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?