quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I like the gun. I can’t tell much difference between it and the 4.0, so I think it’s the clear winner in the two. I like it way better than the G5 G19, and a little better than the 320 compact. However, the 320 X Compact may change that.

Curious why way better than Gen 5 19?

I love the size but had a very light primer strike so I don't trust mine.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I like the gun. I can’t tell much difference between it and the 4.0, so I think it’s the clear winner in the two. I like it way better than the G5 G19, and a little better than the 320 compact. However, the 320 X Compact may change that.

Is it worth upgrading from a 1.0 compact model?

Probably. The trouble is, they're really not that directly comparable. The 1.0 compact was more of a subcompact gun where the 2.0 is more of a true compact. Think Glock 26 (2.0) versus Glock 19 (2.0). The 2.0 obviously has improvements, but if you need a subcompact gun, it's just not that.

I really like my 2.0 Compact.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I like the gun. I can’t tell much difference between it and the 4.0, so I think it’s the clear winner in the two. I like it way better than the G5 G19, and a little better than the 320 compact. However, the 320 X Compact may change that.

Is it worth upgrading from a 1.0 compact model?

Probably. The trouble is, they're really not that directly comparable. The 1.0 compact was more of a subcompact gun where the 2.0 is more of a true compact. Think Glock 26 (2.0) versus Glock 19 (2.0). The 2.0 obviously has improvements, but if you need a subcompact gun, it's just not that.

I really like my 2.0 Compact.

interesting, I thought the M&P9C 1.0 used the same mags as the 2.0 compact, and would therefore make them somewhat equal size. Have I been wrong about the mags being the same?

You could probably use a 2.0 compact mag in a 1.0. The reverse isn't true. The 1.0 compact mags are shorter. In 9mm the 1.0 holds 12 rounds and the 2.0 holds 15.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I like the gun. I can’t tell much difference between it and the 4.0, so I think it’s the clear winner in the two. I like it way better than the G5 G19, and a little better than the 320 compact. However, the 320 X Compact may change that.

Is it worth upgrading from a 1.0 compact model?

Probably. The trouble is, they're really not that directly comparable. The 1.0 compact was more of a subcompact gun where the 2.0 is more of a true compact. Think Glock 26 (2.0) versus Glock 19 (2.0). The 2.0 obviously has improvements, but if you need a subcompact gun, it's just not that.

I really like my 2.0 Compact.

interesting, I thought the M&P9C 1.0 used the same mags as the 2.0 compact, and would therefore make them somewhat equal size. Have I been wrong about the mags being the same?

Have you shot the XCompact yet?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I like the gun. I can’t tell much difference between it and the 4.0, so I think it’s the clear winner in the two. I like it way better than the G5 G19, and a little better than the 320 compact. However, the 320 X Compact may change that.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Have you shot the XCompact yet?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I like the gun. I can’t tell much difference between it and the 4.0, so I think it’s the clear winner in the two. I like it way better than the G5 G19, and a little better than the 320 compact. However, the 320 X Compact may change that.

I shot a pre-production mock up. I liked it a lot.

Found this. It's pretty recent and pretty applicable.




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/H6wMs2UYqWo

As others have commented, it's a .4" difference, so what the allure? I already have the 4" version, so there is no attraction for me. It just didn't make any sense to offer this model. Again, as mentioned, if they had a single stack with the 3.6" barrel, that would have been attractive. This is just another S&W blunder, just like the 2.0 45 ACP compact model with the full size grip. WTF! Maybe a slimmer .45 ACP the same size as the 1.0 45 Compact??
I would like to know who keeps ill advising S&W on new models??

^
When it came out, I would have agreed with you. My first thought when the 2.0C 3.6 came out is that it's the AIWB version. AIWB carriers would appreciate the shorter barrel, but I didn't know who else would. But the fact that SIG copied that move makes me think that Smith figured something out about the market. Jerry's comments reinforce this thinking.

Well I broke down. Found a great price on the 4" compact 9mm and ordered it. I spent about two weeks trying to decide between the 4" and the 3.6" and finally decided the 4" would work. I really don't plan on carrying it and if I do I don't do appendix so the extra .4 shouldn't bother me. I did like the idea of the shorter slide as my APX Centurion is 3.7" and it handles great, but after comparing pics of it to the G19 (and my APX to my G19) and the 4" compact they are SO very close (thank you handgunhero dot com lol).

I owned three of the gen 1 M&P's and they shot great but they just weren't there for me so I ended up selling them all. From what I have seen and felt I think Smith might have hit the nail on the head with the 2.0.

I really like the 4” version I checked out. Didn’t get to shoot it but the texture and grip was very nice.

I looked at one again on Sat I really liked it, but went with the Shield 2.0 L/E package that had fact night sights and 3 mags .