Width Difference in M&P Compact 1.0. vs. New 2.0

[kbm6893]

I stopped in my local gunshop today and they had a used M&P Compact 1.0 with box. Price was $249. It had been set up for a lefty so mag release was on right side, but that’s an easy enough fix. Front sight had no dot in it but a dab of paint would fix that. It had the manual safety which I would want.

But I didn’t buy it. The safety was very easy to engage and kind of mushy. Like no nice positive click.

But what shocked me was how FAT the gun is. The grip felt huge. The slide was also much wider than on the Shield that I have. The clerk is a nice guy and a fan of the M&P. He told me he bought a Compact 1.0 first but hasn’t carried it since he got a Shield.

They didn’t have a 2.0 Compact to compare it to. Size-wise, how do the two compare?

I know. I should have bought it, you’re all gonna tell me. The price was good, I know. But you just know when you pick up a gun if it’s the right one, and that Compact just did not feel right. Spending nearly $300 for a gun I don’t really like just because it’s a good deal would be stupid and irresponsible. The shop did have a 2.0 Compact with safety when they first came out. I did feel it and don’t recall the aversion to it as I felt with the 1.0. Not to mention the 1.0 just doesn’t look right to me. The pics I’ve seen of the new 2.0 look more proportional

So anybody tell me how the width compares between the two. There’s a rebate going on right now for M&P’s with a $50 mastercard so that might draw me in.

 

[Rastoff]

Not to mention the 1.0 just doesn’t look right to me. The pics I’ve seen of the new 2.0 look more proportional.

The original compact has a shorter barrel and a shorter grip. This may be why the 2.0 looks better to you.

So anybody tell me how the width compares between the two. There’s a rebate going on right now for M&P’s with a $50 mastercard so that might draw me in.

According to the S&W spec sheet, the 2.0 has a 1.3" wide frame. My M&P40 Compact measures 1.14" at the frame and 1.3" at the slide stop (they stick out a little which make this the widest portion of the gun) so, I think they're the same width wise.

$249 is a good price, but, as you say, there's no reason to buy anything just because you think it's a good price. If you aren't happy with it, it will just put you $249 further from a gun you really want.

I haven't shot one yet, but I think the new 2.0 compact is the perfect combination of small enough to carry, but large enough to be easy to manipulate and use for regular use.

The Shield is a great gun, but not so much fun to shoot regularly. The small size is easy to conceal, but not easy to manipulate. The 2.0 Compact fixes that.

Prior to the 2.0 Compact I said the Glock 19 was the perfect size for an all around gun. The M&P 2.0 Compact is the same size, but with a better grip angle. All in all, it's a superior gun.

 

[Well Armed]

I stopped in my local gunshop today and they had a used M&P Compact 1.0 with box. Price was $249. It had been set up for a lefty so mag release was on right side, but that’s an easy enough fix. Front sight had no dot in it but a dab of paint would fix that. It had the manual safety which I would want.

But I didn’t buy it. The safety was very easy to engage and kind of mushy. Like no nice positive click.

But what shocked me was how FAT the gun is. The grip felt huge. The slide was also much wider than on the Shield that I have. The clerk is a nice guy and a fan of the M&P. He told me he bought a Compact 1.0 first but hasn’t carried it since he got a Shield.

They didn’t have a 2.0 Compact to compare it to. Size-wise, how do the two compare?

I know. I should have bought it, you’re all gonna tell me. The price was good, I know. But you just know when you pick up a gun if it’s the right one, and that Compact just did not feel right. Spending nearly $300 for a gun I don’t really like just because it’s a good deal would be stupid and irresponsible. The shop did have a 2.0 Compact with safety when they first came out. I did feel it and don’t recall the aversion to it as I felt with the 1.0. Not to mention the 1.0 just doesn’t look right to me. The pics I’ve seen of the new 2.0 look more proportional

So anybody tell me how the width compares between the two. There’s a rebate going on right now for M&P’s with a $50 mastercard so that might draw me in.

The 1.0 vs 2.0 should be roughly the same exact thickness. It's a double stack vs single stack. If you're caught up on the width, I would not worry about it. You'll get used to it... While single stacks are lighter and conceal better, double stack feel better in my hand and of course hold a lot more rounds.

I'm going to go against the grain and say that's not a great deal. You can currently find Gen 1s online NIB for around $320 or a little less which will put you with a new gun for around $270 with rebate.... If there wasn't a rebate going on, then it'd be a good price... IMHO.

 

[kbm6893]

The 1.0 vs 2.0 should be roughly the same exact thickness. It's a double stack vs single stack. If you're caught up on the width, I would not worry about it. You'll get used to it... While single stacks are lighter and conceal better, double stack feel better in my hand and of course hold a lot more rounds.

I'm going to go against the grain and say that's not a great deal. You can currently find Gen 1s online NIB for around $320 or a little less which will put you with a new gun for around $270 with rebate.... If there wasn't a rebate going on, then it'd be a good price... IMHO.

Where are they $320? And factor in shipping and transfer and that $340 is close to $400 for me. But if you know of NIB guns for $320 with free shipping I’m interested.

 

[Arndog123]

They're pretty much the same thickness. Here's pics of my 1.0 compact and 2.0 3.6" compact. 2.0 is on the right on both pics.

 

[Well Armed]

Where are they $320? And factor in shipping and transfer and that $340 is close to $400 for me. But if you know of NIB guns for $320 with free shipping I’m interested.

022188128246 - Smith and Wesson M&P9 Black 9mm 4.25-inch 17Rds | gun.deals

They were selling for $300-$330 shipped just a couple of weeks ago, but looks like they those sold out. They might drop down again. I've been seeing them around the aforementioned prices on and off for months. A $320ish NIB will be around $290 with transfer/rebate and the $250 used will be $265 or more with tax.

 

[wnderr]

I have a 1.0 and a 2.0 by next Wednesday. Thickness should be the same, but the 1.0 will be easier to conceal with the markedly shorter grip. I'm a bigger guy, so it shouldn't make much difference to me - I just had to have the 2.0, but keeping the 1.0.

 

[smoke33]

You said the grip felt really wide. Did it come with all 3 palm swells? It could have have the large one in it. Personally, I haven’t seen a NIB 1.0 9C for less than $400. My LGS has one for $450. Throw tax on that and you are up to almost $500 out the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smoke33]

022188128246 - Smith and Wesson M&P9 Black 9mm 4.25-inch 17Rds | gun.deals



They were selling for $300-$330 shipped just a couple of weeks ago, but looks like they those sold out. They might drop down again. I've been seeing them around the aforementioned prices on and off for months. A $320ish NIB will be around $290 with transfer/rebate and the $250 used will be $265 or more with tax.

That price is on the full size unless I am looking at something different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kbm6893]

You said the grip felt really wide. Did it come with all 3 palm swells? It could have have the large one in it. Personally, I haven’t seen a NIB 1.0 9C for less than $400. My LGS has one for $450. Throw tax on that and you are up to almost $500 out the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It might have. I didn’t notice. It came with box so I don’t know if the palm swells were even in it. It did have the finger grip baseplate which I hate. Would the flat one be in the box? Did they ship with the flat baseplates? I can stop by tomorrow and check but odds are it’s already gone.

 

[Well Armed]

That price is on the full size unless I am looking at something different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Opps, you're right. I had a brain fart. The fact that the S&W has confusing name recognition between the 1.0 and 2.0 barrel lengths had me thinking the OP wanted something similar in size to the 2.0 4" compact.

 

[smoke33]

It might have. I didn’t notice. It came with box so I don’t know if the palm swells were even in it. It did have the finger grip baseplate which I hate. Would the flat one be in the box? Did they ship with the flat baseplates? I can stop by tomorrow and check but odds are it’s already gone.

My 9C 1.0 came the the extended base plate and a flat one plus, a small, medium and large palm swell. There is a big difference between the small and large.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scattershot]

I have both, and for all intents and purposes they are the same.
The 1.0 measures 1.3 across the gip, while the 2.0 measures 1.210. The slide measures 1.090 on the 1, and 1.10 on the 2. Overall width is the same on both, measured at the slide stop, and is 1.295. There is a slight palm swell on the 1.0, and I have a Talon grip on it.

For comparison, my SR1911 Commander measures .915 across the slide.
Other than a slightly crisper trigger in the 2.0, I can’t tell a whole lot of difference. The 2.0 feels better to me, probably because of the slightly longer grip.

 

[WebSnyper]

I'm guessing the width difference you were feeling was due to the grip insert that was in the used 1.0 Compact.

 

[rbuzz]

The 1.0 vs 2.0 should be roughly the same exact thickness. It's a double stack vs single stack.

I agree that the 1.0 and the 2.0 should be roughly the same exact thickness, but it's not a double stack vs a single stack.

I have a 1.0 and it is definitely has a double stack magazine and although I don't own one yet, the 2.0 is also a double stack.

It's odd that Smith-Wesson doesn't list more detailed specs on the dimensions of their firearms. They generally list overall length and barrel length, but not much more.

 

[BigSky!]

Be more concerned about the feel than about the appearance. I know aesthetics do matter at times; but, I'm not talking about that. The more compact versions of full sized pistols have always looked/appeared to be chunky in my eyes. That goes for M&P FS compared to M&Pc and the G17 or 19 compared to the G26. It is only an optical illusion and due to being a shorter overall frame, both up and down, while maintaining the double stack configuration. Go for feel more than looks.

 

[wnderr]

I am impatiently waiting to see what my 9c holds like, with a 15 round mag in the grip --- that, my dear friends may just be a game changer.

My only gripe with the 9c is the grip size. With a 12 shot mag, it's just a tad short, and the 17 makes it too long...... With a 15? Hmmmm.

With both a med and a short grip option, it just may be just right.

When my 2.0 Compact gets here tomorrow, I am sure I will fall in love with it, tooooo! (Even if it doesn't have a short grip option - but that's what my 9c and my Shield are for, right?)

 

[Well Armed]

I agree that the 1.0 and the 2.0 should be roughly the same exact thickness, but it's not a double stack vs a single stack.

I have a 1.0 and it is definitely has a double stack magazine and although I don't own one yet, the 2.0 is also a double stack.

It's odd that Smith-Wesson doesn't list more detailed specs on the dimensions of their firearms. They generally list overall length and barrel length, but not much more.

Huh??? The M&P Shields both 1.0 and 2.0 are basically single stacks. The M&P Compact to Full-size 1.0 and 2.0 are all double stack. I'm not getting what you're trying to get at?

 

[wnderr]

I believe he was referring to the previous reference to the Shield. That's the way I read it earlier

 

[rbuzz]

Huh??? The M&P Shields both 1.0 and 2.0 are basically single stacks. The M&P Compact to Full-size 1.0 and 2.0 are all double stack. I'm not getting what you're trying to get at?

Maybe I read it wrong (I don't think so), but I thought we were comparing the thickness of the Compact 1.0 to the Compact 2.0.
Both versions of the Compact are double stack.

The way I read the post was that kbm6893 had visited a gun store which had the Compact 1.0 in stock. He commented on how wide the grip felt and said that there was no Compact 2.0 to compare it to. He did compare the thickness to a Shield that he owned, but his question as I read it concerned the difference in thickness between the Compact 1.0 that he saw at the gun shop and the newer Compact 2.0 which was the gun he was thinking of buying.

Obviously the Shield is a single stack, but I was commenting on the thickness difference between the two versions of the Compact. Sorry for the confusion.