I have shot a few M&P 1.0s in .40 and own a 2.0 in 9mm.
Discounting the trigger in the 1.0, all the ones I have shot, shot very well. Soft recoil when compared to the .40 Glocks I have shot, accurate and seemingly reliable. Not that the recoil of .40 in a Glock was bad, it was just heavier, more snappy and more abrupt than 9mm or .45. I didn't like the recoil characteristics of .40 in Glocks, in the M&Ps it was mild and pleasant. For me, the triggers in the 1.0s I have shot sucked so bad that I didn't even consider them.
On the 2.0, the trigger is WORLDS better than the 1.0. Although I'll readily admit that I haven't shot, or even held, an H&K VP9 or a Walther PPQ (the poly guns that reportedly have the best triggers), the trigger in the M&P 2.0 is WONDERFUL! Light takeup, a well defined wall, a light, crisp break (for a poly gun, anyway) and a well defined, audible and tactile reset. The reset isn't as well defined as a Glock, for example, but it is TONS better than the 1.0 examples I have handled and shot. The takeup in my 2.0 started out kinda gritty but smoothed out very well with use. The 2.0 in .40 should be the same, good trigger combined with good recoil characteristics.
I'm in the same boat. I don't on any .40s but have quite a bit of .40 ammo (I think I have 500 rds of Speer Gold Dot 180gr and about the same amount of commercially reloaded 180gr FMJ), so I've been considering buying a .40, just to have one. Although I don't know if this will hold true in the next panic, in the last panic, .40 ammo seemed to be available and relatively cheap, compared to 9mm, which I usually shoot. Having a .40 would also help with this. The .40 I was considering is an M&P 2.0 to match up with the 9mm 2.0 I already have. If you end up getting one, let us know how it works out.
Bub75