mpeltier

Are you using standard GI three piece gas rings or the one piece mcfarland? and how wet (oily) is the BCG?

With only 131 pages I thought I would add to it. I finally got around to doing the loading port on my M3000. I took a different approach than others as I hate filing to the degree necessary on this shotgun. I made a jig out of some plywood and used a laminate trimmer with a ¼” carbide bit to take the bulk of the material off. Then I proceeded to finish file and then polish the area. The key to it is making stops (depth, back, front) for the router and taking accurate measurements before you cut. Post man said I should be receiving my package from MOA precision today. A big shout out to Mark at MOA who was very helpful with my order and got it shipped very fast.

Curved on everything.

No. Only the 5" (FDE) 2.0 has the LCI. And Yes it would interfere with the CORE cut. S&W would need to eliminate the LCI to do a CORE cut.

I did see your post jj. We will just have to respectfully disagree. I have shot all three and the carry optics only advantage was I can shoot it with regular safety glasses instead of special reader style glasses. On the clock and running drills in over a year of running both irons and the optic, on the same pistol (m&p core) scores and times are litteraly the same. Not even close to an open pistol. Its literally no differant than a dot on a limited rifle. Which two of the three do you shoot when you say you shoot em both? irons carry optic open

All things being equal the dot is not an advantage on a carry optic pistol. Withering eyesight is a serious disadvantage. I am certain that younger competitors if given the choice would still shoot iron pistols. I still manage top finishes with Irons, its just an unnecessary struggle to manage them, especially in low light where old eyes really suffer. I do this for fun, I have shot open guns and their not my cup of tea. I am very competitive in Tac-Optics. I always go for the division win.

You Assume a lot. 1) Theres more to the differences and considerations to shooting open than just a slide mounted dot on the pistol. It is very relevant, if you approach the discussion with an open mind. 2) Not very competitive? You surely don't know your audience. 3) No need for any additional division(s) A carry optic pistol would fit perfectly in Tac-Optics and not be any unfair advantage. Unless you believe that winning against someone who no longer sees well that would have kicked your but a couple of years ago is honorable. 4) One of the issues with this sport is how slow to change some folks are. We saw it with limited when it was suggested, and finally adopted, to incorporate dot sights there. Much resistance ensued. When it finally happened the sky did not fall, and it was admitted by many to end up being a non issue. The same would happen in this case as well. Your only 28 right? Im sure by the time your in your 40's and need reading glasses this whole thing will be long behind us and you will appreciate any advancements that take place in the meantime.

I would put the age lower. Lol The average adult needs readers by age 45. I was lucky till 50. Now its "What front sight?"

A Carry optic pistol and an open pistol are not even in the same ballpark...........not even in the same zip code. Those suggesting to "Just shoot Open" either have never shot a carry optic pistol or are just in denial and want more people to shoot open for personal reasons. It easily could be allowed in Tac-Optic with very little change to the rule book and no additional divisions. And it would not be an advantage that is any different than when dots started to be allowed on limited rifles. It has always been strange that we have a division called Tac-Optic and only ONE optic is allowed out of three firearms. But then again if this were allowed, there might be an exodus from Open, which might kill the division. I can see where the Die Hard open shooters would be afraid of this.

The empty mags follower ads tension to the release. Try removing the mag, this will give you an idea of how it feels with ammo in the mag. With ammo in the mag the follower has no bearing on the mag release. Make sense? On my 2.0 I can't drop the slide with an empty mag in it. With ammo or no mag its no problem. The holster will might work sorta. The slide is a different shape and loosening the tension screw on the holster may make it work. If you call Bladetech I believe they have a 2.0 option, but its not listed on their website yet.

The couple early ones I had with bad accuracy were at least double your experience of 4-5" at 25 yards. closer to 10" or worse. 4-5" at 25 yards is not horrible for a service grade polymer framed pistol, though most 2.0 owners report better than that. Mines about half that. My apex barreled 9L is literally the same as yours at 1-1/2". I too was amazed at the difference in recoil with the 2.0.

I have learned over the years theres more to it than just light or heavy. How the rifle is weighted, front to back, is more important (to me) than simply looking at the overall weight. I would group rifles by weight into three categories, light 6-8 lbs, Medium 8-10lbs and heavy 10lbs +. My preference is a medium weight rifle with a heavy stock such as a Magpul PRS. My current rifle feels much lighter in the hands than its weight would make you believe. Its a tad over 9lbs but actually feels much lighter and it has a 20" fluted barrel. It is very quick in transitions and rock steady in the hands. Ive tried light rifles and for me they are difficult to hold steady, and heavy rifles just tire me out. Someone with a different build or technique may prefer something different. It takes trying different things to find what works best for you.

I too like the ESP size. Its just right. NEVER did a mag change on the clock and thought "If only my magwell were bigger". Ive had other pistols with bigger magwells and the difference in size has never been an issue regarding the smaller ESP. Its a non issue.

I didn't want my sights interfering with my view thru the optic, but wanted irons if I decided to remove the optic. I don't know if this will help you but my solution was a set of Dawson sights made for the CORE but at the standard (non co-witnessing height). They look very clean and are not in the sight picture at all while looking thru the optic.

Thats good, both the sight and plate are Leopold. I would try removing the plate and Delta point and look for any grit or finish build up or burr that might keep it from sitting perfectly flat and try it again. Even excess lock tight (if you used it) could add just a little interference. If theres nothing obvious I would call Leopold.

I had no issues at all either. I used the old delta point mount modified for the DP pro. What exact plate did you use?

If the slide is cut on your 5" pro like my Performance center 9L, the answer is sort of. My blade tech holster is made for my 9L and my 2.0 fits, but not perfectly. I have to loosen the tension a bit. The reason is the slide cut on the 2.0 is slightly more generous to the width of the portion the forward serration (scallops) are cut into. Because of this I feel it would prematurely wear the FDE finish on the slide so I am waiting to get a dedicated 2.0 holster for it.

Id use a 30" barrel.........at my age I might actually be able to see the front sight.

shot these yesterday at 20 yds with both my Apex barreled PC M&P 5" and my 2.0 5". Ignore the high right shot, I prepped the trigger and "Bang" it went off before I was ready. LOL (we've all done it) The red spot measures 7/8". This has been typical of the accuracy from my 2.0 . I too had my share of M&P's with accuracy issues, but I'm extremely pleased with mine.

Dang.....you beat me too it..

I hope your right and I agree its no different than a red-dot in Irons. I have been shooting a C.O.R.E. equipped M&P for about a year. I need reading glasses and the front sight is not very clear any more. No problem shooting iron sighted pistol in pistol only competition with my RX-500 glasses. Not usable in 3-gun Tac-optic as the rifle optic won't work with the RX-500 glasses I need to see pistol sights. Solution was a Leopold Delta point on my M&P. But I'm not about to shoot and be competitive in Open. I have done many drills with both the DP and Irons on my M&P and Rarely can I run a stage faster as with Irons. But I can see the DP clearly with standard safety glasses. I bet there are many in my age group with the same dilemma.

yeah....the heck with what the manufacturer recommends....lets blame the ammo....LOL

This is the only sensible solution. Though 100-150 yds would probably be ok. 50 yds is just a bit close. at our range rifle steel is seldom closer than about 100 yds. on the rare occasion its closer we put out the garbage steel that is near the end of its life span anyway.

most likely mag problem. Does the back of your P-mag have a single groove or two short ones for the dust cover to clip to. Check this area for a hairline crack, especially if its the older single groove. The crack would be from the top of the magazine running down towards the groove. If no crack the feedlips may be worn. You may have to try to spread the feedlips while looking at this area to see a crack. sometimes its very hard to see if it has one.

1-6 is my favorite. 1-4 got lots of use before 1-6's came along. vast majority of shots will be taken at 1x. My rule of thumb has always been 100yds for each power increase. 1X for 100 yds, 2X for 200 yds etc. difficult to see targets may get a slight increase from my rule. My best long stage ever with the rifle was targets out to 350 yds and forgot to change from 1X. It opened my eyes to what Kurt said above, as long as you can see the targets less is more. I think a reticle that works for you is more important than magnification.