S&W M&P Compact 2.0 40 S&W Specs.

neokshooter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
192
Reaction score
90
Location
Vinita
I'm considering a new S&W M&P Compact 2.0 .40 S&W for a carry gun. I am leaning toward the 3.6" but I have not completely ruled out the 4". Originally I thought I wanted a S&W Shield. Does anyone know the specs comparison between a Shield in .40 and an M&P Compact 2.0? I'm looking for the grip width comparison, the height comparison and that sort of thing. I can get the overall length and weight from the S&W web site but for some reason they don't give these dimensions.
11695_01_lg.jpg 11631_01_lg_4.jpg
 

neokshooter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
192
Reaction score
90
Location
Vinita
Careful, ogling is one little step away from fondling.

Okay I've already passed all these steps. Well actually I haven't fondled but if they were in front of me I would. I'm pretty well convinced that one of these two is going to wind up at my house in the not too distant future. The question remains...which one? This is going to be for concealed carry so what I'm trying to determine is if the added height, weight and width of the 2.0 compact is going to out weigh the increase in magazine capacity ? Would I be better off from a concealability standpoint to go with the smaller single stack? If I could fondle these two weapons I would most likely know the answer to my question but I don't have that option right now. I believe barrel length is 3.1" (Shield) and 3.6" 2.0 compact. Overall length is 6.1" and 6.8" respectively. I just can not find specs for height and width for either model.
 

Jwryan84

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
3,267
Reaction score
648
Location
NW OKC
Okay I've already passed all these steps. Well actually I haven't fondled but if they were in front of me I would. I'm pretty well convinced that one of these two is going to wind up at my house in the not too distant future. The question remains...which one? This is going to be for concealed carry so what I'm trying to determine is if the added height, weight and width of the 2.0 compact is going to out weigh the increase in magazine capacity ? Would I be better off from a concealability standpoint to go with the smaller single stack? If I could fondle these two weapons I would most likely know the answer to my question but I don't have that option right now. I believe barrel length is 3.1" (Shield) and 3.6" 2.0 compact. Overall length is 6.1" and 6.8" respectively. I just can not find specs for height and width for either model.

I'd go 9, as you will get more capacity and less recoil. Recommend 147 grain as it is also less recoil compaired to 115 +P etc.

I've been eying a 3.6 in 9mm, just want to feel it first.

Summer carrier the shield would be nicer and winter you can conceal easier so double stack is nice.

I carry glock 43 in pocket during the summer and a P-07 during the winter. I def like having double the ammo.
 

neokshooter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
192
Reaction score
90
Location
Vinita
I'd go 9, as you will get more capacity and less recoil. Recommend 147 grain as it is also less recoil compaired to 115 +P etc.

I've been eying a 3.6 in 9mm, just want to feel it first.

Summer carrier the shield would be nicer and winter you can conceal easier so double stack is nice.

I carry glock 43 in pocket during the summer and a P-07 during the winter. I def like having double the ammo.

Yeeeeaah.....maybe. I like 9mm much more than I used to. I have a full size M&P 9mm and a Tisas High Power and I really enjoy them and like you said I prefer the 147 grain ammo. But I'm kind of sold on a 40 for this particular gun. I can live with the round or two less capacity. My only concern is will the 2.0 Compact double stack be that much harder to conceal?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom