Aluminum vs. Polymer: Smith & Wesson M&P M2.0 Metal Series

After world War II, firearms manufacturers started to use aluminum — both lightweight and strong — to manufacture semi-automatic pistol frames.

The first aluminum-frame pistol that I owned was a Colt Lightweight Commander. Another favorite of mine was the Smith & Wesson Model 39-2, a superbly made 28-ounce 9mm pistol with an aluminum frame that accommodated a single-column eight-round magazine. When law enforcement officers began to transition from revolvers to pistols, I carried my Model 39 on and off duty.

After leaving uniformed and investigative police positions, I joined the U.S. Customs Service. The federal law enforcement agency went from issuing Smith & Wesson revolvers as primary handguns to issuing 9mm single- and double-action Smith & Wesson pistols. I either carried or personally owned some 10 different single- and double-action aluminum-frame 9mm Smith & Wessons over those years.

So I’m no stranger to aluminum-frame pistols. When I got my hands on the Smith & Wesson 9mm M&P M2.0 Metal Series semi-auto, I felt as if I were being reunited with a friend from the past.

Enter M&P M2.0

If the Smith & Wesson Military & Police (M&P) pistols were a groundbreaking design, the second generation of M&Ps, known as the M&P M2.0 variants, were even more impressive. The most noticeable improvement that Smith & Wesson made on its M&Ps involved the triggers. While I personally enjoyed shooting original M&Ps in every major caliber, the M&P M2.0s are fitted with a striker-fired trigger that feels a lot closer to a true striker-fired trigger design. M&Ps also have the best interchangeable grip options of any premium-brand pistols on the market.

Pistols in this series are available with standard white three-dot sights, three-dot night sights, high-visibility “suppressor” night sights and factory-cut slides, which are designed for securely mounting micro-compact optic-sighting systems.

Softer Shooting?

It’s no government secret that a pistol manufactured with an all-steel frame weighs more than a pistol constructed from a lighter material. While a fully loaded all-steel-frame pistol is heavier to carry, such a handgun also tends to be a bit softer to shoot. The same is true for a pistol with an aluminum frame versus a polymer one. Notice I used the phrase “tends to be.” That’s because ergonomics has a great deal to do with how the recoil impulse of a discharged pistol is translated into a shooter’s hands.

As stated, original M&Ps and M&P M2.0s have superb ergonomics, which contributes to these semi-autos being extremely comfortable to shoot. This includes M&Ps chambered in various cartridges, from 9mm through 10mm. To put it mildly, I have evaluated a number of other pistols with lightweight polymer frames that were not as comfortable to grip or shoot as M&Ps.

Head to Head

The best way to evaluate the difference between a polymer-frame pistol and an aluminum-frame pistol that are virtually identical in design is to conduct a head-to-head field-test. In order to perform such a test, I procured a 9mm Smith & Wesson M&P M2.0 Metal Series pistol and a polymer-frame 9mm M&P M2.0 Optics Ready Law Enforcement Only pistol. I then recruited the services of a retired school district patrol sergeant, who also served as a law enforcement armorer and firearms instructor.

After venturing out into the desert, we began our evaluation by loading both pistols with full magazines (but keeping the chambers empty). Once we loaded the mags, we compared the weight and balance of my polymer-frame pistol to the aluminum-frame pistol. After doing so, we both agreed that there isn’t all that much difference in the overall weight. Remember, according to the specifications, the aluminum gun is only 2 ounces heavier than the polymer-frame pistol. However, there is a slight difference in the way these firearms balance in your hand.

We carried out the next phase of testing by taking turns firing three rounds at a time from each pistol to compare both guns while the impressions were still fresh in our minds. After increasing the tempo and addressing different targets at distances out to 30 yards, I felt a subtle difference in the way the aluminum pistol recoiled in my hand compared to its polymer cousin. In fact, as strange as this may sound, I actually preferred the recoil impulse produced by my polymer-frame gun.

Bear in mind that different shooters will evaluate recoil differently. While my aging hands tend to make me more recoil-sensitive these days, the retired patrol sergeant who assisted me is not sensitive to recoil. In fact, he did not notice a difference in recoil management, or “comfort under firing conditions,” between the two M&Ps.

I also found the texturing on the front-strap of the aluminum pistol to be a bit aggressive, but it didn’t concern my friend. The fact that there are areas on the aluminum frame that are not covered by textured material also made me prefer the overall ergonomics on my polymer-frame model.

Having the ability to change the grip configuration on M&Ps can enable shooters to utilize what best suits their individual needs. While I have traditionally utilized the “Medium” option, I transitioned to using the “Medium-Large” option on all M&P variants after conducting this test. Smith & Wesson provides four different interchangeable panels for M&P M2.0 pistols, which is a distinct advantage compared to a great deal of the competition.

Clearly, the aluminum handgun took the lead when it came to the trigger. Just like M&P M2.0s have a better trigger than the first-generation M&Ps, the trigger on the aluminum pistol is an improvement over the trigger on the polymer pistol.

Again, I’m splitting hairs to some extent because both guns are capable performers. In fact, while conducting this evaluation, I broke out my 3.6-inch M&P M2.0 Compact Law Enforcement Only pistol and fired off six 15-round magazines, consistently and accurately engaging a metal plate the size of the scoring area on a TQ-19 law enforcement qualification target at 20 yards.

Not Radically Different

I have been a big fan of Smith & Wesson pistols ever since I carried a number of flawlessly reliable first-, second- and third-generation S&W autos while I was in harm’s way. After I retired and became a freelance writer, I also trained with, carried and field-tested Smith & Wesson M&Ps in every cartridge and model configuration, including several 9mm M&P M2.0s that were also superbly reliable. In fact, to this day, I have never experienced a stoppage or a malfunction of any kind with any Smith & Wesson pistol — a very impressive track record.

Had I never fired a polymer-frame Smith & Wesson M&P or an M&P M2.0 and you handed me the aluminum M&P M2.0, I would still be impressed. The fact that the Metal Series pistol has an aluminum frame and several design upgrades makes the handgun different and certainly very good (but not necessarily superior to a traditional polymer-frame M&P M2.0). As with everything else in your self-defense battery, this one’s going to come down to your personal preference.

Sources:

Smith & Wesson: Smith-Wesson.com

 

Nickel-Plated Pistols

True West Magazine’s resident historian Phil Spangenberger said that nickel-plated pistols became popular in America during the 1860s since they didn’t easily rust and resisted the corrosive effects of black powder. In addition, nickel-plated guns were visually appealing. But nickel-plated guns have one serious flaw: If the original base layer of copper under the old nickel plating begins to corrode, it can cause the outer layer of nickel to flake or peel off. In 1912, Krupp engineers Benno Strauss and Eduard Maurer introduced stainless steel, which has largely replaced nickel handguns. Despite stainless steel’s superior qualities, nickel still has the same allure to gun owners as it did a century ago. Some gun manufacturers still produce handguns in nickel. There is also a market for affordable vintage nickel-plated revolvers, such as turn-of-the-century Iver Johnsons or Harrington & Richardsons, which make great display pieces.

— Frank Jastrzembski, Contributing Editor