In the last three weeks I've bought two new pistols to replace my Glocks. The first pistol purchased was an M&P 2.0 9mm. I purchased this one first because of the low $430 price and the fact that I already have M&P mags from the past.

The second pistol I purchased was the Sig P320 Compact in 9mm. Got it barely used for $435.

My initial impression was that I shot the M&P better than the 320; today I ran a test to find out if that is indeed true. The results were pretty conclusive, I do shoot the M&P better than the Sig P320.

I like both the guns a lot. I do however prefer both the trigger and the grip texture of the M&P. The M&P trigger seems to break very clean, and while I hate the term squishy, If I were to apply it here the P320 seems a little more squishy.

The actual test gave me tighter, more centered groups with the M&P. I fired a total of 75 rounds from two different manufactures from each gun. Each string of fire gave the same results.

I do like both guns and plan to keep both.

Here is the final target, doing moderate paced double taps at eight yards.

Hmm...I don't know about your results. To the untrained eye like mine, these look pretty similar. Was this at pace, rapidish fire, specific drills, or just bullseye-type shooting?

I suspect you are right about the M&P ergos. They might just fit you better as they do me. I presume for the picture that you are right-handed. The low left group with the SIG suggests a little too much pressure on the left side of the trigger and a tad bit of recoil anticipation (that might be due to the 320's trigger stiffness compared to the M&P). I would adjust my grip (hoping that it still feels natual) and give it another try. Particularly mindful of that trigger coming straight back.

Was there a difference in recoil between the two?

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
Was there a difference in recoil between the two?

I'm not Evo, but felt recoil between the two is similar, but the edge goes to the 2.0. When you ramp up to hotter loads, the edge really goes to the 2.0. The metal insert in the frame does a good job with how recoil is transferred.

The 320 remains very tolerable to mistakes, and is more forgiving.

I guess to be more specific, it the grip stippling on the 2.0 that makes it really easy to hold on to. I really like that grip surface.

It's also accurate to say I'm not pressing the trigger as well as I could. Over the past six months my shooting skill has dropped further and further as I tried to resolve that left shooting tendency with my Glock pistols; and as my frustration level has gone up. J Jones tried his best to help, as did others. A short time ago, I recognized I was becoming my own worst enemy trying to resolve the issue, which is why I went back to the M&P and purchased a Sig. I'll continue to work on improving my press.

The picture, BTW, is from moderate paced double taps. With more concentration the 320 was centered, but not as tight as the 2.0. Unfortunately, I didn't take a picture of that target.

There's no question in my mind, I am perfectly happy with both guns and plan to keep both.

Thanks jljones, looks like I may have to pick one of these up.

The 1.5 (or so) difference in pound-force required by M&P 2.0 4.25 and (worked on) P320C9 makes a big difference to me. Once Apex has a competition kit for 2.0, I guess that the better accuracy and ergo. of the M2.0 may be effected.

Most people pay little attention to required trigger force, but a few of us are sensitive to it.

Sorry, I forgot to add my recoil observations.

Total recoil of M&P seems slightly less to me, but we are comparing a FS M&P to a compact P320. So that's not surprising.

Of more significance to me is that the recoil of the M&P seems more rear-ward or "flatter" while the P320 has more upward flip.

Both however, are very manageable.

Thanks for the reply. I like the ergonomics of the original so I'm sure the 2.0 will be even better based on the reviews. There are so many great guns available now it's hard to decide.

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
Thanks for the reply. I like the ergonomics of the original so I'm sure the 2.0 will be even better based on the reviews. There are so many great guns available now it's hard to decide.

That is a very true statement, it's why I ended up with both a 2.0 and a 320. The new FN is getting great reviews also.

I'm sure if you liked original M&P you'll love the 2.0. The only negative I've found is the found a way to stop the slide from closing after an aggressive magazine insert.