5906

[Rship1]

Just picked up a beautiful 5906 no box or papers. My question is someone disconnected the mag safety ? Should I leave it or fix it ? Opinions would be helpful. Thanks

[SparkyAZ]

Fix it if you can find the correct parts. Never advisable to bypass or remove a safety feature...

[Trooper224]

More than a few law enforcement agencies requested the mag disconnect be disabled on the pistols they ordered, or sometimes had agency armorers do it upon receipt.

Claiming that disabling the feature constitutes a liability is overblown, but people love to parrot what they hear. Reinstall or not, it's largely up to you.

[stansdds]

It's your pistol, do what you feel is best for you. Since you bought with the magazine disconnect removed, I cannot see any liability and I'm not sure that the removal of a magazine disconnect has ever been used in a trial.

[PeteC]

Speaking only for myself, if I bought a new/used firearm with or without this kind of safety, and IF it functioned correctly in that state, I would leave it as is for a while. I would want to get comfortable using it, cleaning it, trying to get accurate with it, etc.

If in good working condition, I would not try to modify something new to me right away, because I would feel I was missing an opportunity to learn something about how it works the way I got it.

As far as safety in general goes, the most important "safety" is the operator, whether the equipment is a firearm, car, hand tool, machine tool etc (well, at least unless you like driver-less vehicles, lol)

[Rship1]

Thanks guys. just looking for opinions on which way to go ? Will S&W fix it ?

[Rship1]

I can see that someone took out the plunger and spring .

[jimbo728]

I would always make anyone else that might handle the pistol aware that is does not have a magazine disconnect. Most S&W owners of that pistol vintage may assume is does, without knowing. Just an added measure of safety.
Jim

[Rship1]

S&w is sending me out the magazine plunger and spring. Does not look to hard to do so I will give it a try ?

[stansdds]

The worst part is that these little parts are under the rear sight. When drifting out the rear sight, it might be best if you can do so with the slide in a big, plastic bag so that springs and plungers do not get lost.

[Sevens]

I'm not a big fan of the magazine disconnect safety but on a S&W that also has a manual decocker, I also don't mind that it is there. I have deeper opinions for a deeper discussion, but that is only barely related to the actual subject at hand.

If I were you, I would not reinstall it, my biggest motivating reason being that the rear sight needs to be drifted out and back in for this work. That is, to me, a HUGE reason to not do it.

For exactly the same reason, the more than two dozen S&W pistols I have that also have the magazine disconnect (which I don't care for) keep that original feature retained. If I could remove the plunger and spring without having to drift the rear sight, I would myself have removed this feature from at least a couple of my pistols.

But alas, I haven't.

[banger]

Originally Posted by stansdds

It's your pistol, do what you feel is best for you. Since you bought with the magazine disconnect removed, I cannot see any liability and I'm not sure that the removal of a magazine disconnect has ever been used in a trial.

Ohhhh Goodnesssss.

Are you wrong about that.

I have personally seen several cases in the Police use of firearms in which each and every aspect of the weapons safeties were examined and documented.

That is exactly why most police department allow for ZERO modifications to the pistols.

So, some say, "well that was only the Magazine safety, and that was not a cause of the discharge of the firearm".

All a jury hears is.... "The pistol was modified from it's original specifications" and was there for unsafe.

[PeteC]

Originally Posted by Sevens

...the more than two dozen S&W pistols I have ...

Ok, NOW I'm jealous... lol.

[Rship1]

I was just thinking of bringing back to original configuration . Just wondering what everyone thinks ?

[Sevens]

Haha, my collection is far from the big guys' collections around here. I shouldn't even have worded it that way, I'm definitely not trying to brag. It isn't a big deal to amass one or two examples of many of the HIGHLY produced models... doesn't cost much and when you do it over time, it isn't hard to do. Some would argue that it doesn't make a lot of good sense either.

[oink]

If it was still in I'd leave it in. However, I don't like them and believe they can actually increase the chance of an AD in some instances. I would not reinstall it.

[Trooper224]

I'd be happy if it wasn't there, but I've never felt the need to remove one. Out of all the possible issues to be concerned about with a firearm, it's a nonstarter for me.

[Rship1]

Ya I don't know which way to go ? I like it without but then I would like it original ?

[Rship1]

And I do like the idea of taking off the sight in a bag . Thanks

[Trooper224]

Is it a fixed or adjustable sight?

[Rship1]

Novak sight

[kas9412]

I'm with Sevens on this one. I have attempted to drift sights in/out a few times, and it can be (but not always) an almost impossible task depending on the specific gun and what tools you have.

I'm in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it camp"!

KAS

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by Rship1

Novak sight

Good, that makes removal a much less complicated prospect, if you decide to go that way.

[Rship1]

Yes it does not look that hard ? And I really only have to take it halfway off to put the plunger and spring in. I was gonna take it off completely just to clean both ?

[Rship1]

Unless it has the plate over both ? But people tell me the plate usually isn't there.

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by Rship1

Unless it has the plate over both ? But people tell me the plate usually isn't there.

If it's never been disassembled the plate should be there.

With an adjustable sighted version, the sight has to be removed from the base. Two set screws securing the base to the slide have to be removed, then the base driven out. Some/many are pretty tight, so a wedge of some kind should be inserted into the base in place of the sight, so the base isn't bent upon removal. With a Novak, just loosen the set screw and drive it out. I haven't had a problem with the rear Novak being overly tight on any of these. On the other hand, the front sight is another matter.

[Sevens]

Originally Posted by Trooper224

I'd be happy if it wasn't there, but I've never felt the need to remove one. Out of all the possible issues to be concerned about with a firearm, it's a nonstarter for me.

I’ve said this before and I’m not saying it again in search of support for my opinions... but I share it with the idea that different models make for a different perspective.

On my Model 52 pistols there exists no manual decocker. This is fine, I started with revolvers and safely lowering a cocked hammer is a skill that I have and a skill that I’m sure all gun owners can develop.

But I cannot lower the 52’s hammer without a magazine. And on the night before a range day, I load up all the mags for all the pistols. At that point, if I rack the slide on my 52, I’ve got to insert a loaded magazine to lower that hammer.

That’s royally annoying, and THAT makes me want to remove it from my 52’s.

[Rship1]

Thanks Trooper224. I know it has already been removed because of the removal of the mag plunger and spring. Thanks for your input

[jjfitch]

Originally Posted by Trooper224

More than a few law enforcement agencies requested the mag disconnect be disabled on the pistols they ordered, or sometimes had agency armorers do it upon receipt.

Claiming that disabling the feature constitutes a liability is overblown, but people love to parrot what they hear. Reinstall or not, it's largely up to you.

What agency would remove a safety feature that was designed to prevent officers from being shot with they're own gun?

Asking for a friend....

Retired SoCal LEO!

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by jjfitch

What agency would remove a safety feature that was designed to prevent officers from being shot with they're own gun?

Asking for a friend....

Retired SoCal LEO!

The disconnect was not originally intended as a feature for law enforcement. Most negligent discharges happen during administrative handling. That is, cleaning the gun, etc., wherein the user drops the mag but forgets to clear the chamber, while assuming the gun is "empty". The disconnect was intended to be a safe guard against stupid people doing stupid things. Law enforcement agencies siezed upon that as a security benefit in the case of an officers gun been taken away, but that wasn't the original intent.

Why would they want it removed? For the same reason some prefer a decock only mechanism instead of a decocker/safety combination, because of a perceived liability. The mag disconnect deadlines the trigger. It was felt by some that this could cause a negative outcome if an officer was confronted with further hostility while performing something like a tactical reload. If he needed to fire that one round in the chamber while the magazine was removed, he wouldn't be able to. At the time I thought it was something of a strawman argument to fill out gun rag pages. I really didn't see that fraction of a second where the trigger's dead as a defining moment. It seemed to me that an officer being threatened with his own gun was a much more likely scenario than having to fire off that single round to save ones life. But, some felt differently and specified its removal.

If you're wanting a list of agencies, well, I've slept a time or two since the 80s and I've had greater concerns between then and now. I was living in southern California during the 80s, so a few of those agencies were ones you might know.

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by Rship1

Thanks Trooper224. I know it has already been removed because of the removal of the mag plunger and spring. Thanks for your input

Maybe, but there's another spring and plunger in there secured by that plate as well.

[Rship1]

Yes there are two under the sight one for the magazine and the other for the firing pin. If the plate is there I will have to take it off but will make it easier to put back on.

[JohnHL]

No plates under the sight on 9mm models.

Only 40s and 45s.

John

[banger]

Originally Posted by Trooper224

The disconnect was not originally intended as a feature for law enforcement. Most negligent discharges happen during administrative handling. That is, cleaning the gun, etc., wherein the user drops the mag but forgets to clear the chamber, while assuming the gun is "empty". The disconnect was intended to be a safe guard against stupid people doing stupid things. Law enforcement agencies siezed upon that as a security benefit in the case of an officers gun been taken away, but that wasn't the original intent.

Why would they want it removed? For the same reason some prefer a decock only mechanism instead of a decocker/safety combination, because of a perceived liability. The mag disconnect deadlines the trigger. It was felt by some that this could cause a negative outcome if an officer was confronted with further hostility while performing something like a tactical reload. If he needed to fire that one round in the chamber while the magazine was removed, he wouldn't be able to. At the time I thought it was something of a strawman argument to fill out gun rag pages. I really didn't see that fraction of a second where the trigger's dead as a defining moment. It seemed to me that an officer being threatened with his own gun was a much more likely scenario than having to fire off that single round to save ones life. But, some felt differently and specified its removal.

If you're wanting a list of agencies, well, I've slept a time or two since the 80s and I've had greater concerns between then and now. I was living in southern California during the 80s, so a few of those agencies were ones you might know.

I am sure these are things you HEARD.

Now, a few corrections...

First... The magazine safety was never intended for law enforcement use.

Fact: From the day of the very first Model 39 pistols, the magazine disconnect was part of the design.

When the Illinois State police adopted the pistols in 1968, They had the disconnect feature.

Just for dramatic effect, that was 52 years ago.

Second.... it takes a mere fraction of a second to change a magazine, who would sacrifice their life during these micro seconds.

Third, show us a single documented incident in which this occurred...

Any time, any place, involving a single Law enforcement agency...ever.

Lastly, this has become modern lore to influence the young and impressionable.... Just like... "I don't want a manual safety on my weapon.... becaue I might forget to take it off".

Or my personal favorite police tripe... "you don't want to fire a perfect score on the firing range becaue they can use it against you if you miss during a gun fight".

How this junk ever gets started.... I'll never know.

[stansdds]

Originally Posted by banger

Ohhhh Goodnesssss.

Are you wrong about that.

I have personally seen several cases in the Police use of firearms in which each and every aspect of the weapons safeties were examined and documented.

That is exactly why most police department allow for ZERO modifications to the pistols.

So, some say, "well that was only the Magazine safety, and that was not a cause of the discharge of the firearm".

All a jury hears is.... "The pistol was modified from it's original specifications" and was there for unsafe.

I think there is a significant difference between a civilian owned firearm and a department issued firearm when it comes to matters of the judiciary.

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by banger

I am sure these are things you HEARD.

Now, a few corrections...

First... The magazine safety was never intended for law enforcement use.

Fact: From the day of the very first Model 39 pistols, the magazine disconnect was part of the design.

When the Illinois State police adopted the pistols in 1968, They had the disconnect feature.

Just for dramatic effect, that was 52 years ago.

Second.... it takes a mere fraction of a second to change a magazine, who would sacrifice their life during these micro seconds.

Third, show us a single documented incident in which this occurred...

Any time, any place, involving a single Law enforcement agency...ever.

Lastly, this has become modern lore to influence the young and impressionable.... Just like... "I don't want a manual safety on my weapon.... becaue I might forget to take it off".

Or my personal favorite police tripe... "you don't want to fire a perfect score on the firing range becaue they can use it against you if you miss during a gun fight".

How this junk ever gets started.... I'll never know.

This isn't what I HEARD and I'm well aware of when the magazine disconnect was introduced. The purpose of the disconnect was related to me by S&W design engineers.
Regarding seeing the magazine disconnect as a negative, I didn't say I shared that opinion, but that view was present back in the 80s. I've never heard of an incident in which someone was killed because of the mag disconnect. That's largely why I'm ambivalent about its presence and have never bothered removing one. I'm not an advocate for arbitrarily removing it. I think I clearly stated that. I'm merely relating historical perspective to the OP. Did you actually read my post in its entirety, of did you simply skim it, then climb up on your soapbox?

This is the same era where we were finally realizing it wasn't a good idea to keep our finger on the trigger all the time. Today, it's common training to keep the trigger finger indexed along the frame until one is ready to fire. Back in the 80s that was a relatively new training point. Training changes and evolves. There are a lot of things we did back in the day that we've now abandoned because they wound up being something other than a good idea. Why is it so hard to acknowledge there were mixed views on the mag disconnect in the same era?

Regarding the concept itself: can you name one pistol currently ln common issuance in law enforcement that has the feature? I can't. That's a clear indication of the value placed upon the feature.

[PeteC]

For those of us who are not historians (or just can't remember ****** from back in the day), what did S&W originally say was the purpose of this feature? (Since it may not be what people say about it currently.)

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by PeteC

For those of us who are not historians (or just can't remember ****** from back in the day), what did S&W originally say was the purpose of this feature? (Since it may not be what people say about it currently.)

It's was designed for the purpose I previously mentioned: as a way to prevent negligent gun handling. I don't know why that's such a bone of contention. Law enforcement's use of the feature for the purpose of officer safety is irrelevant. The original M39 wasn't designed for law enforcement, it was meant to be a submission in the aborted post WWII military pistol trial. It was then released for commercial sale when that didn't happen. It was a good decade after before law enforcement began to embrace it.

Like the Walther P38 before it, the DA/SA M39 was designed from a desire for increased safety over the single action pistols then in common military usage. The desire for a decrease in negligent discharges was the entire impetus for these design features. Many law enforcement agencies later found the mag disconnect attractive as a safety against a disarm, but that wasn't the original intent.

I honestly can't understand why anyone takes issue with this.

[rosewood]

If the mag disconnect is such an important safety feature, why don't the M&P and other modern S&W pistols have that feature?

Rosewood

[DMcBB]

My 2 cents: the magazine safety doesn’t really matter to me. I find it slightly annoying because it requires me to put an empty mag in for dry fire practice. I have 4 S&W DA/SA pistols. I haven’t removed the mag disconnect on any of them. If I bought one with the mag disconnect already removed, I wouldn’t change it as long as everything worked fine. This feature is not important enough for me to remove the rear sight either way.

TL;DR - Pistol is fine. Do not !@#$

[Sevens]

Originally Posted by rosewood

If the mag disconnect is such an important safety feature, why don't the M&P and other modern S&W pistols have that feature?

Steel frame. That's an important feature. Why doesn't the M&P have a steel frame?

[PeteC]

@Trooper224: Thanks for the explanation, I just like to understand how firearm designs came to be the way they are. No argument or issue.

I don't expect two makes or models to work the same. If all semi auto pistols worked the same, what fun would that be? I DO like to compare similar guns from different manufacturers, and different models from the same manufacturer over time.

[CDKJudoka]

Originally Posted by rosewood

If the mag disconnect is such an important safety feature, why don't the M&P and other modern S&W pistols have that feature?

Rosewood

They actually do offer the M&P with a mag disconnect.

M&P(R)9 Magazine Safety LE | Smith & Wesson

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by CDKJudoka

They actually do offer the M&P with a mag disconnect.

M&P(R)9 Magazine Safety LE | Smith & Wesson

Sincerely, thanks for that. I learned something new today.

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by PeteC

@Trooper224: Thanks for the explanation, I just like to understand how firearm designs came to be the way they are. No argument or issue.

I don't expect two makes or models to work the same. If all semi auto pistols worked the same, what fun would that be? I DO like to compare similar guns from different manufacturers, and different models from the same manufacturer over time.

No worries here, that was a statement meant for general purposes.

I find the mag disconnect to be a bit irritating, but never enough to remove it from a pistol, except for the Browning High Power. During my military service I attended a training class given by Jeff Cooper and Chuck Taylor. Local law enforcement agencies were also allowed to attend. We Navy folks came equipped with 1911s since the Beretta hadn't made it into the fleet at that point, while the LEOs had a mix of revolvers and semi-autos. This was in the 80's, during the mass switch from wheel gun to semi-auto in the LE world. All of the LEO's who were armed with semi-autos were using DA/SA guns of one flavor or another, S&W, Beretta, etc.

Cooper hated on the DA/SA guns pretty hard. He called them crunchin' tickers and felt they were, "A solution looking for a problem." One of the things he went on about was the mag disconnect and how it was a liability for the reasons I mentioned upthread. I'd also read debates about it in the gun magazines of the time, with people like Massad Ayoob being a proponent of them and folks like Dick Metcalf and Jan Libourel coming down on the negative side. I was a young sailor at the time and a fairly new shooter, so I just kept my mouth shut. Still, even then I didn't see how the split second the trigger was dead during a magazine change could really be a problem. The chances of it causing a negative outcome were so remote that it legitimately seemed to be problem searching for an outcome.

[PeteC]

Thanks for taking the time to pass on some background information. I tend to be more interested in how things work, than what side people are on in the discussion. It's nice to know it is a reversible change, in any case.