Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0s are hitting dealer shelves already, and are equipped with plenty of upgrades compared to the original. In the video above, Jan Mladek, General Manager of S&W’s M&P brand, walks us through the many changes.
The highly condensed version is: aggressive new grip texture, much improved trigger with shorter, more pronounced reset, larger stainless steel frame insert that extends into the dust cover, ambi mag release and slide stop, and more…
9mm is boring. I want an M&P2.0 in .500 Magnum. 😀
Now that you mention it…?
Damn right. Go big or go home.
Trigger take up is so poor. Break isnt terrible but the inch and a half of gravelly take up is a huge turn off. Feels fantastic in the hand though.
Everyone can see from the picture that there isn’t 3/4 inches of the trigger travel available.
so if it feels too hard for you to pull just say that.
I find the M&P 9mm Lugers in particular to be one of the best guns ergonomically I’ve ever fired. I carry a Glock 23 and have gotten to like it, but if I were to have a do-over I’d pick this gun over the Glock. It is very difficult to hit steel plates at 25 yards with the .40 cal. G23, but hits are way easy with the Smith. In this age of criminals with body armor, head shots are more necessary than ever. I can hit small plates with the G23 now but getting to that level proved difficult. Not so with the M&P 9 I borrowed at the range: the learning curve is way easier than with most other guns.
Accuracy under stress is vital in a gunfight: the M&P 9s will do the business better than most other guns.
I’ve got Glock 23’s and 35’s that are pretty accurate. I swapped out both barrels with the LWD .40 – 9mm conversion. Both have upgraded recoil spring / guide rods. Upgrading the sights to Trijicon HD / Meprolight / etc. helps. Same for trigger work. Adding a light helps reduce recoil.
I’d say the M&P is a bit more accurate than the Glock in stock form, but a Glock seems to me to be begging for upgrades.
I think our Department will be going to 2.0s. I guess we’all see.
I get tired of companies putting out new “Gens” of the same old guns, when the new Gens really don’t represent advances in technology or changes in consumer preferences. What it says to me is either: 1) “We didn’t get it right the first time, so now we are trying to correct our mistakes (like the R51), or even worse 2) “Sales have been slacking off, so we’re going to add a few bells and whistles and call it the ‘latest and greatest’ to get people buying again (like this one).” Then the fans of these guns wait for the new models with bated breath and endlessly discuss them like Star Wars fans in the parents’ basements waiting for the new movie.
The new M&P falls short! No trigger undercut. The trigger is too little, too late. Ans who wants a ginormous safety lever!? Smith you should be ashamed of yourself!. I am buying a foreign gun! Can you say CZ P-10 C?!
An M&P in .500 S&W? Look out, Deagle!
Lots of stupid in the comments…
1. Existing M&Ps – especially in 9mm – are known for having accuracy issues and are typically *less* accurate than Glocks. This upgrade likely attempts to fix that.
2. Existing M&Ps like to auto forward when full mags are inserted forcefully. This upgrade likely attempts to fix that.
3. Existing M&Ps have a slick texture and many people stipple/grip-tape them. This upgrade likely attempts to fix that.
4. Existing M&Ps have decent triggers that are rated subpar when compared to the competition. This upgrade likely attempts to fix that.
I like S&W and I like the M&P9. I hope the 2.0 is a success and if it is I’ll be buying a few.
Comments are closed.