View Full Version : School Me On Smith and Wesson M&P 2.0 .45 Pistols
Everything on the search seems to be for the older 1.0 models from years ago, and 10 pages back here has yielded no results so...
For people that own or knowledgeable about the new 2.0 .45 cal models I have some questions about size and performance (that's what she said);
Performance, IIRC, the old 1.0 was considered a pretty great .45 polymer option. How does the 2.0 stack up? Accuracy issues? Reliability? Ammo compatibility/feeding issues? Shootability/control/handling with .45 in a light polymer gun like the M&P?
How's the the trigger VS the old 1.0 ; workable or am I going to have to immediately buy a DCAEK? What would the current 2.0 trigger be comparable to- better or worse than a Glock?
I really hated the old 1.0 triggers, and an Apex kit was mandatory, so curious how much they've been "fixed" on the 2.0 model.
Fullsize Vs Compact- I feel like I'm missing something here...
On all the retail sites and Smith's web page they say it's a whole 1/2" difference in barrel length? Da fuq? So how does the grip length play out? I see they BOTH state 10 rd mags, and I only see 1 10-rd .45 mag option on Smith's site, so...
Does the mag on the Compact .45 protrude a bit below the grip?
Do I need one of those stupid spacers for it to work right?
If so, why the hell would I buy the compact, since the grip OAL with mag will be the same anyway?
I genuinely don't understand this... Anyone have a side-by side picture of the grips?
Reason for interest- always wanted a .45 cal gun, the M&P .45 seemed to get good reviews in past for performance, and anti-ban insurance, since it's a 10-rd option, and I may not be in a "free" state forever.... and also Wilson Combat 1911's are 3-4K so, my dreams have been crushed there... :laugh:
My second wish-list .45 is the FNX, but for $7-1200, I feel like the M&P might be the better buy, even if I have to eventually get an Apex kit...But I know nothing about the 2.0 guns...
I just have the 1.0. Two of them actually even with the standard crappy trigger the guns are super accurate and 100 percent reliable. I have handled the 2.0 version and I do like it, I have a 2.0 compact in 9mm that gun is a great shooter. I think you would enjoy the 2.0 in 45acp. Something to consider is you can get a barely used 1.0 cheap, apex trigger and 10-8 sights really changes the pistol and you will have the same cash outlay. I do like the stippling on the 2.0s but if you carry inwb have an undergarment they will rub you raw in no time flat.
I've got an older mid sized 1.0 45 and had to Apex the thing to get a decent trigger but once I did, it's one of my favorite pistols. A buddy wanted to try mine before he bought a new one. He loved it and bought the 2.0 Compact, I shot it and it'll probably be as good a pistol out of the box as mine is with the Apex kit and trigger.
Trigger is gritty during take up but is smoothing itself out. He could've polished the striker block but wants to see how it does on it's own. Break is very good.
Sights shot low for both of us, S&W is sending him a shorter front sight.
Grip texture is great, (I have 2 2.0 C's in 9MM and it makes a huge difference) although if carried against bare skin, a little 600 grit sand paper is your friend.
The Compact has a 1/4" shorter barrel than my mid sized gun and they both are the smoothest shooting 45's we've shot. Accuracy is good.
Reliability, mine has never had a malfunction, his hasn't either but only 250-300 rounds through it so far.
They both have the same grip and take the same mags. The C is just a shorter barrel. The only thing I like about mine better is the forward slide serrations but not all of them came with them. I'd buy the 2.0 C in a heart beat if I didn't already have mine and in fact have been real tempted to pick one up anyway.
They both have the same grip and take the same mags. The C is just a shorter barrel. The only thing I like about mine better is the forward slide serrations but not all of them came with them. I'd buy the 2.0 C in a heart beat if I didn't already have mine and in fact have been real tempted to pick one up anyway.
I've seen DSully's 9mm FS/C comparison pic (in pic thread) and there's a slight but clear difference in grip length and mag size.
So, what you're saying is the 9mm has slightly different grip lengths, but the .45 does not?
Do you know if the .45 cal 2.0's grip length tends more toward the 9mm fullsize or compact length?
Everything on the search seems to be for the older 1.0 models from years ago, and 10 pages back here has yielded no results so...
For people that own or knowledgeable about the new 2.0 .45 cal models I have some questions about size and performance (that's what she said);
Performance, IIRC, the old 1.0 was considered a pretty great .45 polymer option. How does the 2.0 stack up? Accuracy issues? Reliability? Ammo compatibility/feeding issues? Shootability/control/handling with .45 in a light polymer gun like the M&P?
How's the the trigger VS the old 1.0 ; workable or am I going to have to immediately buy a DCAEK? What would the current 2.0 trigger be comparable to- better or worse than a Glock?
I really hated the old 1.0 triggers, and an Apex kit was mandatory, so curious how much they've been "fixed" on the 2.0 model.
I got this from Police One:
The M&P 2.0 frame in .45 ACP is slightly larger in some dimensions, and may not work in some older holsters. It's important to note that the ejection port dimensions on the 2.0 have changed, so Safariland ALS holsters designed for the older gun may not retain the new gun properly.
I don't have a .45 but I do have a 5in 2.0 in 9mm. I also have the 'gen 1' M&P9 as well as a Shield.
I love the trigger on the 2.0 comparitive to the original, pretty sure the 2.0 .45 has same refinements.
My major complaint with the pistol is the slide release. As you probably know S&W engineered the 2.0 to eliminate the 'auto-forward' feature on sharp magazine insertion. I don't mind that at all because I get tired of seeing new shooters beat the magazine floorplate like they are driving out demons when their pistol didn't auto-forward as expected. My complaint is that for me, as a lefty, I couldn't quickly and reliably let the slide go forward using the release, over-handing the slide and crisply releasing worked fine, though. I modified it it using internet lore and it works fine now.
That's my nugget.
Yes the 9MMC has a shorter frame and magazine but the 45C has a full size frame and uses the standard 10 round magazines.
"Jan Mladek, General Manager for Smith & Wesson® and M&P® brands, said, “The M&P45 pistol has been a popular choice for years with both law enforcement professionals and civilians looking for a .45 Auto pistol. With that in mind, we expanded the next-generation M2.0 platform to now include the M&P45 M2.0 Compact pistol with a shorter, 4” barrel and a full-size frame.”
Quoted from here https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/smith-wesson-mp-m2-0-compact-now-in-45-acp/
The .45 version carries 10+1. The 9mm version carries 17+1.
The .45 kicks harder than 9mm.
The .45 ammo costs more than 9mm.
The .45 round does the same thing as the 9mm round. No more.
So: for less capacity, more recoil, and higher ammo costs, you get zero benefit over the 9mm.
The .45 version carries [doesn't do anything better than the 9mm]
Yes, I'm aware I'm not gaining much if anything here, but this is still sort of America... It's not written in stone that I have to buy one tomorrow... ;)
I got this from Police One:
The M&P 2.0 frame in .45 ACP is slightly larger in some dimensions, and may not work in some older holsters. It's important to note that the ejection port dimensions on the 2.0 have changed, so Safariland ALS holsters designed for the older gun may not retain the new gun properly.
...My major complaint with the pistol is the slide release...
The ALS issues might be a bit of a bummer, but the slide release won't be an issue- I generally just hamfist the slide too.
To many missed slide release activations courtesy of Glock's anemic release button.
Yes the 9MMC has a shorter frame and magazine but the 45C has a full size frame and uses the standard 10 round magazines...
"Jan Mladek, General Manager for Smith & Wesson® and M&P® brands, said....,
Huh. A 1/4" shorter barrel and same size frame... what an odd business decision... :confused:
Well, at least it doesn't seem to matter which you pick... :laugh:
I've got 4 9MM's, a 44 magnum, 2 38's, 3 357 magnums and 2 45's. I promise there is a difference.... Phil Shoemaker (sp?) killed a grizzly with a 9mm but said himself, he was wishing he had a bigger gun the whole time. I shoot thousands of 9mm rounds a year and love it, it's what I carry and what I compete with 99% of the time but I still love the 45 and will always have one around.
The full size 45 now has a 4.6" barrel vs the Compact's 4", it looks better to me (the Compact) and shoots well. But I also fell for the G45 with it's short barrel and full size frame.
Have a full size 2.0 .45 in the family. Good pistol, no problems.
14 rd factory extended mags are nice.
Street Survival
09-05-19, 18:01
Uni-vibe: Bill Allard (Recently R.I.P.) most definitely said there was a huge difference between the 9mm and 45acp. And he carried the 45acp.
I have a 9mm 2.0 compact. Great gun.I bought mine last year. I had budgeted 600 for a new compact 9mm. The gen 5 glocks were only offered with that atrocious front cutout no mos version at the time. So I went with an m&p ( a year prior I also chose a shield over the 43 this is all subjective individual preference) I did install an apex kit mostly due to the great deal I got on the gun. With a rebate I was otd at 315 usd with mine. That being said after installing the apex and shooting approximately 2000 rds this past year. I probably won't do it again. The stock trigger had 3 range sessions with 150,200 and 200. I never noted any real complaints with it. It would takeup to the wall, break clean and the reset was noticeable. The apex is pretty nice but stock was definitely serviceable. I've been looking at a 4in .45 for similar reasons
Also appendix carry its barrel not grip length that bothers me.Let me know on your purchase.
Uni-vibe: Bill Allard (Recently R.I.P.) most definitely said there was a huge difference between the 9mm and 45acp. And he carried the 45acp.
People who study the anatomy and physiology of gunshot wounds say they can't tell the caliber, bullet weight or bullet type, in examining the victims of handgun shootings. Unlike other opinion holders, they say so under oath.
tacticaldesire
09-14-19, 13:54
To actually answer the OP:
The 2.0 is far and away the better gun. The trigger is better, and the frame is more robust. The dimensions are slightly different so as someone else said, some holsters won't work. The Compact model has a shorter barrel but the grip is the same size hence the same capacity. I'm not going to fault you for wanting the .45. I carry 9mm pretty much exclusively but I have a hard time turning my nose at .45. It's a great caliber and was my first carry gun. Now if you were looking at a .40......
The 1.0 45s were decent guns. Flint MI PD still carries them. The 2.0 really refined it and if I were doing it all over again I would probably get it over the Glock 21.
People who study the anatomy and physiology of gunshot wounds say they can't tell the caliber, bullet weight or bullet type, in examining the victims of handgun shootings. Unlike other opinion holders, they say so under oath.
That’s not true. You most certainly can decipher weight and even caliber from this thing called base/ogive. .
I mean it’s forensics 101 in order to prove X gun fired Y bullet.
Most MEs have reference materials to crossmatch.
Like if you are attempting to say “I can’t tell just from looking at a picture of a GSW” then you are correct but there is so so so much more to it than you are implying.
Any recovered bullet is most certainly weighed post mortem.
All else being equal most pistol calibers do tend to end up mushrooming the same.
I won’t bore you with caliber debates as it all boils down to what a person is most proficient with but you are mistaken here.
.45 will always have a place in handgunnery, just not for the reasons most people would need to consider.
I would say if you are just starting out then 9mm is likely your best consideration
To actually answer the OP:
The 2.0 is far and away the better gun. The trigger is better, and the frame is more robust. The dimensions are slightly different so as someone else said, some holsters won't work. The Compact model has a shorter barrel but the grip is the same size hence the same capacity. I'm not going to fault you for wanting the .45. I carry 9mm pretty much exclusively but I have a hard time turning my nose at .45. It's a great caliber and was my first carry gun. Now if you were looking at a .40......
The 1.0 45s were decent guns. Flint MI PD still carries them. The 2.0 really refined it and if I were doing it all over again I would probably get it over the Glock 21.
Yes, I've heard of a few issues with some of the Safariland options IIRC. Annoying, but not a total deal killer.
Thanks for the overall input. Funny story- I actually started out my pistoleering adventures with a .40 XDm... :laugh:
Per this thread as a whole-
There seems to be some sort of weird misconception that I'm ditching 9mm for .45.
I don't know why that is...
If it helps put some of the caliber nerd minds at ease before this thread turns into another 9 vs 45 debate, I'm also seriously considering a G48 for EDC. So there. :cool:
The M&P is superior to the Glock in ergonomics. Their 45 is very accurate. The main issues with their pistols was a bad trigger and bad accuracy from the 9mm. The 2.0 supposedly fixed all that so in my opinion I’m not sure a Glock is a superior handgun. Even the high profile M&P naysayers like Vickers have not, as far as I know, really made that case.
That’s not true. You most certainly can decipher weight and even caliber from this thing called base/ogive. .
I mean it’s forensics 101 in order to prove X gun fired Y bullet.
Most MEs have reference materials to crossmatch.
Like if you are attempting to say “I can’t tell just from looking at a picture of a GSW” then you are correct but there is so so so much more to it than you are implying.
Any recovered bullet is most certainly weighed post mortem.
All else being equal most pistol calibers do tend to end up mushrooming the same.
I won’t bore you with caliber debates as it all boils down to what a person is most proficient with but you are mistaken here.
.45 will always have a place in handgunnery, just not for the reasons most people would need to consider.
I would say if you are just starting out then 9mm is likely your best consideration
Well, the MEs at one of the nation's largest cities have apparently missed the base ogive theory of matching bullets to bullet holes in people. They will not testify under oath or via an autopsy report.
titsonritz
09-20-19, 22:19
Uni-vibe: Bill Allard (Recently R.I.P.) most definitely said there was a huge difference between the 9mm and 45acp. And he carried the 45acp.
And back in his day I have know doubt there was a huge difference, I too carried a 45acp and wanted nothing to do with 9mm, but with today's bullet tech that difference isn't nearly as huge as it once was.
Well, the MEs at one of the nation's largest cities have apparently missed the base ogive theory of matching bullets to bullet holes in people. They will not testify under oath or via an autopsy report.
So your high speed MEs won’t say X bullet weigh so many grams and consistent with Y caliber was retrieved from Z deceased?
Seems legit......
Yes, I've heard of a few issues with some of the Safariland options IIRC. Annoying, but not a total deal killer.
Thanks for the overall input. Funny story- I actually started out my pistoleering adventures with a .40 XDm... [emoji23]
Per this thread as a whole-
There seems to be some sort of weird misconception that I'm ditching 9mm for .45.
I don't know why that is...
If it helps put some of the caliber nerd minds at ease before this thread turns into another 9 vs 45 debate, I'm also seriously considering a G48 for EDC. So there. :cool:[emoji1303]
I recently spent some time with a friends
.45 M2.0. I shot it back to back with my first gen (pictured). It really wasn't a fair comparison as my gun has a some work done. All stock internals but worked over by Dan Burwell before Apex was even a thought. Dan published a tutorial on his trigger work and the Apex sear looks about identical to Dan's version.
I loved the M2.0 grip texture compared to first gen. The example I shot was bone stock and had a thousand or so rounds through it. There was no grittiness to the trigger. It felt good to me and I could definitely live with it. I like the distinct wall that the M&P sear provides. The .45 has always been my favorite M&P. It's like they were made for each other.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190921/ed7310d02ab2440361701fa380bb8cb7.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190921/d9f23671a728b9897111563a3d5da904.jpg
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
So your high speed MEs won’t say X bullet weigh so many grams and consistent with Y caliber was retrieved from Z deceased?
Seems legit......
They can do that. What they can't do is tell which caliber it was that made the wound.
They can do that. What they can't do is tell which caliber it was that made the wound.
Are you trying me?
Seriously.
If they take a bullet out proximal to entry with no exit wound then it is pretty safe to say that is the bullet that killed him.
It's thugicide. Not the freeking Kennedy Assassination with magic bullets and alleged CIA kill teams.
Anything past an "ooh silly me. You're right" will be taken as an affront.
The best thing about .45 ACP is that even if the bullet fails to expand you still made a .45 inch hole in the bad guy.
The best thing about .45 ACP is that even if the bullet fails to expand you still made a .45 inch hole in the bad guy.
And a .356 inch hole will kill the bad guy just as quickly. Or not.
N.B. to Firefly above: Perhaps I was not clear or misunderstood the issue. If the question is, Can a professional looking at a gunshot wound tell the caliber or type of bullet that made it, the answer is, no.
MountainRaven
09-22-19, 13:20
Not commenting on the OP, as I have no experience with the M&P M2.0 in 45, but...
Uni-Vibe and Firefly are talking past each other.
I don't know who Bill Allard is, but I know who Gary Roberts is, and I know that most guys who carry 45s today who know anything about terminal ballistics reality do so because they're carrying 1911s (and 9mm has been making pretty big inroads there over the last five years or so).
Obviously having a 45 Auto handgun to run 45 Super or convert to 460 Rowland for the woods is a totally different can of worms than carrying a 45 Auto on da stretes.
Not commenting on the OP, as I have no experience with the M&P M2.0 in 45, but...
Uni-Vibe and Firefly are talking past each other.
I don't know who Bill Allard is, but I know who Gary Roberts is, and I know that most guys who carry 45s today who know anything about terminal ballistics reality do so because they're carrying 1911s (and 9mm has been making pretty big inroads there over the last five years or so).
Obviously having a 45 Auto handgun to run 45 Super or convert to 460 Rowland for the woods is a totally different can of worms than carrying a 45 Auto on da stretes.
In all fairness, 45 is rather fun suppressed.
Twenty something me really fell hard for .45 as I had no real choice and wanted my personal gun to reflect duty caliber. I have personally seen that caliber put folks in the dirt though. (To be fair, so has .32 and .380)
These days I just carry a 9mm with critical duty. And any future 1911 I get will be 9mm.
I hunt with a 10mm though and have been so turned off towards M&P it isn’t funny.
Street Survival
09-22-19, 16:31
I have a question for you, have we even seen "experts" wrong before? Choose your caliber wisely especially if your life is on the line. If I have my druthers is will be a rifle ;-)
I had a LEO trade in M&P45 1.0. I put APEX duty carry kit in it to help the trigger. It shot good, better than me but the grip was too slick and just didn't feel good in my hand. M&P9's feel awesome.
Traded the M&P45 off for a G21 and never looked back. My 1911 is a 9mm.
I have M&P 2.0 Compact, Shield 1.0 and M&P9 1.0 FS with an RMR milled in slide.
While I have loved the G45/19/19x, G17 don.t balance like an M&P9 FS for me.
The M&P45 grip from front to back just didn't feel good, 2.0 texture may help that issue, but I'm not looking at them
Maybe a M&P9 2.0 FS, because I have a set of Trijicon HD/XR sights that need to go on 1.
Back in the mid 70's the BHP was reliable with FMJ and the Fed 9BP or Rem 115JHP. 357mag and 38 Spec JHP were good and I carried a 1911 in 45acp, Speer 200gr JHP nickname the flying ashtray.
9mm has come a long way, but I still roll with the fat boy 45acp sometimes.
9mm GDHP and HST are in all my 9mm mags, 124 & 147gr
I have a question for you, have we even seen "experts" wrong before? Choose your caliber wisely especially if your life is on the line. If I have my druthers is will be a rifle ;-)
99% of anything good or bad said about.45 is fuddlore. I just liked it because it was the first caliber I was issued and went all in. As I have matured and as 9mm has improved; I will sooner use a 9mm.
If I carry a revolver, I will opt more for a .38 LSWCHP +P over a .357.
Really anything that will get to the heart will do.
I like the .45s I have to include a 1911, but doubt that I will get any more.
That said, I actively hunt with a Delta Elite and eventually want a 4” 610
I have carried the M&P45 gen 1 on duty for years and loved it. I switched departments and now have to use the crappy Sig P227, but I'm trying to get them to switch to the M&P. Hopefully.
99% of anything good or bad said about.45 is fuddlore. I just liked it because it was the first caliber I was issued and went all in. As I have matured and as 9mm has improved; I will sooner use a 9mm.
If I carry a revolver, I will opt more for a .38 LSWCHP +P over a .357.
Really anything that will get to the heart will do.
I like the .45s I have to include a 1911, but doubt that I will get any more.
That said, I actively hunt with a Delta Elite and eventually want a 4” 610 I got a couple of boxes from a FBI agent way back when I still had to carry a revolver for duty. After comparing them to 357 Mag 125 gr SJHP Remingtons, There was no decision.
I too carried the 38spec LSWCHP +P. I had some S&W ammo that was LSWCHP and NYCLAD coated, blue poly coating.
WHen we could finally get away from 38 special ammo I carried a S&W 4" Mod 29. 44 Special LSWCHP in the cylinder, 1 speed loader and 1, 44 mag 200gr SJHP Rem. All speed loaders are Safariland brand. Being Smaller town with rural close, we had deer get hit on the highway and sometimes had to put a 4 legged animal down. The 44 spec worked great.
The old dudes that swear by the 45acp over anything, started their love and devotion when there was not much for 9mm, 38 Super or the Wildcats. 9mm is what I carry all day, every day. Fun days at the Range, I'll break out my G21 45acp to make LOUD CLANGS.
There maybe a G20 10mm in my future too
I have carried the M&P45 gen 1 on duty for years and loved it. I switched departments and now have to use the crappy Sig P227, but I'm trying to get them to switch to the M&P. Hopefully.
I really haven't had much experience with the 227, but it didn't seem much larger grip wise than the 220. I really like shooting the 220, what is it about the 227 you dislike so much, the DA/SA pull?
OP responding to some of your Q's, but not all since I don't have the M&P .45 M2.0.
Had a Gen 1, it was the most accurate polymer pistol I've owned. Although my M2.0 9mm is close. It was also reliable over high round counts, even using cheap training ammo like WWB and using the standard 10rd mags (the 14rd, not as reliable). Did hear of occasional issues with the OEM 10rd mags and feeding reliability with some users; you could find more about that on the MP-pistol forum, or ping "Sensei" was a member here, he ran into that and may be still active on pistol-forum. The Gen 1's were solid enough that my local PD adopted them after testing several pistol platforms (not quite sure why they went .45 over 9mm, but that's a side issue). In general, my thoughts on the M&P .45 were that it was probably tied with the H&K USP for my favorite polymer .45, except it needed the Apex DCAEK to improve the trigger. In the end I sold mine off, not because I didn't think it was an excellent pistol but because I didn't want to bother with updating the trigger.
On the M2.0: it definitely benefits from the same trigger improvements that the 9/40 M2.0's did. My 9mm M2.0 compact is so much improved in the trigger, that I have no plans to add an Apex kit. I have read on mp-pistol that the .45 M2.0 has the same trigger improvements as the other calibers, with multiple users confirming that, so I think that is reliable feedback.
One thing I'd check out with some Google-fu before you take the plunge: whether people are still having any common issues with mags and feeding reliability. It was not a huge issue in Gen 1, but it was common enough that I saw it come up a number of times here and other forums, so check around and confirm it's been resolved with the M2.0.
Other than that, if you want a .45 polymer pistol, if I were buying today I'd be testing the M2.0 against H&K .45 or H&K USP, as my top options.
I really haven't had much experience with the 227, but it didn't seem much larger grip wise than the 220. I really like shooting the 220, what is it about the 227 you dislike so much, the DA/SA pull?
The P227 is more akin to the P226. The first P227 I picked up in a LGS it felt like a pudgy P226. They used the SHORT Reach trigger and maybe thinner grip panels. My last 20 years as a LEO we were issued the Sig P226 in 9mm then 357 Sig. So the P227 did not feel much different. I think the same holster a 220/226 uses a 227 will fit also. The 220 felt like a 1x3 in my hand, until the Desert model came out with the Short reach trigger. I have big hands but shorter fingers. My 226 ELITE has a short reach trigger and the SRT system. My old P239 9mm feels right too.
I understand the 227 is being discontinued by Sig
The P227 is more akin to the P226. The first P227 I picked up in a LGS it felt like a pudgy P226. They used the SHORT Reach trigger and maybe thinner grip panels. My last 20 years as a LEO we were issued the Sig P226 in 9mm then 357 Sig. So the P227 did not feel much different. I think the same holster a 220/226 uses a 227 will fit also. The 220 felt like a 1x3 in my hand, until the Desert model came out with the Short reach trigger. I have big hands but shorter fingers. My 226 ELITE has a short reach trigger and the SRT system. My old P239 9mm feels right too.
I understand the 227 is being discontinued by Sig
Thanks for the details. I've always liked shooting the 220's, just a match for my hands I guess. I've always wanted one, and I'm definitely not a Sig fan. If I ever see one come up as a reasonably priced police trade-in, I'll probably jump, but I would have to stumble across it as I'm not really looking.
Thanks again!
I really haven't had much experience with the 227, but it didn't seem much larger grip wise than the 220. I really like shooting the 220, what is it about the 227 you dislike so much, the DA/SA pull?
It's a boat anchor, very very very very very high bore axis, very bulky, trigger yuck, etc. There's nothing that I like about it except that it's made well.
For anyone on the M&P45 line, AIM Surplus has used mags for sale. The Glock mags I have bought there have been VG/VG+. G17/19/21
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.