Smith and wesson mp 2.0 compact 9mm

J

Jericho1911

New member
The compact 4 inch barrel. I held it in my hand it felt great and then rented one and shot it. Good shooter great sights and ergonomics. Does anyone know the significance difference between this one and the first gen? FN 509 remarkable pistol. Considering investing more money and buy it instead. Sig P320 compact nice. Which one would you go with and why?
 
I don't have a first gen M&P full size, but I do have the .40S&W compact.
I also have the newer 9mm Compact 2.0 (which is larger then the first gen "compacts").
As I'm sure you're aware, it's to compete with the Glock 19 and not the G26/27 (as I believe the 1st gen compacts were).

I like both and on occasion still carry the M&Ps. The trigger feels better on the newer 2.0 and it does have a much more aggressive stippling. However, it's over-aggressive IMO and I had to lightly sand the left side of the handle just so it wouldn't tear up my side (I carry IWB in simple kydex sheaths).

Both have been wonderfully reliable and accurate. I think anyone looking for a pistols that's comparable in size to the G19 but doesn't like the feel of the G19's grip angle will be quite happy with the M&P9 2.0 compact. They're often found on sale now too. I paid the going price when they first came out which is about $75-$125 more than they are now.
 
Differences between M&P9C 1.0 and 2.0 are as follows.

2.0:
has much more aggressive stippling,
Lighter trigger pull,
Crisper trigger break,
Shorter reset,
Reinforced steel rails for increased durability,
4 different sized backstraps vs 3 (S, M, Med.-L, L vs S, M, L),

I think there's one other thing that's different between the 2.0 and the 1.0. Just can't remember what it is right now.

I don't have any experience with the FN. I used to have two SIGs, still have the P229, but would sell the SIG before I sold one of my M&P 2.0s.

I'll just say that since I bought the S&W M&P9C 2.0 three years ago, I've used it in about a dozen defensive handgun courses, firing about 300-400 rounds per class, and have had exactly zero malfunctions. I put about 100-150 rounds through it per week, 40 weeks a year, and it always runs without a hitch, unless I do something dumb, like load a bad reload in it. Even then, my M&Ps are much more tolerant of my reloads than my Glock 19 Gen 4.

Another thing I really like is that the mags work like Glock mags, which is to say they always work flawlessly. That's the one thing I've always liked about Glocks, btw, is that their mags always work right out of the box. And the S&W mags are steel, so when you hit the mag release button they fall out of the gun like they were greased, the one thing Glock mags sometimes don't do.

I've bought two more M&P series 2.0 guns, and I wouldn't sell any of them. And I plan on buying a couple more. I think they are extremely good defensive firearms, and my M&Ps are the only guns in my safe that I'm seriously thinking about getting "spares" for. Well, and my S&W 1911 SC-E. Love that thing.
 
Last edited:
Big difference to me is the size — the 2.0 is "right-sized," meaning it’s essentially identical in size to the Glock 19. To me, Glock has always nailed the definitions of full-size, compact and subcompact.

I like to refer to compacts as "mid-sized," but S&W apparently didn’t always see it that way. With the 1.0 series (not the Shield models), S&W went with two sizes, and the compacts were more like subcompacts, only not quite — an M&P9C was somewhere between a Glock 19 and a 26. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure why they didn’t simply follow Glock’s size template, because, no matter what you might think of Glock, they understand physical dimensions (grip angle notwithstanding).

I know the M&P 2.0s have a litany of technical upgrades too, but the first time I picked up a 2.0 Compact, my first thought was, "I never liked holding a 1.0 Compact, and I’d never consider buying one, but this new model feels just right."
 
Last edited:
I think there's one other thing that's different between the 2.0 and the 1.0. Just can't remember what it is right now.

That other thing is a metal detente system for the slide lock. It prevents the slide from going forward when you forcefully slap a full magazine into the mag well.

I paid $500.00 for my 2.0 9 Compact a few months ago. I've been very happy with it in all aspects. Convinced to get one by me, a buddy just bought a used but mint example yesterday for $300.00 out the door. YMMV. tom.
 
Last edited:
I recently bought a new one for $429---liked it so much, I bought a second one.

Midway has/had(need to check) mags on sale for $21-$22 and picked an additional 4 mags between the 2 guns.

They feel much better the hand than the G19 and have pretty much become my go to guns----not getting rid of my Glocks though--at least not yet.
 
Hickock 45 just put video on YouTube

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJnJeL7TmsI

Has me interested. Don't need another 9 but has me thinking.
 
Last edited:
I bought my 2.0 from Brownell's for $350 delivered plus a $50 gift card. What sold me was the 4 different backstraps. I just cannot get a good grip on the Gen 3 19 with the finger grooves. All that said, I also bought a SIG P365 and with the 12 round mag, it fits even better.
 
I'm a long time Glock user, but within the last couple of years the M&P's have grown on me to the point where now I reach for the 9mm M&P 2.0 Compact more than the Glock 19.

I have a 1st gen 45 compact M&P with a 7-8 lb trigger which is not acceptable. I rented one of the 2.0's in 9mm at a local firing range about a year ago and liked it well enough to have them order me one. They were running a special on them at the time for $400 OTD, but only in full size. About 6 months ago I found a lightly used Compact for $300 OTD. Both shoot every bit as good as the Glocks and so far have been 100% reliable. Of course the Glock has a longer track record.

The appeal for me is that all 3 of my M&P's have the thumb safety. As much as I like my Glocks, I feel better having the safety. The trigger pull on my Glocks are all exactly 6 lbs. The M&P 2.0's are 5 lbs and the original M&P is about 7.5 lbs. Just for perspective my combat 1911's also have 5 lb triggers, the target 1911 is 2.5 lbs. If a thumb safety is a good idea on a 1911 with a 5 lb trigger, why not on a striker fired gun with exactly the same trigger pull.

If someone doesn't want the safety Smith sells them both ways. And if you have one with the safety there is no law that says you have to use it. It can even be removed. I just like having the option. But either way I'm impressed with the 2.0 version of the M&P. The original, not so much.

Just a couple of weeks ago bought a M17 Sig. Same gun as the full size 320, but configured as the military buys them including the safety and the brown color. It is too early to tell, but I think the Sig is ever so slightly better. It is also $600 vs $400. It probably isn't $200 better. But I just wanted to own the same gun the military carries. At this point I still reach for the M&P 1st and the G19 2nd. With more trigger time the Sig may get top billing, but not just yet.
 
I was able to try the M&P 2.0 Compact 3.6 last weekend at LGS factory shoot. What a sweet shooting pistol. I may have to get one of these. I was only able to shoot 10 rounds at 15 feet but 7 of those rounds were in a .8 inch group for an excellent first impression. Soft shooter too. Really nice size for CCW.
 
M&P 9C is my EDC. perfect size, great shooter, 100% reliable. No experience with the P320 to compare side by side.

But it is a SIG, so pretty sure you cant go wrong either way. pick the one that feels and shooters better for you.
 
I have a 2.0 Compact in 9mm, 4" barrel version. I like it a lot. Very low recoil, accurate and really great ergonomics. The trigger has a little more take up than I would prefer but otherwise I think it's great and significantly nicer than the trigger on my original Shield or any recent Glock I've tried. The backstraps really help you dial in the way it feels (Medium-Large for me).

I got mine for about $350 including shipping and FFL, and minus a $50 rebate. I think it's as good or better than any comparable striker fired pistol on the market and is a great deal at that price point.
 
Late to the party, but a very satisfied Compact 2.0 owner here. The new rough grip texture is awesome and the stock trigger is just fine. It is worlds better than the last gen. The only modification I required was knocking off the sights and throwing on some Hackathorns. I picked it up for $356 NIB and the place I got it online is still rolling with that price. It was a no brainer for me. I carry it when I'm not carrying the Shield.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using Tapatalk
 
What makes a M&P better than the PPQ, VP9, or P-10C?

Price?

I would rate it has one of the worst triggers even at 2.0?

I mean, short list, what has a worse trigger than the M&P?
 
I would rate it doesn't have one of the worst, or that the difference between it and the others you mention isn't that dramatic. And I say this as someone that has owned all the ones you mentioned. But hey, opinions and all that.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
IdaD said:
I have a 2.0 Compact in 9mm, 4" barrel version. I like it a lot. Very low recoil, accurate and really great ergonomics. The trigger has a little more take up than I would prefer but otherwise I think it's great and significantly nicer than the trigger on my original Shield or any recent Glock I've tried. The backstraps really help you dial in the way it feels (Medium-Large for me).

I got mine for about $350 including shipping and FFL, and minus a $50 rebate. I think it's as good or better than any comparable striker fired pistol on the market and is a great deal at that price point.
Click to expand...

I bought the 40sw version for $299. Like it a lot. The trigger takeup is of no matter to me, but the break is better than my modified Glock 19. In fact the break is growing on me to the point where I like it as much as my 1911's.
I find that the 18 degree grip angle works very well for me making getting on target feel more natural. I'll have to do some timer work to see if I'm faster with the M&P or I just think I'm going faster.
I've only got a couple hundred rounds through it, but right now I'm really happy with my M&P40 2.0 Compact purchase.
 
wild cat mccane said:
What makes a M&P better than the PPQ, VP9, or P-10C?

Price?

I would rate it has one of the worst triggers even at 2.0?

I mean, short list, what has a worse trigger than the M&P?
Click to expand...
I think that it is more compact in dimensions compared to those others. The M&P 2.0 Compact is the same height as the Glock 19 while the others are not. Yeah that extra .2 - .4 inch in height can make a difference in concealment at least for may of us. The M&P 2.0 also can be had with a safety and the others can not. As a bonus the safety is easily removable and S&W will send frame plugs for free last I heard.

As far as trigger I put the M&P 2.0 in the same class as the P10C and VP9 being a pretty decent trigger from my experiences IMO the PPQ is the best of the bunch from my experience but the difference is not enough for me to see any actual difference while shooting though I don't do bullseye shooting at 50 yards. The extra steel that S&W put in the M&P 2.0 frame and where they put it farther forward makes the M&P a very soft shooter to me.

I am not saying the M&P 2.0 Compact is better than the others or they are better than the M&P 2.0, just that IMO it is a very strong competitor in todays striker fired market and well worth looking at for anyone considering such a pistol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top