M&P Compact...22

[taadski]

Likely not marketed to those of us, who are likely a very small percentage of the gun buying public, who want a .22 understudy gun.....they already have that.

I'm thinking they are going after the .22 plinker/casual user crowd...competing with the Ruger SR22 and 22/45, Sig mosquito, etc.

It's not fair to put the Mark XXX pistols in that group, IMO.

[Alpha Sierra]

God killed a few more kittens today when he saw the external safety.

[Tamara]

It's not fair to put the Mark XXX pistols in that group, IMO.

I have put an ungodly crap-ton of ammo through my MkIII 22/45 for several years straight, and that with a cleaning regimen that would probably have ToddG accusing me of gun abuse (I'm talking chipping big chunks of carbon out of the receiver with a dental pick a couple times a year when the bolt starts getting sluggish no matter how much more lube I glop on it.)

If the light-metal slide understudy M&P will put up with that, I'll buy two.

[Tamara]

God killed a few more kittens today when he saw the external safety.

I like manual safeties on hammer-fired single-actions. I'm nervous that way.

[BobLoblaw]

It seems kinda fat and tall for a .22c
Height 5.03"
Width 1.48"
The 45c is shorter and thinner.

[Palmguy]

It seems kinda fat and tall for a .22c
Height 5.03"
Width 1.48"
The 45c is shorter and thinner.

Pretty good chance the width includes the prominent ambidextrous manual safety which, to some extent, makes it a meaningless dimension.

[BobLoblaw]

Pretty good chance the width includes the prominent ambidextrous manual safety which, to some extent, makes it a meaningless dimension.

I was comparing it to the 45c thumb safety model specs.

[Palmguy]

Comparing the two, I wouldn't be surprised if S&W isn't using consistent standards for published dimensions. 1.2" for the 45c sounds like the width without the safety; and 1.5" sounds like it would include the safety on the 22c.

In fact, now that I look, the 45c shows an identical width in TS and non-TS models.

[taadski]

I have put an ungodly crap-ton of ammo through my MkIII 22/45 for several years straight, and that with a cleaning regimen that would probably have ToddG accusing me of gun abuse (I'm talking chipping big chunks of carbon out of the receiver with a dental pick a couple times a year when the bolt starts getting sluggish no matter how much more lube I glop on it.)

If the light-metal slide understudy M&P will put up with that, I'll buy two.

Exactly.

My 22/45 is a Mark II but it runs and runs and runs, even with the filth from shooting it with a can. I wish my pot-metal Sig .22 conversion ran 1/3 as well.



t

[CCT125US]

I have lost count of how many bricks of .22 fodder has been through my MKII. Much of it produced at the Klimovsk Stamping Plant. 1 box is roughly equal in crud production as a brick of T22s or Thunderbolts. I swear they use coal as filler material. My cleaning routine sounds exactly like Tam's. Mainly because I always forget how to get the dang pistol apart.