S&W M&P 9C.... no safety?

[Fargo]

Seems like a simple concept to me to keep the finger and foreign objects out of the trigger guard, but hey, what do I know.

So, would you carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked? I mean, just keep your finger and foreign objects out of the triggerguard.

Neither of my M&P's have a manual safety but I really think it is over the line to imply that someone who prefers to have one is per se a sloppy gunhandler. If you train with the gun, it isn't a problem to have a manual safety. I carried a 1911 as a duty gun for a while and was just as fast with it as with the M&P or a glock.

IMO, as long as you follow the rules and train with it regularly, it is purely a matter of preference whether you want a manual safety on a DAO gun like an m&p. That is especially true since glocks/xd's/m&p's are not true DAO guns like centennial j-frame as their action is really set to half-cock as part of it cycling. That why, unlike true DAO's, you don't have second strike capability and your trigger pull is both shorter and lighter than a true DAO.

Best,

Joe

 

[01deuce]

What else would you call someone who must rely on a switch or lever in order to keep from shooting something unintentionally? Modern arms do not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Seems like a simple concept to me to keep the finger and foreign objects out of the trigger guard, but hey, what do I know.

I would not call them incompetent or sloppy. Wanting a safety does not necessarily imply you are relying on it solely to prevent shooting something unintentionally.

 

[Agent 007]

I would not call them incompetent or sloppy. Wanting a safety does not necessarily imply you are relying on it solely to prevent shooting something unintentionally.

Then what is the safety for?

 

[01deuce]

Then what is the safety for?

You still use your brain don't you?do You still have internal safeties ? So I guess its like I said you don't rely solely on a manual safety!

 

[Agent 007]

You still use your brain don't you?do You still have internal safeties ? So I guess its like I said you don't rely solely on a manual safety!

I rely solely on the safety between my ears. This makes a manual safety moot, irrelevant, and an unnecessary extra step in going from holster to engagement.

What was the manual safety for again....if not a hedge against sloppy gun handling?

 

[01deuce]

This is a debate that always has and always will have two sides. I am open enough to see both sides. Does my EDC have a manual safety? No. Do I own guns with manual safeties? Yes. Is someone that uses a manual safety automatically incompetent? according to you yes. I feel differently and to assume that it does makes judgment on many people with far more gun handling skills than you or I.

 

[mjmcg]

much to consider...

What else would you call someone who must rely on a switch or lever in order to keep from shooting something unintentionally? Modern arms do not fire unless the trigger is pulled. Seems like a simple concept to me to keep the finger and foreign objects out of the trigger guard, but hey, what do I know.

Sounds to me like... not much.

After stumbling into this forum by way of a search engine looking for a related topic, I felt compelled to register and respond to some of the contents of this thread.

First, reliance on a manual safety to compensate for "sloppy handling" may not be the intent of someone wishing to have one. It has been documented that lives have been saved by manual safeties upon the unfortunate instances where a LEO had his sidearm taken from his possession and turned on him and the subject was not familiar with the particular firearm and failed to fire the weapon due to the safety being engaged. I'm sure the same would apply to a private citizen while carrying concealed. It may have nothing to due with anyone's feeling of "incompetence" whatsoever.

Second; If not wanting your gun to be equipped with the safety is your goal what would be easier: trying to alter the piece by dismantling it, or... now follow me here I'm about to throw you a curve ball...how about simply not engaging it? Now there's a novel idea! Who says just because it has it you have to use it? By not engaging it you have the functional equivalent of the model without it. All the long throw trigger safeties are still intact. The manual device doesn't subtract from the other features. Drop the lever and forget it. (Consider this: the manual safety on most models also acts as a slide lock. This could serve to keep an unloaded firearm from being loaded by some children or unknowledged persons if they can't rack the slide to chamber a round provided they gained access to the gun and insert a magazine in the first place)

Thirdly; The act of disengaging the manual safety lever is NOT an "additional step" in the draw anymore than unsnapping the thumb break is while drawing. If you count unsnapping the thumb break or thumbing the safety off while drawing, then you better go back and re-learn how to draw your firearm. When I grasp my handgun to draw, the thumb break snap is unfastened as my hand grasps the pistol in one motion not as a separate act afterward. Likewise, as I'm drawing the gun from the holster my thumb slides down the safety lever and falls into place to effect a proper grip long before the muzzle is pointed and my finger finds it's way to the trigger face, not as a separate conscious step. A proper draw of a handgun (semi auto) is a 2 step process, not 4. The first 2 being grasp / unsnap the second being bring to bear / disengage safety. Not: grasp; unsnap; bring to bear; disengage safety.
I have a Taurus 24/7 pro in 40S&W and I can state for certain from experience by way of a shot timer that I suffer a 0.00 second deviation in my IDPA draws with or without the safety lever engaged because the safety is already off by the time the muzzle clears leather so it doesn't hinder my TTFS (time to first shot).

Lastly; putting too much faith or reliance in any mechanical device built by the human hand is in itself foolish. Materials fail. Parts break. Crap happens. I am all too aware of the statistics of carry methods and I myself am quite comfortable in carrying without safeties engaged when prudent to do so. But that doesn't mean that circumstances beyond that of our best training or intentions can't prevail and leave any one of us saying "but I didn't think that could happen" Negligent discharges are one thing, however unintentional discharges are NOT a myth despite what any WTO will tell you. Any WTO who denies that UD's can happen is (and I will say it once) a complete FOOL.
I have seen many a seemingly good firearm unintentionally discharge due to faulty or worn mechanisms. I personally own a shotgun which will at any time after firing one barrel, spontaneously fire the second. An acquaintance of mine has a left handed bolt action .308 rifle which has proven itself unsafe due to 2 UD's while loaded, safety on and in a static position. It's no longer used pending a gunsmith's diagnosis and repair.

My opinion of one particular poster on this thread is that he knows it all and no amount of debate regardless of content or information presentation will ever change that. He represents the type who assumes that when someone they are talking to fails to have a response to their comments it means the other person agrees with them. NEWS FLASH: it usually means that the other person has figured them out for not being worth the waste of time in engaging in further discussion because it's become obvious it would be like talking to a watermelon.

 

[kingnereli]

Great first post, mjmcg.

 

[kingnereli]

I rely solely on the safety between my ears. This makes a manual safety moot, irrelevant, and an unnecessary extra step in going from holster to engagement.

What was the manual safety for again....if not a hedge against sloppy gun handling?

There is the "overly complicated" argument that I referred to earlier that hadn't been mentioned yet. Now all the anti-safety arguments are accounted for.

 

[Agent 007]

I am all too aware of the statistics of carry methods and I myself am quite comfortable in carrying without safeties engaged when prudent to do so.

Actions speak louder than words. You yourself carry without safeties. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

I don't have time to answer all of your tripe. Suffice it to say that I, and thousands of other armed professionals (not game players) carry pistols without manual safeties, and have done so for years. No NDs. I believe that a manual safety fosters a "don't worry, it's on safe" attitude, and can encourage unsafe gun handling. I prefer my guns to be "hot" all of the time, and I have the mindset to treat them accordingly. A safety that is going to be left disengaged is useless complication, and a potential liability in an immediate action drill.

I don't know it all. But I sure as hell know enough.

 

[alwalker84]

Great first post, mjmcg.

Makes alot of sense...

 

[mkelsey]

 

[nighthawk80]

The brain is the best safety and the only one that should be trusted. Keeping the finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to fire is the way to go about being safe. Your pistol is fine for carry if you do your part. Mechanical safeties are not necessary, but if you feel that you would be better off with one make a trade nothing wrong with that.

You should be at ease and comfortable with the gun you are carrying. What the rest of the world thinks does not matter.

This!!!

 

[Dryden]

Agent 007:
With every single weapon issued to our military, there is a manual safety installed. Do you mean to deride every soldier as sloppy and incompetent because of this?
If you don't like safeties, fine, but please do not equate them with sloppy gunhandling.

 

[mjmcg]

Actions speak louder than words. You yourself carry without safeties. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

I don't have time to answer all of your tripe. Suffice it to say that I, and thousands of other armed professionals (not game players) carry pistols without manual safeties, and have done so for years. No NDs. I believe that a manual safety fosters a "don't worry, it's on safe" attitude, and can encourage unsafe gun handling. I prefer my guns to be "hot" all of the time, and I have the mindset to treat them accordingly. A safety that is going to be left disengaged is useless complication, and a potential liability in an immediate action drill.

I don't know it all. But I sure as hell know enough.

By "tripe" I am assuming that you mean any information that directly contradicts your preconceived assessment of the facts?

"game players"?? Very keen power of observation akin to that of an adolescent. Considering that as a former WTO recruit candidate and post order writer while a NYS Corrections Officer, a former VT State Correction Officer and presently NYS licensed armed guard and introductory firearms familiarization course developer, I'll let that comment slide as it bears no relevance to me and I'll assume no such inference was intended.

The only portion of that post I genuinely wanted to lend any attention to is the fact that by making the reiteration that manual safeties foster a false sense of security reinforces the fact that you totally missed the point when it comes to certain individuals' desire to have one. Reasons that I won't repeat here. Anyone else reading and comprehending this thread is thinking the same thing: that the point flew over your head by about 20 feet and kept on going, apparently to the same destination as the statement I made about my comfort in carrying with the manual safety disengaged "when prudent to do so" I did not emphatically and state that I carry exclusively without safeties.

I'm just wondering, what part of my post gave you the impression that I was in any way referring to you unless the know it all / watermelon reference struck all too close to home. You should be careful in giving yourself that flattering pat on the back that assumes when someone posts comments in a thread that it necessarily involved you. In doing so you inadvertently acknowledge that the negative connotations apply to you.

Thanks for the notes on my first post guys, glad you enjoyed it. I hoped it would offer a different perspective to be considered. I just hope your resident watermelon isn't offended when I fail to debate the context of this particular thread further. This is the point where in a face to face conversation I politely change the subject to the weather outside and how much yard work I have to do... if you know what I mean. Thanks again guys!

**A wise man once said: "You can buy them all the books in the world and send them the best schools in the land, but it doesn't mean they're going to learn anything."

 

[Agent 007]

Agent 007:
With every single weapon issued to our military, there is a manual safety installed. Do you mean to deride every soldier as sloppy and incompetent because of this?
If you don't like safeties, fine, but please do not equate them with sloppy gunhandling.

I was unaware that soldiers were able to select their make/model of duty pistol. Interesting.

 

[Agent 007]

By "tripe" I am assuming that you mean any information that directly contradicts your preconceived assessment of the facts?

"game players"?? Very keen power of observation akin to that of an adolescent. Considering that as a former WTO recruit candidate and post order writer while a NYS Corrections Officer, a former VT State Correction Officer and presently NYS licensed armed guard and introductory firearms familiarization course developer, I'll let that comment slide as it bears no relevance to me and I'll assume no such inference was intended.

The only portion of that post I genuinely wanted to lend any attention to is the fact that by making the reiteration that manual safeties foster a false sense of security reinforces the fact that you totally missed the point when it comes to certain individuals' desire to have one. Reasons that I won't repeat here. Anyone else reading and comprehending this thread is thinking the same thing: that the point flew over your head by about 20 feet and kept on going, apparently to the same destination as the statement I made about my comfort in carrying with the manual safety disengaged "when prudent to do so" I did not emphatically and state that I carry exclusively without safeties.

I'm just wondering, what part of my post gave you the impression that I was in any way referring to you unless the know it all / watermelon reference struck all too close to home. You should be careful in giving yourself that flattering pat on the back that assumes when someone posts comments in a thread that it necessarily involved you. In doing so you inadvertently acknowledge that the negative connotations apply to you.

Thanks for the notes on my first post guys, glad you enjoyed it. I hoped it would offer a different perspective to be considered. I just hope your resident watermelon isn't offended when I fail to debate the context of this particular thread further. This is the point where in a face to face conversation I politely change the subject to the weather outside and how much yard work I have to do... if you know what I mean. Thanks again guys!

**A wise man once said: "You can buy them all the books in the world and send them the best schools in the land, but it doesn't mean they're going to learn anything."

I'd be interested to know what CO and security guard experience has to do with your take on pistols with manual safeties. Licensed security guard? Wow. That's impressive. In the People's Republic of New York, no less. I'll only mention that I have over 22 years in the criminal justice field, including positions where we actually use firearms, like the US Army (MP), and for the last 13 years, actual law enforcement with a major metro agency. Perhaps I, too, will aspire to be a "licensed security guard" one day....after I retire.

You wanna carry a DA or striker fired pistol with an unnecessary point of failure? Fine. Have at it. Hillary Clinton would be proud. She also loves unnecessary safeties on firearms. (Hmmm...doesn't she have something to do with New York? I think I read that somewhere.) You be safe out there, guarding whatever it is you guard. Have a nice day.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I was unaware that soldiers were able to select their make/model of duty pistol. Interesting.

No, but the sidearms that have passed muster all have manual safety levers.

Besides, as I'm sure you know, even your issued Glock has 3 safeties. (But here, I am presuming that you've been issued a Glock)

-J-

 

[esrice]

Enough with the chest-thumping please. While we all appreciate now having everyone's resumes, let's stick to the topic at hand, give our opinions and rebuttals, and be done with it.

New rule: from now on, all inquisitive threads must be in poll format only, and the available answers can only be "yes" and "no".

 

[01deuce]

I'd be interested to know what CO and security guard experience has to do with your take on pistols with manual safeties. Licensed security guard? Wow. That's impressive. In the People's Republic of New York, no less. I'll only mention that I have over 22 years in the criminal justice field, including positions where we actually use firearms, like the US Army (MP), and for the last 13 years, actual law enforcement with a major metro agency. Perhaps I, too, will aspire to be a "licensed security guard" one day....after I retire.

You wanna carry a DA or striker fired pistol with an unnecessary point of failure? Fine. Have at it. Hillary Clinton would be proud. She also loves unnecessary safeties on firearms. (Hmmm...doesn't she have something to do with New York? I think I read that somewhere.) You be safe out there, guarding whatever it is you guard. Have a nice day.

I feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that in your actual law enforcement position that you pre judge people if they dont agree with you.