6906 magazine disconnect disconnect?

[Pantera Mike]

All,

I believe a magazine disconnect that renders a firearm inert with the magazine removed is an abomination.

Is it possible to rectify the situation with the third generation guns, specifically the 6906?

 

[GaryS]

For the record I like the magazine safety. That said, here is a video on YouTube of how to disable the magazine safety. Also for the record this is not my video, because once again the magazine safety does not bother me at all. Also I don't care to debate the subject with anybody.

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTacMIpbbtw[/ame]

 

[stansdds]

Yes, it can be done, same as with the previous generations of the S&W metal receiver pistols.

 

[Sevens]

Also I don't care to debate the subject with anybody.

I love to debate the subject and this area of this site is the perfect place to do that.

I think it’s funny that someone who christens the mag disconnect safety an “abomination” would target a 6906 when there are a gujillion other handguns in the world without this feature, but we obviously don’t all see things the same way.

There’s two models that I have (five total pistols) where this feature drives me to drinking — my 52’s and 952’s. Because these target pistols do not employ a thumb decocker, there is no damn way to lower the hammer without a magazine. What makes these even more mystifying is that my 745’s, 845’s and 945’s and also my PPC-9 do not have the magazine disconnect.

WHY do these models not have the magazine disconnect?! Is it because they are target pistols and definitely not duty/service pistols? Hmmm… because that surely describes the 52 and 952.

Wacky, and does not make much sense. From my 52’s and 952’s I would definitely remove this feature EXCEPT that I will not do it because it requires removal of the rear sight. If it were simple parts tear down, I would do it.

 

[GerSan69]

I dunno.... I carried a 6906 and later a 3913 for work and used both for quarterly qualification. I never had occasion to have the feature "get in my way" (for lack of a better term.) The way we were trained was to never let the gun run dry - drop an empty mag after the last round is picked up into the chamber. (I'm a bit OCD, so counting my rounds down just came naturally. )I can't vouch for any of my coworkers, of course, but it was never a problem for me and I never tampered with it.

 

[chief38]

On CCW guns or SD guns I prefer a pistol not to have a magazine safety. If I need to fire a shot when performing a reload, I want that ability! If the magazine release is inadvertently pushed by a perp and the magazine drops, I still want the pistol to fire. On a target gun I don’t care either way as paper doesn’t shoot back.

 

[Brian Parrish]

How You Fight and Train

When it goes in the closet, you can leave a round in the snout, and store the mag somewheres else. Gun is safe this way. I learned this from our departed comrade 18DAI.

When somebody is wrestling with you to take your weapon you press the mag release and he cannot shoot you. Without the mag release you still hold the slide tightly so that when he does fire, it only fires one and jams. No, the front sight will NOT slice your hand on the recoil. Total myth. Where do people get such ideas? You must control the muzzle anyway. Weapon retention training is a thing and with the disconnect safety there are certain options. Some use it and some don't. Too big a subject for here.

I have a 6906 that was first used by the Florida Dept of Corrections. It is marked from the factory that it will fire with the mag disconnected.

Kind Regards,
BrianD

 

[oink]

If you're going to count on that one shot with the mag removed you better make sure it doesn't also cause a jam. Some guns that can fire without the mag, fail to properly eject when the mag is absent, resulting in causing a delay in getting that fresh mag running.

My only issue with the mag safety is that it does make cleaning and function checking a bit more problematic. I could give an example but it would also entail confessing to an episode of crazy stupid/dangerous gun handling I'm still embarrased by some 40+ years later. There were no witnesses so...

 

[GaryS]

I said I don't feel the need to debate the subject, but you certainly can feel free.

My only comment is that the combination of no magazine safety and having to pull the trigger makes Glocks totally dependent on the reliability of the owners to follow the proper sequence in field stripping to avoid a negligent discharge.

I know that S&W would remove it for agencies at the agencies request.

I love to debate the subject and this area of this site is the perfect place to do that.

I think it’s funny that someone who christens the mag disconnect safety an “abomination” would target a 6906 when there are a gujillion other handguns in the world without this feature, but we obviously don’t all see things the same way.

There’s two models that I have (five total pistols) where this feature drives me to drinking — my 52’s and 952’s. Because these target pistols do not employ a thumb decocker, there is no damn way to lower the hammer without a magazine. What makes these even more mystifying is that my 745’s, 845’s and 945’s and also my PPC-9 do not have the magazine disconnect.

WHY do these models not have the magazine disconnect?! Is it because they are target pistols and definitely not duty/service pistols? Hmmm… because that surely describes the 52 and 952.

Wacky, and does not make much sense. From my 52’s and 952’s I would definitely remove this feature EXCEPT that I will not do it because it requires removal of the rear sight. If it were simple parts tear down, I would do it.

 

[stansdds]

I'm not going to debate the merits of the magazine disconnect either. I will say that both sides make equally good arguments. I will say that I do not make significant modifications to a firearm that I may have to use in a self-defense situation.

 

[Borderboss]

All,

I believe a magazine disconnect that renders a firearm inert with the magazine removed is an abomination.

Is it possible to rectify the situation with the third generation guns, specifically the 6906?

Mike, the video that Gary posted is generally good, with the exception that the guy doesn't actually show the removal of the sight to get to the magazine disconnect spring and part to remove it.

I recently did this with my 5906. The hardest part can be actually getting the rear sight to move if it hasn't been moved since the factory. I needed some healthy doses of Kroil to get the sight unstuck from the slide.

Once that was done, remember that the sight comes off left-to-right and goes back on right-to-left. The spring and disconnector you want to remove is on the left side, so you don't actually have to remove the sight entirely, unless yours is one of the guns that has a metal plate holding the springs down. Mine didn't have that, so I only needed to move the sight far enough to release the left spring and the disconnect, and then I pushed the sight back into place.

I have a 469 that I carry that needs this treatment as well.

 

[Walter Rego]

If I recall, removing the mag disconnect on my Model 1006 entailed not only removing the rear sight assembly which was pretty easy as it has the adjustable "winged" sight, but also removing the slide mounted decocking lever assembly and firing pin. Once those parts were removed it was a simple task to remove the little nylon plunger and spring that made up the functioning parts of the mag safety. If I had to remove one of the Novak style rear sights to do it I'd probably think long and hard unless I had a sight pusher tool. (Which I do)

Personally I detest mag safeties although I see the arguments for both sides. At least in the case of the S&W automatics they don't adversely affect the trigger pull.

 

[67tempest]

The only handgun I own that had a magazine disconnect is my FM High Power clone. I had an issue with it that required me to pull the trigger and magazine disconnect out to diagnose. When I re-assembled it after figuring out the issue I just left the disconnect parts out. I never thought they were a great idea but I understand that others might have a different opinion.

 

[GaryS]

FYI, there is an in video link to a separate video showing how to remove the rear sight. Which is why he didn't show it.

Mike, the video that Gary posted is generally good, with the exception that the guy doesn't actually show the removal of the sight to get to the magazine disconnect spring and part to remove it.

I recently did this with my 5906. The hardest part can be actually getting the rear sight to move if it hasn't been moved since the factory. I needed some healthy doses of Kroil to get the sight unstuck from the slide.

Once that was done, remember that the sight comes off left-to-right and goes back on right-to-left. The spring and disconnector you want to remove is on the left side, so you don't actually have to remove the sight entirely, unless yours is one of the guns that has a metal plate holding the springs down. Mine didn't have that, so I only needed to move the sight far enough to release the left spring and the disconnect, and then I pushed the sight back into place.

I have a 469 that I carry that needs this treatment as well.

 

[kbm6893]

Mike, the video that Gary posted is generally good, with the exception that the guy doesn't actually show the removal of the sight to get to the magazine disconnect spring and part to remove it.

I recently did this with my 5906. The hardest part can be actually getting the rear sight to move if it hasn't been moved since the factory. I needed some healthy doses of Kroil to get the sight unstuck from the slide.

Once that was done, remember that the sight comes off left-to-right and goes back on right-to-left. The spring and disconnector you want to remove is on the left side, so you don't actually have to remove the sight entirely, unless yours is one of the guns that has a metal plate holding the springs down. Mine didn't have that, so I only needed to move the sight far enough to release the left spring and the disconnect, and then I pushed the sight back into place.

I have a 469 that I carry that needs this treatment as well.

I think those metal plates were only on 45 ACP models.

I have three NYPD S&W third gens, 2 5946's and a 3953 TSW with the early 7 round mags. The disconnect is removed on the 5946's and you can fire with the mag out. For some reason, the off duty 3953's kept the feature. Wonder why the requirements for duty and off duty were different?

I like mag disconnects.

 

[Frank Black]

I love to debate the subject and this area of this site is the perfect place to do that.

I think it’s funny that someone who christens the mag disconnect safety an “abomination” would target a 6906 when there are a gujillion other handguns in the world without this feature, but we obviously don’t all see things the same way.

There’s two models that I have (five total pistols) where this feature drives me to drinking — my 52’s and 952’s. Because these target pistols do not employ a thumb decocker, there is no damn way to lower the hammer without a magazine. What makes these even more mystifying is that my 745’s, 845’s and 945’s and also my PPC-9 do not have the magazine disconnect.

WHY do these models not have the magazine disconnect?! Is it because they are target pistols and definitely not duty/service pistols? Hmmm… because that surely describes the 52 and 952.

Wacky, and does not make much sense. From my 52’s and 952’s I would definitely remove this feature EXCEPT that I will not do it because it requires removal of the rear sight. If it were simple parts tear down, I would do it.

FBI-issued M1076s, and some local and state agencies that also issued the M1076, had the mag-disconnect feature removed at the factory. That requested modification resulted in S&W adding a warning to the left side of the slide on those guns that said: “pistol capable of firing with magazine removed.”

Back in the day, removal of the mag-disconnect feature on a 10mm 3rd Gen pistol issued to LEOs was considered a “tactical upgrade,” since during a gunfight you could still fire the chambered round while dumping one mag and reloading another.

My own 1076 that I carried for years, a former early 1990s L.E. gun out of a New Hampshire city PD (per Mr. Jinx’ historical letter), is set up exactly this way.

 

[Aukula1062]

I love 3rd gen Smith & Wesson autos. I own several. I believe that the magazine disconnect is an answer to a question no one asked. If the magazine disconnect was such a good idea, why didn't Smith & Wesson keep it for the P99, SW, SD or M&P series?

 

[rosewood]

I think those metal plates were only on 45 ACP models.

My 4013 and 4053 single stacks have the plate also. Seems like maybe the 1076 and 1006 do also. Maybe it is the large frame. No idea why some have and some don't. It does keep everything in place while installing the rear site and prevents you from pinching a spring.

Rosewood

 

[rosewood]

FBI-issued M1076s, and some local and state agencies that also issued the M1076, had the mag-disconnect feature removed at the factory. That requested modification resulted in S&W adding a warning to the left side of the slide on those guns that said: “pistol capable of firing with magazine removed.”

My 1076 doesn't even have the hole drilled on the slide. So it wasn't removed, it was never installed. It too has the warning on the slide.

Rosewood

 

[rosewood]

I love 3rd gen Smith & Wesson autos. I own several. I believe that the magazine disconnect is an answer to a question no one asked. If the magazine disconnect was such a good idea, why didn't Smith & Wesson keep it for the P99, SW, SD or M&P series?

I am on the fence on whether I like it or not, I see both sides of the argument.

Funny how folks that argue for it, never complain about all of the other guns that never had it. If it was such a useful feature, why don't modern guns have it?

Of all the handguns I own, the 3rd gens are the only ones that have the mag disconnect feature, and I own a bunch of different brands and models.

Rosewood