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
5/14/2018 9:26 AM
 

I've mostly been shooting 9s lately, largely for reasons of convenience and affordability. But the .40 is a superior round to the 9 in every way, beyond debate (recoil has a subjective element, and therefore I would exclude it from objective assessments of a given caliber). People love to quote that there have been recent advances in 9mm, and that's true, but these advances aren't limited to the 9, and even with these advances, it still can't touch a .40.

On the other hand, many seem to continue to think that the .40 is a "compromise" round between the 9 and the .45 and I couldn't disagree more. It isn't "in between" these two rounds at all, instead offering superior characteristics to both. This also isn't really up for debate, except amongst those who continue to have an emotional attachment to their favorite caliber.

Paul Harrell has produced some excellent, no-nonsense comparisons of the .40 to the 9 and .45 on his YouTube channel. I would recommend checking them out, if you haven't. 

Bottom line, I'm going back to the .40 S&W for most applications.

 
New Post
7/26/2018 7:58 AM
 
Wondered if anyone has updates on their M&P 2.0 .40 experience?

Got to shoot M&P 2.0 9mm in the 5” and Compact sizes. The 5” was a tack driver. The Compact was ok accuracy wise for me. Liked the ergonomics of both. No .40’s were available.
 
New Post
7/26/2018 9:12 PM
 

I recently picked up a 2.0C in .40 to use as a practice gun. So far I cannot shoot it as well as either my full size 40 or my 2.0C 9mm. When I get a chance, I'm going to take both 2.0Cs to the range and run some comparative drills. 

 
New Post
7/26/2018 9:49 PM
 

Got a 1k or so rounds through my 5” 2.0. I really like it added Dawson precision sights (fiber front black rear) and that’s it. Accurate, shoots well, great gun. Also picked up a 2.0 compact in 9mm which I really like. Good shooter factory sights on it for now. Interesting tip the frames and slides are completely interchangeable haven’t shot it like that since i have 2 different calibers but it appears to work. 

 
New Post
7/27/2018 9:29 AM
 
BobM wrote:

I recently picked up a 2.0C in .40 to use as a practice gun. So far I cannot shoot it as well as either my full size 40 or my 2.0C 9mm. When I get a chance, I'm going to take both 2.0Cs to the range and run some comparative drills.

I'd be very interested to hear how this turns out. I continue to toy with the idea of a 2.0C in 40, but am nervous that I won't be able to run it well enough to make the cut.

 

 


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
7/28/2018 4:55 AM
 

From just what little bit I shot the 2.0 5” 9mm and 2.0 Compact 9mm at the range, I shot the 5” noticeably better.  I chalked it is to aging eyes and sight radius, maybe some other external factors etc.  I’m wondering now if there is some kind of ergonomic sweet spot with the 5”.  Probably a silly theory but the difference was  noticeable.

 
New Post
7/28/2018 10:48 AM
 
Not at all... full sized guns with longer barrels are noticeably easier to shoot. Even something the size of a S&W 2.0c or a G19 is a compromise over the full size variant. I can run the full size 2.0 in .40 just a tad easier than the 2.0c in 9mm. The big question in my mind now is whether I can get away with a 2.0c in .40 or whether that caliber is really only a good idea in the full size 2.0.

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
7/28/2018 12:11 PM
 

Makes sense.  I’ve got some .45acp loaded up so this has got me wanting to check out my full size, full weight 1911 against my CCO (alloy frame).

 
New Post
7/28/2018 12:18 PM
 
I think you will find their is a big difference in capability. The only reason I am carrying a Commander is bbn oth my 1911 smiths told me they were more reliable in 9mm. The 9mm being more shootable balances things out. The commander is a bit faster out of the holster. I don't know if it is measurable or not.

Co-Owner Hill People Gear "If anything goes wrong it will be a fight to the end, if your training is good enough, survival is there; if not nature claims its foreit." - Dougal Haston
 
New Post
7/28/2018 12:36 PM
 

Thanks Scot.  I’ve heard some, like Hackathorn, have discussed the 9mm Commander being really a good fit on practical accuracy, shoot ability, and size for CCW.  What role is it serving for you and what was your thought process in choosing it over something like an M&P 2.0 9mm?

 
New Post
7/28/2018 12:51 PM
 
It is my goto. Thought process, I like 1911s, and wanted less recoil then 45. Plus it gives me more capacity.

Co-Owner Hill People Gear "If anything goes wrong it will be a fight to the end, if your training is good enough, survival is there; if not nature claims its foreit." - Dougal Haston
 
New Post
7/31/2018 7:05 PM
 
evanhill wrote:
BobM wrote:

I recently picked up a 2.0C in .40 to use as a practice gun. So far I cannot shoot it as well as either my full size 40 or my 2.0C 9mm. When I get a chance, I'm going to take both 2.0Cs to the range and run some comparative drills.

I'd be very interested to hear how this turns out. I continue to toy with the idea of a 2.0C in 40, but am nervous that I won't be able to run it well enough to make the cut.

I took them both out tonight.  I shot the Vickers 300 ( which is the "drill of the week" on another forum) and the Tom Givens' Rangemaster Bullseye Course .  With the 40 I shot a 291, and a 287 with the 9mm.  

On the RBC I shot 285 with the 40 and 281 with the 9.  

This was my first time with the Vickers course but I've used the bullseye course a lot and typically stay in the mid 280s with the 9mm 2.0c, full size M&P40, and my Kimber Desert Warrior.  

Back in June I shot the FBI qual course with the full size 40 and the 2.0C 9.  I scored 60/60 with the full size and 58/60 with the 2.0C 9.  Earlier this month I only scored 50/60 on the FBI course with 2.0C in 40.   

The recoil difference is noticeable and I think the 9 has a better trigger action.

 

 
New Post
7/31/2018 9:34 PM
 

Bob,

Just wanted to make sure I read your post correctly...you shot the Vickers and Givens courses of fire better with the 2.0C .40 than with the 9mm 2.0C?

Whatever your answer, congrats on the good shooting.

 

 
New Post
8/1/2018 6:45 PM
 
cco45acp wrote:

Bob,

Just wanted to make sure I read your post correctly...you shot the Vickers and Givens courses of fire better with the 2.0C .40 than with the 9mm 2.0C?

Whatever your answer, congrats on the good shooting.

Yes, this time out I shot a little better with the 40, which I did not expect. I've had the 9mm since November and I've only had the 40 a few weeks.

 

 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeDiscussionsDiscussionsFirearms and Sk...Firearms and Sk...S&W M&P 2.0 in .40S&W M&P 2.0 in .40