Smith and Wesson M&P 2.0: A Mid-Term Review

DISCLAIMER: I don't get paid or compensated in anyway to review anything. So the opinions expressed are mine alone, unsullied by filthy lucre.

I recently added a Smith and Wesson M&P 2.0 9mm 5" FDE (Flat Dark Earth) with safety to my stable of 9mm handguns.

It Shoots Well Enough... (10 yards)

Incrementalism

The M&P M2.0 is an incremental revision of Smith and Wesson's popular striker-fired polymer pistol line. "Incremental," in that magazines and accessories are interchangeable between the original M&P series and the 2.0, the ergonomics and operations remain similar, and the price, weight, and capacities remain essentially unchanged.

The incremental enhancements are improvements, though, as the 2.0 pistol adds an extended steel chassis, an interesting loaded chamber indicator, an improved trigger, and a very nice grip texture.

Enhancement Details

The extension of the steel insert is supposed to change the recoil properties. I've owned an original M&P 9c for a decade and while the gun is smaller than the 5" 2.0, I can't register a difference in recoil. My guess is that the stiffer frame will help in the long run, but I'll trust S&W engineering figured out reasons to require the use of more metal and therefore increase cost to manufacture (those decisions aren't easy!).


The loaded chamber indicator is a nice feature. At first, I just ignored it, but after several range trips, I've learned to slide a finger across the top to verify what I expect to find -- a round in the chamber. It's not much use visually, as it barely rises above the slide. But it would be excellent in low light situations. It doesn't get in the way and doesn't compromise form or function so it's either "nice" or simply ignored.

The trigger is -- fine. There are all sorts of trigger jobs, aftermarket triggers, complaints, and comments. After many years of using government-issued triggers, I just adapt to the firearm. I have no issues with the M&P series triggers (original or 2.0). The hinged safety is squishy, sure, but it's quickly ignored.

The grip texture is outstanding. It is the top upgrade to this gun, in my very humble opinion. Sure, I could have pulled out a soldering iron or purchased Talon grips (as I have for my M&P Compact), but once I gripped and fired this gun -- well, let's just say it just works.

The safety is ambidextrous and is easy to operate. I use a Safariland ALS OWB holster and after a few hundred dry fire practice reps I can grip, pull, and disable the safety and fire in the same time I can draw and fire with the safety already off. So my rush to remove the safety has been delayed.

I was surprised to find the Medium-Large insert worked best for me, but it does.

Shooting

Not bad at 15 yards

I was able to use this firearm for PA Act 235 Lethal Weapons certification this weekend. I shoot it now as well as my more familiar M&P 9c and Sig 229. The Walther PPS is a bit more work to maintain accurate rapid fire due to its diminutive size and weight.

I've had the M&P 2.0 a month now, and have fired over 1000 rounds, from Ultramax Reman lead round nose (indoor range requirements) to Remington Value Pack to Hornady Critical Duty. I haven't had a single stoppage, misfeed, or misfire.

The gun fits my hand and grip very well. It has the closest "natural point of aim" of any handgun I've fired (I test this dry fire by assuming a normal firing stance, etc and then holding while closing eyes. If the sights are still aligned with the target after 15 seconds, it's good).

It's easy to shoot this handgun, and it makes me a better shooter.

Holster

The Safariland ALS holster is a fine OWB retention holster. The 5" is a bit large for concealed carry, but that's why I have the M&Pc.

NOTE: The Safariland website does not list the M&P 2.0 9mm 5", but the M&P 9L will fit the M&P 2.0 just fine.

Cleaning and Servicing

I clean my firearms after every trip to the range. It's probably excessive but it's what I do (cav troopers will know about "horse, saddle, man").

Disassembly is Easy...

...So is Reassembly

Takedown is easy and cleanup straightforward. I use Ballistol for cleaning and then grease the few lube points with Weapon Shield.

S&W provides a lifetime service policy to the original owner ("We will repair any defect in material or workmanship without charge to the original purchaser for as long as you own the handgun.")

Bottom Line

I've been very pleased with the S&W M&P 2.0. It shoots where I point it, fires whatever ammunition is loaded, and seems durable and well-made, as parts fits with few gaps or unsightly edges or seams.

I'd recommend the M&P 2.0 series to anyone who is looking for a reasonably priced dependable, durable, and reliably shootable handgun.

Purchase Experience

I planned to buy the 2.0 from Bud's Gun Shop, but unexplained delays in shipping after payment was received gave pause. My experience with online customer service didn't help. I canceled the order (with no penalty) and then shopped again.

I ordered from Sportsman's Outdoor Superstore. The order was placed, I received order confirmation then shipping info the same day. Less than a week later the gun was at my local FFL.

Your Mileage May Vary.

Questions?

If you're considering this gun and have questions that weren't answered, I'd be happy to answer those I am able, or at least point you to places I did research before buying. Just comment below!

Why Oppose "Common Sense?"

After every mass killing, the gun control arguments revive. The prescriptions are familiar: bans on "assault" rifles, "banana clips," and "AK-47s."

Anyone that dares to question any of these is immediately branded a right-wing nutjob or worse -- someone with "blood on their hands."

Ah, yes. The Solomonic Musings of Code Pink

This is followed by: "How can anyone be against common sense gun laws?"

Of course, the question begs the question: What is a "common sense" law?

Profound Wisdom

Rather inconveniently, mass killings are perpetrated by people who ignore laws. For example, the Newtown killer killed his mother and used her guns to perpetrate his massacre (the Texas church killer should have been denied access but the USAF failed to report his conviction)

The Las Vegas killer acquired his guns legally and then used them to break a number of laws (the most serious, multiple murders).

If laws were ignored in these cases, why would another law "fix" things?

Here's the dirty little secret: passing a law provides no fixes but makes people "feel good." They want explanations, reasons, and "action" after a horrific act -- acts that defy reason, logic, and the social constructs we expect everyone to live by. The demand to "do something, now!" is reactionary, and ultimately results in flawed fixes because these problems are deep and intractable.

Quite frankly it doesn't matter who "feels" good or bad about any law. Rather, is the law is Constitutional? Does it clearly address the problem while not unduly inconveniencing the innocent?

If we wanted to eliminate illegal drug use, we could pass a law that requires a full background check of each person being issued a prescription, to include a list of all drugs dispensed to date.

Of course, your wait at CVS would be a couple of hours but -- Hey! Aren't you upset about all these drug overdose deaths??

Clearly, burdening the law-abiding with unnecessary delays and inconveniences would be bad law.

Therefore, we should be able to agree that "common sense" law would be focused on malefactors, not innocents.



So, do we need "common sense" laws to ban "assault" rifles?

First, the definition of "assault rifle" is ambiguous. For people unfamiliar with firearms, any rifle with a black stock is an "assault rifle." For others, the AR-15 is the definition of an "assault rifle."

Over four million rifles are sold annually, with at least one million sold designated as an "AR-15" style.

That's at least five million AR-15 type rifles in private hands in the USA.

(Many of those AR-15s shoot .22 caliber, a small rimfire cartridge that is intended for targets and very small game -- hardly a "weapon of war")

One AR-15 is used in a heinous crime and suddenly the other 4,999,999 AR-15s present a menace?



It's interesting that victims are typically trotted out as the sole possessors of virtue after every tragedy, insisting that we "do something" immediately.

Thankfully, the Founders understood the vagaries of mob behavior, and choose to institute a government structure based on deliberation and compromise.

Sadly, some issues do not lend themselves to compromise, as we learned in the 1860s. Slavery was either lawful or not.

It's the same with abortion. Any "compromise" about abortion simply shifts the murder date.

Guns are similarly difficult compromise topic. Individuals either can possess and carry guns or they can't.

Some will argue that registration, limits on quantities and times, and more stringent background checks are "common sense" compromises. "Who can possibly be against these common-sense measures? We have to stop the killing!"

The implication is that anyone who disagrees has no "common sense." Further, anyone rejecting "action now!" is somehow complicit in murder.

It doesn’t matter that much of our gun violence is gang-related. It doesn’t matter that you can find far fewer guns per capita in most of South America, yet much higher rates of violence. It doesn’t matter that most of our gun crime occurs in American cities.

The Flow of Cocaine into the US

Drug Cartel Handiwork in Mexico (The Mexican Constitution guarantees the right of Mexicans to possess arms. Even so, gun control laws in Mexico are very strict, and police discretion in enforcement makes possession of firearms of greater than .22 very difficult. see: http://www.davekopel.com/Espanol/Mexican-Gun-Laws.htm)

Let's drop the pretense: "common sense" means "guns out of the hands of the citizenry."

Listen carefully and you'll quickly learn they want them all, and they won’t be happy until they have them all.

An interesting hiccup in all this "common sense" is the complete faith and trust in police as the only rightful gun holders -- the same police we're told run rampant, targeting and shooting people indiscriminately. The same police that are convicted of a higher percentage of felonies than Concealed Carry permit holders. See Research Paper Here

People should be honest about their intentions, but they're not. Thus, the use of incrementalism to achieve an end in a way that can be successful in a pluralistic democracy.

The NRA and other folks who support the right for individuals to keep and bear arms took note of the incrementalist strategy used to demonize tobacco.

While I was the first to applaud the end of smoking in restaurants and hotels, it's very instructive that the current outright ban was accomplished over time using incremental steps: First restaurants were required to be divided into smoking and non-smoking sections. Then smoking was forbidden inside restaurants. Not long after, smoking was forbidden at entryways. Now, people are being sued for the effects of "third-hand smoke." (see article here, and Mayo Clinic article here)

Each incremental step was "common sense."

But in aggregate it imposed a Government-empowered will of the majority on the minority in a way that was impossible to defend.

Those of us who support the right to "Keep and bear arms" have learned from that inexorable slide and have determined we won't accept "common sense" advice from people who can't distinguish a magazine from a clip.

Suspect Advice to Churches

In a Washington Post article entitled Training helps churches prepare for violent attacks Fear, headlines give rise to new training sessions, from December 1, 2017, we read:

At the recent two-hour training offered by the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office, officials gave tips to the audience, which included organ players, pastors, clergy, choir directors, ushers, church trustees and secretaries, along with Sunday school teachers.
If a gunman enters a church, they were told to throw hymnals at him or stab him in the shin with a letter opener. Those little pencils in the back of each pew? Use them to stab the gunman in the neck.

“I realize I’m asking people who preach compassion, love and peace to pick up a pen and try to stop a shooter if you have the opportunity,” said Sgt. Michael Zepp, who led the training and oversees the sheriff’s SWAT team.

But it’s the reality of the times. “You can be a saint, and you can be a sinner,” he said.
To be sure, Zepp said while some of the tips might sound trivial, they should be thought of as an interruption. Throwing a hymnal at a shooter, he said, “may not stop him but it may limit the casualties, and it’s better than sitting there waiting to get killed.”

http://www.startribune.com/training-helps-churches-prepare-for-violent-attacks/461355823/ 

I'm sure the good law enforcement officers of Carroll County Sherriff's Office mean well. They're helping some learn that "lockdown" is no longer a good option. And they're even conceding that fighting back might help deter, delay, or even stop an attacker.

But let's consider -- will someone who has a fear of firearms suddenly --in a moment of extreme stress -- be able to wield a letter opener or a pen with such violence that an armed assailant will cease his attack?

Which is more likely to end an attack -- two well-placed shots by an armed civilian or ten pokes with a letter opener?

Which is the better choice: Preparation, training, and effective firepower or a frenzy of tossed hymnals?

Of course, Maryland has no state constitutional provision granting a “right to bear arms.” Maryland is one of the few holdouts of "We'll let you know..." approach, as an application for a permit to carry a handgun is made to the Secretary of State Police with a notarized letter stating the reasons why the applicant is applying for a permit. The State Police will then decide if you can or can't exercise a basic Constitutional right.

The questions sound silly because the premise is silly, and I'm certain that members of the Carroll County Sherriff's Department who attend church services prefer to attend armed.

Some Initial Lessons Learned from the Texas Tragedy

There are several facts emerging from the ongoing investigation of the shooting at First Baptist Church, Sutherland, Texas:

"Long before he walked into the Sutherland Springs’ First Baptist Church, victims of Kelley's rage — and those who simply crossed his path — repeatedly told authorities that he was a dangerous man."Texas Gunman Left a Series of Red Flags. USA Today, November 7, 2017 

Some key points:

• The killer had a previous relationship with church members
• The killer was known to be "troubled"
• The killer had previous legal problems: assault, animal cruelty, and stalking

"I hear firecrackers popping. Ta-ta-ta," Solis said. "Everybody started screaming, yelling. Everyone got down, crawling under wherever they could hide. It was so scary." The shooting was coming from outside the church. Solis said she was hit in the shoulder. She and her husband, Joaquin Ramirez, were bloodied and played dead, watching as fellow parishioners were felled in the hail of bullets. When the shooting stopped, she thought police might have arrived. It was actually the gunman, 26-year-old Devin Kelley, entering the church. Harrowing moments inside Texas church: Gunman shouted 'everybody die,' fired at crying children. USA Today, November 7, 2017

According to witnesses:

• The killer's attention was diverted and he left the church and did not return
• People hiding under pews were shot at close range
• No one engaged the shooter inside the church
• No one knew what was happening until it was "too late"

The attack ended when the killer was confronted by an armed, concerned neighbor. There was an exchange of gunfire and the killer was hit twice.

"I know I hit him," Willeford said. "He got into his vehicle, and he fired another couple rounds through his side window. When the window dropped, I fired another round at him again." The gunman then sped down the highway. Man who shot Texas church gunman shares his story. 40/29 News, November 7, 2017

Conclusions so far:

• Churches must be aware of conflicts within the church and families in the church and continually assess the level of conflict and potential for harm. This will likely include confidential information. Identified security team members must be kept apprised by pastoral staff.
• During Sunday School, Services, and other events most people's attention is appropriately on the speaker, singer, preacher. There must be some whose attention is focused on access ways (front and side doors, etc).
• Doors must be closed and locked from the inside where access is not under continual surveillance.
• Church ushers are the first line of defense -- while not expected to engage, they should be expected to report. Others trained and capable of dealing with disturbances and threats should be made aware of who, where, and what upon first "feeling" of concern (in other words, don't wait to analyze before reporting).
• ENGAGE shooters immediately -- diversion, distraction, resistance-- up to immediate and violent reaction is the only way to end a mass killer's rampage.

Sources:

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/07/how-he-missed-menacing-texas-church-gunman-left-series-red-flags/841693001/
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/11/07/harrowing-moments-inside-texas-church-gunman-shouted-everybody-die-fired-crying-children/840109001/
• http://www.4029tv.com/article/man-who-shot-texas-church-gunman-shares-his-story/13437943

Useless: "Tracking" Islamic Assassins

So, what's the point of "knowing" and "tracking" these Islamo-fascist killers if we don't do anything with the information?

London Bridge Attacker Inspired by U.S. Based Islamist Hate Preacher

Brietbart, 8 Jun 2017

"A friend who had reported London attacker Khuram Butt to anti-terror police said the 27-year-old killer “used to listen to a lot of Musa Jibril.” He added: “I have heard some of this stuff and it’s very radical. I am surprised this stuff is still on YouTube and is easily accessible.”
"[A] study by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) found that 60 percent of surveyed foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria followed Jibril on Twitter."

And yet, in 2015:

 U.S. online ban of militant Muslim preacher ends

Reuters, Tue Apr 7, 2015

"A [Dearborn] Michigan-based Islamist preacher whose online sermons have been a leading source of inspiration for foreign fighters in Syria is free to return to social media after restrictions on his Internet use lapsed."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-religion-imam-idUSKBN0MY2CP20150407

Mental Tactics

US Army publication ADP 3-90, Offense and Defense, defines tactics as “… the employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other.”

We can civilianize this definition to “A series of actions that result in imposing the desired end state."

The effective use of tactics requires:

1. Creative and flexible use of all available means;
2. Rapid decision-making despite incomplete information;
3. A near-intuitive understanding of the physical, positional, psychological, physiological, and legal ramifications of any course of action.

Tactics are both art and part science. The tactical art is the ability to apply judgment and adapt principles to the specific situation. The tactical science is the collection of techniques that can be applied immediately.

Napoleon referred to the necessity of the coup d'oeil (a French term that literally means "stroke of the eye,” but is better translated “A quick glance”), which would enable a battlefield commander to take in terrain, positions, troop strengths and capabilities. This is also part art, part science and can be learned, but is best practiced.

The civilian equivalent would be “sizing up” the situation, and knowing intuitively:

• The Objective: “Stop this person” or “End this threat” or “Deter these people.”
• What Maneuver should be accomplished: “Where can I move to cover or increase distance between me and the threat?”
• How to achieve Surprise: “What move or action is least expected? or “How can I mask my actual intentions?”
• The Simplest sequence that will be effective (complex plans rarely work)
• The course of action with the greatest moral and legal Legitimacy.

This takes practice, but not necessarily real-world fighting practice.

You can mentally practice anytime, anywhere. Next time you’re in a mall, train station, office building, or city street, look around and then imagine a situation where someone pulled out a gun and grabbed a person. Or maybe an active shooter emerges around the corner. Or a man comes from behind, pokes you in the back and tells you “Hand over your wallet.”

What will you do?

Next time you’re sitting in church, imagine you:

• Hear gunfire in the lobby.
• Hear a couple screaming at each other in a hallway by the nursery.
• See a man run up the center aisle of the sanctuary. You don’t recognize him as he turns and faces the congregation, shouting, swearing and apparently distraught.
• Imagine he has a shotgun. A Handgun. A Machete.

What do you do?

Some might read this and think, “This is sick – I can’t think like this in church!”

That’s fine – we should be glad not many think this way. It’s not pleasant and it will forever dampen your joy at every public gathering you ever attend. While others have given themselves wholly to the moment, your mind is calculating options. It truly is a blessing for others, but a curse for you.

If you cannot think this way then you will not be able to react quickly enough to thwart the attack if – Lord forbid – an attack come to you. This needs to be a real soul-searching exercise. If you cannot bring yourself to think this way, you may not be able to align a firearm on a human target and pull the trigger.

The 9/11 Commission reminded us that the shock and surprise we felt on that morning was due to a “failure of imagination.” We were unable to imagine such a thing, and so we were unprepared when it happened. We were certainly not prepared to thwart it.

Decent people find it difficult to envisage heinous actions by evil people.

Yet, those few people who can imagine horrible actions will be better able to react quickly. These are not frozen in disbelief, wondering “How can something like this be happening?”

Some know it can happen, and we are ready.

"Thank You For Your Service"

Anyone who has worn the uniform sooner or later is thanked for his/her service.

This is a welcome change from early in my career when wearing the uniform off base or post was not encouraged. Vietnam had made anti-war, anti-military sentiment main stream. Uniformed personnel were unwelcome in polite society, as the military served as society's de facto prison for guys who "couldn't make it" on the outside.


Popular entertainment reflected and then intensified the perception: Soldiers were goofs (F Troop, Gomer Pyle: USMC, Hogan's Heros), generals madmen (Doctor Strangelove, I Dream of Jeannie), and politicians crooks (Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon).

Soon cliché became dogma: anyone in uniform was an unpaid extra on M*A*S*H.


The Army led all services in reviewing and then renewing its mission. In her 2010 article entitled An Army Transformed: The U.S. Army’s Post-Vietnam Recovery and the Dynamics of Change in Military Organizations, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Suzanne Nielsen wrote:

"During the 2 decades preceding the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. Army went through tremendous reform and rejuvenation. It recovered from the Vietnam War, transitioned to an all-volunteer personnel model, and refocused on a potential future war against a very capable adversary in Europe. The Army’s transformation was evident to external observers: from being seen as an organization in distress in the early 1970s, by 1991 the Army became an organization whose professionalism was the source of admiration."

The 1991 Gulf War re-established the military in the public opinion as an honorable profession. September 11th and the immediate success in Afghanistan helped intensify that perception.

The pendulum -- ever-swinging -- has been stuck on the "everyone's a hero" side of the clock for a while now.

Veterans are thanked, praised, and appreciated – but that’s as far as it goes. Veterans are not asked to describe that service, expected to have opinions, or express disappointments or regrets. Military service held only in honor is untouchable, and therefore inhuman.

Anyone who’s served in uniformed military service recalls the complex admixture of duty, sacrifice, selflessness, and courage ever wrangling with the human flaws of selfishness, pettiness, boredom, ennui, resentment, and disgust. We served with people and are people that are flawed, always disappointed that what we hoped to do was limited to what we were able to do.

My response has become: “Thanks, but it was my privilege to serve.”

I appreciate the effort and intent of those who express sincere thanks. But I also understand my time in uniform did as much (probably more) for me than I did in service to the Nation.

Not everyone has that view and –again – we’re facing the complexities of military service. Some soldiers with less than a hockey season's time in service lost limbs, eyesight, or their lives.

How can I stand and accept thanks when the ledger is so unbalanced?

I’m not suggesting people stop expressing appreciation.

Rather, I am suggesting we reconsider public displays of thanks and spend more time listening and then understanding so we can truly appreciate those whose sacrifices far outweigh any benefits.