M&P Shield: No thumb safety

[bsp212]

Maybe now I'll have an excuse to buy another one. lol

 

[Odiferous]

I don't get why the safety bothers people. It doesn't bother me at all. Either use it or don't. It's not like it's in the way, at least not for me.

This. Exactly.

 

[Handgun World]

I just ordered one with no safety, should be here in a few days.

 

[Handgun World]

I don't get why the safety bothers people. It doesn't bother me at all. Either use it or don't. It's not like it's in the way, at least not for me.

It's problematic for a couple reasons.

1. If the owner wishes to use the safety, it's much to harder to disengage in a high stress encounter of a gun fight. A 1911 safety is much more intuitive. The Shield's safety hugs the frame too closely and makes it too hard to disengage. Remember, a gunfight won't be the same as range time.

2. Murphy's Law. If it can happen, it will. You need to train to use the pistol with and without the safety engaged. Because sure enough, when you don't expect it, the safety will be engaged when you thought it wasn't or wasn't engaged when you thought it was. You need to train to use it both ways.

As for me, I don't want to train both ways on the same pistol. So I sold mine and ordered one without a safety. It should be here in a few days.

 

[Ironhorseromo]

Understood. That's why I train with the safety on. I don't want to get into a gun fight and forget to disengage the safety or not have it on and it accidentally engages due to Murphy's law. In a high stressed situation, I'm relying on on instinct and muscle/memory. Draw, disengage, aim(ish), fire!

 

[AustinN4]

Draw, disengage, aim(ish), fire!

One step too many for me.

 

[breakingcontact]

One step too many for me.

Really?

 

[AustinN4]

Really?

Really! See my post #9 in this thread.

 

[Mike1234567]

I like thumb safeties. I never buy a pistol without one.

 

[AustinN4]

I like thumb safeties. I never buy a pistol without one.

You buy a no TS Shield and I'll trade you for my TS Shield.

 

[Mike1234567]

You buy a no TS Shield and I'll trade you for my TS Shield.

Actually, I'm seriously considering a Ruger LC9. I had one once and liked it. I definitely like my SR9c. I also liked my S&W M&P 45 w/ TS but sold that during a money crunch.

 

[breakingcontact]

My M&P9FS has no safey and I want it for consistency between the 2. I want to have exactly the same controls on both.

Consistency I get. I go for the same. The idea that its some laborious extra step...I dont get.

 

[breakingcontact]

Actually, I'm seriously considering a Ruger LC9. I had one once and liked it. I definitely like my SR9c. I also liked my S&W M&P 45 w/ TS but sold that during a money crunch.

So ive got nothing against Rugers but the LC9 isnt a great gun. Plenty of redeemable things about the SR pistols though.

 

[Odiferous]

I carry a Glock and a Shield, depending on what I'm wearing...I've trained with both...I'm not too worried about whether one has a safety and the other doesn't...just like I know how many rounds each gun holds.

 

[claymore504]

My main carry is a Glock 27. I picked up my Shield from a family member due to how slim it is. It carries awesome with a t shirt now in the summer. I never mess with the safety and never had a issue with it. Did have to send the Shield to S&W though for the sear deactivation lever falling out due to the pin that holds it in never being ut in from the factory.

 

[BRD@66]

FWIW, I carry a Glock, but this thread reminded me of this quote: "I also cannot figure out why so many people are absolutely, positively, 100% against having a safety on their pistol but when asked if they would want their rifle or shotgun to not have a safety, they look at me like I am crazy." - Doug Flavin, Modern Service Weapons

 

[Handgun World]

FWIW, I carry a Glock, but this thread reminded me of this quote: "I also cannot figure out why so many people are absolutely, positively, 100% against having a safety on their pistol but when asked if they would want their rifle or shotgun to not have a safety, they look at me like I am crazy." - Doug Flavin, Modern Service Weapons

And here is an excellent response given by a reader.

Nobody questions that shotguns or rifles should have a safety due the fact that you really can’t holster the weapon. If I had to carry a pistol on a one point sling that I just let bounce off my body, I probably would reconsider a safety. But I know personally two individual that are alive due to not having safeties on their pistols, both were extremely wounded with one individual having to fire his weapon with his ring finger. If you are using a pistol you probably were not expecting to get into a gunfight , so why do you expect to have full control of your limbs.

i agree with this and would like to add that combat rifles were designed as offensive weapons. They van be used defensively but they were designed with a battle offensive in mind. So in that situation you will likely have time to disengage the safety.

A combat bat handgun is a defensive weapon. I've taken a force on force class and half way through it I realized how glad I was that my Glock didn't have a thumb safety.

 

[40Arpent]

"I also cannot figure out why so many people are absolutely, positively, 100% against having a safety on their pistol but when asked if they would want their rifle or shotgun to not have a safety, they look at me like I am crazy." - Doug Flavin, Modern Service Weapons

That's one of the most ridiculous, idiotic statements I have ever read.

 

[40Arpent]

....

Suarez has a Jon Payne and a Bob Mayne? Weird. LOL

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Suarez has a Jon Payne and a Bob Mayne? Weird. LOL

Ha, nice catch!