Mine does not. But right now, being brand new, the time away from it does not justify sending it in.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Striker blocks can fail...or should I say FP's can overcome a SB. So if you are relying on Internet physicists on the relevancy/redundancy of the drop safety, or the striker block alone...you might want to reconsider.

I guess I just don't understand your logic here. You said you just got the gun. I get that you're excited about having it. I too hate sending things back. But, it won't be gone long.

You also state that this malfunctioning gun is the only gun you have to carry. Did you trade another gun in to get this one? If you didn't, what did you do before you got this gun?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I'm sitting here waiting on Kimber to recall all the UC 1911's. So far Shield and XDS. The Kimber UC cant be too far behind, lol.

Yes I did. Thats part of why I am frustrated.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Guns are mechanical, so they're subject to failure and redesign. These issues are not isolated to S&W.

LOOK at what I just got:
"Springfield Armory® is initiating this voluntary safety recall to upgrade 3.3 XD-S™ 9mm and 3.3 XD-S™ .45ACP pistols with new components, which eliminate the possibility of a potentially dangerous condition. We want to emphasize that no injuries have been reported to date.

Springfield has determined that under exceptionally rare circumstances, some 3.3 XD-S™ 9mm and .45ACP caliber pistols could experience an unintended discharge during the loading process when the slide is released, or could experience a double-fire when the trigger is pulled once. The chance of these conditions existing is exceptionally rare, but if they happen, serious injury or death could occur."

What happened to all the shield cool aid drinkers that were calling the OP a probable rumor starting idiot?

Out returning the XDs they bought because they thought the Shield was the only one with an issue, lol.

Although they still did not RECALL the Shield. Its amazing how many people miss that part.

They're hunkering down with the XD-S Fanboys that were laughing at the Shield Safety Alert.

And of course... We've all (hopefully) figured out by now that it's NOT a Recall, as the OP reported... So Part Right/Part False (for those that want to split hairs and pick knits).

Edit to add... Smitty beat me to it by a few seconds.

I said it a few times, when my dealer called, he said it was a recall. I posted on here right after.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Some of the physics pontification up to this contribution was laughable for the obvious flaw in all of it: failure to identify that the acceleration in question occurs when the pistol hits something solid, not when it is dropped or thrown. Obviously your arm cannot exert 25g on a pistol to throw it, and obviously it won't experience 25g while accelerating in freefall. And just as obviously, these observations while correct are completely irrelevant.

It's apparent what's happened here: some posters who actually understand the simple physics involved assumed that everybody understood that the inertia safety is designed to prevent accidental discharge *when the gun stops*. Apparently, this is a bad assumption so a straightforward statement may clear up the issue:

The M&P Shield's inertia safety is present to prevent the trigger from discharging the gun by experiencing sufficient force due to deceleration if the gun hits something and decelerates rapidly.

The assertion that a pistol trigger can't experience 25g of acceleration when the gun collides with a hard surface after being dropped even from a height of one meter is laugh-out-loud ridiculous. This strikes me as the guy at the local car show who is sure that if he just keeps adding gears to his car, he could drive 250 MPH. Or the guy who knows that if you just put wind turbines all around a car, you could capture all the energy of the car's motion and put it back into the car so that it wouldn't burn any gas once it's up to speed. Or (and this one is one of my favorites) the guy who positively knows that covering an airliner with solar cells would greatly reduce the amount of fuel consumed by the airliner.

Thankfully somebody making some basic assumptions showed just how ridiculous is the notion that the trigger can't ever see that kind of acceleration.

I'll be checking my new-to-me Shield when I get home. Despite the errant pontifications in this thread, I want to be sure my gun will not fire when dropped because the physics say it can happen.

Thank you for that BuckeyeChuck.

It is never my intention to put someone down, though it may seem that way at times. There is a reason there are so few physicists in this world; physics isn't simple. The formulas are deceptively simple looking. Alas, while E=mc^2 looks simple, the logic, reasoning and application of it is not.

I tend to get trapped in some of these discussions. Like the fact that Centrifugal force is imaginary and doesn't exist. There are those who will argue until they pass out that it's real because they can feel it. When in fact, what they are really feeling is Centripetal force which is the force pushing in rather than out.

I understand why we think this way. As we turn in a corner we feel like something is pushing out so, it makes sense that centrifugal force is what we believe. Unfortunately, the math doesn't support it.

It's the same with things like G forces. It's difficult to accept that something as simple as dropping a gun can create numbers as high as 1,500g's; even if you see the math. Those numbers seem gigantic if you're not used to working with them.

My goal, as always, is education. We all become better as we grow in understanding. It is my hope that people make decisions based on reality rather than myth. That's all I'm going for and I apologize if I came across wrong.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I found nothing wrong with your explanation or that of your friend. We should be thankful that engineers spend multiple courses in college learning how to understand, calculate, and harness forces; without this detailed understanding, the machines in our lives would be less effective, less safe, and more expensive. We should also be happy that for some engineers, their learning merely starts in college and that they see situations they encounter in real lfe as a chance to enhance their knowledge.

Regarding the existence and nature of centripetal and centrifugal force, frame of reference is very important. When you're in a turning car, there are clearly TWO forces at work: the force the turning car applies to you, and the force you apply to the turning car. They are equal and opposite, which is why there is no relative motion between you and the car. These forces are not imaginary so the math must support their existence, and it does. Frame of reference helps us understand how the math applies to this reality.

Oh, I forgot to say... my Shield 9 does not have the issue referenced by this safety alert. The gun was manufactured in 2013.

so why don't revolvers have fancy triggers?

Still not buying the deceleration explanation. The only way the trigger is pulled is if it doesn't decelerate that fast, as in it keeps moving against the suddenly stopped frame. The only way it generates the astronomical G's you guys are reporting is if it comes to a sudden stop right along with the frame..... in which case there's still not a problem because the trigger didn't pull.

and given the calculations above, wouldn't the bottom half of the trigger also be subject to the same uber G force and just rotate the safety notch right out of the way?

also, why don't revolvers have fancy triggers?

and what did kahr say when you called and told them how stupid they are? haven't gotten the recall notice on my p380 yet...?

just read back through it again.... your 1500g calculation has the trigger with a final velocity of a big fat zero to get to that conclusion.... If the trigger is moving at a velocity of nothing, we're good here.....

Look, it's not the final velocity that makes it so, it's the change in velocity over a short period of time and distance. You can't look at one number and come up with the answer. You have to look at is as a whole.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

correct, but the acceleration calculations you posted with an astronomical value assume an instantaneous change and a trigger pull of 1 mm, which is not reality. the bottom line is something so light that would have to decelerate over a distance and time that is not zero would never produce enough force to overcome the trigger pull weight.

still curious why revolvers don't have these things.

I'm truly sorry that you don't understand this motomed. I'll try again.

The 1mm is for the frame. It's an assumed amout that the frame will distort as it impacts a hard surface. Obviously the trigger would continue to move, once the frame stops, if it didn't have the trigger safety.

I would explain the revolver thing to you, but it's clear you're not here to learn.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Seems like people no longer question the job of seat belts, but they do still question the function of a trigger safety in Striker Fire pistols. (I know... a VERY loose example of how they both relate to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion)
While trigger safeties vary from Brand to Brand, Glock, XD, S&W, Ruger's Striker Fire pistols... pretty much everyone who makes Striker Fire pistols uses 'em. If they didn't serve a purpose, I doubt if any of them would bother to incorporate them into the systems. Are they ALL wrong and simply messing with us??
Just my thoughts on it.

keep trying.... 1mm in the calculations you provided represent the total distance over which the deceleration occurs, and this is not accurate for our purposes.... we are interested in that distance PLUS, more importantly, the distance over which the deceleration of the trigger occurs.... aka.... the length of the trigger pull before it breaks....

if the inertia of the trigger is what the trigger safety is designed to protect against, the type of action would be irrelevant. Why don't revolver triggers have this problem with trigger inertia when dropped?

My disclaimer is that I've never disassembled a pistol beyond what is required for cleaning per the manual.

Early calculations by someone assumed 100 g for the "trigger and trigger bar assembly." Do they move in the same direction? When we look at the effects of inertia on the "trigger," should it be only the piece of plastic the finger pulls or that and the trigger bar?

If it is only that piece of plastic, what is its mass? A few grams? If so, the huge acceleration values don't translate into huge forces.

The base units of F=ma are Newtons, kilograms, and m/s^2. If you crunch the numbers on the plastic trigger where it has a mass of 1-5 grams, that is 0.001-0.005 kg.

The ~14,500 m/s^2 acceleration (~1,500 g's) from the conservation of energy equation looked fine to me. The post that explained it took me down memory lane! Anyway...

F=m x a
F= 0.005 g x 14,500 m/s^2 = 72.5 N.
(1 lb = 4.448 N)

Force due to inertia on a 5 gram trigger is 72.5 N or 16.3 lbs. The trigger may have less mass than 5 grams.

The statement elsewhere about forces being vectors was an excellent point. The direction must line up exactly for 100% of the force to be realized.

Don't forget my disclaimer above! The trigger bar mass may need to be included, but I suspect vectors are required if you must take it into effect.

As I've stated before, I know S&W did not design this safety for no reason, but I don't think it's as likely to be needed as the huge (though correct) number of "1,500 g's" implies.

There is something else that could be behind the need of the safety: "safety factors." By applying an engineering SF of 2.0 (or whatever) in their design, S&W may have then said, "Yeah, we need to include an inertia safety on the trigger."

Though there is a lot of disagreement here, there is some good thinking coming from all sides. Motomed makes a good point. The acceleration of 1,500 g's is or is nearly instantaneous. The trigger is not going to reach the break over point instantly.

Many thanks to Rastoff's friend's input, too. And the poster that mentioned in vectors.

Not quite... The action of a true DAO revolver trigger and the action of Striker Fire pistol are apples and oranges (or Apples and PCs).
While some manufacturers advertise their Striker Fire system as being DAO, they are all much closer to being a SA trigger than that of a revolver.

Compare these two visual examples. If a picture is worth 1000 words, then the 2 links below speak volumes:
Glock Pistol Animation
Modern Revolver Animation
Unfortunately, the Glock 'Safe Action' illustration is the only Striker Fire example they show, but it's pretty close to the M&P system.

Inertia Trigger is not concerned with any of this, and is only concerned with how much force it needs to generate to go bang. a revolver with a 6lb trigger pull of x length would be just as susceptible to inertia drop trigger as a striker fire pistol with a 6lb trigger pull of x length. what mechanisms generate that force or resistance is irrelevant to Inertia Trigger.

My 12 year old daughter can't pull back a double action trigger on a revolver. You could drop it from the moon and that 100 lb trigger isn't going anywhere upon impact.

Russ

This thread has deteriorated from a gun related issue into one dealing with physics. Thought I might find new info on the safety alert, but it just ended up making my head hurt with facts and figures. Hell, it's hard enough for this boy to make change, much less understand all those theorems.

__________________
MARK

I'm glad they described the issue well and explained how to test your trigger. I tested mine as soon as I read the announcement on their website.

The only gripe I have about the Safety Alert, is that they didn't email those who registered their pistols and supplied them with an email address. Since most of us don't visit the S&W site daily, we basically had to find out via the Forums.

Other than that... Very well presented description of the problem and how to test ours. Pretty Good Job, over-all.

My Shield trigger is working properly, per SA Website directions.

However, my XDs45 S# is on the recall roster.

__________________
Shield40&9C w/ApexDCAEK/TFO's

Agreed.....

Wow, I leave for a week and a thread turns to physics!!! Yea!! I like physics!!

I will go back and read the posts, sounds exciting with vectors and g-forces, and even centrifugal force being tossed under the bus. I remember a class that discounted centrifugal force back in high school. By the time college rolled around it was a given that no such thing existed. I never had the heart to tell my centrifuges that they were mis-named.

Anyway, my three Shields all pass the test. One was built in 2012, and the others in 2013.

My question in light of the physics being discussed, and maybe this has been covered:

Is the trigger evaluation a good enough indication of function? Is there more inside that may be wrong?

.

__________________
Kirk / Spock 2020

Couldn't agree more.

[QUOTE=fallhunter;137407415]Yes I did. Thats part of why I am frustrated.


As did I. Sold my 442 .38 on a Wednesday and bought my Shield that Saturday. I do have a full size M&P9 which I have been trying to wear a bit more to hold me off till my Shield comes back.

BTW, anyone that's sending theirs in for service. Have you received your return label for FedEx yet?

You'd think if it was a super important safety alert they'd go ahead and overnight the return labels and get on this quick. It's been 10 days and I haven't received anything.

I have one made in February check the trigger and it works fine their is an recall notice on S&W web site with information on how to check the trigger with a video also

The short answer is no. At least not as far as dropping the gun in concerned. If the trigger safety is working properly, it won't allow any of the internal trigger parts to move.

Let's look at the total safety system:
If the gun lands in the proper attitude to allow the sear to fall on its own, that would be with force toward the grip, the striker block will stay in place and stop the striker from hitting the primer.

If the gun lands in the proper attitude to disable the striker block, towards the slide, then the sear will stay in place and not allow the striker to hit the primer.

If the gun lands on the muzzle, both the sear and striker block will stay in place thus keeping the striker from hitting the primer.

This is a very safe gun.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Not sure if this has been posted yet. It is from S&W and details the potential problem and how to check for it:
https://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...ampaign=Buffer

Now that we've lived through almost 300 hand-ringing posts over: The Shield recall/safety alert was obviously started by a troll; the word play of recall vs safety alert; and a physics lessons on the inertia of plastic, here is my take...

There is a S&W RECALL over the plastic tab on the trigger?? I filed mine off months ago thinking it was excess plastic left over from manufacturing!

The rumor (read: my rumor) is S&W will install a magazine safety on any returned Shields. Either that, or they will install Apex trigger parts... I don't "recall" which option I heard they were going to perform.

Now reality... Take the 30 seconds and check your Shields. Most will be good and those that aren't can easily be sent back for a quick turn-around. For those Shields which check out "good", get out and shoot them! Case closed.

Edmo

__________________
TRUTH: Don't delete my posts!

I actually found out through a local dun dealer, who belongs to our gun club. He posted it on a Yahoo group. Geez, they certainly collect enough information when you buy a gun, you'd think they could actually use for the gun owner's benefit in times like this.

Just like insurance... Everyone wants you to buy through them... Nobody wants to pay out when you have a claim.

Bump...
Has anyone who sent their Shield in, due to the Safety Alert, gotten theirs back yet?
If so, when did you send it in and when did you get it back (turn-around time)?
Thanks!

They received mine on 9-6. When I called on 9-3 they told me 5-7 business days to fix. When I called last Friday 9-13 they said its now 7-10 business days. Maybe next week it will be 10-13 days.
The part I have a hard time with is that they keep telling me that the tracking number used to ship will be reused when they return the firearm.
I didn't think you could use the same label and tracking number. This is information I am getting from S&W.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

betoesca:

UPS (or is it FedEx?) DOES reuse tracking numbers, but not for a while. IMHO, it'd be a little insane for S&W to reuse any numbers that they assign in less than six months (or longer).

Regards,

__________________
Stu.

I agree. What good does it do to send in a warranty card with your contact information if S&W doesn't mail out the Safety Alert? I have a neighbor who has 2 Shields and no computer. The only way he learned about the notice was from me...both of his passed. S&W needs to improve their customer support because not everyone is computer savvy or visits gun forums.

I had it shipped 9/3 and it arrived at S&W on 9/5. I got it back on 9/13.

FedEx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Did they use the same tracking number?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

No, it was different.

I was told the very same thing.

__________________
NRA, SWCA #2262

I got my Shield back today. As Storm40 stated they do not use the same tracking number.
I shipped it on 9/3 they received it on 9/6 and I got it today on 9/18. That's 8 business days.
I called the number for the Shield recall earlier today and let them know they don't reuse tracking numbers and the girl told me to call the same number I had just dialed. I don't even think they are anywhere near S&W. But I did call 1-800-331-0852. I told the operator I wanted to return a weapon and the next person I spoke to looked up my gun using the serial number and told me it would deliver today.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2