No, the title isn’t clickbait. The new S&W Bodyguard 2.0 has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it sucks in one really important way. I have a full review of the Bodyguard 2.0 in the works. Due to the PD using the range this week, I wasn’t able to access it and finish up my firing portion, but I wanted to get this out: how the new S&W Bodyguard 2.0 sucks…at least a little. Read on to find out more.
Full Disclosure: I paid out of pocket for this pistol. I did, however, receive some ammunition from Ammo To Go to support this review. This has no influence on my assessment of the subject of this review, however.
The New S&W Bodyguard 2.0
Due to my keen interest in non-permissive environment (NPE) carry, I was very excited to check this pistol out. I purchased one at the local gun shop and could not wait to get it to the range. Before we get into how the new S&W Bodyguard 2.0 sucks, let’s talk about what it is.
It is a brand-new, micro-compact pistol chambered in .380 ACP. The Bodyguard 2.0 isn’t merely a second generation of the older Bodyguard, it is a complete re-imagining of the genre of .380 pocket pistols. The ergonomics are fantastic, with full-sized controls and a true striker-fired design. Magazine capacity is much increased with a 10-round, flush-fit magazine and a 12-round extended magazine.
The new Bodyguard 2.0 also handles recoil brilliantly. The very low bore axis, combined with the tilt-barrel design, and relatively stiff recoil spring do a fantastic job. This, along with with the redesigned grip keeps this gun flat-shooting, on target, and comfortable. Additionally, this gun is widely reported to be reliable, and my own 375 rounds through this gun have been flawless. This is a little gun that handles like a big gun.
There is one glaring flaw, however.
How the New S&W Bodyguard 2.0 Sucks
The problem with the new Bodyguard 2.0 is the sights. Small guns are usually plagued with tiny sights. I was initially thrilled to see large, dovetail-mounted sights on this gun. The front sight is a high-visibility orange sight with a tritium vial. The rear sight even has a ledge for one-handed manipulation.
Unfortunately, Smith & Wesson way over-corrected on the rear sight. The U-notch in the rear is both very wide and very deep. It so deep that with a correct sight picture, part of the slide is in the notch. The notch is also so wide that it is extremely difficult to ascertain “equal light” or “equal height.” The front sight is almost its own width away from each side of the rear sight notch.
The large U-notch is very fast-acquiring, but it has exceeded the point of diminishing returns. I have a very hard time keeping this gun on target at ranges beyond 15 yards. At the 15 I am dropping rounds into the “down-one” on an IDPA target. At 25 yards I’m dropping them into the down-three, and even occasionally off the cardboard which is completely unacceptable! I think you guys have seen me shoot enough drills to know that dropping down-threes is very uncommon.
Little Guns: NOT Just for Close Range!
Why is this such a big problem? Because to bastardize a quote from Col. Townsend Whelen, “only accurate guns are interesting†.” As currently configured, I am unable to shoot this gun accurately beyond about 15 yards. Which is a shame, because every other thing about this pistol is amazing. The lack of accuracy definitely softens my interest for the Bodyguard 2.0.
Some will question whether accuracy matters in a pistol this small. I have seen a several reviewers explain this away because the Bodyguard 2.0 is only “meant for use at conversational distances‡” or “intended to be used at bad breath distance.” I beg to disagree with these assessments for three reasons.
† The original quote was, “only accurate rifles are interesting.”
‡For some reason, the author of this article also veers into an off-putting, mid-review rant about pistol-mounted optics.
Reason 1: Smaller Gun ≠ Smaller Threat
I don’t know what this gun was “meant” or “intended” for, or not meant or intended to do. I do know, unequivocally and unambiguously, my intent in purchasing it: to have the most capable carry gun in the smallest, lightest, most concealable possible package. However, I decidedly did not purchase this gun to carry on days where my threat is lower. Unfortunately, I lack the ability to predict when I will only be required to fight at “bad breath distances.”
The variables influencing the gun I can carry are much more likely to change than the threats I face on a day-to-day basis. I may opt to carry a gun like this because of clothing requirements, the permissiveness of my environment, weather, or other factors that make carrying a larger gun impractical. These factors don’t lower the threats in my environment – those remain relatively constant. Nor are the bad guys aren’t going to take it easy on my because I couldn’t carry a “real” pistol that day.
Reason 2: Close Range Doesn’t Render Precision Unnecessary
A fight, occurring at very close range, could still demand precision. I want to know exactly what I am capable of with my pistol. One capability I work hard to maintain is being able to place a shot very precisely, say within a 1-inch circle at 5 yards and in. If a bad guy had hands on a family member, friend, or even a member of the public at large, I would want to know that at 3-5 yards I could put a bullet through his eye socket. This is absolutely conversational distance, but I am not satisfied with “any hit, anywhere.” I want the bullet to go exactly where I want it to go.
Regardless of the size of the gun, I value accuracy. I think the Bodyguard 2.0 has tremendous potential to be accurate; I hate to see it handicapped by poor sights.
Reason 3: Massive Sights Aren’t Necessary for CQB
Outsized sights are not necessary for success in extreme close-range work. The sights on typical duty pistols have rear notches much smaller than the massive “U” on the Bodyguard 2.0. Yet those pistols and millions of concealed carry pistols – all those Sig P365s, the Glock 19s, and Shield Pluses – are all well-suited for combat at conversational distances!
But the reverse is not true, and this is the illogic that sparked this article. With regular sights, this pistol would be great for both applications. But by putting huge sights on it it is no better at one application, but substantially worse at the other. So why do this? My guess is that Smith & Wesson is appealing to popular logic.
Hope for the New S&W Bodyguard 2.0?
OK, so I take it back…maybe that title was just a tad clickbaity, after all. The Bodyguard 2.0 is pretty amazing. It feels amazing in the hand, shoots incredibly well, and carries well. It is also very reliable with good ammunition. Smith & Wesson certainly has a hit on their hands – reviews of these things are all over the place.
Happily, I think the accuracy problem is an easy fix! Aftermarket support for the Bodyguard 2.0 is already brisk. In fact, I already have a PHLster Enigma for my Bodyguard 2.0. Various other holster-makers are already supporting this pistol, too. I think it is just a matter of time before someone comes out with an aftermarket set of sights, especially since mine is a pretty common complaint. The dovetails make this an inherently doable proposition, though many complains online indicate the sights are hard to drift out.
I can’t wait to get a better rear sight on this pistol. Everything else about the S&W Bodyguard 2.0 is very good. It easily outclasses any other pocket pistol out there. Stay tuned for a full video review of the S&W Bodyguard 2.0 where I will go in-depth on all of this pistols’ virtues.
