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.Originally Posted by Lunker
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.
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.
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.
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.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
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 ?
My recently purchased 2.0 has plastic plates.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Last edited by HCM; 02-06-2024 at 06:01 PM.
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?
Reply With Quote