Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: M&P 2.0 FS vs Compact preferences

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,312
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    M&P 2.0 FS vs Compact preferences

    Looking for input from the regulars on the trade-offs of these 2 M&P size options.

    The background is I don't cycle through pistols as often as some here do. So I'm hoping there are folks who've owned and used both sizes and can weigh in on the trade-offs. I've stuck with the M&P pistols from the early days, even thru all the ups and downs. Now planning to upgrade my older ones to the 2.0 line.

    So as I upgrade, here's the current thinking:
    * Will get two of them as always, and like to standardize on a single size, so it's either FS or Compact.
    * I already have a lot of stuff for the FS models that would be reusable, for example a ton of 17rd full-size mags for the FS, and 2 holsters. One of these is a Crossbreed open bottom type holster which would possibly fit the Compact 2.0.
    * My uses are pretty standard: carry in social settings (sometimes carry a Shield when clothing options make that more convenient), carry for hiking/backpacking, range (no comps), nightstand.
    * What I'm really wondering: for shooters who've carried and fired both sizes a lot, do you prefer one size over the other, and why?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    288
    Feedback Score
    0
    I like my 2’0 compact a lot. I have had two full size 1.0 and much prefer the compact as an all around pistol. It conceals a bit easier, I usually carry mine with the 15 round magazine and a 17 rounder as a back up. I have a shield also and tend to rotate between the two,



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,312
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Thanks. Have you found it hard to get extra or aftermarket mag sleeves so that your 17rd mags will fit in your compact? Or do you just by get with the provided ones? Also I'm wondering if that sleeve impacts on reliability of the mags at all.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    288
    Feedback Score
    0
    I actually started looking for some extra. Mine seem to fit snug, even if they do move they slide back into place when you insert the magazine. I have shot some drills and indoor matches with it. Reliability and functionality seems fine


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central TX
    Posts
    240
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    If I were to settle on one size and exclude competitive shooting I'd choose the Compact in a heartbeat.

    I concealed a full size 1.0 for years and the 2.0Compact is noticeably easier for me to conceal.

    I haven't tried to find extra magazine sleeves and haven't really used the couple that came with it that much. They make it a bit easier to handle, but shooting a full size mag without the sleeve isn't a problem.
    HIPPIES SMELL

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,312
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedreaux View Post
    I concealed a full size 1.0 for years and the 2.0Compact is noticeably easier for me to conceal.
    Exactly, so this is one thing I wanted to find out. From comparing specs to the FS, the compact doesn't look drastically different. The compact is very close to the same overall length, weight, and thickness. The main difference I could see was the compact is about half an inch less in overall height.

    Is that half inch of reduced height what's really making the difference, is it just making it less prone to printing?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pitts, Pa
    Posts
    17
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by maximus83 View Post
    Exactly, so this is one thing I wanted to find out. From comparing specs to the FS, the compact doesn't look drastically different. The compact is very close to the same overall length, weight, and thickness. The main difference I could see was the compact is about half an inch less in overall height.

    Is that half inch of reduced height what's really making the difference, is it just making it less prone to printing?
    Yes the shorter grip does make it a little easier to conceal.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    199
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    I have the 4.0 and the 4.25.

    If I did it again, i would have done the 3.6 and the 4.25/5".

    The 4.25 and the 4.0 are so similar in size. I almost feel like the difference is more negligible than a glock 19/17.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    4,098
    Feedback Score
    0
    If you comfortably get your full hand on the compact 2.0, and eject mags without them getting stopped from hitting your hand, get the 4 In compact.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    293
    Feedback Score
    0
    In addition to my 4 Shields, I bought the 2.0, 5” M&P, along with the 4 1/4”, 2, 4” Compacts, and a 3.6” Compact. The 5” gun is at my bedside, with a TLR 1 light.
    Since getting the Compacts, I sold the 4 1/4”. I love the concealability of the 4” Compacts, but the 3.6 has fast become my absolute favorite. Dead reliable, very accurate, great trigger out of the box, SUPERB handling, and just carries great. I don’t need anything but the 3.6 (for MY purpose’s. I’m going to add more.

    Skip

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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