5906
- Thread starter Rship1
- Start date
Fix it if you can find the correct parts. Never advisable to bypass or remove a safety feature...
Trooper224
Member
More than a few law enforcement agencies requested the mag disconnect be disabled on the pistols they ordered, or sometimes had agency armorers do it upon receipt.
Claiming that disabling the feature constitutes a liability is overblown, but people love to parrot what they hear. Reinstall or not, it's largely up to you.
Claiming that disabling the feature constitutes a liability is overblown, but people love to parrot what they hear. Reinstall or not, it's largely up to you.
stansdds
Member
It's your pistol, do what you feel is best for you. Since you bought with the magazine disconnect removed, I cannot see any liability and I'm not sure that the removal of a magazine disconnect has ever been used in a trial.
Speaking only for myself, if I bought a new/used firearm with or without this kind of safety, and IF it functioned correctly in that state, I would leave it as is for a while. I would want to get comfortable using it, cleaning it, trying to get accurate with it, etc.
If in good working condition, I would not try to modify something new to me right away, because I would feel I was missing an opportunity to learn something about how it works the way I got it.
As far as safety in general goes, the most important "safety" is the operator, whether the equipment is a firearm, car, hand tool, machine tool etc (well, at least unless you like driver-less vehicles, lol)
If in good working condition, I would not try to modify something new to me right away, because I would feel I was missing an opportunity to learn something about how it works the way I got it.
As far as safety in general goes, the most important "safety" is the operator, whether the equipment is a firearm, car, hand tool, machine tool etc (well, at least unless you like driver-less vehicles, lol)
jimbo728
Member
I would always make anyone else that might handle the pistol aware that is does not have a magazine disconnect. Most S&W owners of that pistol vintage may assume is does, without knowing. Just an added measure of safety.
Jim
Jim
stansdds
Member
The worst part is that these little parts are under the rear sight. When drifting out the rear sight, it might be best if you can do so with the slide in a big, plastic bag so that springs and plungers do not get lost.
I'm not a big fan of the magazine disconnect safety but on a S&W that also has a manual decocker, I also don't mind that it is there. I have deeper opinions for a deeper discussion, but that is only barely related to the actual subject at hand.
If I were you, I would not reinstall it, my biggest motivating reason being that the rear sight needs to be drifted out and back in for this work. That is, to me, a HUGE reason to not do it.
For exactly the same reason, the more than two dozen S&W pistols I have that also have the magazine disconnect (which I don't care for) keep that original feature retained. If I could remove the plunger and spring without having to drift the rear sight, I would myself have removed this feature from at least a couple of my pistols.
But alas, I haven't.
If I were you, I would not reinstall it, my biggest motivating reason being that the rear sight needs to be drifted out and back in for this work. That is, to me, a HUGE reason to not do it.
For exactly the same reason, the more than two dozen S&W pistols I have that also have the magazine disconnect (which I don't care for) keep that original feature retained. If I could remove the plunger and spring without having to drift the rear sight, I would myself have removed this feature from at least a couple of my pistols.
But alas, I haven't.
Ohhhh Goodnesssss.
Are you wrong about that.
I have personally seen several cases in the Police use of firearms in which each and every aspect of the weapons safeties were examined and documented.
That is exactly why most police department allow for ZERO modifications to the pistols.
So, some say, "well that was only the Magazine safety, and that was not a cause of the discharge of the firearm".
All a jury hears is.... "The pistol was modified from it's original specifications" and was there for unsafe.
Last edited:
Ok, NOW I'm jealous... lol.
Haha, my collection is far from the big guys' collections around here. I shouldn't even have worded it that way, I'm definitely not trying to brag. It isn't a big deal to amass one or two examples of many of the HIGHLY produced models... doesn't cost much and when you do it over time, it isn't hard to do. Some would argue that it doesn't make a lot of good sense either. 
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,592
- Reaction score
- 3,418
- City & State/Province
- Southern FL, East side.
If it was still in I'd leave it in. However, I don't like them and believe they can actually increase the chance of an AD in some instances. I would not reinstall it.
Trooper224
Member
I'd be happy if it wasn't there, but I've never felt the need to remove one. Out of all the possible issues to be concerned about with a firearm, it's a nonstarter for me.
Trooper224
Member
Is it a fixed or adjustable sight?
kas9412
Member
I'm with Sevens on this one. I have attempted to drift sights in/out a few times, and it can be (but not always) an almost impossible task depending on the specific gun and what tools you have.
I'm in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it camp"!
KAS
I'm in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it camp"!
KAS
Trooper224
Member
Good, that makes removal a much less complicated prospect, if you decide to go that way.
Trooper224
Member
If it's never been disassembled the plate should be there.
With an adjustable sighted version, the sight has to be removed from the base. Two set screws securing the base to the slide have to be removed, then the base driven out. Some/many are pretty tight, so a wedge of some kind should be inserted into the base in place of the sight, so the base isn't bent upon removal. With a Novak, just loosen the set screw and drive it out. I haven't had a problem with the rear Novak being overly tight on any of these. On the other hand, the front sight is another matter.
Last edited:
I’ve said this before and I’m not saying it again in search of support for my opinions... but I share it with the idea that different models make for a different perspective.
On my Model 52 pistols there exists no manual decocker. This is fine, I started with revolvers and safely lowering a cocked hammer is a skill that I have and a skill that I’m sure all gun owners can develop.
But I cannot lower the 52’s hammer without a magazine. And on the night before a range day, I load up all the mags for all the pistols. At that point, if I rack the slide on my 52, I’ve got to insert a loaded magazine to lower that hammer.
That’s royally annoying, and THAT makes me want to remove it from my 52’s.
What?
What agency would remove a safety feature that was designed to prevent officers from being shot with they're own gun?
Asking for a friend....
Retired SoCal LEO!
What agency would remove a safety feature that was designed to prevent officers from being shot with they're own gun?
Asking for a friend....
Retired SoCal LEO!
Trooper224
Member
The disconnect was not originally intended as a feature for law enforcement. Most negligent discharges happen during administrative handling. That is, cleaning the gun, etc., wherein the user drops the mag but forgets to clear the chamber, while assuming the gun is "empty". The disconnect was intended to be a safe guard against stupid people doing stupid things. Law enforcement agencies siezed upon that as a security benefit in the case of an officers gun been taken away, but that wasn't the original intent.
Why would they want it removed? For the same reason some prefer a decock only mechanism instead of a decocker/safety combination, because of a perceived liability. The mag disconnect deadlines the trigger. It was felt by some that this could cause a negative outcome if an officer was confronted with further hostility while performing something like a tactical reload. If he needed to fire that one round in the chamber while the magazine was removed, he wouldn't be able to. At the time I thought it was something of a strawman argument to fill out gun rag pages. I really didn't see that fraction of a second where the trigger's dead as a defining moment. It seemed to me that an officer being threatened with his own gun was a much more likely scenario than having to fire off that single round to save ones life. But, some felt differently and specified its removal.
If you're wanting a list of agencies, well, I've slept a time or two since the 80s and I've had greater concerns between then and now. I was living in southern California during the 80s, so a few of those agencies were ones you might know.
Last edited:
