M&P 2.0 - On The Fence

[robstercraw]

I need to pick up something in .40 to help me burn through all this Ammo I’ve stockpiled over the years. I came across an unfired M&P 2.0 compact with TFO sites box and 3 mags for $349 plus tax. I love the feel of the new aggressive grip, but a little skeptical. I had one of the bad batches of original m&p’s with the barrel issue. Is this too good a deal to pass up? Are the new 2.0’s leaps and bounds better then the originals? Thx

[opngrnd]

I'm a guy that left the M&P platform for the same reasons you mentioned. My buddy picked up a 2.0 and it's much better. If either the Apex barrels or the 2.0 had come out I'd still be running M&P pistols.

[MStarmer]

I wouldn't say it's "too" good to pass us. But if you were unhappy with the M&P I'd pick up something else, or just sell the ammo! I like the gun and still have one M&P left but I've never found them "consistent". For some reason my M&P .40 full size feels like it kicks harder than my G27 that's a joy to shoot?

[Sam]

My 2.0C is very accurate. 2" group off hand at 10 yds and double that at 20 yds.

[Helix12]

I've owned three Gen 1 M&Ps, along with a number of other polymer framed striker fired handguns. I no longer own any of those Gen 1 guns, but have had a 2.0 compact in 9mm for several months. There will definitely be more 2.0s in my near future. I really like this one and plan to do nothing to it except buy more magazines and another holster.

Earlier in the week I again shot the 2.0 side by side with one of my G19s. I like both, but certainly prefer the 2.0.

I have never owned a .40 and never plan to. But I have a magazine article written by Kyle Lamp, a man whose opinion I have some respect for. He was comparing the Gen 1 M&P in 9mm to the Glock 17. In that article he also mentions that the M&P was designed around the .40 while the Glock was designed for the 9mm and had to be tweeked to handle the .40. He teaches shooting classes and sees a lot of shooters. He said basically that the Smith handled the .40 more reliably than the Glock.

In that article, his conclusion was that if you wanted a handgun capable of bringing out the best in your shooting then the Smith was it. But if you wanted a gun for the apocalypse then grab the Glock since there would be more of them lying around for spare mags and parts. He ended it with the suggestion to buy both. No need to offend a segment of his readers.

For myself I have always found the M&P of either generation to be a soft shooter, somewhat softer than my Glocks. I no idea about the .40 as I've never owned one.

OP, good luck with your choice.

[Uni-Vibe]

New? 3 mags included? $350? Sounds like a good deal.

My experience: I was offered a NIB Ruger 93e with three mags for $300. Never had a poly striker double stack gun in my life. Didn't think I'd ever want one. Bought it because it was cheap, and I figured if I didn't like it, I could sell or trade it and not lose anything. Now it's my everyday packin' gun, I like it that much.

Grab it and don't look back!

[SiGfever]

If you want to shoot a smooth shooting .40, try the HK USPc .40. It is the smoothest shooting .40 that I have shot.

[zecropper]

I’d probably pick an FNS40 over an m&p. I personally wasn’t impressed with the 2.0. However my personal FNS40 has thousands of rounds through it with absolutely 0 malfunctions. Can be found pretty cheap with night sights too. The trigger could be better but once it’s broken in, it’s pretty decent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gunnut284]

I’ve been very pleased with my M&P9C 2.0. That deal sounds real good.

[Bodhi]

I like my 2.0c 9mm quite a bit. But i'll say this: out of the box, there are better firearms. I wasn't really happy with it until I put the apex polymer trigger shoe in there ($39.)

I did that and an extended mag release because I have burger king hands.

Out of the box, I like my VP9 more. But the M&P sits in my night stand.

For $340 - if you like .40, that's a good deal.