Shield Thumb Safety Version Is Now A Studebaker

[mustangman]

Its good to have a choice. I think first time owners of a gun this type may feel a little more comfortable with the safety, I know I did. Its so easy to use, and unobtrusive that I don't even think about it.

 

[Smitty357]

Now if only colt would take that stupid TS off of all their defender series 1911s. LMAO.

Just playing, we all know colt built them right to start with. Many years later, we notice they are still built with the TS. Thats likely because they refuse to fix what isnt broken.

 

[Well Armed]

Thumb Safety/no thumb safety. Magazine safety/no magazine safety. Rail/no rail. Button mag release in "American" position/paddle type Walther/HK release. Decock only/safety and decocker. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I notice that there are quite a large number of people who "always have a reason NOT to buy something," and when that is "fixed," then there is still another reason. The target is always moving for gun companies.

The fact is that the West German Police trials of the mid-1970s said, "no manual safety like we had on our Walther PPs and PPKs" and SIG made its P6 (P225), Walther its P5, and HK its P7. DA revolvers for the most part, save the strange French models made by S&W, have simply NEVER had thumb safeties, instead having internal, automatic safeties making them safe if dropped. Otherwise, pull the trigger and it fires. Lesson: Don't pull the trigger if you don't intend to fire the weapon.

Thumb safeties are redundant on the DAO type of semi-auto. That said, they make some people feel better, so having the option is nice. To be honest, I have had more trouble with the button type of "American" magazine release being accidentally activated in a pocket carry scenario than I have with unobtrusive thumb safeties accidentally going into the "safe" position." By unobtrusive, I am referring to the type on the Shield and the Ruger LC9. There are perhaps others that qualify as unobtrusive.

I am glad to have choices.

I wish we had as many choices with respect to internal locks on revolvers.

I'm sure all the people who accidentally shot themselves felt better about not having a safety too... There's nothing redundant about it. A safety isn't only for drop protection, it's for accidental discharge from accidentally pulling the trigger protection which happens hundreds of times a year.

Also, cars didn't have air bags 44 years ago either, so just because some people got by w/o them 44 years ago should be all the proof we need that cars are better off w/o them today because a seat beat is all that's needed and air bags are just redundant?

 

[N4KVE]

It's sad, but in today's day & age, any laptop, smart phone, or digital camera becomes a Studebaker after 3 weeks. This may be a stupid question, but is it possible to remove the safety, & just plug the hole? Looks like the factory did that on my 40c. GARY

 

[Smitty357]

Mines only 47 years old. No air bags at all and no seat belts in the rear. Oh and no shoulder strap on the seat belts up front.

I like my guns like I do my cars. U won't see me trading my old one for a new one lol. Even if it's the first of this model ever made.

 

[pedxing]

I've been a Glock guy for years so I'm used to and comfortable with autos lacking a manual safety.
I bought the 9mm Shield because I love the size, balance and thinness of it. The fact it has a safety bothers me not one whit: I simply don't engage it ... except when I holster it. An added level of safety.
Snick. Safety on as it slides into the holster.
Snick. Safety off as soon as it's set.
I've never had the safety accidentally engage. It's low profile and has a solid detent.
So to me the safety is a total non-issue. I think it's great Smith is offering it without now because I like having choices for the consumer. But with or without the manual safety, I would have bought the Shield anyway simply because it's a terrific concealable handgun that's proven to be reliable, accurate and a fantastic value.

This. Reholstering is the perfect time to engage the safety. I'd add though if the gun has a safety always train by sweeping it off.

So even though it can be argued that since there are millions of glocks in service there will be statistically more ADs with them.... It's still called glock leg for a reason...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Protected One]

This may be a stupid question, but is it possible to remove the safety, & just plug the hole? Looks like the factory did that on my 40c. GARY

Sure, it's possible to do, but why bother??? If someone doesn't like the safety just leave the darn thing alone (off). What's so hard about that?
I have the thumb safety on my shield and it is rarely used but the fact that its there doesn't bother me one bit!

 

[Dirtman]

I'll never understand people that say they love 1911's but hate the thumb safety. I personally like having a thumb safety it gives me the option of using it or not! So why not have it?

 

[Jim NNN]

Actually, a Studebaker in good condition is worth a lot of money.

Exactly. I'd love to have this one:



http://www.vaultcars.com/wp-content/uploads/63Avanti4Speed-0022.jpg

 

[AZ_M&P]

I would like to kindly suggest that whether the safety is on or off, you carry the same way all the time. In a time of need, you may not recall if you are "on" or "off" that day, which could lead you to assume the horizontal position - permanently.

Amen. I alternate between a .9mm Shield and a .40 S&W as my EDC (depending on clothing) with a Sig P238 as a BUG. Both the Shield and the SIG have safeties that I NEVER engage. My first gun was a 9c with no safety that totally freaked me out at first because I was raised to always look for the safety on any gun. After awhile I learned that at long as the "booger hook stayed away from the bang stick" life was good.

I've taken a few tactical courses, and every instructor, including the ones that taught my CCW, are in favor of no safety simply because it's one more thing to slow you down in a rapidly evolving situation (think Tueller Drill). The safety on my Shield is particularly stubborn and I can't release it with my carry hand thumb, so I have to reach over with my left hand to disengage it. When seconds count, I'd rather be concentrating on my front sight on the bad guy's chest than getting that safety disengaged.

At the end of the day, whatever you're comfortable with is the right choice for you. My GF carries a SIG also, and for a long time she wouldn't even carry with one in the pipe. Her CCW course changed that perspective, but her safety is always engaged.

 

[RacinbobSW]

So, it's quicker to cock the hammer on the 238 than disengage a safety? Interesting. The bottom line, since this poor horse just keeps getting beat, is that there one sure fire (pun intended) way to resolve the problem.....training. Whatever firearm you use for carry if every function on it isn't second nature to you then you need more training and practice. If disengaging a safety slows things down for you, again, you need more training and practice.

 

[AZ_M&P]

So, it's quicker to cock the hammer on the 238 than disengage a safety? Interesting. The bottom line, since this poor horse just keeps getting beat, is that there one sure fire (pun intended) way to resolve the problem.....training. Whatever firearm you use for carry if every function on it isn't second nature to you then you need more training and practice. If disengaging a safety slows things down for you, again, you need more training and practice.

It's quicker to pull the trigger than it is to disengage a safety then pull the trigger, wouldn't you agree?

As I said earlier, the Sig is a BUG for me - ankle carried, safety on, because it's not my primary weapon. If I have to reach my ankle I'm already in a compromised position, and I've learned to expect a safety on anything strapped to my ankle.

 

[Smitty357]

It's quicker to pull the trigger than it is to disengage a safety then pull the trigger, wouldn't you agree?

As I said earlier, the Sig is a BUG for me - ankle carried, safety on, because it's not my primary weapon. If I have to reach my ankle I'm already in a compromised position, and I've learned to expect a safety on anything strapped to my ankle.

6 one way and a half dozen the other. To the ones who train well. We can switch off the safety and engage quicker than others can even get their weapons out. So I wouldn't say that pulling the trigger is necessarily easier.

Panic is going to be the true determining factor. And neither u nor I can give the answer. Some will panic and their brain will shut down then all hope goes out the window. Some will panic and instinctively go into defense mode. In the end it will depend on the person and their training more than it will actually depend on the weapon they carry.......I mean after all, what's a .45 going to do that a 9mm can't do if u can't properly and quickly engage the target with the .45

 

[RacinbobSW]

Well put Smitty. The safety is easily disengaged prior to being on target if the training/practice is there and panic doesn't set in. The better trained a person is the less the likelihood of panic. Personally, I'm indifferent about a manual safety. To each their own and I applaud companies that make a given model with and without. One thing I would NEVER do is tell my students that a safety is a bad thing.

 

[Stratajema]

...When seconds count, I'd rather be concentrating on my front sight on the bad guy's chest than getting that safety disengaged...

Okay. But how would the safety get engaged in the first place if you carry it with the safety disengaged?

For some people, the Shield's safety can be engaged before holstering and disengaged after that process has been completed. Is that a problem? Or should I list all the trained cops who have discharged their Glock while holstering it?

The safety can also be engaged before clearing a round from the chamber. Why? Because some people struggle with retracting the slide on the Shield and I have seen them accidentally curl their trigger finger inward during the process. Ah, the real world.

 

[LVSteve]

I handled and dry fired a Shield recently. I cannot imagine carrying one with the safety OFF let alone a model with no TS at all. The trigger was way too good and could easily be fumble-fired IMHO. Yes, I know all about training and muscle memory, but I also have great respect for that guy Murphy.

 

[Well Armed]

Okay. But how would the safety get engaged in the first place if you carry it with the safety disengaged?

For some people, the Shield's safety can be engaged before holstering and disengaged after that process has been completed. Is that a problem? Or should I list all the trained cops who have discharged their Glock while holstering it?

The safety can also be engaged before clearing a round from the chamber. Why? Because some people struggle with retracting the slide on the Shield and I have seen them accidentally curl their trigger finger inward during the process. Ah, the real world.

Exactly.. According to the cdc, in 2011 there were 591 unintentional firearm related accidental deaths. In 2012, there were 17,362 unintentional firearm related accidental injuries. These are real world facts. How hard is it to disengage the safety while in the motion of bring the firearm up and away from your person? I asked the anti-safety folks time and time again, but they refuse to answer...

There have been multiple document cases of accidental shootings. There are hundreds of unintentional accidental deaths and thousands of accidental injuries EACH AND EVERY YEAR. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE POINT ME TO JUST 1 OR 2 CASES OR RELIABLE STATISTICS THAT WILL CORROBORATE THE FICTIONAL FAIRY TAIL WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED BECAUSE THEY FORGOT TO DISENGAGE THEIR GUN SAFETY? Anybody?

NEXT, CAN ANYONE POINT ME TO JUST ONE OR 2 REPORTS WHERE SOMEONE ACCIDENTALLY SHOT THEMSELVES WHILE USING A FIREARM WITH THE SAFETY ENGAGED?

Cop accidentally shoots himself - YouTube

Guy Accidentally Shoots Himself - YouTube

Plaxico Burress Shoots Himself Accidentally

Police Chief Accidentally Shoots Himself At Gun Shop, Blames Fleece Jacket

 

[Stratajema]

>>NEXT, CAN ANYONE POINT ME TO JUST ONE OR 2 REPORTS WHERE SOMEONE ACCIDENTALLY SHOT THEMSELVES WHILE USING A FIREARM WITH THE SAFETY ENGAGED?<<

I understand your point Well Armed. But truth be told, people have been shot or guns have fired when the safety was disengaged. These instances were due to design errors. One example of injury involves the Walker trigger on Remington 700 rifles. A non-injury example is the previously recalled Walther PPK manufactured (and stupidly modified for production) by Smith and Wesson.

If a gun owner can remember only one (simplified) rule, it should be to always point a gun in a safe direction. Even this rule is not enough to prevent injury (e.g. hearing damage, ricochet injury) but it will save lives.

 

[Well Armed]

>>NEXT, CAN ANYONE POINT ME TO JUST ONE OR 2 REPORTS WHERE SOMEONE ACCIDENTALLY SHOT THEMSELVES WHILE USING A FIREARM WITH THE SAFETY ENGAGED?<<

I understand your point Well Armed. But truth be told, people have been shot or guns have fired when the safety was disengaged. These instances were due to design errors. One example of injury involves the Walker trigger on Remington 700 rifles. A non-injury example is the previously recalled Walther PPK manufactured (and stupidly modified for production) by Smith and Wesson.

So basically the 2 instances you just describe happened when the gun did not have a functional engaged safety?

 

[TexasG]

Actually, a Studebaker in good condition is worth a lot of money.

Yeah, why would anybody choose a Studebaker as an example of a bad thing? Some of the best hot rods on the planet, started as a Studebaker...