M&P 2.0 Compact - S&W's G19 ?

[CSW]

Just curious...many people stick with this platform?

Been running an ambi safety 2.0 models using Williams red/green Firesights for over 2 years now. One as a carry gun and one as a trainer.
Zero issues.
I also have an original 9c that is just as reliable.

[rca90gsx]

I would really like to try out a 4" compact 2.0 core setup, but prices have seemed high on those

You reminded me... I forgot that I also have a 5” tan 2.0... Awesome gun!!!

As for recoil. I don’t notice a significant difference between the three. The Compact is only .25” shorter than the full size and they use the same frame dimensions so I can’t really tell a difference. The 5” doesn’t seem to recoil less - as much as differently- seems a hair flatter in it’s recoil impulse.

I have experimented with a 13lb and 15lb recoil spring in one of my 4.25” COREs - the 13 gives a really nice snappy flat recoil, but with the SRO in my non SRO holster (there is a bit of movement in the frame since the SRO bottoms out on the ALS shelf) it pushed the slide out of battery on the draw. With the 15 it snaps back into battery as it comes out of the holster... the 15 feels maybe a bit better than factory but not enough to matter unless you’re a nerd like me and want to try things because you can.

[ranger]

Just curious...many people stick with this platform?

I carry a M&P 2.0 Compact 9mm and have multiple 1.0 and 2.0 that I practice with at range. M&P Pro 5 inch Gen1 with SRO gets most work.

[MD7305]

Mine aren't going anywhere. I currently have a 2.0 compact that I carry off duty, a 2.0 full size on duty, a 2.0 CORE, and a spare 2.0 full-size. I'm really a huge fan of these guns. I transitioned to 1.0 M&Ps as a long time Glock shooter and didn't look back but the 2.0s solidified myself in the M&P fan club. I have had zero problems aside from the tritium in my duty gun's front sight dying but that's a known issue, my department has had several front tritium vials come out of sights as well. For me it was the perfect opportunity to get approval for some HD XRs to replace the dead sights. I'm kinda interested in getting one of the 5" guns and one of the sub-compacts. After attending the armorer school and amassing so many M&P9 mags I'm probably not ditching the 2.0 unless something catastrophic occurs.

[ranger]

I am also committed to the M&P platform with mags, holsters, and mag pouches. S&W ran a promotion during the Gen 1 time for free mags plus I pick up former LEO mags at great pricing.

[LockedBreech]

While I'm currently exploring the Glock Gen 5 world, I have been very well served my M2.0s and have no plans to get rid of mine ever at this point.

The 4.6" .45, in particular, is the finest non-1911 .45 of any brand I've had a decent amount of trigger time on, including Sig and HK.

[mmc45414]

What do you think? Is the 5" a different animal to shoot for a small person?

I have been shooting my 5" pretty much every Sunday since I got it at the beginning of last year, and am a big fan, but would not describe it as a different animal. I looked at the weights on the S&W www site and they seem a little goofy, but probably the full size 5" version is just a bit over two ounces at best. Probably what I like the most about it is just subjectively how it looks, a 5" gun just seems properly proportioned to my eye. Another thing I might like about it is it seems as if I have been shooting fairly well for the last year or so, and this is what I have been shooting, so Hell Yeah, I like it!!

I had also been shooting M&Ps for a while, with 2-3 years of rekindling my love affair with the 1911 with a couple of 9mm Rugers, and had a bunch of the 17rd magazines, so making the 5" my main shooter is cool and convenient.

But the 2.0 Compact is my main go-to these days, and it really is the Goldilocks form factor. Long enough to ride well IWB, short enough grip to not poke me while driving, big enough grip to get a good presentation. Right now I am watching for the escalated prices on the 5" to deescalate because I want a secondary there, but will probably get another 4" Compact after that. I bought a couple of JMCK holsters for the TLR-1, and I have an extra set of TFO sights I replaced with Dawson FO, so my scheme is to setup FDE 5" #2 with the light and night sights. Hell, when they were out there for $409 I was considering getting a third one and getting it direct milled for MRD. I still might, just a little reluctant to pay the current $489 for what I was about to buy for $409, even though it is still a hell of a deal for $489. But in your case, since you bought in on the mags I would not be too quick to go to the 5" unless you just want something different.

ETA:
My current lineup is:
2.0 5" 9mm Full Size - My main every Sunday gun. All stock except for Dawson FO sights (I am 61yo, FO is a big help).
2.0 4" 9mm Compact - My primary carry gun. All stock except for TruGlo TFO sights, green front / yellow rear.
1.0 4.25" 9mm Full Size - This was my primary Sunday gun before doing 1911s for a while. I went all-in on Apex with this one, with the trigger and action kit and barrel.
1.0 3.5" 9mm (Sub)Compact - Before the 15rd Compacts this was my primary carry gun, has the Apex trigger and action kit.
1.0 4.25" 40S&W Full Size - This was the gun that got my focus onto M&P. I used to shoot a lotta forty and this one chewed through a bunch. Has Apex action and trigger.
1.0 4.5" 45ACP - This one sits in the bedside lockbox with a 14rd mag and a Streamlight.
1.0 Shield 45ACP - I like the slightly larger grip of the 45 Shield. This is a great gun that doesn't get much use, it falls between my J-Frames and the 4" Compact.

I have also have had the 45 Compact, 40 Subcompact, 40 Shield and 9mm Shield.

[frozentundra]

As for recoil. I don’t notice a significant difference between the three. The Compact is only .25” shorter than the full size and they use the same frame dimensions so I can’t really tell a difference. The 5” doesn’t seem to recoil less - as much as differently- seems a hair flatter in it’s recoil impulse.

I have experimented with a 13lb and 15lb recoil spring in one of my 4.25” COREs - the 13 gives a really nice snappy flat recoil, but with the SRO in my non SRO holster (there is a bit of movement in the frame since the SRO bottoms out on the ALS shelf) it pushed the slide out of battery on the draw. With the 15 it snaps back into battery as it comes out of the holster... the 15 feels maybe a bit better than factory but not enough to matter unless you’re a nerd like me and want to try things because you can.

I have been shooting my 5" pretty much every Sunday since I got it at the beginning of last year, and am a big fan, but would not describe it as a different animal. I looked at the weights on the S&W www site and they seem a little goofy, but probably the full size 5" version is just a bit over two ounces at best......

But in your case, since you bought in on the mags I would not be too quick to go to the 5" unless you just want something different.

Thanks guys, that really helps put it into perspective. Sounds like I'd be further ahead by simply adding a weapon light for some extra, non-reciprocating mass out front. And the cheapest, low-powered Russian ammo. That should help minimize recoil for my kid, and it'll do it without giving up magazine compatibility or practical functionality for IWB carry.

I'll just plan to stick with the 4" guns unless I stumble upon a CORE that's too cheap to pass up.

[Actsda]

Thanks guys, that really helps put it into perspective. Sounds like I'd be further ahead by simply adding a weapon light for some extra, non-reciprocating mass out front. And the cheapest, low-powered Russian ammo. That should help minimize recoil for my kid, and it'll do it without giving up magazine compatibility or practical functionality for IWB carry.

I'll just plan to stick with the 4" guns unless I stumble upon a CORE that's too cheap to pass up.

You mentioned the 1.0 4.25 CORE vs the 2.0 compact as far as recoil difference. In my experience the 1.0 4.25 is a much softer recoiling gun than the 2.0's. The 1.0 slide has more mass than the 2.0 as it was originally designed for the .40 and its' just a puppy to shoot. The 2.0's are fantastic too and have good shooting characteristics as well. The recoil on them is no big deal. I highly recommend them both, although, the 2.0 is just a more refined version with a much better trigger.

[frozentundra]

You mentioned the 1.0 4.25 CORE vs the 2.0 compact as far as recoil difference. In my experience the 1.0 4.25 is a much softer recoiling gun than the 2.0's. The 1.0 slide has more mass than the 2.0 as it was originally designed for the .40 and its' just a puppy to shoot. The 2.0's are fantastic too and have good shooting characteristics as well. The recoil on them is no big deal. I highly recommend them both, although, the 2.0 is just a more refined version with a much better trigger.

Interesting! I had no idea the slide mass changed significantly between iterations.

I've never had a problem with my 1.0 Compact's factory trigger. It's mushy but smooth and light. I actually like mushy triggers with a rolling break. The grip texture on 2.0 is what I really like about them (beside the new 4" 2.0 Compact size). I think it's the best I've felt on a factory polymer gun. I'd probably pick up a 1.0 CORE if I found a screaming deal on one, though. I could add some granulate tape to a training/range gun without worrying about my skin or clothes.

Thanks for the input.