M2.0 5" vs. 5" Pro

[tim_w]

I think if I get a 2.0 I may just put my 1.0 slide on and see how the barrel fits to the block.  I do have an extra 5" Apex gunsmith barrel so depending I could fit it.   The issue is according to Randy Lee the 2.0 slide is suppose to be beefed up in the rear around the ejection port and breech to prevent or minimize slide stretch.  I thought the slide was thinner but I guess thats up front.   I wish we have more access to aftermarket slides like the "always perfect" plastic gun guys have.  I only know of one manf of aftermarket and they are all the standard length not the 5".  I also wanted to wait for a RDS ready slide version from SW.

 

 

[tim_w]

On 11/29/2018 at 11:17 PM, deyolo said:

 

 Also the barrel on the 2.0 is much tighter than the 1.0s i have to seat projectiles deeper for it. Not a deal breaker.

 

 

 

 

 

Was it a feeding ramp from mag issue or was it that the COAL was too long for the chamber? 

 

If the latter that is interesting. 

 

What bullet and what was your old load COAL and the new?  

 

I would have figured they would have kept the same chamber specs.  Then so much is outsourced these days who knows.   IIRC the slides are outsourced machined or at least they were in the 1.0 from what I read.  Actually that could also explain some of the accuracy improvement.  As it would have less jump to engage the lands.  Some I think were so long that the bullet had no case support by the time it engaged the rifling on some loads.

[hlpressley]

I don’t have a 5” 2.0 but have a few 4.25” and the 2.0 Compact. I much prefer my two 5” 1.0 Pro over any of the others. 

[tim_w]

In the 2.0 the difference in ejection force (slide velocity) and lower recoil spring lb rating per PF is from the longer thicker frame rails.   This creates an issue for those wanting to use light weight recoil springs for their minor PF and lesser loads. 

 

You have to keep a minimal opposing ratio of recoil spring and striker spring force.  So to go lower in recoil spring eventually requires a lighter striker spring or you can end up with the slide not fully closing and or misfires or out of battery situations.  But some people have even reported needing to use extra power striker springs to get reliable primer ignition from the harder cup primers.  This tipping point is from loads with greater PF ratings in the 2.0 versus what is typical in the 1.0 versions.

 

I think some of this can be helped by more wear in.  But as the root cause to the dif in this area from 1.0 to 2.0 seems to be in increased friction from more surface contact area between frame and slide rails a obvious possible way to address this is to reduce that friction.  Further SW does not use square and flat frame rails but curved of more correctly ovoid shaped rail tabs (egg shape).  This may help mitigate debris in the channels causing reliability issues but IMO its sloppy and can cause uneven and binding points with all the slop given typical plastic gun tolerances.  

 

IMO this can be improved thru polishing the frame rails which are integrated into the removable parts of the sear and locking blocks.  Followed by polishing the slide rail channels and ensuring there are no burrs etc as well as any parts of the polymer frame binding the slide.

 

Simichrome Polish is popular which has particle sizes of 8-10 micron which is equal to roughly 1700-1900 grit.   Then going to maybe standard Flitz which has a particle size of 3-3.5 microns which is equal to about 6000 grit.  I believe both products use aluminum oxide as the abrasive particles.  Finish up with Mother's Mag & Aluminum Polish which has a magnesium oxide particle of a minute 0.05 microns or 200K+ grit in a petroleum base mixture.  It leaves one of the smoothest surfaces I have been able to produce.

 

There are also adhesive backed polishing foils that go from 100-6000 grit in selection that could be used on square rod that fits inside the slide channel.  As well micro mesh sheets that can go up to 12K grit.

 

Many people wrongly assume or parrot that Flitz is abrasive free when the topic comes up which its not.  They do not openly advertised its grit size which required a call over to Germany to get in contact with their chemist dept to get the actual info. 

 

What we really need is for a manf to address this weakness and short coming of striker fired handgun design where we are limited by the direct inline opposition of the striker vs recoil spring forces.  In this area hammer fired handguns are superior as the forces are not inline but offset angles using the mechanical advantages of fulcrums .  This allows for greater "tunablity" ( is that even a word?) and trigger weights which can lead to superior trigger pull quality and recoil tuning.  Maybe some sort of mix of the two basic designs for a next gen system?

 

Got to shake the rust off the engineerfu part of my brain  as I have some ideas that at least on the surface seem viable.  SW got closer than glock by a good portion as really the M&P with a tuned trigger bar and sear is for all intensive purposes a SA firing handgun.  You really could not call it DA at all and even partial set striker is stretching things when the 2% final movement is more about contact point tension than any real effect on striker impact force performance.

Edited March 19, 2019 by tim_w

[Hunt4food]

I have the pro and shot it better than the 2.0.

[M1A4ME]

Don't have a Pro.  I do have a 9MM 2.0 5" FDE.

 

Out of the box my wife's Shield 9MM shot better groups with the 115 grain hollow points we use (those shoot very well in the CZ 9MM pistols, too, which is why we use them so much).

 

The 2.0 was a disappointment.

 

Added the Apex FSS trigger kit and the trigger is now just plain awesome.  I like it so much I just ordered another one for the M&P 2.0 .45 I just ordered.

 

The Apex trigger didn't make the 9MM shoot better groups though.

 

I ordered the Apex threaded barrel for the 5" pistol and fitted it to the slide (only had to remove a little metal at the rear of the hood where it contacts the slide).  Now that helped the groups improve.

 

But, it seems the best shooting stuff I've found so far is the Winchester 124 grain FMJ NATO ammo.  Sadly, the 2.0 9MM still doesn't shoot the 115 grain hollow points as well as it needs to keep up with the CZ's.  I'll be experimenting with 124 grain hollow points while trying to match velocities with the Winchester ammo.  Oh, the 2.0 doesn't do so well with the Winchester 147 grain hollow points either.

 

I like that 5" 2.0, but it's got to shoot better groups for me.

[RH45]

With an Apex barrel, you should be able to get pretty close to 1” groups @ 25 yards. I don’t remember if Precision Delta, Zeros, or Hornady 124 grain jhps did the best in my pistol.