Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: Gen5 G17 and M&P 2.0 Comparison shoot

  1. #31
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    ...Employed?
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
    I would go steel or titanium over aluminum which I’d go with over plastic assuming the plate fits and isn’t too tall. The problem is that a lot of plates either don’t fit or are too tall. I’ve had good luck with Eleven71 titanium plates and again, my gold-standard is the factory steel plate.
    Who makes a plastic optic mounting plate?
    “There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie

  2. #32
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Who makes a plastic optic mounting plate?
    S&W - it’s what came with my PC 2.0 CORE.

  3. #33
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    ...Employed?
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    S&W - it’s what came with my PC 2.0 CORE.
    That's disappointing, but not surprising.
    “There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie

  4. #34
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDep View Post
    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?
    Two of the failures I saw were 1.0s mounted by the shooter (I believe a DPP and an RMR) the one that came off completely was a Steiner on a 2.0, c&H plate installed by the shooter’s (LEO) range staff. In that one the plate and optic came off together. It’s interesting because the Steiner uses a crossbow like the ACRO so it’s using shorter screws to secure the plate than what is required for open emitter optics.

    I’ll need to check on the neighboring agency but my city’s PD initially started testing both COREs and direct mill in .40. All optics mounting was done by range staff or their two full time armorers. They were using both the factory supplied plates (assuming polymer since they were portioning at 2.0 CORES) and C&H plates.

    Then tested 4 different optics ready 9mms ( S&W, Glock, FN and SIG) and 7 or 8 different optics (both open emitter and closed emitter).

    The end result was two guns (S&W direct mill and Glock) and three optics (P2, Steiner and Holosun 509T) were recommended with the direct mill S&W, the P2 and the Steiner being adopted.

  5. #35
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    I actually wish I had focused on the M&P with safeties for my striker fired gun vs Glocks. There is a lot to like about both platforms, but a factory safety option is great.


    Over a decade ago I had a 1.0 9mm that actually shot well.

  6. #36
    The C&H plates are widely known to have problems due to poor fitment. Another option I would consider is the Chinese made DPP titanium plate on Amazon. I bought a few and they fit very tightly into the pocket and appear to be of extremely high quality. It is basically the same product as the eleven 7 plate at half the cost. They cost about $60 and are a free Amazon return if you don't like them.

  7. #37
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Illinois
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie View Post
    I actually wish I had focused on the M&P with safeties for my striker fired gun vs Glocks. There is a lot to like about both platforms, but a factory safety option is great.


    Over a decade ago I had a 1.0 9mm that actually shot well.
    When Apex still made conversion barrels, I got a 240 dollar 1.0 .40 and fit a 9mm barrel, an Apex FSS That thing will put together groups so small they'd go through the same hole if I wasn't such a bad shot.

    For the price of a glock and some grip tape, I had a pistol that runs 2 calibers, one with exceptional accuracy.

    I really ought to get back into M&Ps

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by sickeness View Post
    Another option I would consider is the Chinese made DPP titanium plate on Amazon. I bought a few and they fit very tightly into the pocket and appear to be of extremely high quality.
    @sickeness
    Thanks for the recommendation. You are right. They seem to be good construction and it is a very nice tight fit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #39
    I read this and decided to shoot my “stack a toe”. at home I noticed that both of my screws were loose.
    I’m using the factory core plastic plates with a 507. Are my two screws now compromised? What dimension/spec screws would I need if I want to remount my 507? I may try this titanium plate that was mentioned above.

  10. #40
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    An M&P and Optic I really shouldn't join because I've never owned a CORE pistol. The funny thing - to me - is that if it weren't for being very invested in M&P support gear and Glock's lack of a thumb safety, the Gen 5 guns finally let me like Glocks.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •