MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Picked up a MP9 2.0 Full Size the other day.

Not yet a complete list of changes I observed compared to MP9 Version 1.0:

Frame:
1. Rear “beaver tail” has been shortened by 0.35”, the OAL thus shortened to comply with U.S. Army Modular Handgun Standards (MHS).
2. Forward locking block slide rails length doubled; 1.06” from 0.47”
3. Forward longitudinal ribs molded in dust cover presumably to add rigidity.
4. Trigger bar-sear mechanical engagement geometry.
5. Magazine catch release profile is different.
6. Asymmetric Slide Stop Lever profiles; left side 0.25” v. right side 0.21”.
7. Locking block and sear housing secured with 1/8” solid pins, no longer roll pins.
8. Trigger over-travel stop molded into trigger guard.
9. Serial No. placement moved forward, presumably etched into forward extended steel chassis.
10. Matrix QR (Quick Response) bar code adjacent to serial number; contains all the information about the specific gun build.
11. Underside barrel support surfaces increased width, 0.145” from 0.125”
12. Take-Down Lever now retained by its positioning between the outside of the forward locking block and inside of frame wall; no more small spring to lose and the Lever can only be removed upon the locking block being liberated from the frame.
13. No Slide Lever Spring integral to the Slide Stop Lever.
14. Slide Stop Lever spring-loaded detent integral to left side of frame.
15. Ejector profile thicker in its forward projection.
16. M&P logo used instead of Military-Police logo on lower outer surface of grip.
17. 4 modular grip choices, “medium-large” added.
18. Aggressive texturing of grip.
19. Reduction in trigger pull weight:
20. Take Down Tool has lanyard retention point; the original Spec-Ops model was the first to feature it.
21. The profile of the rear trigger guard-frame has been thinned, much in the way most users have modified it to avoid wearing a hole in your middle finger with high round usage.

Slide:
1. Red striker channel liner.
2. Forward cocking serrations.
3. “M2.0” designation on left side.
4. Slide Stop notch profiles.
5. Armornite instead of Melonite corrosion resistant finish.
6. Sides of the slide contoured differently.
7. Ejection port profile and dimensions are different (more open space) to improve ejection reliability.
8. Slide is ~0.1" narrower at forward edge of breech. Safariland is slightly modifying its holster dimensions to ensure a Level 1 security retention is maintained.
9. Chamber indicator aperture on slide side is smaller.
10. Extractor claw profile is different.

Barrel:
1. 1:10” twist barrel for the 9 mm.
2. Unlocking of the barrel has been retimed so that it occurs later in the firing cycle. This, along with tighter production tolerances,
and extended forward frame rails, enhances accuracy. The U.S. Army Modular Handgun Standards (MHS) specified a 4 inch Ransom Rest group at 50 yards.
3. Armornite finish.
4. Breech-barrel geometry profiles are different.

1. Rear “beaver tail” has been shortened by 0.35”, the OAL thus shortened; to comply with MHS specifications.


2. Forward locking block slide rails length doubled; 1.06” from 0.47”


1. Forward longitudinal ribs molded in dust cover presumably to add rigidity.


1. Trigger bar-sear mechanical engagement geometry.


1. Magazine catch profiles different.


1. Asymmetric Slide Stop Lever profiles; left side 0.25” v. right side 0.21”.


1. Locking block and sear housing secured with 1/8” solid pins, no longer roll pins.
2. Trigger over-travel stop molded into trigger guard.


1.Serial No. placement moved forward, presumably etched into the forward extended steel chassis.
2. Matrix QR (Quick Response) bar code adjacent to serial number; contains all the manufacturer-specific build information about your gun.


Underside barrel support surfaces increased width, 0.145” from 0.125”.


Take-Down Lever now retained by its positioning between the outside of the forward locking block and inside of frame wall; no more small spring to lose and the Lever can only be removed upon the locking block being liberated from the frame.



No Slide Lever Spring integral to the Slide Stop Lever.


Slide Stop Lever spring-loaded detent integral to left side of frame.


Ejector profile thicker in its forward projection.


M&P logo used instead of Military-Police logo on bottom of grip.


The profile of the rear trigger guard-frame has seemingly been thinned in combination with decreased angular magazine catch profile, much in the way most users have modified it to avoid wearing a hole in your middle finger with high round usage.



Slide:
1. Red striker channel liner.


1. Forward cocking serrations.
2. “M2.0” designation on left side.


Slide Stop notch profiles; also appreciated different slide side contouring profile.





Caution: Pseudo-science and / or amateur photos may be embedded in this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Thanks for the detailed comparison. I'm sure that links to this page will be showing up on gun forums everywhere.

Good job!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
Thanks Mike, I've been waiting for your analogy of the two! Just like in your M&P Anatomy Series Manual's, your descriptions and pictures are awesome!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
The profile of the rear trigger guard-frame has seemingly been thinned in combination with decreased angular magazine catch profile, much in the way most users have modified it to avoid wearing a hole in your middle finger with high round usage.

Thanks for the info!
Along with the thinning, it appears it hasn't been stippled.
That was the middle finger issue I had, so along with stipple removal came thinning of the guard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Thanks for a great comparison! :clap:
Most online and magazine articles mention the grip stippling, trigger and added palm swell. :sleeping:
Your work gets to the meat.

Cheers
 

·
Site Staff
Joined
·
9,612 Posts
Thanks for a great comparison! :clap:
Most online and magazine articles mention the grip stippling, trigger and added palm swell. :sleeping:
Your work gets to the meat.

Cheers
Exactly! The 'Professional' gun writers are quite frankly...LAZY!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
That's awesome thanks for all the work.
I wonder if the new guide rails can fit in a 1.0
From what I can tell I'd think they would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Stop the presses!

I just discovered something fairly significant with the red striker channel liner... It has a few grooves down its length, on the inner diameter side of the sleeve, instead of being smooth like the previous white liner. Why could this be significant? It looks to me to aid in two ways:
  1. This would provide less friction for the striker as it moves.
  2. This creates addition hydraulic channels for water to pass by the striker if filled with water. (In addition to the drain hole at the front of the striker channel itself.)
My belief is that this was done to overcome the hydro-lock situation that could occur with the previous design, and one that was highlighted to Military Arms Channel during their "Gauntlet" test of the first-gen M&P.

I do not want to try to upstage the great work done my mp9werks, but thought that this would be the perfect place to show a significant difference.

The downside for S&W is that every gen-1 M&P owner will now be calling to get the new red sleeve to upgrade their M&P's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
Stop the presses!

I just discovered something fairly significant with the red striker channel liner... It has a few grooves down its length, on the inner diameter side of the sleeve, instead of being smooth like the previous white liner. Why could this be significant? It looks to me to aid in two ways:
  1. This would provide less friction for the striker as it moves.
  2. This creates addition hydraulic channels for water to pass by the striker if filled with water. (In addition to the drain hole at the front of the striker channel itself.)
My belief is that this was done to overcome the hydro-lock situation that could occur with the previous design, and one that was highlighted to Military Arms Channel during their "Gauntlet" test of the first-gen M&P.

I do not want to try to upstage the great work done my mp9werks, but thought that this would be the perfect place to show a significant difference.

The downside for S&W is that every gen-1 M&P owner will now be calling to get the new red sleeve to upgrade their M&P's.
S&W "might" have changed it just enough for it not to interchange...marketing strategy. We`ll see though... i`m sure people will try regardless, including me. Its likely cheap enough to buy, so its worth a shot as they say...lol. Nice observation gglass...!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Once I get my 2.0 you can bet I'll be tearing apart both guns completely and swapping things. Why? Because I love to work on things and I'm not carrying so I'm not too worried about warranty/liability. If a gun can shoot a couple hundred rounds without malfunction, it's good enough for HD purpose IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
The big question is whether an apex kit is absolutely still necessary as soon as you buy one?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
I will vote "surely yes" on adding the apex parts to the M2.0 guns. Look at the flat top safety plunger for instance, its still the same design as the 1.0. Probably the same part number used in both guns. The triggers have improved in the M2.0, but its still lacking in my opinion. Apex wont loose any business, thats foolish to even think that. There are STILL lots of 1.0 guns out there, and i myself would update the M2.0 with apex parts without a thought for one second.

Another thing i noticed with the M2.0`s, longer slide rails... now even more friction. Sorry guys, i`m just not a fanboy of the M2.0 just quite yet. Dont get me wrong guys/gals, the M2.0 is a good gun, but personally, its just not there "for me" yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
S&W "might" have changed it just enough for it not to interchange...marketing strategy. We`ll see though... i`m sure people will try regardless, including me. Its likely cheap enough to buy, so its worth a shot as they say...lol. Nice observation gglass...!
Interchangeability-blocking was my first thought when I saw the red liner, but that was quickly dispelled when I exchanged them between the different generation guns and everything functioned as expected.

I don't believe that it is just my wild guess on the hydraulic function of the longitudinal channels. Just by observation, one can plainly see that they would perform the same function of the hydraulic cups that are used in some handguns like Glocks. Water simply needs a place to go as it cannot be compressed, and the drain hole in the slide is just one avenue for this. As the stiker is forcing its way forward, any water that has not had a chance to drain will still need a way around the striker and these channels provide exactly that. So instead of putting grooves in the cup, you simply put grooves in the surrounding channel... You get the same effect.

Another proof that something has changed is to go look at some of the newly posted videos of M&P 2.0 durability testing and everyone is trying to make the new M&P hydrolock, without success. I won't say that hydrolock was a huge issue with the first-gen M&Ps, but the Gauntlet video posted by MAC was pretty damning and I do believe that S&W took notice, and I believe this new sleeve is part of their remedial action.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top