Shields ever made with a magazine safety ?

OldLawman · Dec 2, 2023

Had a question from a friend, who like me, has owned several Shields:

Has S&W ever cataloged a Shield (not the other M&P series) with a mag safety ? Neither friend nor I think it is a desirable feature; just wondering.

murphydog · Dec 2, 2023

Don't think so. I believe it was/is an option with the full size M & P line only.

ShallNotBeInfringed · Dec 2, 2023

I have never seen or heard-of an M&P with this feature either.

Since S&W don't import their handguns, they don't have to add a magazine-disconnect to a model just to gain points on the ridiculous importation points-system that importers must comply with.

For that reason, from what I have seen and read, it's usually the imports that have the magazine disconnects, loaded chamber indicators (unless in you're buying a gun CA), etc. Obviously there are US-made guns with magazine disconnects as well, but I've never seen an M&P with one (though I can't say it has never happened).

Marshal Tom · Dec 2, 2023

No and it is a bad idea! BHP's used to have that terrible feature and most people that I know of had it removed. I have a couple of them now and both have the mag. disconnector removed.

RMFnLA · Dec 2, 2023

Yes, the California compliant model is the 1.0 with a magazine safety as well as an obnoxious loaded chamber indicator.

FWIW, that model does not come with the “Caution-Capable of firing with magazine removed” warning stamped on the slide, which I guess is a small win.

kbm6893 · Dec 2, 2023

The California model had one. Personally, I think they’re great and would have bought one with that feature if I could have. Since the Shield Plus isn’t on the CA roster, the Plus was not made in that configuration.

OldLawman · Dec 2, 2023

Thanks for the responses. Makes sense that Cali would require it.
And like most posters, I find it not only a useless feature, but also a dangerous one for a gun intended for defense. None of mine, including my BHPs, have them.
Clearly even the FBI thought so, too. They had them removed from their BHPs, and the S&W autos they used.

kbm6893 · Dec 2, 2023

OldLawman said:
Thanks for the responses. Makes sense that Cali would require it.
And like most posters, I find it not only a useless feature, but also a dangerous one for a gun intended for defense. None of mine, including my BHPs, have them.
Clearly even the FBI thought so, too. They had them removed from their BHPs, and the S&W autos they used.

And yet MANY PD’s had them just for that reason and MANY lives saved during gun grabs. Been carrying guns for over 30 years, revolvers and semi auto’s. Never once had a mag come out.

OldLawman · Dec 3, 2023

Mag safety

Well pal, I've been a LEO instructor since 1981. Other than departments carrying S&Ws, there are no other makes that ever had them available in general use in the US.

Very little documented cases of a mag safety ever saving an officer's life.

Prove it with real, documented cases.

WR Moore · Dec 3, 2023

Some years back the magazine safety vs no mag safety came up on a chat board for LE firearms instructors. The post also asked if there were actually any saves. Within 24 hours we had over a dozen documented saves posted by the departmental instructors citing details.

I'm retired and no longer have access to the site so I can't cite cases other than that the ISP had 3 officers saved in the first couple years of their adoption of the S&W 39. Nice thing to have if you're in the process of losing a fight for possession of your service pistol.

Carried issue S&Ws with the device 1992-2015 without any issues. Still carry personally owned examples with the device.

kbm6893 · Dec 4, 2023

OldLawman said:
Well pal, I've been a LEO instructor since 1981. Other than departments carrying S&Ws, there are no other makes that ever had them available in general use in the US.

Very little documented cases of a mag safety ever saving an officer's life.

Prove it with real, documented cases.

I’ve seen a few dashboard videos of it happening. Believe it or don’t believe it. Doesn’t matter to me. I think they’re great.

But since you’re looking for some evidence, why don’t you provide me with ONE case where the mag disconnect caused an officer to be shot? I have no fantasies of doing a tactical reload in the middle of an already highly improbable self defense shooting and needing the one in the chamber in the second or two it takes me to get the mag in and get the gun back into action. Never once popped the mag by mistake, rendering the gun inoperable.

And I know that the Beretta Centurion at least had them and they were issued to some departments in Florida.

Saudade · Dec 4, 2023

kbm6893 said:
The California model had one. Personally, I think they’re great and would have bought one with that feature if I could have. Since the Shield Plus isn’t on the CA roster, the Plus was not made in that configuration.

Just FYI, due to the demise of microstamping, the Shield Plus and M&P 2.0 (full and compact) are now on roster.

M&P9 Shield Plus - 14031* | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

M&P9 M2.0 Compact - 14032* | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

M&P9 M2.0 - 14033* | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General

All of these have the CA compliant Chamber Load Indicator as well as the mag safety.

Many don't like these "features", but, at least we have more choices now (includes 320, 365, Hellcat/Hellcat Pro, Max-9 and a few others. More to come).

RMFnLA · Dec 7, 2023

The good news about the CA compliant loaded chamber indicator is it is easily fixed thanks to Apex.

Here’s how mine looks.

Shields ever made with a magazine safety ?

OldLawman

Member

murphydog

Moderator

ShallNotBeInfringed

Member

Marshal Tom

Member

RMFnLA

Member

kbm6893

SWCA Member

OldLawman

Member

kbm6893

SWCA Member

OldLawman

Member

WR Moore

Member

kbm6893

SWCA Member

Saudade

US Veteran

RMFnLA

Member

Attachments

Similar threads

Latest posts