PoliceOne.com M&P Compact Review

USBP379 said:

I have to wonder what took S&W so long to get one of these to market. I guess the recent FBI and ICE contracts for mid-size 9mm's has finally convinced them to get into the market.

Click to expand...

From another thread I posted the following... https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/glock-19-gen-5-vs-s-w-m-p-2-0-compact.826312/



"I know it seems as if everybody loves that size, and I've been hearing folks clamor for a G19 sized M&P over several forums for many years. However, while I think it is a good size if you are only going to own one gun (are there any of you guys/gals out there that only have one pistol?), I think S&W did a better job with sizing to begin with than Glock did.

I think the standard M&P is a better "duty" size than either G17 or G19, and I think the original M&P Compact is a better concealment gun than the G19 and a better shooting size than the G26.

The analogy to the G19 size guns I always use is the quick, athletic college defensive end. When he gets to the NFL he's a "tweener". He's too slow and not athletic enough to play linebacker, and he's too small to play defensive end. The G19 is not really the best choice as a duty/range/competition gun, and there are also better options for concealment guns. However, if you've only got money or space for one gun, well then go for it."

USBP379 said:

All this makes me wonder. Will S&W come out with a Commander-size M2.0 in 9/40 like that have with the original 45 line? A 17rd frame with 4" slide might be a great compromise. Or maybe it would just muddy the waters.

Click to expand...

That's what they originally introduced with the 2.0 line-up, the 4.25" barreled gun (just like the original) with the full grip. It was also introduced with the 5" barreled version. The 2.0 Compact (G19 sized gun) is the later addition.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/mp

USBP379 said:

I have always liked the M&P Compact in 45 Auto. It makes for a nice carry gun and is pretty close in size to this new 9mm. Granted the 9mm carries 2x the ammo capacity...

I do agree with you that the full-size M&P is probably the better choice for "duty carry" and that the difference in the M2.0 and M2.0 Compact isn't as drastic as it is with some other brands of full- and mid-sized pistols.

All this makes me wonder. Will S&W come out with a Commander-size M2.0 in 9/40 like that have with the original 45 line? A 17rd frame with 4" slide might be a great compromise. Or maybe it would just muddy the waters.

Click to expand...

I have the full size and compact 9mm. The compact comes with magazine sleeves and you can use 17 round magazines with the compact version, so the commander setup you mentioned is available now. I love mine, and the compact has become my go to carry gun.

TomJ said:

... The compact comes with magazine sleeves and you can use 17 round magazines with the compact version, so the commander setup you mentioned is available now.

Click to expand...

Just a data point, and really probably addressed to the OP, but a "Commander" has a 4.25" barrel with a full size grip.

The original M&P and the original M&P 2.0 models are "Commander" equivalents with their full size grips and 4.25" barrels.

I got one. It is one of my favorite handguns

Accurate, great trigger ( breaks clean). Grip texture is just right

USBP379 said:

Yeah. I know the full-size M&P is more akin to the Colt Commander in actual size.

What I'm wondering about is a pistol that is more like the M&P 45 mid-sized gun. One that uses the standard M&P frame with the slide of the Compact. Like what SIG does with the 17rd 4" barrel 320. They call it the Carry.

Click to expand...

Hey, hey, hey, folks have just gotten the "G19 sized" M&P they've been whining for since the M&P was introduced. Now you want another completely different gun. Jeeze, some people are never satisfied.

While I kind of think the SIG "Carry" guns are a pretty good idea, though I'd still probably pick a P220 over a P220 Carry for just about every application, most of the "big brain" gun guys on forums seem to think the concept is not a good one. Most would rather have something more akin to a G19 frame with a G17 slide. Not my thing either.

On the other hand, Glock's MHS entry was the G17 frame with the G19 slide.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/glock-19-mhs-finally-unveiled/

I picked one up a few months back and really like it. I also picked up the 2.0 shield with night sights. Both have much improved triggers and while the texture initially seemed a bit too rough for my liking, I've come to appreciate it. I'm hoping they make one in the same size as the old compact as I will get one of those as well.

USBP379 said:

Four inch barrels are certainly adequate for most 9mm loads and the full frame is a little easier to handle and shoot plus adds a couple more rounds to the payload.

Click to expand...

Typically, the argument against the full grip, short slide design, is the grip is the harder part to conceal, and if carried IWB, there is no downside to the longer barrel.

Longer barrel seems to affect comfort more than anything else. An exposed end of barrel can tear you and your clothes up.

And why would the end of the bbl be exposed with the right holster.

BILLG said:

And why would the end of the bbl be exposed with the right holster.

Click to expand...

I agree.

ive got a 23 and a 19 and like both of them. That said I have an m&p compact 45acp and its just as reliable, cheaper and feels better in the hand then the 2x4 grip on a glock. With the new 2.0 trigger its a no brainer to me. Both of my glocks needed trigger work and the old M&P isn't worth the cost to upgrade the trigger. The new one with a better trigger out of the box is going to give glock a good run for its money in any comparison.