I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is completely fugly. And I STILL don't understand the metal frame M2.0 - there's no weight gain over polymer (to dampen recoil), and it removes the possible recoil attenuation from polymer frame flex. But, I'm just a poor dumb country boy from NY...
Originally Posted by psalms144.1
S&W went with aluminum so it would be "metal frame" to appeal to casual shooters. If they were trying to build a serious competition pistol it would have been steel frame to have actual weight.
Looking at the cost of an iron butt for a 2011, I think I see why they chose aluminum.
Code Name: JET STREAM
If those figures are offhand as opposed to benched, that's about the gist of it but i would expect the 1.0 to have those groups. If the 2.0 was giving those 6" - 8" groups, bench it to be sure. I myself haven't heard of 2.0s doing that but I also wouldn't say it doesnt.
That being said, shooting smaller groups with the compact 4.0" and both the 1.0 and 2.0 versions of the 3.6" was the norm. It was just on the 4.25" which is odd. AFAIK, s&w never publicly admitted there was an issue but did have updates as time wore on to remedy the issue. Changing twist rates, changing some barrel geometry on the 2.0s, etc
What if M&P really stood for metal and plastic and that was their plan all along
Will all the cad/cam and cnc capabilities Smith has.....and that is the best fitting comp they could do???
Yep ugly. Looks like an aftermarket part made to fit the maximum number of different guns so it doesn't fit any of them well. Couldn't they at least coat it the same as the frame and slide so it's shape stands out less?
They just got one from faxon
Thought that looked like Faxons.
No texturing or grip panels for that smooth aluminum on the sides of the grip?
I get people can put skateboard tape on it but for a dedicated “comp” gun?
I’d rather just build up a M&P with Apex barrel and goodies and call it a day.
Reply With Quote