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

Thread: M&P 2.0 FS vs Compact preferences

  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
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,312
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi View Post
    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.
    Yeah, that thought has occurred to me. So I'm basically weighing the trade-off between "half an inch in reduced height equals slightly easier to carry" versus "extra capacity of two rounds." You could make a case for either way, but I get the feeling a majority of folks lean to the new compact size, similar to the G19. I remember I used to carry the original M&P compact, the smaller Gen1 version, and it was every bit a chunky and blocky as the FS. It was only easier to carry because basically reduced height--but then with that pistol, it was almost too small in the grip, so I got rid of it. The logic for me was, if I'm gonna have a smaller pistol for ease of carry, I may as well get something really easy to carry, so I went single stack with the Shield.

    Because I have so many mags and gear already for the FS, and I don't yet see a huge game-changing difference in the ease of carry, I'm leaning to maybe getting two more FS 2.0 to replace my current ones, skip the compact 2.0, and keep using my Shield when I don't carry the FS. Decisions, decisions. Would like to hear a few more weigh in on how much difference the 2.0 4" compact made in their ease of carry vs the FS. I know that a lot of guys really do think the 4" is a big difference.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    100
    Feedback Score
    0
    After owning the FNS9C I got the M&P 2.0 3.6" with Apex trigger a few months ago and never look back. However, I have never used the sleeves for 17 Rounds size mags.
    Last edited by .XL; 05-12-19 at 17:25.

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
  •