- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1
{RANT ALERT}
I'm about to pull my hair out on this one.
Cannot understand the excellent
across the board improvements of the M2.0 revision pistols in 9mm & .40, yet inconsistencies/flaws with the .45's.
First the new 4in Performance Center Shield .45;
As the very happy owner of 2 "M1.0" Shield .45's already, I was very excited about the M2.0 4in versions.
Looking closer I see what bugs me to no end which is when near the end of slide there is that beautiful inward scalloping & diagonal vertical line.
On the 9mm/.40 versions it lines up perfectly with end of the frame.
The .45 version is set back about 1/8in behind end of frame making the appearance of a slide not fully in battery by comparison.
This did not happen with the original 3.3in .45 Shield so I am puzzled why it is happening now.
Furthermore, the trigger bump stop at the bottom of the trigger guard (that more than one person evidently has has had catch the trigger on) is still present on the M2.0 revision .45 Shields...except for the ones that have the Crimson Trace laser built in.
I asked customer service about this as every other pistol across the entire M&P line has transitioned to the bump stop behind trigger at the top, which would be much harder to get stuck on.
This is the reply regarding both these issues:
"The scallops though functional are mostly cosmetic and may vary between calibers.
The 45 Shield has a different frame than the 9/40 and requires the stop to be in a different location. The location of the stop has no impact on shootabilty or performance."
If that is the case, why have they transitioned to the behind trigger stop on every other M&P pistol on the M2.0 revisions? (Including the laser equipped M2.0 .45 Shield 3.3in versions)
I think they are referring to the "press check" forward serrations when I am referring to the actual slide scalloping inward/narrowing at the diagonal/vertical line past the end of frame.
Because of my dissatisfaction with these relatively minor issues, (major to me since I cannot reconcile them compared to the 9mm/.40 counterparts) I started looking at their other offerings.
The M&P 9 M2.0 Compact caught my eye as I love the Glock 19 sized pistol which it is a near identical clone of.
I discovered that they had a .45 version of the same, & even had a 2.0 version which I consider essential due to the grip alone, along with he improved factory trigger I don't want to mess with.
Awesome!
Except...doesn't the grip look too long?
I am looking at the compact, why does it have the same 10rd capacity as the full size M&P .45?
Due to the incredibly inconsistent spec sheets that show some & not other/all info seemingly dependent on who was putting them together, I eventually find out the M2.0 compact has the exact same 5.6in height as the full size...making this the functional equivalent of the useless/backwards Glock 19X.
The original "M1.0" M&P .45C had 8rd capacity & fell into that magical 4.6in-5in height that matched the COMPACT nature of it's namesake.
Do they just want to save money on .45 frames/grip adapters/magazines?
Is the .45 on it's way out of S&W's relevancy/interest?
Do any of the engineers actually talk to each other/do market research before so blatantly misstepping in consistency with their other product offerings/descriptions?
HAS ANYONE ON THE .45 M2.0 DESIGN TEAM EVER CARRIED A HANDGUN AT ALL?
Is there a M&P M2.0 .45C I am missing somewhere, and this is all an unnecessarily whiny lolcow rant about a non-issue?
Grip shorter, slide longer is the mantra you should be chanting.
This is why for years people have been chopping grips to keep the velocity/sight radius/control/rail of a larger pistol with the concealability/versatility of a short grip length supplemented by minimal grip extensions on magazines if necessary.
The Glock "26L/27L/33L/39L" variety is the pinnacle of this type of thinking, shortening a Glock 19/23/32/38 frame to it's subcompact size & having a +1/2/3 mag baseplate (for a pinky rest/grip control) while still offering a 0.5in grip height reduction & ability to go with a flush magazine for a 0.75+in reduction, all while keeping weapon light mounting ability.
The M&P .45C seemed to be an excellent product that has been Frankensteined the wrong way into uselessness & I am left with nothing good to choose from.
Woe is me, cry more at having a choice, whaaambulance, first world problems, etc....I'm still pissed.
P.S.
Because the M&P/Shield .45 is so slightly different from the 9mm/.40 versions, does anyone have any experience using same holster for all?
I'm about to pull my hair out on this one.
Cannot understand the excellent
across the board improvements of the M2.0 revision pistols in 9mm & .40, yet inconsistencies/flaws with the .45's.
First the new 4in Performance Center Shield .45;
As the very happy owner of 2 "M1.0" Shield .45's already, I was very excited about the M2.0 4in versions.
Looking closer I see what bugs me to no end which is when near the end of slide there is that beautiful inward scalloping & diagonal vertical line.
On the 9mm/.40 versions it lines up perfectly with end of the frame.
The .45 version is set back about 1/8in behind end of frame making the appearance of a slide not fully in battery by comparison.
This did not happen with the original 3.3in .45 Shield so I am puzzled why it is happening now.
Furthermore, the trigger bump stop at the bottom of the trigger guard (that more than one person evidently has has had catch the trigger on) is still present on the M2.0 revision .45 Shields...except for the ones that have the Crimson Trace laser built in.
I asked customer service about this as every other pistol across the entire M&P line has transitioned to the bump stop behind trigger at the top, which would be much harder to get stuck on.
This is the reply regarding both these issues:
"The scallops though functional are mostly cosmetic and may vary between calibers.
The 45 Shield has a different frame than the 9/40 and requires the stop to be in a different location. The location of the stop has no impact on shootabilty or performance."
If that is the case, why have they transitioned to the behind trigger stop on every other M&P pistol on the M2.0 revisions? (Including the laser equipped M2.0 .45 Shield 3.3in versions)
I think they are referring to the "press check" forward serrations when I am referring to the actual slide scalloping inward/narrowing at the diagonal/vertical line past the end of frame.
Because of my dissatisfaction with these relatively minor issues, (major to me since I cannot reconcile them compared to the 9mm/.40 counterparts) I started looking at their other offerings.
The M&P 9 M2.0 Compact caught my eye as I love the Glock 19 sized pistol which it is a near identical clone of.
I discovered that they had a .45 version of the same, & even had a 2.0 version which I consider essential due to the grip alone, along with he improved factory trigger I don't want to mess with.
Awesome!
Except...doesn't the grip look too long?
I am looking at the compact, why does it have the same 10rd capacity as the full size M&P .45?
Due to the incredibly inconsistent spec sheets that show some & not other/all info seemingly dependent on who was putting them together, I eventually find out the M2.0 compact has the exact same 5.6in height as the full size...making this the functional equivalent of the useless/backwards Glock 19X.
The original "M1.0" M&P .45C had 8rd capacity & fell into that magical 4.6in-5in height that matched the COMPACT nature of it's namesake.
Do they just want to save money on .45 frames/grip adapters/magazines?
Is the .45 on it's way out of S&W's relevancy/interest?
Do any of the engineers actually talk to each other/do market research before so blatantly misstepping in consistency with their other product offerings/descriptions?
HAS ANYONE ON THE .45 M2.0 DESIGN TEAM EVER CARRIED A HANDGUN AT ALL?
Is there a M&P M2.0 .45C I am missing somewhere, and this is all an unnecessarily whiny lolcow rant about a non-issue?
Grip shorter, slide longer is the mantra you should be chanting.
This is why for years people have been chopping grips to keep the velocity/sight radius/control/rail of a larger pistol with the concealability/versatility of a short grip length supplemented by minimal grip extensions on magazines if necessary.
The Glock "26L/27L/33L/39L" variety is the pinnacle of this type of thinking, shortening a Glock 19/23/32/38 frame to it's subcompact size & having a +1/2/3 mag baseplate (for a pinky rest/grip control) while still offering a 0.5in grip height reduction & ability to go with a flush magazine for a 0.75+in reduction, all while keeping weapon light mounting ability.
The M&P .45C seemed to be an excellent product that has been Frankensteined the wrong way into uselessness & I am left with nothing good to choose from.
Woe is me, cry more at having a choice, whaaambulance, first world problems, etc....I'm still pissed.
P.S.
Because the M&P/Shield .45 is so slightly different from the 9mm/.40 versions, does anyone have any experience using same holster for all?
Last edited:
