Would It Be Wise to WAIT to Buy a Bodyguard 2.0?

[EL_GATO]

Sorry to pee on the parade of the 2.0 blinder boys. No machine is perfect, and you must accept the limitations. Perhaps they are acceptable to you, and that's perfectly fine. But denying they exist, is a trip to Fantasy Island.


Frankly, the only one "making something up" is you.

From the current Glock Manual (p.7):
"The trigger safety is designed to protect against firing if the pistol is dropped or the trigger is subjected to lateral pressure."

So yes, the trigger safety has TWO functions. The design of the 2.0 paddle trigger safety compromises the second function, especially in a pistol with relatively short trigger press, carried in non-conventional means such as a pocket, pouch, or in tight fitting holster of flexible material.



Limiting your capability to shooting at 5-10-15-20 feet - or whatever - is a choice. It's OK if that is your choice. However, it's not mine, nor is it any kind of legal requirement. The factory 2.0 sights are not precise enough for accuracy under stress at speed, at anything other than very close range. I say this as LE firearms instructor for nearly 35 years.



My apologies, but your concepts of legal self-defense lack a sound basis in the law. The internet unfortunately is filled with misinformation, which gets regurgitated. I am a lawyer, in addition to a retired LEO.

How close does an attacker armed with a firearm have to be to kill you? Do you have a cite from your state's laws on that?

How close would you like to get to the offender in a mass shooting, or a psycho with a flamethrower?

You can freely accept the limitations of the sights on the 2.0. That's a choice. But you can't deny them, and I'm pointing out reality. I'm not the only one to do so. I changed the rear sight and the results were satisfactory out to 50 feet. When I get time to get to the outdoor range, I'll test it further.

You make some good points. I have this gun in the rotation as it's a very easy pocket carry, weighs very little and its very small. Sometimes I want that. And it's got a pretty good ammo capacity.

I am well aware of the limitations and accept them. Including the fact that it's a .380. However, it's certainly better than being totally unarmed. My take is this is good for close up point shooting, especially in an emergency where you don't have much time to set up and carefully aim. I am pretty sure that is what this is designed for. If you are trying to engage someone far away it's going to be a lot harder. But show me any tiny pocket pistol that's great at that especially under stress. I can get pretty accurate with it at the range, beyond the close up and personal, but its not really meant for that is it? All that being said its the most comfortable and shootable pocket .380 I have ever tried.

 

[Phenix]

My experiences are based upon 4 copies of the BG2 in our family.
A 1/16" divot filled with phosphorescent paint relieved the rear sight woes (photo below) but I agree on your front sight thought.

Return yours to S&W for a tune-up, although, truthfully... you shouldn't need to for such a storied manufacturer.

Hopeful your issues get solved.

S&W is not the consistent-quality manufacture they once were. Particularly with revolvers which I realize are more difficult to produce than automatics. And I am a big S&W guy.
As much as I love my J frames (and Taurus equivalent), I think the .380 Bodyguard 2.0 with thumb safety is the very best CC pocket pistol out there.
I have mine in my pocket as I type this and can't even tell it is there.