CORE optics mounting system

[GJM]

My local PD, with about 2k sworn has issued the M&P 1.0 40 for several years but they are nearing the end of their service life. Their firearms staff is switched on and recommended replacement with a 9mm optics ready platform. They have been testing optic for several years. They were over ruled and told replacement M&P 2.0 40s. They tried to get 2.0 CORES across the board but it didn't work out.

Last December they authorized POW M&P CORE 40s with choice of four optics and use of what you like to call "Chip-Wiz" plates. Other optics ready guns OK'ed for plainclothes and off duty use. Fast forward to now and I hear there have been enough issues with CORE 40s that direct milling (previously requested and denied) is being authorized.

Waiting on more details on whether these are CORE failures or "Chip-Wiz" failures.

I would not be surprised is this all ended with a move to 9mm.

Thanks for following up, and would be interested in as much more info as you can get. What optics, what plates, vibra tire or loctite, screws coming loose or shearing?

It might be interesting to try a Chip Wiz Acro plate on the new 10mm Core, as I believe that screws down like a MOS style plate, with the Acro clamping to the plate.

[SoCalDep]

I’m curious to see more information about the .40 CORE issue as well. I remember Wayne Dobbs telling me that the Aimpoint ACRO was tested with 20,000 rounds of .40 (if I remember right) but I haven’t heard the same about optic-ready pistols or mounting systems.

I’ve been tempted to have my Glock 20 milled just to see what happens. We have a few people who have factory .45 1911s and Glock 41s and I haven’t heard of issues in those, but that’s a very small sample size.

As for the .40 in general... someone told a partner who told me...

“The .40 hates you and it hates itself!” On an intellectual level I won’t endorse the statement but emotionally I find it hilarious.

On the 9mm CORE, and the CORE platform in general, I like the factory METAL setup with the RMR (I don’t really have experience with the other plates). The plastic is garbage. Every metal plate I’ve installed on an M&P has been tight but not too tight to not work. I can’t say the same with aftermarket stuff. I like the two large raised metal bosses that engage the plate. I feel like the surface contact helps keep things in place, and the direct 6-32 threads are substantial enough to hold things in place.

With the MOS setup you have a plate held on to the slide by M3 metric screws that are small. The optic is held to the plate with a “minimal” amount of thread engagement. I’m not sure the MOS would do better with the .40. I say that being much more of a Glock shooter than M&P (though I respect both). I have my own doubts about the smaller C&H screws in 9mm Glocks, let alone .40 without a very tight plate... and there’s still those M3 screws holding it all on the slide.

So back to the .40... maybe it’s the platform that will push the superior optic mounting (and maybe optic in general) durability development. Like I said...very curious to hear more.

[GJM]

I’m curious to see more information about the .40 CORE issue as well. I remember Wayne Dobbs telling me that the Aimpoint ACRO was tested with 20,000 rounds of .40 (if I remember right) but I haven’t heard the same about optic-ready pistols or mounting systems.

I’ve been tempted to have my Glock 20 milled just to see what happens. We have a few people who have factory .45 1911s and Glock 41s and I haven’t heard of issues in those, but that’s a very small sample size.

As for the .40 in general... someone told a partner who told me...

“The .40 hates you and it hates itself!” On an intellectual level I won’t endorse the statement but emotionally I find it hilarious.

On the 9mm CORE, and the CORE platform in general, I like the factory METAL setup with the RMR (I don’t really have experience with the other plates). The plastic is garbage. Every metal plate I’ve installed on an M&P has been tight but not too tight to not work. I can’t say the same with aftermarket stuff. I like the two large raised metal bosses that engage the plate. I feel like the surface contact helps keep things in place, and the direct 6-32 threads are substantial enough to hold things in place.

With the MOS setup you have a plate held on to the slide by M3 metric screws that are small. The optic is held to the plate with a “minimal” amount of thread engagement. I’m not sure the MOS would do better with the .40. I say that being much more of a Glock shooter than M&P (though I respect both). I have my own doubts about the smaller C&H screws in 9mm Glocks, let alone .40 without a very tight plate... and there’s still those M3 screws holding it all on the slide.

So back to the .40... maybe it’s the platform that will push the superior optic mounting (and maybe optic in general) durability development. Like I said...very curious to hear more.

Thanks for weighing in. On my two Gen 5 .40 MOS pistols, I have a Tango Down plate with an Acro, and a Holosun OEM plate (which I prefer to the Chip Wiz) with a 509T V2, and so far all good with both plates and optics. The Gen 5 .40 pistols are quite soft shooting.

[KevH]

As a long-time M&P 40 shooter, I've never found recoil particularly snappy or bad, even when we were issuing 155gr Hydra-Shot followed by 155gr HST (the snappiest of the 40 S&W), especially when compared to Gen2/Gen3/Gen4 Glocks and some other 40 S&W guns. We shot the absolute snot out of ours (and most were early 2007 guns with the old sear design with the microscopic sear plunger) and they held up just fine. The M&P 2.0 guns are a better design in every way. If I were issuing a 40 S&W gun today it's absolutely the gun I would issue, even over the Glock 22 Gen5.

I like the S&W metal factory CORE plates (which are still available BTW and come with LE SKU guns) and think they're actually a pretty decent design. I haven't been particularly impressed by much about CHPWS, but that's another topic. Going with plastic plates for the non-LE guns was a stupid decision, but I'm sure it came down to cost savings and the reality is 95% of people buying them won't know the difference and the 5% or less that do care can always acquire the metal plates from S&W.

The Aimpoint Acro plate (Aimpoint Part #200523) for the S&W Optic Ready guns is pretty robust design. I don't really see it coming loose.

I've been patiently waiting for the flat trigger S&W SKU:13419 to come out since I heard about it this past Spring. I already have an Acro plate sitting ready for it.

Now if Aimpoint would just hurry up and make the P-2 available...

[HCM]

I’m curious to see more information about the .40 CORE issue as well. I remember Wayne Dobbs telling me that the Aimpoint ACRO was tested with 20,000 rounds of .40 (if I remember right) but I haven’t heard the same about optic-ready pistols or mounting systems.

I’ve been tempted to have my Glock 20 milled just to see what happens. We have a few people who have factory .45 1911s and Glock 41s and I haven’t heard of issues in those, but that’s a very small sample size.

As for the .40 in general... someone told a partner who told me...

“The .40 hates you and it hates itself!” On an intellectual level I won’t endorse the statement but emotionally I find it hilarious.

On the 9mm CORE, and the CORE platform in general, I like the factory METAL setup with the RMR (I don’t really have experience with the other plates). The plastic is garbage. Every metal plate I’ve installed on an M&P has been tight but not too tight to not work. I can’t say the same with aftermarket stuff. I like the two large raised metal bosses that engage the plate. I feel like the surface contact helps keep things in place, and the direct 6-32 threads are substantial enough to hold things in place.

With the MOS setup you have a plate held on to the slide by M3 metric screws that are small. The optic is held to the plate with a “minimal” amount of thread engagement. I’m not sure the MOS would do better with the .40. I say that being much more of a Glock shooter than M&P (though I respect both). I have my own doubts about the smaller C&H screws in 9mm Glocks, let alone .40 without a very tight plate... and there’s still those M3 screws holding it all on the slide.

So back to the .40... maybe it’s the platform that will push the superior optic mounting (and maybe optic in general) durability development. Like I said...very curious to hear more.

The issues isn't optics themselves. If I recall correctly the ACRO was tested with .40 on Glocks. No idea if they were milled or MOS though.

Re the MOS: I've been doing my best to properly dispose of "surplus" .40 via a G35 MOS Gen 4. So far so good with an SRO on the C&H plate. I also have a G23.5 MOS but the round count is still low.

Re 1911: My SA Operator with factory RMR has been good but also hasn't really seen much of a round count.

[GJM]

I have unsuccessfully searched for the metal CORE plates, anyone have a link to where they can be purchased?

[MD7305]

As a long-time M&P 40 shooter, I've never found recoil particularly snappy or bad, even when we were issuing 155gr Hydra-Shot followed by 155gr HST (the snappiest of the 40 S&W), especially when compared to Gen2/Gen3/Gen4 Glocks and some other 40 S&W guns. We shot the absolute snot out of ours (and most were early 2007 guns with the old sear design with the microscopic sear plunger) and they held up just fine. The M&P 2.0 guns are a better design in every way. If I were issuing a 40 S&W gun today it's absolutely the gun I would issue, even over the Glock 22 Gen5.

I like the S&W metal factory CORE plates (which are still available BTW and come with LE SKU guns) and think they're actually a pretty decent design. I haven't been particularly impressed by much about CHPWS, but that's another topic. Going with plastic plates for the non-LE guns was a stupid decision, but I'm sure it came down to cost savings and the reality is 95% of people buying them won't know the difference and the 5% or less that do care can always acquire the metal plates from S&W.

The Aimpoint Acro plate (Aimpoint Part #200523) for the S&W Optic Ready guns is pretty robust design. I don't really see it coming loose.

I've been patiently waiting for the flat trigger S&W SKU:13419 to come out since I heard about it this past Spring. I already have an Acro plate sitting ready for it.

Now if Aimpoint would just hurry up and make the P-2 available...

I just googled the SKU you listed out of curiosity and found a page with other SKUs one of which (13353) is a M&P9 M2.0 fullsize milled from the factory for an Acro. I had no clue such a thing existed but that's pretty awesome. Although it's an LE model I would love to see S&W do more of that.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product...53&preselect=1

[GJM]

I just googled the SKU you listed out of curiosity and found a page with other SKUs one of which (13353) is a M&P9 M2.0 fullsize milled from the factory for an Acro. I had no clue such a thing existed but that's pretty awesome. Although it's an LE model I would love to see S&W do more of that.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product...53&preselect=1

Direct milled for an Acro is something I would buy. Man, S&W really needs to address their BUIS because they are sharp and tall for concealed carry.

Look at the Maple Leaf 509T install by comparison.

[BobM]

Direct milled for an Acro is something I would buy. Man, S&W really needs to address their BUIS because they are sharp and tall for concealed carry.

Look at the Maple Leaf 509T install by comparison.

Unless they’ve changed, those BUIS that come with the CORE pistols were zeroed I think at 5 or 7 yards and mine printed about 8-10 inches high at 25 yards.

[Quantrill]

Aren’t the metal core plates just the 1.0 version?

I have a 1.0 core milled to 2.0 specs by c&h, only because I had a new DPP (with blue inerds) and it wasn’t compatible with the 1.0. I used it with a c&h plate all last competition season and the gun/ plate/ optic all ran great. I have no issue with the core system but I’m a set and forget user.

I did have the optic come loose early on when using vc3. Switched to blue loctite and no issues since