Didn't realize 3rd Gen Smith's had a decocker only option until recently. I tend to use my decocker on my 5906 as a safety also. I can see the advantage of not having to release the decocker for your first shot and relying on the DA trigger pull as a safety measure. The decocker only models I have seen, also have a spurred hammer. Still up in the air on how I feel about it, so I was wondering what other S&W fans thought of the decocker only option.

As a LEO, I like it. When you need to fire, an extra motion robs speed and concentration. However, if trained properly, the decocker/safety motion should be miminal. I have both and train with both but do not engage the safety when on duty.

The Decocker is just that.When TSHTF the decision to fire is already made and having to remember to disengage a "Safety" by lifting up a lever as opposed to pushing down might get you killed.My CS9 is DAO just like my revolvers because the safety is located between the shooters ears........Mike

I have a CS45 with this feature and like it. I've been a 1911 guy all my life and this is the first semi-auto pistol I've owned with a TDA trigger system. The 1911 thumb safety works in the opposite direction, where up=on safe / down= ready to fire. This might trip me up under duress so I'm happy with the decock only option.

I like the idea of having a safety on a handgun, but I've never understood the need for a decocker. The trigger pull should be the same for every shot, be it single action or double.

I feel the same way KurtC, knowing I have a safe mode on the weapon is a nice feature for me. For a defense situation Cruiser RN, I whole-heartedly agree with you , and actually am changing my 5906 to loaded and off-safety based on your point. I guess the only problem I have with the decocker-only is for range shooting. If I set my gun on the bench, I like knowing that it is in safe mode.

I personally prefer the decocker only. Therefore that's what I carry. I don't want the extra time it takes to disengage the safety. When I did carry a TDA the safety would be disengaged. As stated earlier the best safety is betwwen the ears.

i don't own a S&W semi-auto but i do have a ruger and a taurus. the ruger is a p89 de-cock only, double action, hammer fired 9mm. the taurus is a PT-145 in 45acp, self-cocker, striker fired, with a safety which i never use. thinking about having the safety pinned in the off position. i'm a big fan of a de-cock on hammer fired weapons, but i'm a much bigger fan of self-cocking, striker fired semi auto's. i don't like glock pistols cause you on have 1 trigger pull per reward movement of the slide. so if you have a weak primer the slide has to be manipulated manually. with the pt series taurus the slide only acts to eject a spent and re-chamber a live round. the cocking action is done completely with the trigger being pulled. some people call this a DAO pistol but that is a misnomer. normally DAO refers only to hammer fired semi autos (not all hammer fired semi-autos, like the 1911). the only safety i like is a grip safety.

__________________
s&w 500 magnum, "sweeeet"!!!

Just because the decocker can be engaged (left down) as a "safety," doesn't mean it has to be left down as a safety. It can be in the ready to go position all of the time.

For 20 years I carried a traditional decocker/safety equipped pitstol. The first was a Beretta 92F (slide mount decocker) and the second was a 4566. In each case, the Department that I worked for did not carry the weapons with the decocker engaged as a safety. It was always ready to fire with simply a trigger pull.

However, having a decocker-only model will take away your ability to engage a safety if you8 choose. Conversely, the traditional setup with the safety ability will allow you to use it if you choose. Why take that ability away from yourself with the decocker-only model?

Personally, I find the "safety" function in both the Beretta and Smith thrid generation pistols very poor. The engagement, or ability to disengage them, takes little effort - too little effort in my opinion. Since I didn't use them as safeties, I didn't care, but if I were to use them I would expect more effort to disengage them to remain an effective safety.

They also worked the wrong way, at least from a 1911 perspective. I was used to down to fire and up for safe. On the Beretta and S&W, it was the opposite. It was a different Battery of Arms.

After all of that, if it were me and in spite of the low effort to disengage the decocker when it's used as a safety, I would still get one with that ability. It would leave me with the ability to use or carry it with or without it engaged whereas the decocker-only model takes it away any options.

It also leaves me the ability to engage it if I were in a position where I was fighting over the weapon. Should the bad guy succeed in getting the pistol from me, I could engage the safety as my last act. It might just give me an extra second to two to go to Plan B before the bad guy figures out why the pistol isn't working. Why take that ability away from yourself with a decocker-only model?

The same benefit can be applied to the magazine disconnect that many people dislike. Dropping a magainze as you last act before the pistol is taken from you in a fight could provide a benefit.

So, that's my take.

__________________
~No signature line

I like decockers.

Like others have said, I don't want to have guns where up is fire and others where down is fire. In addition, I'm left handed. Some guns (CZ, Smith 908/910 in particular) don't have ambi safeties. My CZ 75D PCR is a decocker but I can reach across the back of the slide with my thumb to operate it. If it was a safety, I wouldn't own the gun.

Having starting out on Glocks, I agree that the safety is between your ears.