I have reviewed the S&W M&P 40 M2.0 Compact (November 11, 2017) and am in the process of gathering the data for a review of the S&W M&P 9 M2.0 FDE. The review of the M2.0 Compact was very positive. The frame dimensions, texture, trigger, and 4” barrel were all welcome upgrades for the M2.0 Compact.
It fulfilled a particular need to fit in a hidden console compartment that a full size M&P could not. The limiting dimension was the slide length and the full size was just too long.
After careful measurement of the slides and frames of two M2.0 pistols, I came to the conclusion that the frames above the trigger guard were identical. Even the dust cover on the Compact and FDE (Flat Dark Earth) were the same length. This makes sense to reduce design and manufacturing expense. The difference is in the length of the grip.
So I performed a switch-a-roo at the range and came up with two firearms S&W doesn’t have SKU’s (Stock Keeping Unit) for yet. The first has the long slide (5” barrel FDE) on a Compact frame. The reason I think this combination is useful goes back to one of my earlier comments about concealed carry. I’ll paraphrase myself so basically I would like to carry the Kel-Tec PF9 but If I ever actually had to use what I was carrying I’d rather pull a 1911 out. Well this combination gives me the longer sight radius, longer barrel = longer effective range I desire, but has the shorter more concealable Compact Frame. Smith & Wesson doesn’t typically name their guns, but I call this combination the MMD for “Makes My Day”.
The slide length down my rib cage is not a limiting factor for my chosen carry method. While I’m not going to carry a Colt M1873 Buntline, I can accommodate a 5” barreled slide. The limiting factor in concealed carry for me is the grip. The M2.0 grip along the front strap is the same dimension is the original Compact with the extended magazine grip.
The second variant I created was the Compact slide (4” barrel) on a full size frame. The frames of the 9mm and .40 S&W M2.0 are caliber agnostic so the swapping wasn’t a problem. What I had now was a gun that would fit in the compartment and utilize the full size standard magazines without the magazine sleeves. I call this one the PPP, “Poole’s Perfect Pistol”. It’s the featured picture above the title.
I’m not the only one who thinks a 4” barrel on a full size frame is a good product. The May 2018 Issue of Shooting Illustrated (sorry non-NRA members) has a run down on new guns in 2018. Glock has come up with the G19X. It’s a G19 slide (4.02” barrel) on a G17 frame. Glock PVD (Physical Vapor Deposition) treated the slide with a Coyote finish and colored the frame to match.
My suggestion to Smith & Wesson is to take the slide from SKU 11683 or 11686 (M2.0 Compacts) and mate it with the frame from SKU 11521 or 11524 (M2.0 4.25” full size). If they want to jazz it up a bit and go with a nice two tone black over tan look then use the frame from SKU 11767 or 11537 (TruGlo TFX or FDE) .
S&W isn’t showing a Compact slide in FDE but since they are making the 5” and 4.25” ones in FDE I won’t think it would be a huge manufacturing leap to make the 4” in FDE either.
There is one other combination possible from the current M2.0 lineup. The CCO, “Concealed Carry Officer” (in the Colt vernacular) is a 1911 Commander slide on a 1911 Officer frame. In M2.0 parts it would mate the 4.25” barreled slide on the Compact frame.
This rounds out the possible combinations with the current three offerings of M2.0 slides and two offerings of M2.0 frames. These are all related to the 9mm and .40 S&W calibers because the frames are caliber agnostic between these two calibers. The examples I’ve given are 9mm SKU’s, but the same concept applies to the .40 S&W versions as well.
So how about it Smith & Wesson, name a configuration after me and put a few more SKU’s out there.