As far as width is concerned. The M&P 2.0 is listed at 30.5mm or 1.2in in width. The APX is 33 mm or 1.3in. I've carried both the M&P 2.0 Compact in the past and I can't tell the difference IWB or OWB. The difference is negligible. FYI, the popular P320 is listed at 1.4 in width, and those are carried by many without a problem and are extremely popular...
---------
I reached in my safe and grabbed the first 3 double stacks I came across to compare. The CZ P07, XD Mod 2 SubCompact, and the M&P 2.0 Compact. I measured the slide widths, and the CZ P07 is 27mm thick, the XD Mod 2 is 27.6mm, the M&P 2.0C is 28mm, and the APX is 28.3mm thick. dwcopple, you're not the first person I heard say that the APX was
super chunky, but it's only 0.3mm aka 0.01in thicker than the M&P 2.0's slide per my measurements. The M&P's slide just gives the false illusion of being thinner because it has rounded edges and is contoured at the front (see pictures). When you compare the rear as well as put a micrometer on the front and back, they're virtually the same width... The APX slide is actually shorter in height than the M&P 2.0. The M&P 2.0 slide is 22.2mm tall, but the APX's slide is only 20.5mm tall. I'm not understanding how you and several others across YouTube reviews and gun forum's claim that the APX is so much more bulky and top heavy than others on the market especially the M&P 2.0c and Sig P320??
--------------------------
Below you can see that there's not much of a difference width wise, and keep in mind that the APX has a slightly shorter slide height wise. Also, I have the Large backstrap on the APX, and the Small backstrap on the M&P 2.0c which is why the grip/frame looks thicker on the APX. IMHO just by looking at them, the width, height, and bore axis appears to be identical...