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?
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,
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In your position, I would choose the 4" M2.0 Compact. By using the magazine sleeves you can easily replicate the full size magazine capacity if you find a need to do so. Therefore, capacity is a wash. The .25" difference in slide length is hardly significant, so that is also a wash, in my opinion. However, the shorter grip of the compact, when compared to the full size, is definitely easier to conceal. Therefore, the Compact is the winner for you.
The only thing I had to do to my compact was to very slightly sand the side of the grip that rubs against my skin when carried IWB. I have about 4,000 rounds through my compact without a single failure.
Fact that I cant really mount a decent light on the 3.6 compact is kind of a deal breaker for me. Have two 4" 2.0’s but seeing its so close to the full size 4.25 I question why I did it. The new 4" shield looks interesting.
It does, saw that and considered it yesterday. But I ultimately went the with the original Shield size, the logic being that when carrying this thing, I want it to be really compact, so I’ll give up that extra barrel length for concealability.