Gjm I’m super juiced to hear your honest thoughts
I dig the stock trigger - the steep curve allows me ample daylight between my finger and the trigger face during draws - which is a good thing for me
Tried the apex FSS flat and curved set ups and didn’t like any other them
Daylight visible between finger and trigger in a .96 draw - with an FSS Id be on the pretravel there.
I spent 30 minutes or so dry firing the Core last night. It felt really good in my hands, and took like zero transition effort from a Glock. Of course we all know feel can be misleading, so I was very excited to get to the range today.
Zeroing the SRO, the first shot I fired of American Eagle 115 ball was a stove pipe, which was not a great start. It only took a few more shots to get a good enough zero, and the dot seemed quiet. After that first stove pipe, I went 350 rounds with just one more, fired one hand. Probably some combination of break in and needing a lighter recoil spring. I ran it through a regular practice session, shooting doubles, steel, and arrays. Stuff like this.
While the Core is in many ways very similar to a Glock 34, it’s shooting character is actually very different. With the Glock, it wants to shoot Alphas, but I am constantly working to try to move the trigger faster, and that is my limiting factor. The Core just wanted to be shot fast, and the limiting factor was my vision. I was shooting .16 splits up close from the first magazine, and not feeling tension doing it. Some combination of the grip and trigger, allows me to shoot it with less strong hand tension. Overall, from day one, I can shoot the Core faster than my Glock, and I just need to upgrade my visual processing to shoot good points at a faster speed. Before I forget, I only shot the Core a little one hand, and the Glock seems easier to shoot one hand, but that might just be familiarity.
I am so happy Duke broke up with the Stacatto, because I might never have looked at a M&P without his experience. Can’t wait to get a month or two under my belt with it.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
That OEM plate seems really low. Like it.Originally Posted by GJM
I know I asked you about the 2.0 after the first time I held one a couple years back.
"They're junk."
I didn't give them a second thought even though I was pretty impressed with dry handling and a couple shots downrange.
Soooo I too am glad Duke gave them a try. Your findings interest me because if there is something I am bad at, it is trigger speed. Glocks I simply can't seem to run much faster than 0.21s.
When GJM confirms - even a potion of your findings with a given platform- one can assume You’re (me) on the right path.
Do these need a little break in?
Took mine to the range today, dry out of the box like I always do. First 3 rounds were failure to feed with 115gr Federal bulk pack. Put some oil on it and then ran AE 124gr, had one more FTF and then it started cycling fine. Put a few rounds of 115 through it at the end with no problems.
None of my Now 5 have needed any break in
This is the only one I’ve had issues with but it is also my first ported.
Have a couple 2.0 Cs and multiple 1.0s that I don’t remember issues with.
What is this oil you refer to? I just popped mine apart and it was dry. Added some Lucas and will see tomorrow. I got my 140mm extensions, so will be interested in how it does with 23+1 on board.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I will say S&w like anyone - is not immune from errors.
One of the 11831’s I got new was a 2.0 frame with a 1.0 upper.
Not to be confused with the same combo that I made on a 2.0 compact lower with and 1.0 slide stop and slide kit
This was a legit factory mismatch of components.
They sent and new upper and asked that I not shoot it in the configuration as delivered.
So - if that can happen - a percentage needing break in is certainly not unfathomable.
Reply With Quote