quote:

Originally posted by Cobra21:

quote:

Originally posted by dry-fly:
Looks like I'm back on the M&P wagon also. My 2.0 will be here Tuesday or Wednesday. I ordered a set of Ameriglo I dot night sights for it as well.

Alright, alright...order me one too.

quote:

Originally posted by Holger Danske:
Jones -- I hope I'm right in thinking that it was you who talked about how forgiving the P320 was, that you and others believed it allowed you to shoot well even with less than stellar form.

How is the 2.0 in this regard, and, if you will, where do you rate each overall?

The M&P is less forgiving. If I am off on my grip just a bit on the draw, I have to work a whole lot harder to get the hits that I need.

I like the three big players. They all have their place, and you can't go wrong with any of them. Prior to the 2.0, I placed the 1.0 in third place, with the Glock in 2nd, and the 320 in first. Now, the 320 and 2.0 share first. Prior to the 2.0, to have a high level usable pistol, you usually had to put a bunch of Apex stuff in it first. The 2.0's that I have shot stand on their own, and I wish that this would have been been how the gun started out.

J L Jones' comment is very interesting. I overhauled an M&P 1.0 Pro CORE 5 inch and it became quite useful. The CORE is more easy to cure because one only needs to remove the sight plate and not remove the sight (as seems to be the case with the remaining M&P). With a VENOM red-dot sight, the pistol is usable.

For iron-sight use, it would be nice to evaluate a 2.0 CORE (CORE so that if the 2.0 needs to be overhauled, it is more easy to do so).

Evaluated pistols for IDPA (Iron sights) today. Unmodified Glocks are accurate, but much too heavy triggers. Have been using P320C9 with a second as back-up. First one spent time with Mr Gray and has night-sights (only way to buy the very early P320) and the second P320C9 has factory three-dot sights with the trigger changed to one of Mr. Gray's creations. BOTH measure 4.8 pounds-force required for trigger. The second one had much too stiff a trigger before Mr. Gray's trigger toned it down.
Both pistols are accurate with the second having a slightly stiffer recoil-spring, but the normal sights on the second help a lot. I do not understand the allure of night sights.

Anyone know when the M&P 2.0 line will expand? Probably need to clear the old 1.0 and I would not be surprised to learn that S&W has stockpiled the new 2.0 so that lots of early sales can be made.

quote:

Originally posted by P320Mac:
Anyone know when the M&P 2.0 line will expand? Probably need to clear the old 1.0 and I would not be surprised to learn that S&W has stockpiled the new 2.0 so that lots of early sales can be made.

I am expecting to see an expansion this weekend in Atlanta. That is just a guess based upon the blowing out of 1.0 guns that Smith has been doing with their rebate.

I want a 2.0 compact pretty bad

Bit the bullet - so to speak - and have a 2.0 9mm 4.25"
Measured trigger pull required and it is right at 6 pounds-force. Looks as if will need to enhance its performance after all. Lots of over-travel, which can be diminished with tape or such placed at back of trigger guard.

Heavy rain for many days and yesterday was spent dealing with outside for at last it did not rain, but sure was cold and windy. . . . thus have yet to see if the 2.0 is accurate and worth working on. If sights are at all close, might shoot it in IDPA practice even with 6 pound-force trigger to evaluate the effect of a longer sight radius.

2.0 Compact would be an attractive option...

See my report in 2.0 vs P320 series.
Based on sample of one, M2.0 is not recommended for IDPA. Much too difficult trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by P320Mac:
Bit the bullet - so to speak - and have a 2.0 9mm 4.25"
Measured trigger pull required and it is right at 6 pounds-force. Looks as if will need to enhance its performance after all. Lots of over-travel, which can be diminished with tape or such placed at back of trigger guard.

I've used a dab of JB Weld on the nubbin supplied as a stop on the 1.0 models. It appears to be gone on the 2.0.

Update. I am now just shy of 3000 rounds. I shot 300 today after installing an Apex Tactical DCEAK in my gun. Don't ever install the DCEAK in a 2.0. It just makes you want a five inch 2.0 with a DCEAK.
I really just messed around today. I got one of the steel bays to myself, and decided to do some accuracy stuff at extended distance.

I started out with a few draws from the 10 to warm up. Then after that, I shot a couple of bump drills to learn the trigger. Then came an 8 inch steel plate at 75 yards. I went 8/10 once I figured out that if I take the orange dot on the HD front sight and cover the center of the plate with it, it rewarded me with a solid "ding". I shot some 50 yard stuff with the same results. I then shot some bill drills from the 10. I rounded things out with some steel challenge type multiple target runs. Some were complicated because at certain yard lines you would have a six inch plate low, and a ten inch plate high. It was a lot of fun.

J L: Thanks. I assume that you installed the DCAEK (Duty/Carry Action Enhancement Kit) part number 100-062.
https://store.apextactical.com...ducts/Details/191840

That kit is claimed only to end with a 5 to 5.5 Lb-f trigger pull. What did you measure after the effort to install? You may be one of the majority for whom trigger force is not important.

Sounds as if the M2.0 must have been one with 4.25" barrel and clearly you are mastering its use. What ammo does the enhanced M2.0 like?
Thanks

Picked a 2.0 yesterday; I always liked the M&P format including the Shield but had recently gone down the Glock road.


Based on dry firing only I really like the grip texture, and the trigger seems much better than my Glocks. I hope to make it to the range Friday. If I make it I'll put up a range report good or bad.

...

Anyone shot the 2.0 in 40 cal? I'm wondering it handles the 40S&W.

quote:

Originally posted by P320Mac:
J L: Thanks. I assume that you installed the DCAEK (Duty/Carry Action Enhancement Kit) part number 100-062.
https://store.apextactical.com...ducts/Details/191840

That kit is claimed only to end with a 5 to 5.5 Lb-f trigger pull. What did you measure after the effort to install? You may be one of the majority for whom trigger force is not important.

Sounds as if the M2.0 must have been one with 4.25" barrel and clearly you are mastering its use. What ammo does the enhanced M2.0 like?
Thanks

I don't own a trigger pull gauge, but it is probably in the neighborhood of 4.5-5 pounds. Reset is short, and I can prep the crap out of it. The kit is the one above, but it is a kit that is several years old. I get distributor pricing at Apex because of my relationship with them, but it was easier in this case to make the impulse buy at my LGS. The kit had been there for a while, but there have been no upgrades to the kit since it was manufactured.

My gun seems to like the 124 stuff. I have not shot any 147 grain yet, but between 115 and 124, I'm getting a little better accuracy with the 124 grain. But, it is a sample size of one, and the "little better" is very little. It shoots both ammo swimmingly.

quote:

Originally posted by evolution:
Picked a 2.0 yesterday; I always liked the M&P format including the Shield but had recently gone down the Glock road.


Based on dry firing only I really like the grip texture, and the trigger seems much better than my Glocks. I hope to make it to the range Friday. If I make it I'll put up a range report good or bad.

...

Sweet!

Thanks. I assume the "one above" is the Duty/Carry kit 100-062 and not the competition kit 100-072. . . . and as I have noted several times: most people here are almost insensitive to heavy triggers as long as they break sharply. A minority need lighter triggers to avoid sight errors when pulling trigger.

I have yet to dump the M2.0 with 6 lb-f trigger as it now seems that the much anticipated production-grade CZ P10C is also a 6 lb-f pistol. Have not been able to have anyone confirm if the Apex 100-072 competition kit will fit properly in M2.0 - my m2.0 sure needs help.

Also interesting about 124 grain bullets. I found that my M2.0 (with hard and very careful pulling of trigger) was accurate at 25 yards with Berry 115 HB and at least 4.6 grains of WSF. [P320C9 is happy with 4.5 WSF]

To replace the striker safety, one must remove rear sight, which can be a non-trivial task. Then one must replace the rear sight and check zero. [easy with the CORE models because the safety is under a plate, not the sight] How difficult did you find this task and did you note an improvement?

I did not install it. I had one of the gunsmiths install it while I waited at the shop. I've installed a bunch of them though. The hardest part is getting the rear sight off of some guns. It can be quite a mofo.

yes, I bought a duty carry kit

J L: Thanks. I have a great sight mover, but it and a whap with brass pin sometimes just does not work. If one takes off rear sight anyway, wonder who makes an adjustable rear sight for M2.0 that could then fix re-zero issue?

Look forward to your continuing adventure.

The sights are a bit tight, and if/when you get them off, it is a pain to get them back on unless you do a little filing. Hence, why I have stared letting my LGS do the installs for me. They have all the whizbang stuff to do it.

Makes a lot of sense! After managing to come close to fixing a XDs 9 4" (not fun to put back together - almost as bad a Mark III) I decided to have big-shop replace and center rear sight.

New information is starting to arrive about production P10C that is starting to sound good - so I may dump the M2.0 after all -