a lot taller than the alleged 4.3" of the M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact, which brings me to my question for you:
Is the height of the Subcompact 4.3" as the 1.0 version was claimed?
I've noticed that Smith & Wesson sometimes fudges its numbers. For example, Smith claims a Shield M2.0 is 18.3 ounces, but this is misleading as that is the weight of the pistol without the magazine (empty or otherwise). When you add a couple of ounces for the magazine it is clearly a 20+ ounce pistol. I carry a Shield and prefer the extra weight as it makes it more shootable in my opinion than a Hellcat or P365 (so I am not complaining), but if they cut the magazine out of the weight specification, I was wondering if they also do the same thing when measuring the pistol's height.
Would you be willing to measure the top of the sight to the bottom of the magazine for both the flush and pinky extension mags to get a true heights of each configuration? I am also curious if the grip sleeves and 15 and/or 17 round magazines more closely match one of the palm swells in particular. I know they'll all fit, but I was wondering if any of them give the same profile as the Compact and Full-Size versions.
I'm only curious because I noticed that with my G26 anytime I used the extended magazines they printed more than the flush magazine; and because I actually shot it better without my pinky, the flush magazine configuration was my preference.
I think you chose wisely. I LOVE the M2.0 upgrades and I've missed my compact/subcompact M&P going on seven years now.
