Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

M&P 1.0 or 2.0 for a build?


Desk-Jockey
 Share

Recommended Posts

My 2.0 9MM with the nice Apex trigger kit has an awesome trigger.

 

My 1.0 .40 with the nice Apex trigger kit has a pretty decent trigger.

 

Other than that the only thing I can think of is whether or not you like having the slide go forward and chamber the round without having to push/press the slide release - the 1.0's due that out of the box and always have.  I've heard you can make the 2.0's do that but I've not explored how that's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, M1A4ME said:

Other than that the only thing I can think of is whether or not you like having the slide go forward and chamber the round without having to push/press the slide release - the 1.0's due that out of the box and always have.  I've heard you can make the 2.0's do that but I've not explored how that's done.

 

Do you mean having the slide "automatically" return to battery after you insert a magazine? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the big difference is the beaver tail. 1.0 has one 2.0 doesn’t. I could argue for either one but that is the reason I’m staying with the 1.0. You have to decide which features are most important to you. In the end it doesn’t matter, they are both good platforms. Pick one and practice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one more thing.  Price.

 

M&P LE trade ins are here and there on the internet for $300 or less, at times.  These are the earlier 1.0 models.  There are better quality barrels, sights, etc. for those, just as there is for the 2.0's, you just start out cheaper for your project.

Edited by M1A4ME
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ryan45kim said:

So what makes the 2.0 “significantly more reliable”? 
 

 

My 2.0 goes bang 100% of the time and has never had a failure to feed or eject in several thousand rounds. 

 

My early production1.0 occasionally had the "dead trigger" problem, i.e. pull the trigger, get a click but no bang and no mark on the primer.   I even replaced the sear block with one having the larger diameter, stronger return spring which reduced but didn't eliminate the problem.  I traded it and didn't replace it until the 2.0 came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SteelCityShooter said:

My 2.0 goes bang 100% of the time and has never had a failure to feed or eject in several thousand rounds. 

 

My early production1.0 occasionally had the "dead trigger" problem, i.e. pull the trigger, get a click but no bang and no mark on the primer.   I even replaced the sear block with one having the larger diameter, stronger return spring which reduced but didn't eliminate the problem.  I traded it and didn't replace it until the 2.0 came out.

Had that same thing happen to mine.  Finally figured I'd gotten it fixed though and no troubles with it since - but I only shot about 350 rounds through it (trouble free) before I put it away as I'd already gone to my P07 by then.  The P07 was so (outrageously) accurate vs. the M&P even though the failure to fire issue was fixed it lost out to group size.  

 

That's not just a 1.0 issue.  Neither of my 2.0's will shoot with the P07 or P09, though the .45 Compact is closer than the 9MM 5".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been running M&Ps since they were released in 2005 mainly because I like the idea of competing with the same guns I carry. I’ve owned small sear plunger guns but I’ve never had or have I seen first hand the dead trigger issue. That was an issue with very early 1.0 guns. I did replace my small plunger sear blocks with large ones Smith sent me for free. 1.0 and 2.0 guns are very close. When you look at the trigger system the striker assembly is unchanged, the sear plunger and spring are unchanged, The striker safety plunger and spring are unchanged, the trigger is unchanged, the trigger return spring is unchanged, the trigger bar has the loop cut off other wise unchanged, instead of the loop on the trigger bar activating the sear lobe the trigger bar pushes on a piece of sheet metal on the 2.0 that moves the lobe. I believe that saying one is dead reliable and the other is not is a long stretch when the differences are so small but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ryan45kim said:

 I believe that saying one is dead reliable and the other is not is a long stretch when the differences are so small but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Mine isn't an opinion, it's personal experience.  I never claimed it was a fundamental difference between the 1.0 and 2.0 models but certainly has been for the two M&Ps I've owned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by what I wrote and wish you luck with the gun you have confidence in. 
 

To the OP both models are very close to each other and neither one will hold you back. I still prefer the 1.0 but you need to decide which features are most important to you. Pick one and practice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

^^^^ This is the biggest difference.

My Limited gun is built on a 1.0 and when I had a frame weight on it, it caused so much flex it made the gun malfunction. They had similar issues with flashlights on them.

I tried it on two different guns and had the same results, supposedly the extended steel chassis fixes this. I removed the weight and haven't looked back.

Once I go back to Limited I will build one on a 2.0 though. The texture alone is worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What malfunction did you have when you added a frame weight? I’ve heard about and witnessed lights causing issues with Glock 22s but not with an M&P. I have run a weight on several M&Ps, below is my current “heavy” gun.


 

D527E1A4-A6BA-4F68-BBF3-29ECD6A392FD.jpeg

Edited by ryan45kim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too have been shooting M&P’s for some time now. While I’ve owned about all of the brands at some point, I always go back to the M&P. I have extremely large and fat hands. For that reason alone, I prefer the 1.0 Frame simply because of the beaver tail. Slide bite sucks! 
 

I have three 2.0’s and they all have the Apex flat triggers. Really nice guns, but I still prefer the 1.0. Just wish I had a few more of them! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't keep the factory trigger long, but it wasn't too bad.  The Apex trigger kits in the 2.0's are just better triggers than the Apex trigger kit in a 1.0.  That's based on one 1.0 and two 2.0s.  Not a big sample size, just my sample size.

 

The longer frame steel?  My 2.0 9MM 5" was no better than my 1.0 9MM 4.25".  The Apex barrel I put in the 2.0 helped some but still did not move the 2.0 into CZ group size territory.  Damn shame.  I like the feel of it, the way it points, love that Apex trigger kit, I like the way it looks (5.0" FDE with safeties) but it just hasn't impressed me with group size.  Plenty good enough for serious self defense, but then so is my P07 or P09 and they just flat out shoot better.

 

I will say the 2.0 9MM shoots it's best with the Winchester 124 grain NATO FMJ ammo.  I'll be working up 124 grain hollow point loads and trying to get around 1200 fps to mimic the Win. NATO rounds to see if the gun like the bullet weight, the velocity or both.

 

Making the rails longer doesn't insure the barrel returns to the same spot in relation to the slide after every shot.  If it's not giving you that it's not helping improve accuracy.  At least that's my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, does the slide close easily with the apex barrel in the 2.0? Or does it need a little push to close it completely if you rack the slide in slowly?

 

I wasn't getting great groups in my 1.0 with the apex barrel and it closed without any resistance. I replaced the front locking block and now it feels much tighter and the resistance I expected is there now. Haven't been able to get to the range to confirm any improvement yet, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, recoilchamp said:

Just curious, does the slide close easily with the apex barrel in the 2.0? Or does it need a little push to close it completely if you rack the slide in slowly?

 

I wasn't getting great groups in my 1.0 with the apex barrel and it closed without any resistance. I replaced the front locking block and now it feels much tighter and the resistance I expected is there now. Haven't been able to get to the range to confirm any improvement yet, though.

Haven’t tried an Apex barrel in my 2.0’s yet but I do have a couple of them in my 1.0’s and both are exactly like you described. If you close the slide slowly you’ll have to give the slide a slight push to get it back into battery. It’s never bothered me since that doesn’t happen during action. All of my Apex barrels have been money! I’m not as big of a fan as most of their triggers, but I dig the barrels! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, that's expected behavior and indicates it's being held securely. I just noticed on my 1.0 the front locking block's tolerances weren't good enough to do that and I wasn't getting great accuracy. I was wondering if that might be the issue on M1A4ME's 2.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually had to remove just a little bit of metal from the back of the top of the barrel hood/chamber area for the barrel to move fully upwards - before I installed the recoil spring/guide.  So mines a pretty decent fit right now in that area.  I hadn't thought about a different locking block.  

 

I'm no expert, but it does seem a good snug fit between the slide lock pin/shaft and the barrel lug (to force/hold the barrel fully upwards every time it locks up) would improve the accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...