MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Yeah. Smith and Wesson does. Firstly, there is no difference between magazines for 1.0 and 2.0. Secondly all .45 Shields are 2.0. S&W makes 7 round extended mags for it and there are aftermarket mag bases that extend it even further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks so much, Floyd, for your quick reply. Mine is the Sub Compact with the 3.75" barrel. Does your answer still apply?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Thanks so much, Floyd, for your quick reply. Mine is the Sub Compact with the 3.75" barrel. Does your answer still apply?
That I don’t know. Other than I do know there is no Shield of any sort that’s a .45 ACP and isn’t an M2.0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
That I don’t know. Other than I do know there is no Shield of any sort that’s a .45 ACP and isn’t an M2.0.
My friend with a .45 ACP Shield tells me his is not a 2.0.

It would seem to have all the characteristics of a 2.0, minus the 2.0 marking on the slide, but he said his trigger pull was horrible out of the box, so he upgraded to an Apex trigger kit.

I thought the 2.0's had a better stock trigger improvement from the factory?

He also said my stock 1.0 trigger pull on my .40 was much better than his was, so I wonder if in fact there was/is a difference in the .45 ACP models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
My friend with a .45 ACP Shield tells me his is not a 2.0.

It would seem to have all the characteristics of a 2.0, minus the 2.0 marking on the slide, but he said his trigger pull was horrible out of the box, so he upgraded to an Apex trigger kit.

I thought the 2.0's had a better stock trigger improvement from the factory?

He also said my stock 1.0 trigger pull on my .40 was much better than his was, so I wonder if in fact there was/is a difference in the .45 ACP models.
The .45s came out before the 2.0 designations did. The only difference is the 2.0 engraved on the slide. The Trigger on my 1.0 PC .40 is better than the one on my standard 2.0 .45.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,593 Posts
That I don’t know. Other than I do know there is no Shield of any sort that’s a .45 ACP and isn’t an M2.0.
Well, mine wasn’t sold as a “2.0,” and doesn’t have “2.0” anywhere on it. I have a few friends who bought theirs around the same time, and none of theirs has “2.0” on them either.

That said; I doubt that there’s any difference between any of ours and those marked 2.0, other than the lack of that mark on the slide...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Well, mine wasn’t sold as a “2.0,” and doesn’t have “2.0” anywhere on it. I have a few friends who bought theirs around the same time, and none of theirs has “2.0” on them either.

That said; I doubt that there’s any difference between any of ours and those marked 2.0, other than the lack of that mark on the slide...
Did you read my post? The .45 Shield came out BEFORE there was any such thing as M 2.0. So a bunch of them are not gonna be marked as M 2.0. They are however, identical to the ones that were produced AFTER the M 2.0 designation was created and are marked as M 2.0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
As far as I know, the 9mm and .40 Shields came out even before the .45 Shield.
Did any of those have the stippling and front cocking serrations etc. without the 2.0 marking on the slide?
Just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,593 Posts
“Did you read my post? The .45 Shield came out BEFORE there was any such thing as M 2.0. So a bunch of them are not gonna be marked as M 2.0. They are however, identical to the ones that were produced AFTER the M 2.0 designation was created and are marked as M 2.0.”

Yeah. Smith and Wesson does. Firstly, there is no difference between magazines for 1.0 and 2.0. Secondly all .45 Shields are 2.0. S&W makes 7 round extended mags for it and there are aftermarket mag bases that extend it even further.
Yes, I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,593 Posts
As far as I know, the 9mm and .40 Shields came out even before the .45 Shield.
Did any of those have the stippling and front cocking serrations etc. without the 2.0 marking on the slide?
Just curious.
Yes, but the frame surface isn’t like stippling, It’s more of a sandpaper/skateboard tape texture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Yes, but the frame surface isn’t like stippling, It’s more of a sandpaper/skateboard tape texture.
Yea I know, I just called it stippling for lack of a better description on my part.
I have fired my friends .45 Shield, and I really like that 2.0 frame texture!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Interesting........I have a 45 Shield that came out well before the 2.0's were announced, it has the standard trigger and minimal stippling, while all my 2.0 guns have 2.0 clearly marked on them, they have better triggers and they have the enhanced stippling. So you're telling me mine isn't a "Pre-2.0" gun?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Interesting........I have a 45 Shield that came out well before the 2.0's were announced, it has the standard trigger and minimal stippling, while all my 2.0 guns have 2.0 clearly marked on them, they have better triggers and they have the enhanced stippling. So you're telling me mine isn't a "Pre-2.0" gun?

That .45 has the same stippling as all the .45 Shields. Including my 2.0. And comparing the trigger to the one on your .40? Compare it to one of the Shield .45s marked 2.0 and get back to us.
FWIW, the trigger on my (PC) .40 is better than the trigger on my 2.0 Shield .45.
There are numerous threads here about the .45s and the 2.0 designation. So don’t take my word for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
At least one guy on this thread has both the original .45 and the one marked 2.0. He says they’re otherwise identical. Basically the .45 Shield came out after SAW made the change, but before they introduced the M2.0 to the world in the other calibers. So they couldn’t mark them 2.0 yet.

 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top