Official: Shield WITHOUT Safety
- Thread starter HPD4344
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
SpringGunTunes
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 202
- Reaction score
- 101
Thanks. I was just about to buy another one. I think I'll wait now.
Me too! I went to the LGS today with a Glock discount certificate, thinking I'd get a G26. But I handled the Shield and really loved the grip, but not thrilled with the safety. Left with neither. Now I have made up my mind.
I have a PPS 9mm now and love it. But the mag release, limited choice for holsters, parts, and accessories has me leaning toward the shield. I'd love to get a shield with Apex duty/carry trigger, trijicon HD sights, and a nice IWB kydex holster. The safety has always been my big turn off so now problem solved!
dullh
Member
I don't understand this hatred of safeties...Glocks have ruined a generation of shooters...
AR-Getsome
Member
My shield has a thumb safety?! Huh....who knew.
Not just Glocks, My Sigs don't have safeties and I have had them for years and done of my revolvers have safeties. I got the revolvers before my Glocks.
Also don't understand why you think not wanting safeties ruins a shooter.
Last edited:
I don't understand why anyone would want a thumb safety, should S&W add them to their revolvers too?
Doug M.
Member
The problem with a Shield with a safety is that I am left handed, and if it should become engaged, it is neither convenient nor a trained response to address a safety on the wrong side IIRC, there are no ambi-safety Shields). FOR ME, in a gun not carried in uniform, the safety would be most valuable if I wanted to try AIWB as a good concealment option. I suspect that due to the residual food blister, that's not a good choice anyway, so I'm ok with no safety.
The Shield is likely a niche weapon for me, only useful in reduced capacity settings (one should never use a magazine reduced in capacity from its original design), and I am so rarely there I will probably suck it up and use a revolver. I'm going to guess they will be out in 9mm too. There have been serious user tests showing that split times with the .40 Shield are measurably worse (and not acceptable) than those with a 9mm (both using duty ammo), and unless it shows in 9mm, I won't need one.
The Shield is likely a niche weapon for me, only useful in reduced capacity settings (one should never use a magazine reduced in capacity from its original design), and I am so rarely there I will probably suck it up and use a revolver. I'm going to guess they will be out in 9mm too. There have been serious user tests showing that split times with the .40 Shield are measurably worse (and not acceptable) than those with a 9mm (both using duty ammo), and unless it shows in 9mm, I won't need one.
Smitty357
Member
The only safety I use is the one between my ears. No need for a safety delete on any weapon. Without the safety feature on some weapons more ignorant people would be having accidents.
Lets not make them more accident prone than they already are. Due to the lack of a safety between their ears.
Lets not make them more accident prone than they already are. Due to the lack of a safety between their ears.
I suppose nobody noticed that the supposed "official announcement" shows a 5-digit SKU while other Shields (and all other S&W firearms) have 6-digit SKUs..
681ismyfavorite
Member
the Shield now has my attention!
