View Full Version : M&P 2.0 V Glock
I am in the market for a new 9mm polymer gun and am curious about the current state of the M&P 2.0's. I am currently running a gen 1 M&P 9c and would like to keep logistics simple with magazines if the 2.0's are reliable. If not, I'll probably switch platforms to a 19/43. Are these 2.0's gtg?
I've shot one of 2.0's in 9mm. Excellent grip, trigger, and accurate. I was able to stack my shots on top of each other from 5 yds. Highly recommended.
jpgm
I only had one in .45 but yes, reliable.
Far better grip / handle than a Glock. Texture, angle, contour, all better.
I found three possible downsides.
1. You have to like, or at least not dislike, the hinged trigger
2. If you dont like the aggressive texture you'll spend 5 minutes lightly sanding it until its perfect for you
3. To remove the striker assembly you must remove a loc-tited screw (put some heat on it and it's not hard) so you can slide out the rear sight. (Easy)
To put it back you clean the screw and thread with alcohol, add blue loc-tite, and reinstall the rear sight.
The rear sight retaines the firing pin block so it's very important it doesn't go anywhere.
4. S&W mags sometimes have a hang-up feeding some Russian steel case ammo due to friction with the casings. I've seen this in single and double stack modern S&W's.
5. Slightly heavier than a Glock for better or worse.
Those are the only negatives I found. Reliable, accurate pistols that feel good in the hand. They also come with decent, steel sights and seem to recoil less than Glocks in my opinion.
I've shot one of 2.0's in 9mm. Excellent grip, trigger, and accurate. I was able to stack my shots on top of each other from 5 yds. Highly recommended.
jpgm
Thanks!
I only had one in .45 but yes, reliable.
Far better grip / handle than a Glock. Texture, angle, contour, all better.
I found three possible downsides.
1. You have to like, or at least not dislike, the hinged trigger
2. If you dont like the aggressive texture you'll spend 5 minutes lightly sanding it until its perfect for you
3. To remove the striker assembly you must remove a loc-tited screw (put some heat on it and it's not hard) so you can slide out the rear sight. (Easy)
To put it back you clean the screw and thread with alcohol, add blue loc-tite, and reinstall the rear sight.
The rear sight retaines the firing pin block so it's very important it doesn't go anywhere.
4. S&W mags sometimes have a hang-up feeding some Russian steel case ammo due to friction with the casings. I've seen this in single and double stack modern S&W's.
5. Slightly heavier than a Glock for better or worse.
Those are the only negatives I found. Reliable, accurate pistols that feel good in the hand. They also come with decent, steel sights and seem to recoil less than Glocks in my opinion.
Appreciate the quick response!
GTG! Switched out all my Gen1s for 2.0s
RKB Armory
04-15-20, 14:22
I think they're a really good choice. I have fired more than 10,000 rounds through two different M2.0s (5,000 each) without a single malfunction of any kind.
The price is reasonable, too.
One of my shooting buddies has a 2.0 and it’s been a good shooter. Nicely priced, well made, and a viable choice.
I’m too vested in Glock to deviate, but would consider the 2.0 if starting fresh.
I have 3. A 5 inch, 2.0 compact 4 inch and a shield performance center 4 inch. All are very reliable, better triggers and more accurate. I also have two 1.0 full size in 45 and compete with a 9mm performance center 5 inch 9mm, plus previously had two 9mm full size and shield 1.0. So I have had a lot of time on them. The 2.0s have a little less felt recoil because of the texturing they are glued to your hand. Triggers are definitely better not as mushy before the break. If that makes sense. The compact and shield rotate as my carry guns both get good solid hits easy at 50 yards on a standard silhouette. The shield is the big surprise, smaller grip, texturing, trigger and good sights that pistol can make you look good. All that being said, I don’t have a lot of time on Glocks but looked hard at the gen 5’s but went with the Smiths. Also because the grip angle feels similar to a 1911 which I carried for years. As o I’m biased lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Both are good and dependable guns.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200416/80aa557202af0ff53e9df818546da4d4.jpg
Both are good and dependable guns.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200416/80aa557202af0ff53e9df818546da4d4.jpg
How do you like the 19 compared to the Smith. I looked real hard at a 19. Might get one someday just to check out
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve owned Glocks since about
1987, and have owned many. Since my first M&P, I’ve sold all the Glocks but two, a 19 and 36, both of which, while fine pistols, live in the back of my safe.
In the past couple or three years I’ve bought nine M&P’s. I keep several other brands of striker and da/sa guns, and am a DEVOTED 1911 fan, but the M&P 2.0’s are real favorites of mine. Accurate, super reliable, and fit me like the proverbial glove. You’ll not go wrong.
Skip
How do you like the 19 compared to the Smith. I looked real hard at a 19. Might get one someday just to check out.
When the 2.0's came out I got an FDE 5 inch for action pistol, I was hoping to get more accuracy than I had with Gen 3 G17.
I loved it, that summer I shot 200 rounds a day through it 3 or 4 days a week. Nary a bobble. Initially, it shot low for me, but I fixed that with a new front sight from Dawson. There was some talk of the the stiff slide release and I monkeyed with it a bit, that was all I did to the pistol. I don't recall a malfunction. I could put all the rounds in the 4inch X-ring of the AP-1 target at 50 yards, unfortunately not during matches.
Then, shortly after the 19X's were released, I found one at a good price in a small town gun store while on, of all things, a Sunday School trip. I bought it and decided I didn't like the sights so replaced them with a set of Dawson's. It shoots good, but IMO not quite as good as the 2.0, of course that could be a result of nearly 1.5 inches more sight radius on the Smith. Best Glock trigger I've ever shot, though.
I don't shoot the 2.0 as much anymore, it didn't make sense to practice with two different production pistols, and GSSF, only allows Glocks.
Those FDE 5 inch are accurate I got mine at a stupid price, My 1.0 5 inch is about to get an apex barrel, trigger and a stippling job looking forward to comparing the two after that. The
gen 5 trigger I liked better than the Smith it's just the grip I much prefer on the Smiths, I have looked at a couple of built up Glocks that were really cool but had a cool price tag to go with it.
I just ditched my Gen 3 G17 for a M&P 2.0 4" compact.
I have had an O-G M&P 9C 1.0 w/ Apex DCAEK for several years, and has been a great CCW gun, but a bit to small for a "combat" gun, and can't mount a light.
The G17s were just to big for me to CCW, but I have always shot 17's well.
Wanted to streamline my guns into ONE platform that can do both. I hate G19s (don't fit my hand right, and I'm not dishing out mega-$$$ for a custom glock), so there had to be a compromise... let's just say that after YEARS of trying to find that perfect do-all niche gun that also fits my hand right.... the 2.0 Compact is it. So far. Time will tell how it holds up, but for now... if the G19 is not your gun, try a M&P 2.0.
I only had one in .45 but yes, reliable.
Far better grip / handle than a Glock. Texture, angle, contour, all better
I found three possible downsides.
1. You have to like, or at least not dislike, the hinged trigger
Indeed. As far as actual pull weight/crispness, it kicks the ass of stock Gen 4/5 Glock, P320, and P10C pistols (at least the ones I tried, YMMV). But as far as physical trigger profile... I don't hate the hinged trigger enough to ditch it yet, but the Glock center-dongle type feels a bit better under the finger. Of course, if you hate it...there are alternate aftermarket triggers, and at the price point the M&P 2.0s [ were :rolleyes: ] at, you would have been able to drop a new one in before getting to a stock Gen 5 G19 price point.
2. If you dont like the aggressive texture you'll spend 5 minutes lightly sanding it until its perfect for you
Yes. I hate stippling, and IMO the half-rubber-ish smooth texture of the 1.0 was always just right to me. But the 2.0 cheese grater texture is nothing that can't be remedied easily.
The ONLY good thing about the 2.0 cheese grater grips is that it is noticeably better if shooting barehanded with sweaty hands than a slicker plastic grip like a Glock. That being said, unless you have seriously calloused man-hands, you won't be shooting for long before reaching for a glove....
*****
5. Slightly heavier than a Glock for better or worse.
I do not find this noticeable.
Those are the only negatives I found. Reliable, accurate pistols that feel good in the hand. They also come with decent, steel sights and seem to recoil less than Glocks in my opinion.
Yes, and for the [previous] price, not having to immediately drop a hundred bucks on sights was another nail in the Glock coffin for me.
That being said... maybe my eyes are starting to get shit, but I found the sight picture of the stock sights to be a bit to "close" for me (there's a whole thread on it in this pistol forum), resulting in difficulty acquiring a clear target and sight picture which led to annoying and confusing "accuracy issues".
If this is an issue for you, recommend switching to a .115 width front sight (I got a 10-8 brass bead front). Should solve most of the problem cheaply.
My only other gripe is holster availability, and magazine price. After getting nice and used to $20 (or less) Glock magz, jumping up to $28-30+ dollar clipazines was a big oof.
And of course everyone and their damn uncle makes a glock 19 holster. M&P 2.0s....kinda still getting there a little bit. I just finished a 3 month wait for a light bearing holster from Safariland....
That being said... some M&P 1.0 holsters might still fit the 2.0. I have one of those HSGI OWB holsters and it fits my 1.0 and 2.0 just fine. However, it's also a bit of a "general" shape/molding. YMMV with other brands.
The other personal thing I've always like about the M&P line, is they seem a little more "people friendly" to a wider variety of shooters, with their better grip angle, and less 'blocky' grip. I had a relative who's had problems getting good accuracy results with their G17 for years, and there was a noticeable and almost immediate improvement when I let them try a couple mags out of my 2.0 M&P. So, YMMV, but in my book, another point in favor of the M&P if you ever forsee other (likely less trained people, like kids, wife, etc) aside yourself ever needing to use it, or wanting to own their own gun.
As far as new polymer guns on the market; if the M&P 2.0 4" Compact wasn't the *perfect* size (pretty much a G19 clone), I would be seriously looking at a P10C (budget boi option) or P320 Compact (mags are hella expensive though). But both of them were too close to the G17 in grip length for me, to be able to bother with them for CCW. YMMV.
That being said, the 320 is the first Sig I've ever shot I've actually liked (I hate the 22x series MORE than I hate G19s). The grip size/shape was *perfect* (can't speak for the X-Carry, I tried the standard 320 Compact), and with something to crisp the squishy factory flat trigger up, it seems like it would be a real shooter.
P10C grip was also really good, still needs a trigger upgrade to fix the squishyness, and probably some new sights (I thought the factory sights were a bit small, YMMV), but you'd probably still come in under a Gen 5 G19 with simliar upgrades, and mag price also isn't to bad.
That being said.... I also see nothing there with either of those that justifies the extra $$$ for initial cost or upgrades over the M&P 2.0.
How do you like the 19 compared to the Smith. I looked real hard at a 19. Might get one someday just to check out
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like them both. It would be a hard choice to make. I’ve put 9,000 through the G19 and only 2400 through the 2.0. I shoot the 2.0 better (but barely perceptible) than the 19, but the 19 carries better.
I’ve tried just about every new SFP to come down the pike in the last decade and if one of them ever takes the 19’s place it would be the 2.0.
Thanks for the input
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like them both also. For my personal use, the MP2.0 wins for the better out of the box trigger and grip profile/shape. That’s just my personal opinion though. From a reliability perspective, can’t see there being much difference. There certainly isn’t from my experience.
Which platform do you shoot better would be the differentiator.
PatrioticDisorder
04-18-20, 19:05
Keep in mind Glock magazines and especially spare parts (RSA, striker, extractors, etc.) are MUCH easier to find than M&P parts. Glock magazines are cheaper as well, so if you stack magazines deep, Glock is gonna be cheaper even with a higher price for the pistol itself. Holsters are also more abundant as well, like for example the Safariland 6353DO, light bearing holster options in various configurations from holster makers such as Tier 1 Concealed and LAS Concealment seem to be more abundant. While I like the grippiness of the M&P 2.0 it’s a bit aggressive for AIWB & IWB concealed carry vs. Glock Gen4/5 texture.
Gary1911A1
04-19-20, 10:16
I have both. As PatrioticDisorder said the Glocks are easier to get parts and accessories for plus I enjoy shooting local indoor GSSF Matches, but I do like the M&P grip shape and angle more. Stock triggers between the Gen 5 and M&P 2.0 are about as equal for me. Try both and get what you want, or get both. I believe the M&P are going to gain in popularity more in the future though.
ShadowMoses
04-24-20, 17:13
I have more Glocks than I do M&Ps. I have two Glock 17s and a 19X as well as one of the M&P 2.0 Compact 4" guns.
I really like how the 2.0 Compact 4" feels in the hand and how it shoots. It has very minimal rise and the texture out of the box is what every gun should have. My biggest complaints are how the slidestop got much, much stiffer than the 1.0 and the trigger shoe has a hinge in the center of it. I think it ruins the feel of the pull. If it wasn't for the slidestop being just about impossible to use with your firing thumb on a reload, I'd drop in an Apex shoe and call it a day.
You can't really go wrong with either. I'm personally too invested in Glock to make the switch to something else, but I think just about every other gun out there nowadays feels better in the hands and points more naturally than the Glock. I stay with Glock because of the familiarity and how just about everybody has parts, holsters or magazine carriers for it
IMO, the 2.0 is better than the Glock.
-Around me, you can get an MP 2.0 for $430 (for the 5"), and I've seen them as low as $399 (for the compact). Glocks hold pretty steady at $475-500.
-The grip is more comfortable. The four backstraps it comes with make for much better modularity than the afterthought of grip add-ons that come with the Glock.
-The 2.0 has a pretty good trigger; the 1.0s did not but the 2.0 is gtg from the factory. I am not a trigger snob, though.
-The sights are usable. Three-dot, metal sights with a rear ledge. The Glocks some with placeholders. Last time I bought a Glock I couldn't get the sights out of it fast enough... add ~$85+ to the price of the gun.
The MP 2.0 is the best gun out there, for the money.
ETA: To clarify, my experience with Glocks is gen3 and gen4 and my experience with the MP is 1.0, 1.0 Pro, and 2.0.
Damn_yankee
06-03-20, 05:54
I only had one in .45 but yes, reliable.
Far better grip / handle than a Glock. Texture, angle, contour, all better.
I found three possible downsides.
1. You have to like, or at least not dislike, the hinged trigger
2. If you dont like the aggressive texture you'll spend 5 minutes lightly sanding it until its perfect for you
3. To remove the striker assembly you must remove a loc-tited screw (put some heat on it and it's not hard) so you can slide out the rear sight. (Easy)
To put it back you clean the screw and thread with alcohol, add blue loc-tite, and reinstall the rear sight.
The rear sight retaines the firing pin block so it's very important it doesn't go anywhere.
4. S&W mags sometimes have a hang-up feeding some Russian steel case ammo due to friction with the casings. I've seen this in single and double stack modern S&W's.
5. Slightly heavier than a Glock for better or worse.
Those are the only negatives I found. Reliable, accurate pistols that feel good in the hand. They also come with decent, steel sights and seem to recoil less than Glocks in my opinion.
You don’t have to remove anything but the slide plate to remove the striker assembly. You do need to remove the rear sight to get the block and spring out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don’t have to remove anything but the slide plate to remove the striker assembly. You do need to remove the rear sight to get the block and spring out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now that I think about it..your right! Thanks.
Damn_yankee
06-04-20, 07:24
Now that I think about it..your right! Thanks.
Yes sir. That would have made the pistol a no go for me as those sights are known for being a bear to remove.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had a 2.0 in 45. I actually moved from Glock platform. I liked alot of the features it had that alot of people complained that Glock didn't evolve to offering. Carried for awhile but long term overall I didn't completely warm up to the M&P and went back to a Glock
I've had a number of both Glocks and M&Ps over the years. I think I had each model of the M&P 1.0 in 9mm, .40 and .45. I really liked them, but we were issued Glocks for duty and I had carried one for years. I also had a number of Glocks over the years in 9mm, .40. .357 Sig and .45 ACP. For whatever reason, I ultimately settled on the Glocks for a time. I really liked the M&Ps, but with the Glock being my duty gun, I decided to keep it simple. The only exception was the Shield. Until the Glock 43 came along, the Shield was the ultimate off-duty and BUG.
After I retired, I continued to do my usually swapping, testing and then determining what to carry after some serious testing. As it stands today, I still have the Glocks, but all in 9mm. I have also bought a number of M&Ps. The standard Shield is a 1.0, but I also have the 4" Shield PC M2.0 with the RDS. That little pistol has a great trigger and is exceptionally accurate. I added some MagGuts to the 8 round mags and now have 10 rounders. I also have a .45 Shield I like very much. It also has a great trigger. I have a M&P M2.0 4.6" in .45 ACP. Again, great trigger and accuracy. I had a couple of M2.0s in 9mm; one 3.6" and one 5". I liked both, but got the itch to try some of the Sigs (320 and 365) and traded them off. I've gotten over the Sigs and will be getting a couple of M&Ps in 9mm. I may even get rid of some Glocks to facilitate that.
So, in essence what I'm saying is both are excellent and it's largely going to depend on your preferences. If I could only have one, it would have to be the Glock 19 simply because of all the gear and mags I have for it. However, if I could only have the M&P, I wouldn't miss the Glock.
I have a G20 and desperately want a 10mm M&P. I'm trying to figure out how to make my
.45 M&P into a 10mm. Only Glock that I have successfully shot is a G27 partially due to a hand injury to my pinky finger so it can go under the mag well and not interfere with my grip
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
SOP - Get bothhttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200606/0e323890c7519b25cd895d654e821f15.jpg
10 years in the Outback and out of focus with new products...bear with me.
I have more Glocks than I do M&Ps. I have two Glock 17s and a 19X as well as one of the M&P 2.0 Compact 4" guns.
I really like how the 2.0 Compact 4" feels in the hand and how it shoots. It has very minimal rise and the texture out of the box is what every gun should have. My biggest complaints are how the slidestop got much, much stiffer than the 1.0 and the trigger shoe has a hinge in the center of it. I think it ruins the feel of the pull. If it wasn't for the slidestop being just about impossible to use with your firing thumb on a reload, I'd drop in an Apex shoe and call it a day.
You can't really go wrong with either. I'm personally too invested in Glock to make the switch to something else, but I think just about every other gun out there nowadays feels better in the hands and points more naturally than the Glock. I stay with Glock because of the familiarity and how just about everybody has parts, holsters or magazine carriers for it
That was my biggest complaint as well, but it only takes 30 seconds to remove the slide-stop detent and restore slide-release functionality.
Tomac
Sounds like I should give the 2.0 compact a shot, based on all of the favorable reviews. Mag prices aren't a deal breaker and and parts availability aren't a deal breaker either. I've had guns that had to have it's guide rod replaced because the springs were worn after tens of thousands of rounds fired, or a slide replaced because it too was worn, and one extractor. Those parts are easy to find online but the slide, meh; That's what CS is for. I buy my holsters online so no problem with that whatsoever.
Hi, does anyone have a sight line on who actually has M&P 2.0s in stock? Local shops look like the apocalypse is nigh.
Hi, does anyone have a sight line on who actually has M&P 2.0s in stock? Local shops look like the apocalypse is nigh.
https://gun.deals/search/apachesolr_search/11683
One place shows in stock for $499 for the 4” compact
Just go to sw site find the model number put it in search :)
https://gun.deals/search/apachesolr_search/11683
One place shows in stock for $499 for the 4” compact
Just go to sw site find the model number put it in search :)
Thanks for the link!
That was my biggest complaint as well, but it only takes 30 seconds to remove the slide-stop detent and restore slide-release functionality.
TomacCan you post link on how to DIY the job?
10 years in the Outback and out of focus with new products...bear with me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.