Gen5 G17 and M&P 2.0 Comparison shoot

[Lunker]

I had always been a Glock guy, believing that its simplicity of design and parts abundance made it the no-brainer platform choice. I also shoot a number of hammer guns for fun and they all have the more traditional grip angle. I have tried and abandoned a few other striker guns along the way (Sig 320, CZ p10) but never the M&P.
I picked one up and decided to shoot it side by side against my Gen5 G17 to get some impressions. They both have RMR’s and overwatch falx triggers, so it seemed like a fair comparison.
The Glock feels much lighter in my hand, even though the difference is only 2 ounces. I had always been told Glocks are easier to shoot fast because the aggressive wrist angle keeps your arms locked in better. I didn’t find this to be the case in semi rapid fire (~2/second). For me the M&P was much steadier and the dot came back into view more reliably.
The accuracy in slow fire seemed to be a wash out to 15 yards. The only feature I liked better on the Glock was the ambi extended slide release. I can’t activate the m&p release with my strong hand. Maybe with some more practice.
My biggest surprise has been how much more solid the M&P feels and how well that grip texture really locks it into my hand.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240204/4c58e5cc8f0c945e3952e63cdbe47a33.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240204/76da68e473c71c0926e0723a9b115a1e.jpg

[HCM]

I had always been a Glock guy, believing that its simplicity of design and parts abundance made it the no-brainer platform choice. I also shoot a number of hammer guns for fun and they all have the more traditional grip angle. I have tried and abandoned a few other striker guns along the way (Sig 320, CZ p10) but never the M&P.
I picked one up and decided to shoot it side by side against my Gen5 G17 to get some impressions. They both have RMR’s and overwatch falx triggers, so it seemed like a fair comparison.
The Glock feels much lighter in my hand, even though the difference is only 2 ounces. I had always been told Glocks are easier to shoot fast because the aggressive wrist angle keeps your arms locked in better. I didn’t find this to be the case in semi rapid fire (~2/second). For me the M&P was much steadier and the dot came back into view more reliably.
The accuracy in slow fire seemed to be a wash out to 15 yards. The only feature I liked better on the Glock was the ambi extended slide release. I can’t activate the m&p release with my strong hand. Maybe with some more practice.
My biggest surprise has been how much more solid the M&P feels and how well that grip texture really locks it into my hand.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240204/4c58e5cc8f0c945e3952e63cdbe47a33.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240204/76da68e473c71c0926e0723a9b115a1e.jpg

I’ve always found guns with flat sided grips easier to shoot fast regardless of the grip angle as it allows more engagement with the support hand.

IME the M&P shoots fine but the biggest negative is the CORE optics mounting system. Using longer screws which have to go through the optic, plate and onwards into the slide, makes them more vulnerable to shearing forces during recoil.

[GJM]

Many people will be more comfortable with the M&P grip angle. Both OEM triggers are decent, but the Apex FSS is better than any trigger in a Glock. The BUIS on the M&P are ridiculously high. I prefer the MOS system, with its shortcomings to the CORE. The Glock has been more accurate at 25 for me with OEM barrels. The Gen 5 Glock has a flared magwell, where the M&P mag opening is pretty tight. Really gets down to personal preference.

[NETim]

I had always been a Glock guy, believing that its simplicity of design and parts abundance made it the no-brainer platform choice. I also shoot a number of hammer guns for fun and they all have the more traditional grip angle. I have tried and abandoned a few other striker guns along the way (Sig 320, CZ p10) but never the M&P.
I picked one up and decided to shoot it side by side against my Gen5 G17 to get some impressions. They both have RMR’s and overwatch falx triggers, so it seemed like a fair comparison.
The Glock feels much lighter in my hand, even though the difference is only 2 ounces. I had always been told Glocks are easier to shoot fast because the aggressive wrist angle keeps your arms locked in better. I didn’t find this to be the case in semi rapid fire (~2/second). For me the M&P was much steadier and the dot came back into view more reliably.
The accuracy in slow fire seemed to be a wash out to 15 yards. The only feature I liked better on the Glock was the ambi extended slide release. I can’t activate the m&p release with my strong hand. Maybe with some more practice.
My biggest surprise has been how much more solid the M&P feels and how well that grip texture really locks it into my hand.


What caused you to ditch the CZ P10?

[Brianjkeene]

What caused you to ditch the CZ P10?

For me it was the short trigger reach and, in my opinion, inconsistent and unpredictable trigger. Many people love the P10 trigger but I simply disliked it enough, along with the reach, to prefer a Glock or M2.0

[zcap]

IME the M&P shoots fine but the biggest negative is the CORE optics mounting system. Using longer screws which have to go through the optic, plate and onwards into the slide, makes them more vulnerable to shearing forces during recoil.

I completely agree. While the CORE the mount design allows for adapter plates with recoil fences, the plates themselves do not independently secure to the slide so the fences do not sufficiently mitigate shear force on the optic screws. This is not just hypothetical, my M&P M2.0 CORE pistols have consistently failed to hold zero with both the OEM and aftermarket plates which use the CORE design.

Thankfully, Forward Controls released M&P optic plates using a MOS style design (https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.com/OPF-SW-RMR_p_498.html) where the plate is independently secured to the slide. In my experience, using the FCD plate on a M&P CORE slide or getting a non-optics ready M&P slide milled (https://jagerwerks.com/m-p-2-0/optic-cuts) have been the most robust optic mount options.

[HCM]

I completely agree. While the CORE the mount design allows for adapter plates with recoil fences, the plates themselves do not independently secure to the slide so the fences do not sufficiently mitigate shear force on the optic screws. This is not just hypothetical, my M&P M2.0 CORE pistols have consistently failed to hold zero with both the OEM and aftermarket plates which use the CORE design.

Thankfully, Forward Controls released M&P optic plates using a MOS style design (https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.com/OPF-SW-RMR_p_498.html) where the plate is independently secured to the slide. In my experience, using the FCD plate on a M&P CORE slide or getting a non-optics ready M&P slide milled (https://jagerwerks.com/m-p-2-0/optic-cuts) have been the most robust optic mount options.

Our local PD issued .40 cal M&P 1.0s and tested the CORE system extensively. They initially approved the CORE for personally owned guns but had enough issues (even in 9mm) that they disallowed COREs and only approved direct mill. They currently issue the factory ACRO cut M&P 2.0 in 9mm.

[757_Magnum]

GJM Did you ever try out the Stack-A-Toe setup, and if so, how do you think it compares to your Glocks with Apex trigger and Mayhem/Evolution/Rogue barrel and comp setup? I'm asking because my G19s are set up similarly, and I've thought of giving the M&Ps a fair shake since some people find them a bit more forgiving.

[Lunker]

What caused you to ditch the CZ P10?

I liked the gun. Great texture and controls. Decent sights. It seemed like what Glock would create if they improved their product based on customer feedback.
But it never quite fit me right. I think the reach was too short, and it led to me putting sideways pressure on the trigger. It caused drastically inconsistent trigger pulls for me. The guy I sold it to loves it. So probably just me.

[GJM]

GJM Did you ever try out the Stack-A-Toe setup, and if so, how do you think it compares to your Glocks with Apex trigger and Mayhem/Evolution/Rogue barrel and comp setup? I'm asking because my G19s are set up similarly, and I've thought of giving the M&Ps a fair shake since some people find them a bit more forgiving.

I shot a M&P with an Apex gunsmith barrel fit and FSS trigger, both fit by Randy Lee, for a year in USPSA CO. I used a Romeo 3 Max. Good shooting setup.

[idahojess]

The accuracy in slow fire seemed to be a wash out to 15 yards. The only feature I liked better on the Glock was the ambi extended slide release. I can’t activate the m&p release with my strong hand. Maybe with some more practice.

The little detent thingy next to the left side slide stop/slide release on an M&P 2.0 makes them not really user-friendly as a slide release. The detent can be removed -- which helps it function better as a slide release.

[sickeness]

Our local PD issued .40 cal M&P 1.0s and tested the CORE system extensively. They initially approved the CORE for personally owned guns but had enough issues (even in 9mm) that they disallowed COREs and only approved direct mill. They currently issue the factory ACRO cut M&P 2.0 in 9mm.

That may be more due to the 40 caliber than anything else really, also theres the question of how they were being mounted and who was mounting them. The LA County Sheriffs use a lot of RDS M&Ps and they are probably the largest M&P issuing agency in the nation and IIRC one of their former ROs who posts here has said they have run into very few problems with that mounting platform.

[HCM]

That may be more due to the 40 caliber than anything else really, also theres the question of how they were being mounted and who was mounting them. The LA County Sheriffs use a lot of RDS M&Ps and they are probably the largest M&P issuing agency in the nation and IIRC one of their former ROs who posts here has said they have run into very few problems with that mounting platform.

It’s not.

They were being mounted by armorers and range staff, who were factory trained S&W armorers and it was not just with .40 cals. They tested the 9mm CORE models pursuant to their transition from 40 to 9.

Like GJM I’ve also seen multiple issues with CORE mounts in both classes and competition. Including one where the screws sheared and the optic came loose and hit the shooter in the forehead.

Using longer screw makes the screws more susceptible to shearing forces under recoil.

Also SoCalDeputy ‘s former agency doesn’t issue optics / optics capable M&Ps - they have an optional personally owned optics program and have the option for carrying other personally owned guns so it’s not like they have 10,000 CORE models with optics on the street.

My local PD has a bit over 2k sworn and issues everyone an ACRO cut M&P. Our nearest neighboring city, which also previously issued M&P 1.0 40s, also had negative experiences with the CORE during testing and also issues now issues the ACRO cut M&P in 9mm.

[SoCalDep]

It’s not.

They were being mounted by armorers and range staff, who were factory trained S&W armorers and it was not just with .40 cals. They tested the 9mm CORE models pursuant to their transition from 40 to 9.

Like GJM I’ve also seen multiple issues with CORE mounts in both classes and competition. Including one where the screws sheared and the optic came loose and hit the shooter in the forehead.

Using longer screw makes the screws more susceptible to shearing forces under recoil.

Also SoCalDeputy ‘s former agency doesn’t issue optics / optics capable M&Ps - they have an optional personally owned optics program and have the option for carrying other personally owned guns so it’s not like they have 10,000 CORE models with optics on the street.

My local PD has a bit over 2k sworn and issues everyone an ACRO cut M&P. Our nearest neighboring city, which also previously issued M&P 1.0 40s, also had negative experiences with the CORE during testing and also issues now issues the ACRO cut M&P in 9mm.

We all have our own experiences so I won’t discount yours but I will disagree. As for your armorers and range staff mounting optics, their armorer certification is meaningless to me. I’ve been certified multiple times as an M&P armorer and received exactly zero instruction on mounting optics. In fact, when I was conducting our T&E of the Leupold DeltaPoint Pro (new model with blue circuit board) I contacted S&W to get the torque specifications for their screws since they weren’t published anywhere. It took an exceptionally long time for a very vague response. That response simply confirmed the test-to-failure that I’d already conducted.


I have seen optics come loose on M&Ps, Glocks, Staccatos, FNs, and probably other guns too… and documented a lot of it here over a multi year period.


I personally feel the M&P CORE system, when used with the factory metal plate and mounted properly is one of the best of all the plate systems that use vertical mounting screws. I did a ton of research into shear forces, tensile strength, and consulted with mechanical engineers and never did I hear that longer screws are more subject to shear force. I do know that the M3 screws that attach the Glock MOS have significantly less shear strength (which depending on the formula and ductility of the metal is approximately 57% or so of the tensile strength) and due to less thread engagement have less contact with threadlocker to prevent the screw from coming loose.

That said I’ve heard a lot of crap talk about the Glock factory MOS system and plates. I personally believe much of the “potato chip” bending reputation was improper installation with the screws that came with the -at the time most popular- Trijicon RMR.

I personally oversaw over 20,000 rounds of testing optics on M&Ps that were thoroughly abused and 10,000 rounds on a Glock. I’ve personally fired tens of thousands of rounds and know dozens of others who have fired tens of thousands of rounds through M&Ps with optics. The system is sound. The system works.

As for my former department, optics are an optional program. The number of users is, however, bigger than many other department’s entire staff. Since the ACRO is a very small percentage, and direct mount ACROs an even smaller portion, I’d say we have a sample size of vertical screw mounting systems that is worthy of consideration. 2,000 officers issued a direct-mount ACRO system offers no perspective on vertical mounting screws and shear force.

Of all the different optics that have sheared on all the different platforms by all the different users and agencies I’ve come into contact with there is a consistent theme. The theme is that the optic came loose first… then sheared. That’s why my answer to mounting is to prevent the screw from coming loose. Having a thicker 6-32 screw with more thread engagement for better threadlocker performance, the ability to torque to a higher in/lb compared to thinner screws or screws with minimal engagement, coupled with a mounting syste (CORE) that locks the plate solidly to the slide and the optic solidly to the plate even before the screw is torqued are to me advantages of the CORE system.

It’s not that the CORE can’t fail, or that others can’t work. I simply believe, based on my experience, that most optics that come loose weren’t mounted properly.

[LockedBreech]

I have several Gen 5 Glocks and several M2.0 M&Ps. To me, they are a complete wash. I am very comfortable shooting both and have had perfect reliability with both.

The point of aim and grip angle for the M&P are better for me, but not enough to make a real difference after years of shooting Glocks, that little auto-adjustment in my wrist angle is automatic and near-instant at this point.

Two absolutely superb platforms that are the product of many years' worth of vigorous testing and competition. There's no bad way to go.

[HCM]

We all have our own experiences so I won’t discount yours but I will disagree. As for your armorers and range staff mounting optics, their armorer certification is meaningless to me. I’ve been certified multiple times as an M&P armorer and received exactly zero instruction on mounting optics. In fact, when I was conducting our T&E of the Leupold DeltaPoint Pro (new model with blue circuit board) I contacted S&W to get the torque specifications for their screws since they weren’t published anywhere. It took an exceptionally long time for a very vague response. That response simply confirmed the test-to-failure that I’d already conducted.


I have seen optics come loose on M&Ps, Glocks, Staccatos, FNs, and probably other guns too… and documented a lot of it here over a multi year period.


I personally feel the M&P CORE system, when used with the factory metal plate and mounted properly is one of the best of all the plate systems that use vertical mounting screws. I did a ton of research into shear forces, tensile strength, and consulted with mechanical engineers and never did I hear that longer screws are more subject to shear force. I do know that the M3 screws that attach the Glock MOS have significantly less shear strength (which depending on the formula and ductility of the metal is approximately 57% or so of the tensile strength) and due to less thread engagement have less contact with threadlocker to prevent the screw from coming loose.

That said I’ve heard a lot of crap talk about the Glock factory MOS system and plates. I personally believe much of the “potato chip” bending reputation was improper installation with the screws that came with the -at the time most popular- Trijicon RMR.

I personally oversaw over 20,000 rounds of testing optics on M&Ps that were thoroughly abused and 10,000 rounds on a Glock. I’ve personally fired tens of thousands of rounds and know dozens of others who have fired tens of thousands of rounds through M&Ps with optics. The system is sound. The system works.

As for my former department, optics are an optional program. The number of users is, however, bigger than many other department’s entire staff. Since the ACRO is a very small percentage, and direct mount ACROs an even smaller portion, I’d say we have a sample size of vertical screw mounting systems that is worthy of consideration. 2,000 officers issued a direct-mount ACRO system offers no perspective on vertical mounting screws and shear force.

Of all the different optics that have sheared on all the different platforms by all the different users and agencies I’ve come into contact with there is a consistent theme. The theme is that the optic came loose first… then sheared. That’s why my answer to mounting is to prevent the screw from coming loose. Having a thicker 6-32 screw with more thread engagement for better threadlocker performance, the ability to torque to a higher in/lb compared to thinner screws or screws with minimal engagement, coupled with a mounting syste (CORE) that locks the plate solidly to the slide and the optic solidly to the plate even before the screw is torqued are to me advantages of the CORE system.

It’s not that the CORE can’t fail, or that others can’t work. I simply believe, based on my experience, that most optics that come loose weren’t mounted properly.

Are the factory metal plates available through normal channels for the 2.0? Hasn’t S&W been supplying polymer plates ?

The Depts I reference are each about 2k sworn so 4k between the two. Both are issuing the ACRO cut guns - one is running a mix of P2s and Steiners, the other all P2. One only allows M&Ps in uniform - the other wax doing that but they may have started allowing stacattos. They previously issued Glocks with optional 1911s so it’s not surprising given the history and their proximity to Stacatto.

S&W did make changes from CORE 1.0 vs CORE 2.0 - did you see any difference between them ?

[Lunker]

Are the factory metal plates available through normal channels for the 2.0? Hasn’t S&W been supplying polymer plates ?
S&W did make changes from CORE 1.0 vs CORE 2.0 - did you see any difference between them ?

My recently purchased 2.0 has plastic plates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sickeness]

Are the factory metal plates available through normal channels for the 2.0? Hasn’t S&W been supplying polymer plates ?

The Depts I reference are each about 2k sworn so 4k between the two. Both are issuing the ACRO cut guns - one is running a mix of P2s and Steiners, the other all P2. One only allows M&Ps in uniform - the other wax doing that but they may have started allowing stacattos. They previously issued Glocks with optional 1911s so it’s not surprising given the history and their proximity to Stacatto.

S&W did make changes from CORE 1.0 vs CORE 2.0 - did you see any difference between them ?

The only difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0 is that the 2.0 plate is about 1-2mm longer to accomodate for DPP sized optics. All factory metal plates were made for the 1.0 so they will fit a 2.0 but with a small front gap, which makes no difference.

Thanks for the info from SoCalDep, great to hear legit info from the source instead of internet heresay.

[HCM]

The only difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0 is that the 2.0 plate is about 1-2mm longer to accomodate for DPP sized optics. All factory metal plates were made for the 1.0 so they will fit a 2.0 but with a small front gap, which makes no difference.

Thanks for the info from SoCalDep, great to hear legit info from the source instead of internet heresay.

Internet heresay ?

I have personally seen several CORE mounted optics fail in training classes including the one I mentioned which completely separated and hit the shooter in the forehead.

I know, have worked with and shot with the range staff from the two agencies I mentioned. I have no reason to doubt their findings. Each of those departments is putting over a million rounds a year through M&Ps.

What I posted was based on my first hand observation and the experience of people I know and work with in real life.

Sorry your baby is sometimes ugly but in the real world experiences vary.

[SoCalDep]

The only difference between the 1.0 and the 2.0 is that the 2.0 plate is about 1-2mm longer to accomodate for DPP sized optics. All factory metal plates were made for the 1.0 so they will fit a 2.0 but with a small front gap, which makes no difference.

Thanks for the info from SoCalDep, great to hear legit info from the source instead of internet heresay.

Don’t discount what HCM says… He’s no dummy. Nothing is perfect, and while pistol optics are matured enough for duty worthiness, they’re certainly not mature enough that significant improvement can’t happen. It takes the collective experience to identify what needs to be improved, and that means multiple sources of information.

As to HCM ‘s inquiry as to differences between the 1.0 and 2.0, this is what I know…

The 1.0 has an optic cut length of 1.925” and the 2.0 has an optic cut of 1.975”. The distance between the raised bosses are the same so a 1.0 plate will fit in a 2.0 but not vice versa…

Oh yea… that’s not entirely true.

They didn’t change the optic pocket until around mid 2021 if I remember correctly, so there are 2.0s with the old 1.925” cut. Around when S&W went away from the CORE (Competition Optic Ready Equipment) for law enforcement and started calling them simply “Optic Ready”, they moved to the 1.975” cut, but there’s overlaps sooo… If you have a CORE, you likely (but not guaranteed) have a 1.925” cut - 1.0 or 2.0. If you have a 2.0 that isn’t marked “CORE”, you probably have the 1.975” cut. I’m pretty sure there are exceptions.

I bought a very slightly used 1.0 CORE Pro in December to play around with as a field pistol project. It has the 1.925” cut, metal plates, and one big difference compared to at least the most recent (as of 2021) 2.0 optic ready pistols - It has blind holes in the slide. The more current 2.0s have through-bored threaded holes.

As for the metal plates… they used to be standard, but S&W went to polymer in 2020. We were not happy and made our opinion known. I can’t say for sure but S&W should (as of 2021) be supplying metal plates for LE guns. Civvy guns get polymer plates… which is crap.

HCM… were your guns, particularly the ones that failed, using polymer, metal, or aftermarket plates? Was there a mounting standard with a method and torque spec? Was it consistent among all personnel mounting optics? What screws were being used? I ask because we’ve learned from our experience what seems to work consistently and what can potentially result in failure. When you saw that failure were you testing other pistols as well or only M&Ps? Did you see failures with other pistols subjected to the same scrutiny?

[zcap]

The CORE system design uses a single set of fasteners across two sets of bosses on two planes. This design means cumulative tolerance stacking occurs across the slide to plate interface and the plate to optic interface. In my experience, this is the major practical problem with the CORE design. Unless each of the optic, the optic plate and slide cut mate up tightly as a unit, the effectiveness of recoil bosses is compromised and proportionally more force is transferred via the optic screws. Regardless of how tight S&W executes their slide cuts, in practice optic plates have looser tolerances and optic tolerances are all over the map depending on the manufacturer and model.

The MOS and most other mounting systems use a separate set of fasteners and recoil bosses on each interface between planes. This design limits cumulative tolerance stacking across interfaces and in practice means plate manufactures can make their optic to plate and plate to slide interfaces tighter because they don't have to worry about a slight misfit on one interface compromising the fit on the other interface.

This may also contribute to the divergent experiences with the CORE system. A particular model of optic on a particular manufacture's plates against a particular run of M&P CORE pistols may work extremely well. Changing any one of these variables could result in a different experience.

[SoCalDep]

The CORE system design uses a single set of fasteners across two sets of bosses on two planes. This design means cumulative tolerance stacking occurs across the slide to plate interface and the plate to optic interface. In my experience, this is the major practical problem with the CORE design. Unless each of the optic, the optic plate and slide cut mate up tightly as a unit, the effectiveness of recoil bosses is compromised and proportionally more force is transferred via the optic screws. Regardless of how tight S&W executes their slide cuts, in practice optic plates have looser tolerances and optic tolerances are all over the map depending on the manufacturer and model.

The MOS and most other mounting systems use a separate set of fasteners and recoil bosses on each interface between planes. This design limits cumulative tolerance stacking across interfaces and in practice means plate manufactures can make their optic to plate and plate to slide interfaces tighter because they don't have to worry about a slight misfit on one interface compromising the fit on the other interface.

This may also contribute to the divergent experiences with the CORE system. A particular model of optic on a particular manufacture's plates against a particular run of M&P CORE pistols may work extremely well. Changing any one of these variables could result in a different experience.

I do agree with you regarding plate fit. That’s why I believe the factory metal plate is best. I’ve never seen one that isn’t a very tight fit. I’m sure some exist. As for some other plates, they don’t necessarily have the same fit and that can be problematic. I’m not sure if it’s more a factor of tolerance variation or that S&W originally designed their plates to work with the round bosses and the slight protrusions that seem to be present, particularly on the front boss. I’ve seen aftermarket plates that simply didn’t line up with the bosses and screw holes. In one case our answer was to mount the plate, hand-tighten the screws, then beat the crap out of the plate until it was flush, which allowed the protrusions on the front boss to deform the softer aluminum plate - then go through the mounting procedure.

[GJM]

I have had mixed experiences with the CORE system.

Most of my rounds were on my CO pistols, and I didn't have any problems with four pistols. However, I used a Romeo 3 Max, and a C-More plate. The C More plate bolted to the CORE holes like a MOS plate, and the R 3 Max bolted to the plate, so this wasn't really a test of the CORE system and filler plates.

On the negative side, I had a screw shear using a CORE plate, and S&W replaced the slide. I also had the bosses deform on a plastic CORE plate. The OEM metal CORE plates weren't available to me. I also had a bad experience with CHPWS getting a 509T plate to hold, and had to return the pistol three times to them, as the plate kept coming loose. From memory, I believe I recall reports of optics flying off the 10mm pistols, but I can't swear to it.

I have one slide direct milled for a RMR footprint and I like that more.

[SoCalDep]

I agree about direct milling = better if you are good with a single footprint. We had problems with the C&H 509T plates as well. I sent them a multi-page document with lots of photos of what we thought the cause was. C&H did a good job of addressing the issues with a redesigned plate, but the redesign was the one that didn’t quite fit and required a good beating to seat it prior to mounting.

I think we probably discussed that at some point around the beginning of 2022 but the thread is likely old and buried.

We deformed the bosses on a plastic plate as well, but only after the optic came loose. It seems, based on examining some high round count plastic plates, that as long as everything stays tight they are fine. If the screws loosen the movement of the optic will pretty quickly start deforming the bosses. We also learned that firing 1,985 rounds in about 20 minutes is quite abusive and probably not indicative of real-world conditions.

I’m still not a huge fan of plastic in principle as an optic mounting material.

[GJM]

I find the most objectionable aspect of the core pistols is the ridiculously tall and sharp back up sights they put on them. These sights seem the antithesis of what you would want for appendix carry against your skin and under clothing!

[Lunker]

All this optic plate talk has piqued my interest.
Most of the aftermarket options are aluminum. Some seem like they might offer added functionality, or at least durability over plastic.

Calculated Kinetics - Aluminum. Elevates the optic pretty high for their “dogtag” that supposedly reduces LCI debris from gunking up the optic glass.
https://www.calculatedkinetics.us/products/smith-and-wesson-m-p-2-0-dogtag-optic-plate

C&H - Aluminum. Pretty close in function to factory plates.
https://chpws.com/product/sw-core-2-0-1-975/

Forward Controls - Aluminum. A really thick plate that end up offsetting the optic from the slide screws, so you end up with one set screwing the plate to the slide, and another screwing the optic to the plate (MOS like). The optic sits really high and barely cowitnesses with the already really tall factory sights
https://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.com/OPF-SW-RMR_p_498.html

CNC Pros - Steel plate.
https://thecncpros.com/products/ols/products/mp-to

I don’t have any knowledge, good or bad, about these. They are just what came back after a quick Google.

[SoCalDep]

I would go steel or titanium over aluminum which I’d go with over plastic assuming the plate fits and isn’t too tall. The problem is that a lot of plates either don’t fit or are too tall. I’ve had good luck with Eleven71 titanium plates and again, my gold-standard is the factory steel plate.

[Wonder9]

I've been using the Calculated Kinetics plate since it stops LCI blowback. Only have about 250 rounds with it on, but it's been good so far even with a lower 1/5 co-witness. Just recently got my JMCK IWB3 for it, so I'm going to be working more with the M&P.

I'll probably try the FCD plate on my M&P Spec Series because their Glock plates are the heat.

[ldunnmobile]

I've been using the Calculated Kinetics plate since it stops LCI blowback. Only have about 250 rounds with it on, but it's been good so far even with a lower 1/5 co-witness. Just recently got my JMCK IWB3 for it, so I'm going to be working more with the M&P.

I'll probably try the FCD plate on my M&P Spec Series because their Glock plates are the heat.

I’ve been curious about the dog tag Calculated Kinetics one.

[45dotACP]

All this as I'm pondering the idea of getting a M&P 2.0 CORE model....

Maybe I'd just get the Holosun SCS set up for the S&W

[Clusterfrack]

I would go steel or titanium over aluminum which I’d go with over plastic assuming the plate fits and isn’t too tall. The problem is that a lot of plates either don’t fit or are too tall. I’ve had good luck with Eleven71 titanium plates and again, my gold-standard is the factory steel plate.

Who makes a plastic optic mounting plate?

[HCM]

Who makes a plastic optic mounting plate?

S&W - it’s what came with my PC 2.0 CORE.

[Clusterfrack]

S&W - it’s what came with my PC 2.0 CORE.

That's disappointing, but not surprising.

[HCM]

Don’t discount what HCM says… He’s no dummy. Nothing is perfect, and while pistol optics are matured enough for duty worthiness, they’re certainly not mature enough that significant improvement can’t happen. It takes the collective experience to identify what needs to be improved, and that means multiple sources of information.

As to HCM ‘s inquiry as to differences between the 1.0 and 2.0, this is what I know…

The 1.0 has an optic cut length of 1.925” and the 2.0 has an optic cut of 1.975”. The distance between the raised bosses are the same so a 1.0 plate will fit in a 2.0 but not vice versa…

Oh yea… that’s not entirely true.

They didn’t change the optic pocket until around mid 2021 if I remember correctly, so there are 2.0s with the old 1.925” cut. Around when S&W went away from the CORE (Competition Optic Ready Equipment) for law enforcement and started calling them simply “Optic Ready”, they moved to the 1.975” cut, but there’s overlaps sooo… If you have a CORE, you likely (but not guaranteed) have a 1.925” cut - 1.0 or 2.0. If you have a 2.0 that isn’t marked “CORE”, you probably have the 1.975” cut. I’m pretty sure there are exceptions.

I bought a very slightly used 1.0 CORE Pro in December to play around with as a field pistol project. It has the 1.925” cut, metal plates, and one big difference compared to at least the most recent (as of 2021) 2.0 optic ready pistols - It has blind holes in the slide. The more current 2.0s have through-bored threaded holes.

As for the metal plates… they used to be standard, but S&W went to polymer in 2020. We were not happy and made our opinion known. I can’t say for sure but S&W should (as of 2021) be supplying metal plates for LE guns. Civvy guns get polymer plates… which is crap.

HCM… were your guns, particularly the ones that failed, using polymer, metal, or aftermarket plates? Was there a mounting standard with a method and torque spec? Was it consistent among all personnel mounting optics? What screws were being used? I ask because we’ve learned from our experience what seems to work consistently and what can potentially result in failure. When you saw that failure were you testing other pistols as well or only M&Ps? Did you see failures with other pistols subjected to the same scrutiny?

Two of the failures I saw were 1.0s mounted by the shooter (I believe a DPP and an RMR) the one that came off completely was a Steiner on a 2.0, c&H plate installed by the shooter’s (LEO) range staff. In that one the plate and optic came off together. It’s interesting because the Steiner uses a crossbow like the ACRO so it’s using shorter screws to secure the plate than what is required for open emitter optics.

I’ll need to check on the neighboring agency but my city’s PD initially started testing both COREs and direct mill in .40. All optics mounting was done by range staff or their two full time armorers. They were using both the factory supplied plates (assuming polymer since they were portioning at 2.0 CORES) and C&H plates.

Then tested 4 different optics ready 9mms ( S&W, Glock, FN and SIG) and 7 or 8 different optics (both open emitter and closed emitter).

The end result was two guns (S&W direct mill and Glock) and three optics (P2, Steiner and Holosun 509T) were recommended with the direct mill S&W, the P2 and the Steiner being adopted.

[TheNewbie]

I actually wish I had focused on the M&P with safeties for my striker fired gun vs Glocks. There is a lot to like about both platforms, but a factory safety option is great.


Over a decade ago I had a 1.0 9mm that actually shot well.

[sickeness]

The C&H plates are widely known to have problems due to poor fitment. Another option I would consider is the Chinese made DPP titanium plate on Amazon. I bought a few and they fit very tightly into the pocket and appear to be of extremely high quality. It is basically the same product as the eleven 7 plate at half the cost. They cost about $60 and are a free Amazon return if you don't like them.

[45dotACP]

I actually wish I had focused on the M&P with safeties for my striker fired gun vs Glocks. There is a lot to like about both platforms, but a factory safety option is great.


Over a decade ago I had a 1.0 9mm that actually shot well.

When Apex still made conversion barrels, I got a 240 dollar 1.0 .40 and fit a 9mm barrel, an Apex FSS That thing will put together groups so small they'd go through the same hole if I wasn't such a bad shot.

For the price of a glock and some grip tape, I had a pistol that runs 2 calibers, one with exceptional accuracy.

I really ought to get back into M&Ps

[Lunker]

Another option I would consider is the Chinese made DPP titanium plate on Amazon. I bought a few and they fit very tightly into the pocket and appear to be of extremely high quality.
sickeness
Thanks for the recommendation. You are right. They seem to be good construction and it is a very nice tight fit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noguns]

I read this and decided to shoot my “stack a toe”. at home I noticed that both of my screws were loose.
I’m using the factory core plastic plates with a 507. Are my two screws now compromised? What dimension/spec screws would I need if I want to remount my 507? I may try this titanium plate that was mentioned above.

[Erick Gelhaus]

An M&P and Optic I really shouldn't join because I've never owned a CORE pistol. The funny thing - to me - is that if it weren't for being very invested in M&P support gear and Glock's lack of a thumb safety, the Gen 5 guns finally let me like Glocks.

[SoCalDep]

I read this and decided to shoot my “stack a toe”. at home I noticed that both of my screws were loose.
I’m using the factory core plastic plates with a 507. Are my two screws now compromised? What dimension/spec screws would I need if I want to remount my 507? I may try this titanium plate that was mentioned above.

I would consider them compromised. Before you do anything else, carefully remove the screws and check the raised front bosses on the plastic plate. If you caught it early they may still be ok, but if they are deformed I wouldn’t use the plate. If nothing else it’s good information.

For your Holosun 507C, you are going to need to use 6-32 x 1/2” flat head screws with a small diameter head. I order mine from McMaster-Carr (McMaster.com). They aren’t crazy expensive but if you’re only ordering one box you might pay more in shipping than for the screws.

If you’d rather not pay for a bunch, PM me mailing info and I’ll mail you a couple sets… I’ve got a bunch and since I retired my mounting workload has diminished significantly.

Like I mentioned earlier - once you go to re-mount the optic with whatever plate you use it’s really important to use the correct procedure to minimize the chances of the optic coming loose.

[noguns]

I appreciate that! I’ll pm you in a bit. Thanks

[TheNewbie]

An M&P and Optic I really shouldn't join because I've never owned a CORE pistol. The funny thing - to me - is that if it weren't for being very invested in M&P support gear and Glock's lack of a thumb safety, the Gen 5 guns finally let me like Glocks.

I’m surprised that someone has not developed a quality aftermarket thumb safety for the Gen 5. There has to be enough of a market that it would generate a profit for whoever did it.


Also the way of field stripping the MP makes me feel a little more comfortable.

[sickeness]

I read this and decided to shoot my “stack a toe”. at home I noticed that both of my screws were loose.
I’m using the factory core plastic plates with a 507. Are my two screws now compromised? What dimension/spec screws would I need if I want to remount my 507? I may try this titanium plate that was mentioned above.

If you buy the titanium plate on Amazon it comes with 2 sets of pretty decent quality screws as well.

[HCM]

I’m surprised that someone has not developed a quality aftermarket thumb safety for the Gen 5. There has to be enough of a market that it would generate a profit for whoever did it.


Also the way of field stripping the MP makes me feel a little more comfortable.

Glock has not even been able to develop a quality OEM manual safety. They’ve done at least three different factory manual safeties for various institutional contracts and they all suck.

[revchuck38]

I’m surprised that someone has not developed a quality aftermarket thumb safety for the Gen 5. There has to be enough of a market that it would generate a profit for whoever did it.

The (re)introduction of the SCD removed the last objection I had to Glocks. I've now got a G45 and a G19.5, both with SCDs, and am getting used to the funky grip angle. The grip angle is still funky, though.

[Ethang]

All this as I'm pondering the idea of getting a M&P 2.0 CORE model....

Maybe I'd just get the Holosun SCS set up for the S&W

I have used mine for months on the Metal M&P, took two instructor classes with it and really like it. I need to put a standard height rear sight on because the tall are far too tall with the low mounted SCS.

[HCM]

All this as I'm pondering the idea of getting a M&P 2.0 CORE model....

Maybe I'd just get the Holosun SCS set up for the S&W

Unlike Glock, the factory ACRO cut M&P is fairly easy to find in gunbroker if you search by SKU.

[MountainRaven]

Unlike Glock, the factory ACRO cut M&P is fairly easy to find in gunbroker if you search by SKU.

I just plugged in, "Glock 45 MOS Acro," on Gunbroker and got 21 results, 20 of which are Glock 45 MOS-7s with Acros installed.

[HCM]

I just plugged in, "Glock 45 MOS Acro," on Gunbroker and got 21 results, 20 of which are Glock 45 MOS-7s with Acros installed.

I wonder if that is a distributor, special edition, or some type of contract overrun?

With other Glock normally only sells the direct mail, guns to agencies in the United States.

[MountainRaven]

I wonder if that is a distributor, special edition, or some type of contract overrun?

With other Glock normally only sells the direct mail, guns to agencies in the United States.

Dunno. It's popping up through intergoogle with Zanders, Gallery of Guns, and Talo. LGS ordered one for me from Lipsey's (which is related to Talo, somehow).

[DpdG]

My local PD has a bit over 2k sworn and issues everyone an ACRO cut M&P. Our nearest neighboring city, which also previously issued M&P 1.0 40s, also had negative experiences with the CORE during testing and also issues now issues the ACRO cut M&P in 9mm.

Any chance you know what specific duty holster(s) they’re using? Safariland only lists the 6xxx-2222 fitment for the 4.25” M&P, but it says it only works with open emitter optics. Are they just taking the Cheeto off and leaving the Acro exposed?

[HCM]

Any chance you know what specific duty holster(s) they’re using? Safariland only lists the 6xxx-2222 fitment for the 4.25” M&P, but it says it only works with open emitter optics. Are they just taking the Cheeto off and leaving the Acro exposed?

I’ll see one of their range guys next week.

[DpdG]

I’ll see one of their range guys next week.

Greatly appreciate it. Have one of the factory direct mill guns sitting in the safe for lack of holster.

[MD7305]

Any chance you know what specific duty holster(s) they’re using? Safariland only lists the 6xxx-2222 fitment for the 4.25” M&P, but it says it only works with open emitter optics. Are they just taking the Cheeto off and leaving the Acro exposed?

When I T&E'd the factory-cut Acro M&P it fit in a 6390RDS-2222 and 6360RDS-2222 with the cover on and closed. It did NOT fit in the Blackhawk or AlienGear rigs we tried.

The 509T, EPS, and even the 507 Competition have worked well in the Safariland RDS holsters I've used/tried with the M&P.