Why have a thumb safety on an M&P Pistol!

[scattershot]

Well, this gun dumb guy (65 years old, been shooting since I was six) likes a manual safety, and that's why I ordered mine that way. If it makes you feel like more of a man without one, go for it. Don't know why you would care one way or the other.

 

[McBear]

I had the choice of thumb safety or not. I chose the thumb safety because it is in keeping with my 43 years of shooting pistols. From the Combat Commander to Gold Cup [finally fitted with ambi safeties to give my thumb a rest] to my Browning Hi Power and even the 92FS [though it is a slide safety rather than frame], same motions and memories each time.

Some folks wonder why I still like manual shifters in my sports car when the new automatics "do the same thing better". But it is hard to beat shifting in the twisties with the top down on the SL. Some habits you just don't change.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Well, this gun dumb guy (65 years old, been shooting since I was six) likes a manual safety, and that's why I ordered mine that way. If it makes you feel like more of a man without one, go for it. Don't know why you would care one way or the other.

Can't add anything to this post. Has one sans safety-sold it and bought one with. If this makes me a gun dumb girlie man than so be it. Know what else??? I have a J frame 22 snubby AND I CARRY IT!!!!!!!!!
BUt as a concession-I will admit that none of my revolvers has a safety.
If we carry this argument further, that only when the trigger is pulled will the gun go off, then why do we have a thumb safety on 1911's ??

 

[Deacon KC]

Two reasons to have a safety:
1. When you are awakened at o'dark thirty, that extra action can keep you from having a negligent discharge from an adrenaline dump.
2. LEO's know that a separate safety can save your life in a fighting situation.
And if I want one, I have the freedom to have it on my handgun.

 

[WK1025]

I had two reasons for my choosing the M&P with the thumb safety. Gun dumb or not I carried a Glock CCW for 15 years and had a few instances where the trigger hooked on my shirt and IWB holster when reholstering. Didn't make the gun go off but it made me nervous. Bad gun handling on my part? probably. The other reason is that growing up with the 1911 platform I was always taught to sweep off the safety. I am teaching my daugther the same way, feeling that if she had to use another gun that has a safety in self defense I would rather she is used to swipe it off than fumble looking why it didn't go off. A far fetched senario? Probaby, but I do like that new gun people get used to putting on the safety until they get used to hndling loaded firearms. Is it lawyer induced? probably but I think it is great Smith and Wesson gives you the option to get it either way. Glock doesn't, it's take it or leave it. Besides it is pretty easy to remove the safety down the road if you decide you don'y want it on the gun and Smith will even give you the frame plugs. You can't add it on later if you decide you want it.

 

[Fishinfool]

If for any other reason, I like having a place to rest my thumb when shooting with a high thumb grip ala the 1911.

Larry

 

[SMMAssociates]

My EDC rotation is a pair of Officer's-sized 1911's, with thumb safeties....

I ended up putting a thumb safety on my M&P40C, which I wear around the house (lighter, doesn't require a special belt, etc.), largely so practicing with the M&P has the same "manual of arms". That said, IMHO, if you normally train with a gun with a thumb safety, it's easier to deal with not finding the safety lever under stress than being surprised to find one, and even worse if it works backwards, like the older S&W semi's.

(How did I add a thumb safety? Cheated.... . I bought my daughter an M&P9C with a thumb safety, and she didn't want the gun. After a little thought, I just put the .40 slide & barrel on top, and used the .40 magazines. Works fine.... I could have swapped sear blocks into the 40C and cut the grip, but it was easier. You can't put a thumb safety on a standard sear block assembly....)

It really boils down to what you like, and what you're willing to train with.

Regards,

 

[ultratec00]

Absolutely. I'm not "gun dumb either and all my M&Ps have the thumb safety for commonality. Given a preference, I don't mind the magazine safety either.

The advantage of having a DA revolver or Glock is pull the trigger and they go bang. Minimal instruction, minimal effort.

The disadvantage of having a DA revolver or Glock is pull the trigger and they go bang. Minimal instruction, minimal effort.

I personally like the idea of having to be somewhat familiar with your firearm to make it go BANG. Familiarity a drug crazed home invader may not have.

Two reasons to have a safety:
1. When you are awakened at o'dark thirty, that extra action can keep you from having a negligent discharge from an adrenaline dump.
2. LEO's know that a separate safety can save your life in a fighting situation.
And if I want one, I have the freedom to have it on my handgun.

 

[Edmo]

All the people that have shot themselves or someone else with a Glock; ask for it.

Those are the shooters who generally have to wear shin-guards and safety-toed boots for daily life.

Good thing someone put a safety on a gun for them!

Edmo

 

[thomasinaz]

I've been shooting and carrying since 1984. This gun dummy likes the thumb safety. Since it's my gun, my life, and my choice, no explanation should be necessary.

 

[geoff40]

If a striker-fired pistol was truly safe, nobody would be able to shoot themselves with one, but we all know that people do. I understand that some people need to carry a pistol in condition 1, but most of us really don't. I've heard all the arguments and I still don't buy them. If someone wants a thumb safety on their M&P, so be it.

There are still 10 commandments of shooting safety, keeping a semi auto pistol in condition 1 at all times is a violation of 1 or more of them. Period. Same for the older "cocked and locked" carry method for DA pistols. When did it become okay to ignore the rules of shooting safety? Who was it that decided this was okay?

Nobody asked me, but this is my opinion.

 

[John3200]

Strikers fired = single action. Who would carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked? I feel that a single action trigger might be too easy to inadvertantly bump and have an accidental discharge. Maybe I'm wrong but it's how I feel. I will never carry a single action only handgun that doesn't have a safety. I do prefer a Sig Sauer type da/sa trigger for a carry gun. That double action trigger pull is much safer in my mind.

I've owned a Glock and I just bought an M&P but it will only be used on the range where I can see a slight race advantage possible with single action only guns. I'll see how it works for me.

 

[Capt Crunch]

Actually the answer is pretty simple. It's because they are hoping/trying to get military contracts with the M&Ps and that this is a typical demand of most armed forces. As to why they carried this to the Shield...I'm not sure as I don't see any armed forces using the Shield.

 

[BlackAgnes]

If your gun is taken from you by an assailant, the safety may cause him some confusion and give you a few seconds to regain control.

I think the "trigger snagging on clothing" has some merit, too.

Just some thoughts...

Tim

 

[DGT]

Why not have a safety? The danger of any firearm is not that it will "just go off" for no reason. The danger is that the trigger will be pulled when not intended. If that were not the case, there would be NO accidental discharges. If a manual safety can help eliminate that, why not have one?

 

[DustyDawg48]

I was initially in the 'why would you want one camp' and to be brutally honest it isn't truly necessary. Having said that, though, I LOVE my M&Ps with the thumb safety. I have an M&P9 Pro without and it is my only one. I have my M&P45 full-size and my M&P9c both with thumb safety and if everything goes as well as planned I'll be picked up an M&P45 FDE full-size with thumb safety tomorrow to make it 3 out of 4.

I like it as much aesthetically as I do functionally; and I use it as much as a thumb rest as anything!

 

[Twoboxer]

Why not have a safety? ?

Agreed . . . but as for:

The danger of any firearm is not that it will "just go off" for no reason. The danger is that the trigger will be pulled when not intended. If that were not the case, there would be NO accidental discharges. If a manual safety can help eliminate that, why not have one?

Unfortunately, the argument that, if it helps, "Why not have one?" easily can - and has - led to calls for safeties, then mechanical locks, then embedded locks, then biometric safeties . . . and ultimately a battery-operated gun. I can't remember the last time I reached for a flashlight and it actually worked as I needed it to lol.

Personally, I need a stronger argument. And for me it is simple.

Pulling the trigger is what fires the (striker) gun. A heavy trigger pull is often cited as preventing accidental discharge, and I'm sure it helps.

But that same citation also implicitly recognizes that an accidental, light trigger impact is possible . . . and personally I'm not interested in estimating how heavy an accidental trigger contact is likely to be. Nor am I interested in a trigger-mounted safety for the very same reason.

I've heard the arguments that a safety is not required, training and safe practices are the answer. Again from my perspective, a second mechanical device (ie, a safety) requires two accidents to occur. Requiring two actions (eg, 2 signatures, 2 keys to launch, etc) is not perfect, but is a well-recognized approach to preventing "accidents" while maintaining operability.

As for the safety interfering with rapid use . . . its sort of hard to argue that training overcomes the need for a safety without admitting that training should successfully incorporate releasing the safety as a routine part of your "draw".

So . . . personally . . . safeties that are easy to operate as part of the draw . . . like, eg, the M&P9 that I own . . . are positive safety features. When they are available, I will take them.

Safeties like on the SR22P (also a decocker) do not qualify for me - I tolerate it only because the SR22P is not a defensive weapon for me. The absence of a safety on my Ruger LCP is barely tolerated - I like the weapon for pocket carry, but wish it had a safety like the M&P's.

As always, YMMV.

 

[681ismyfavorite]

its about as stupid as the s&w that Ruger made (lc9), thumb safety, internal lock, mag disconnector.....

 

[Capt Crunch]

So to answer the question as to why a safety, this is THE reason why it's on the M&Ps. It really has nothing to do with lawyers or marketing or anything like that, the reason for the safety was the proposed 2006 US Army Pistol Trials, this is taken from the wiki entry of what the government wanted....

Overview of 2005 JCP Solicitation

This was based on original solicitation, which was later modified, and finally, heavily changed in March 2006, with the program renamed to Combat Pistol.
The notice starts: The USSOCOM intends to issue a solicitation to obtain commercially available non-developmental item (NDI) Joint Combat Pistol (JCP) system, Caliber .45 (ACP).
Two configurations required: One with no external safety and the other configuration will have an external safety.
The 'Combat Pistol System' is to consist of:
a Caliber .45 pistol (designed for A475 and AA18 rounds)
Magazines (standard and high-capacity);
Suppressor Attachment Kit
Holster
Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity)
Cleaning Kit and Operator's Manual.
Estimates for max procurement quantities for the system are listed as
45,000 no external safety
600,000 JCP with the external safety configuration
649,000 Holsters
96,050 Standard Capacity Magazines
192,099 High Capacity Magazines
667,000 Magazine Holders
132,037 Suppressor attachment kits
While this is the max procurement, in comparison the initial order for M9 pistols was for 300,000 pistols (followed by more later).

I bold-ed the part that calls for the safety. The M&P was one of the pistols submitted but ultimately the whole thing was nixed do to cost cuts. The M&Ps sold in NY and CA (and a couple others) do NOT have the thumb safety because of a state requirement that I'm sorry I do not remember.

 

[Silversmok3]

I find these threads tiring. Not everyone in America drives the same car, wears the same clothes, or uses the same cell phone, so why would the use firearms be any less diverse.

Im glad to see the OP doesn't need a magazine disconnect or external safety. For my needs, I carry a full size 3rd Gen S&W with a safety AND magazine disconnect. I figure the odds of a negligent discharge brought on by a momentary lapse in judgement in the next 70 odd years of my life are much higher than the likelihood ill be involved in an intense shootout requiring a reload after 15 rounds fired ,with one round left in the pipe to dispatch the bad guy.

I cannot speak to the OP's frequency of training new shooters, but I know from experience an external safety can literally save lives when new people are still learning the import of the Four Commandments-especially the commandments about keeping the finger off the trigger and pointing the weapon in sensitive directions. Ive taken newbies to the range who used to worship at the Altar of Liberalism, and having a way to turn the gun off means inevitable mistakes don't progress beyond a stern word about safety.

Just because a striker fired M&P sans any safeties works for you, does not make it a wise idea for the 200,000,000 odd other members of the militia.