Editor's Note: This First Look originally appeared in our companion service The Shooting Wire(www.shootingwire.com)

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2359922.jpg>

When the M&P auto pistol series was unveiled comparisons were made between it and Glock pistols. And why not? I was there at the roll-out of the new guns and they as much as said they were addressing what they saw as issues with the Glocks.

Manufacturers tend to 'respond' to previous innovations by creatively addressing issues considered problems both by insiders and consumers. It happens in the automobile industry like it does with firearms.

When the M&P9 Compact rolled out, it was a shortened barrel and slide along with a shortened grip. In an apparent effort to hit between "compact" and "subcompact," the gun was issued with a 12-round magazine giving a very different envelope than the full-size pistol. That wasn't something Glock had done when going from the G17 to the G19 – a fifteen-shot 9mm.

The folks questioned S&W over a period of years about that decision. The gun maker was silent. Then, the Shield – a single-stack M&P format pistol – was released. This moved the ball past Glock who later responded with their G43, a slightly smaller single-stack 9mm.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2359924.jpg> The new "Compact" M2.0 is larger yet lighter than the early M&P9c (top.)

Now, Smith & Wesson released its M&P 9 M2.0 Compact. A fifteen-shot auto with a four-inch barrel – the form factor people have apparently been calling for – is more gun and slightly less weight. The following lineup is from the https://www.smith-wesson.com/>Smith & Wesson website and illustrates differences in the "Compact" and "M2.0 Compact."

Table: M&P 9c vs. M&P 9 M2.0 Compact

SKU: 209304	SKU: 11683
Model: M&P 9c Compact	M&P 9 M2.0 Compact
Caliber: 9mm	9mm
Capacity: 12+1	15 + 1
Barrel Length: 3.5"	4"
Overall Length: 6.7"	7.3"
Weight: 24.7 oz	24.0 oz

Another difference is the addition of one more "interchangeable palmswell grip insert(s) for optimal hand fit and trigger reach - S, M, ML, L." Add to that the rather aggressive grip texturing, the M2.0 trigger package, a 1-10" rifling twist and the extended embedded stainless chassis, and you have a product improved model.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2359926.jpg>

A quick trip out to the range and I found that I was pushing the gun a bit hard. The best thing to do first is to see where the gun hits relative to the sights and then work on distance shooting – everyone post-Las Vegas is a 400+ yard shooting master, the least I could do is to try the new gun at a paltry fifty yards. I found a reduced size IPSC steel target had been placed on the bay. My spray paint had given up the ghost, so I couldn't mark the target for hits. I did measure it.

The body was fifteen inches high and just under 12 inches wide. The "head" was a 4x4 box. There was no joy with the M2.0 at distance. I was missing. I moved over to a Birchwood Casey "Dirty Bird" silhouette, 12x18", with full-size ISU scoring rings. I put three hits onto the silhouette. They landed three inches left and 1 ¾" high in a 2 ¼" group . . . yeah. Two hits were touching.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2359928.jpg> Yes, that is a fifty-yard target -- and a fluke.

That was with Winchester USA Forged 115 grain hardball – and that's a fluke. I didn't shoot quite that well back when I practiced extensively at fifty yards.

Mike Rafferty worked on the six-inch steel paddles using Federal "Aluminum" case ball ammo from just over ten yards. He opined that S&W got it right with the new gun and had a positive take on the trigger.

At first glance, the "aggressive" texturing can be too much when worn inside the waist band against the skin. It's clearly accurate enough as I found when shooting groups at fifteen and 25 yards.

We'll continue our examination and keep you posted.

- - Rich Grassi