Hill People Gear Forums
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...S&W M&P 2.0 in .40S&W M&P 2.0 in .40
Previous
 
Next
New Post
1/16/2018 7:08 PM
 

The 9mm griz kill might be a one off thing or really be significant.   I kind of think they were very fortunate but I've never been to Alaska or been charged by a bear.

The boutique .40s out of a 5" barrel meet the .4/200gr/1000 of Cooper's ideal defensive cartridge.  Regular .40 is much cheaper to shoot alot of and get proficient with than 10mm.

Evan - what are the standards you hold yourself to to measure proficiency?  Seem pretty tough.

 
New Post
1/16/2018 8:32 PM
 

I think it is significant. The guide had tested the ammo out and concluded that it would work well before carried it into the field. Those 147 grain +p+ hardcast and fmj rounds have crazy deep penetration. A 10 mm will not out penetrate it - it will be equal or slightly less. Also, It’s not the only time something like that has happened and there are also accounts of big bore revolvers requiring the whole cylinder full to end aggression from a bear. One hit in the beasts CNS will anchor it. It won’t matter if it’s from a 475 Linebaugh or a 9mm or 10mm. The odds of putting multiple rounds on target are greater with properly loaded polymer wonder pistols. Add into the mix the all copper Xtreme penetrator line from Underwood ammo. I personally alternate those with the +p+ 147 fmj in my Glock 19 when worried about teeth and claws. I know the odds are against me ever confronting an aggressive bear but at least I know I can put three of those deep penetrating bullets on target in no time flat. 

 

 

 
New Post
1/18/2018 2:29 PM
 

Evan - what are the standards you hold yourself to to measure proficiency?  Seem pretty tough.

Objectively speaking, the accuracy standard is the same one Larry Vickers gave us - end on fist at 7 yards, sideways fist at 10 yards, spread hand at 15 yards. His doctrine is that under duress your group size will double so those are important square range standards. This should be accomplished over the course of an entire range session with no more than a couple of fliers. A good speed standard (for me) is 10 rounds / 10 seconds / 10 yards to the 10 yard accuracy standard. I'm usually not quite that good - either I maintain accuracy and get 8 or 9 rounds off, or I get 10 rounds off but don't quite make the accuracy standard.

Subjectively speaking, I need to feel like I can pick up cold and shoot to those standards pretty much any time without sweating it too much or having to concentrate a whole bunch. That level of performance should be subconscious.


We are fortunate in this matter that your conduct will be your marker and, thus, your reputation. The conduct of others on this forum has been, and will continue to be, their marker, and thus, their reputation. In the west, a person invests in one's reputation carefully. - 112Papa
 
New Post
1/19/2018 8:41 AM
 
Two days ago I purchased an M&P 2.0 Compact in 40s&w. Today I chronographed three rounds of the Doubletap 200 grain wfngc from my new 2.0 Compact. Velocities were 1028, 1058, 1068. I’m happy with that.
 
New Post
1/19/2018 5:49 PM
 
chriscscs wrote:
Two days ago I purchased an M&P 2.0 Compact in 40s&w. Today I chronographed three rounds of the Doubletap 200 grain wfngc from my new 2.0 Compact. Velocities were 1028, 1058, 1068. I’m happy with that.

 

That'll do it. How's the recoil, and how many rounds of that gun/ammo combo do you reckon you'll fire before you deem it reliable?

 

 
New Post
1/19/2018 6:41 PM
 

Seems like then a 5" M&P .40 like Evan went to would consistently then get 1050fps or better with 200gr DT.

Now the question-is that good enough to trade the Glock 20 10mm in for one for all uses including grizzly country?

 
New Post
1/19/2018 6:56 PM
 
I currently have about 45 rounds left so I’ll use this box for testing and order another one or two boxes to have on hand. The meplat is huge, as large as some 44mag meplats. Even so, the 2.0 ate ‘em up. I didn’t think the recoil was bad. It wasn’t a problem to get back on target after each shot. The 2.0 handles the 40 very well.
 
New Post
1/23/2018 7:21 PM
 
I want to echo Evan’s feelings about the 2.0 40. I’m impressed! Over the past couple of days I tested my 2.0 compact out against my other 40 (HK VP40) and Glock 19 with various ammo. I can say that the 2.0 was smoother shooting than the VP40 and just as accurate for me. I also noticed that when +p gold dots were fired from the G19 recoil was on par with the 180 federal American Eagle 40. When +p+ Underwood 147 fmj was used the recoil felt very similar to the Underwood 180 fmj 40. Now, the Underwood 40s&w 155 XTP at 1300fps got my attention with sharper recoil and more muzzle blast but was still controllable.

I was surprised how much more shootable the 2.0 was for me over the HK.
 
New Post
3/19/2018 5:51 PM
 

Evan and Chriscscs,

We're about two months down the road and wanted to see if you have any follow-up assessments of the S&W M&P 2.0 .40 as a an all around handgun.

I'm still going back and forth between Glocks and M1911s but might at some point make the jump you did.

Thanks!

 

 
New Post
3/20/2018 9:39 AM
 

I'm so impressed with my Shield 2.0 that I'm seriously considering either a Compact or full-size M&P right now as well. I think S&W have really knocked it out of the park with the 2.0s and largely addressed the most frequent complaints and immediate upgrades people had with the earlier versions - namely the grip and trigger. You could spend more, but I'm not convinced you're actually going to get much more.

 
New Post
3/20/2018 2:59 PM
 
If I wasn't so heavily invested in another platform with guns, mags, holsters, parts, and etc, I'd probably go with SW M&P's. For one thing, I prefer to buy American whenever possible, and for another, I really appreciate that Smith makes a .22 version of the full size gun.
 
New Post
3/21/2018 9:29 AM
 

Wose,

That’s almost exactly where I am.  Pretty heavily stocked with 1911 and Glock gear and accessories.  I respect the Glock design and its durability and reliabilty and that it’s cheap and easily replaceable.  I think the ergonomics are a big step backwards from the 1911 and Browning Hi Power.  I think I know why, but it is frustrating that all the modern designs seem to have to use a fat slide that is 1/4” wider than a Hi Power to do the same 9mm hi cap thing.

I also think it is a national disgrace that the cutting edge handgun designs in the last 30 years or so have been foreign.  I would love to buy American and have an American gun step into my 1911s shoes.  The Hudsoson H9 shows a lot of promise but is expensive and still what I consider a developmental item. That’s part of the reason I thought Evan’s M&P experience was instructive.

I have a quality leather IWB for a Beretta 92 that fit a 5” M&P (and 9/.40 Glocks) and  could probably find some mag pouch in my stuff,  so I may try to sell some of my current stuff/trade for an M&P.

 

 
New Post
3/21/2018 9:40 AM
 
Neither the M/P nor the SIG 320 are foreign and are pretty innovative designs.
 
New Post
3/21/2018 2:31 PM
 

El Mac, I agree about S&W,  but isn’t SIG American about the same way as Toyota.

 
New Post
3/21/2018 2:43 PM
 
Negative. All American.
 
New Post
3/28/2018 12:16 PM
 
The M&P .40 is a solid choice for this scenario. If you look at tape of bear encounters, the one constant is movement. I am not a spray and pray advocate, however I am advocate of shooting to cessation of activity.
A stone cold shooter with a five or six round .44 is still a shooter with only five or six ready rounds.
As the bear and the potential victims move one or several of those shots may not exactly where planned. Having fifteen opportunities to repeatedly engage has value, especially in a much lighter weight but still very controllable weapon.
If we assume an optimistic 2/3 hit ratio per gun, that renders the .44 with 4 hits and the.40 with 10 hits. Those statistics are easy to run.
Given the relative costs of ammo, the .40 is much easier maintain proficiency with than .44.

I switched to .40 exclusively several years ago. I can't say I really miss .357, 9mm, .44 or .45.
 
New Post
3/28/2018 6:56 PM
 

I agree about the .40 as an all around caliber.  I think most of the official bad press about it really boils down to female and some of the younger male LEOs have a harder time qualifying with them.

To me the 9mm is more a niche cartridge.  It works if you have the right high tech rounds and shoot multiple shots.   Not the best choice for a one gun for everything.

I’ll always keep my .45acp 1911 but mag capacity is an issue in today’s environment and for the reasons you point out.

In the last few days I read some stuff saying a lot of police departments that adopted first gen M&Ps had problems with functioning/durability.  Not sure where that stands with the 2.0.

 
New Post
4/6/2018 3:20 PM
 

500 rounds of mixed ammo through my new M&P 2.0 straight out of the box, without a cleaning and without a problem. Love this pistol. 
 

 
New Post
4/7/2018 7:13 AM
 
cco45acp wrote:

I agree about the .40 as an all around caliber.  I think most of the official bad press about it really boils down to female and some of the younger male LEOs have a harder time qualifying with them.

To me the 9mm is more a niche cartridge.  It works if you have the right high tech rounds and shoot multiple shots.   Not the best choice for a one gun for everything.

In the last few days I read some stuff saying a lot of police departments that adopted first gen M&Ps had problems with functioning/durability.  Not sure where that stands with the 2.0.

I think a fair amount of be 40 issues have to do with the fact that so many 40 pistols were flocks that were just converted 9mm guns. Those guns wore out faster, and had pretty stout recoil (an LEO trade in was my second gun ever, and I hated it, lots of recoil)

 

the 1.0 M&P’s are a mixed bag. The 40 and 45 are generally the least angsty and most reliable (with the 45 being an extremely accurate gun for its price). The 9mm, I’m sure everyone knows about accuracy issues, auto forward, etc. FWIW I’ve not had 9mm that wasn’t reliable. The .357 sig version had issues, I think NC state police had them and ended up switching because of the issues. 

 

 
New Post
4/7/2018 12:34 PM
 
richiecotite wrote:
cco45acp wrote:

I agree about the .40 as an all around caliber. I think most of the official bad press about it really boils down to female and some of the younger male LEOs have a harder time qualifying with them.



Yes and no.

To an extent, the "switch" to 9mm was done in large part due to a certain agency's work in the realm of ballistic testing and subsequent requirements placed on ammunition manufacturers to meet these requirements. As technology, knowledge and materials improved, it was determined that the smaller calibers were capable of meeting the requirements whereas before, only the larger calibers could.

Secondly, it comes down to cost. 9mm is cheaper to produce, purchase and use.

Third, it is generally easier to train large numbers of people women AND men, on a round that produces less felt recoil than the larger calibers. The idea that that applies only to the sick, lame, lazy and women is utter crap.

Fourth, certain individuals had incentives to come up with a new round. In other words, it furthers careers when they can write to their industry changing accomplishments both during their government service and post-retirement from G-service.

Fifth, there is a impactful group of firearms trainers that make a fair amount of cheddar off their HSLD YouTube vids and their fast trigger fingers. They too are influential in the industry and people both admire and want to copy them. So there is the cool and GDI factor involved when driving people to the "newer" and "better" round. Because cool visuals.

The .40 is an excellent round. Always has been. In guns designed to run the 40 from jump street, it works extremely well. It has excellent results on the street. In guns not designed from the beginning to work with the .40, it can be rough on the guns and lead to shorter service lives. To some that means very little. Tools wear out, tools are replaced. To others, it is a bigger deal because cost.

In my experience, it is a rare person - man or woman - who can't be trained to run a .40 well. Rare. But for the casual shooter who may only shoot a box or two a year, perhaps for them it is an issue. And that may well apply to some police departments out there.

I believe the other component to this is the fact that Glock owns (or rather owned) a large chunk of law enforcement sales. And those guns in .40 have been problematic on several different levels. The cartridge has had to be dumbed down to keep the service life of the pistol decent and to help minimize parts replacement. So...when you can roll out a "new and improved" round that meets the ballistic requirements, is cheaper, is easier to train on, is easier on limited budgets, is easier on parts replacement, extends the service life of the pistols, and ramps up the GDI factor of cool visuals, and allows you to keep the same basic platform (I nearly vomit to use that word but there it is)...it shall be done.

Does this make the .40 or .45 a less capable round? Absolutely not. There is always a line in the ballistic testing reports that goes something like this: "...and this loading of the 9mm has been proven to meet the minimum standards and is AS GOOD AS the (fill in the blank - usually it's .45).

There is no replacement for displacement and I would add - accuracy. However, there can be substitutes that give you the 80% solution. And in life, a B ain't bad.
 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...S&W M&P 2.0 in .40S&W M&P 2.0 in .40