Carrying with safety off

[Practical]

As long as you have holster that covers the trigger it should be as safe as ones without the safety.

However, I would NOT carry a shield without a holster period.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

As long as you have holster that covers the trigger it should be as safe as ones without the safety.

However, I would NOT carry a shield without a holster period.

Why not? On safe and in a pocket what could go wrong?

 

[BigDog48]

None of my concealed carry handguns have a safety. In a tense situation it is one more thing to remember. Carrying yours with the safety off is the same, functionally — draw and fire.

 

[Jaysq]

I also have the Shield 9mm with a safety. I use the safety to holster and when it is securely holstered, I flip it off and carry it that way. Holstering is one of the most likely times for a ND. I also use the safety if I am just handling the gun.

 

[sipowicz]

If I were a 1st time CCW person, I would go with a revolver or a double action auto. I carry an M&P 9 on duty and for me it's fine in a duty holster. But when I strap a gun on in civvies, I prefer a gun with a hammer. Something about knowing the cylinder needs to turn or the hammer on the auto has to come all the way back gives me more peace of mind than a striker fired gun.

 

[richbuff]

1. Single action 1911 with the hammer cocked- Safety is needed, because the firearm can be discharged by applying to the trigger a very small force over a very small distance.

2. Double action revolver with the hammer not cocked- No safety is needed, because the firearm can not be fired by applying to the trigger a very small force over a very small distance.

3. Striker fired semi auto- Same determining criteria as above.

Other determining criteria- a) If I have an overriding large concern that a perp can grab my firearm, or that I could have a negligent discharge, add a safety to the revolver and add an additional cascading safety to the single action 1911, and add a safety to the striker fired semi auto.

b) If I have an overriding large concern that the safety could impede a need to immediately discharge my firearm, then no safety on the firearm.

If my other criteria a) and b) are about equal and cancel each other out, I see 1., 2., and 3. above.

 

[AlHunt]

If the internals are the same between the safety and no safety versions, I'd see no reason a person couldn't carry with the safety off.

Key to the decision is knowing how the action functions on that firearm (which I personally don't have a clue).

I'm confident with a no-safety Glock IWB because I know the striker is only partially cocked AND has a striker block until the trigger is pulled.

 

[kbm6893]

I wouldn't carry a striker fired weapon if it didn't have a safety. 5 pound trigger and no hammer to rest my thumb on as I holster? No thanks. DAO hammer fired is acceptable. I have a Shield and a Ruger LC9S with safeties. Shoot them often. Draw and disengage is totally automatic. Five minutes a night drawing and flicking off.

 

[Deadeye Dick]

It all comes down to training and muscle memory. There is no disadvantage to a thumb safety IF you put in the time to properly train with the weapon. And no one would argue that a thumb safety could possibly save you from having an unfortunate accident, or might save your bacon should a BG somehow get your gun away from you and try to use it on you.

But to answer the OPs original question - A safety equipped Shield with the safety off is essentially the same as a non-safety equipped Shield.

Now for the disclaimer. None of my carry weapons have thumb safeties.

 

[Hunter8282]

One afternoon I lost my 5906 in a scuffle with a robbery suspect. By the grace of God, he did not know how to release the safety. I've been retired 13 years and I still like pistols with safeties.

Most civilian CCers wouldn't proactively confront a robbery suspect as part of their sworn duty. I know I would not.

So a persons profession can have impact on what they carry.

 

[lonestar outlaw]

At my range there are a lot of people that doesn't have saftys on their hand guns
There is also a lot that have them as well
Most of experienced folks are more comfortable carrying safty off or none at all
So I suppose its up to the individual
I carry my edc cocked and safty off because I prefer that
Maybe a newbie thinking of buying a handgun might tend to think a safty is a bad choice and could up
buying one without a safty and be injured or worse be killed or kill someone else due to all the negative
comments about saftys
Just my thoughts and I mean no offense to anyone preferring no safty

 

[Mountain Walker]

Thanks everyone. I just wanted to make sure that there was not any additional internal safe-guards on the model without a safety that are not on the one with a safety. I don't want to have to worry about taking the time to flip the safety off in what would already be a tremendously stressful situation.

Good question to start the thread off. My training was a Gunsite Academy, when Jeff Cooper was one of the instructors. They taught use of the 1911 Government pistol, cocked and locked. With training you can draw, present and shoot just as fast using the manual thumb safety as no thumb safety. During the draw, the thumb safety is flicked off as sights come on target(not before). Let's be realistic. Friend here in town recently retired with 26 years as a police officer. He had to go to a lot of high crime areas during that time but only had one shooting in 26 years.The actual likelihood for you to use your CCW is remote. What is not remote is a mistake during daily handling resulting in an accidental discharge. Yes, your finger is your safety and your safety is in your brain but slip ups do happen. The thumb safety is one more step before discharge and it is a good idea. However, you should always use the best safety techniques and never expect a safety to keep you safe.

 

[Jacksinthe]

I always assumed the Shield safeties were passive due to being flat and fairly stiff so you don't accidentally tick it on.

 

[mrchuck]

I love the remote safety on my Smith&Wesson model 60 .357 caliber revolver.
The safety is located in my brain.

 

[feelinlucky]

I have a lifelong habit of reflexively swiping the safety on, whether the handgun is equipped with a safety or not. It seems that I don't have such a reliable habit of swiping it off when I'm preparing to fire. I can't count the times at the range when I have drawn, aimed, and pulled the trigger, and nothing happened... because the safety was still on. I don't even want to think about encountering that in a life or death self defense situation.

I have finally adjusted to the fact that on a modern striker-fired DAO handgun, strict trigger discipline is the best safety, and if the mechanical safety is not there, I can't disable the gun by inadvertently using it.

 

[fdw]

I have a safety on my 45 shield because that was the only one the LGS had. I never use it so I'd say there's no difference.

 

[Old cop]

There's a reason that police do not carry a weapon w/a safety, and w/a round chambered.

 

[crracer_712]

As others, I bought the first shield 9 with safety. I don't generally buy pistols with a safety, but the shield 9 safety seemed so unobtrusive compared to all the other M&P pistols that I thought it'd be ok, and it certainly is.

 

[Dave270]

When the SHTF, you will automatically do what you have been trained to do.. Those of you that are too lazy to practice with releasing a safety as you draw your weapon, will probably do better to buy a weapon without a safety.. Those who have used and trained with safeties on their weapons, and who regularly train with releasing the safety as you draw your weapon, the safety is just another feature that will help prevent A.D's and will give you a fraction of a second additional time, if you are in a struggle with someone for your weapon.. I have three Shield's, two 1911 model .45's and several .22 semi-auto's and they all have safeties.. I love safeties and use them.....

JMHO

Dave

 

[wjs81866]

None of my handguns have safeties.

 

[shotguntom]

My 9MM shield has no manual safety, my 45 Shield does. I actually wish they both did. Im still not completely comfortable with striker fired pistols.
I do like to switch the safety on when reholstering, then off when done. Its a habit I have developed.

 

[Rastoff]

I do like to switch the safety on when reholstering, then off when done. Its a habit I have developed.

I don't think this is a bad habit.

 

[OttoLoader]

If any of my handguns have a safety then I use it.

 

[oldiesradio1560]

In my other posts I've been a revolver guy since the 70's. My 2 week old .380 Shield EZ which I love because somebody finally came out with an auto that acts like a revolver. Point and shoot. I brought the No manual safety model because I feel the grip safety is enough. I've been carrying her racked and ready to go.

 

[cmj8591]

One afternoon I lost my 5906 in a scuffle with a robbery suspect. By the grace of God, he did not know how to release the safety. I've been retired 13 years and I still like pistols with safeties.

If you look back to the 60's and 70's when Smith was trying to get police agencies to buy their semi auto 9's, the retention issue was one of their biggest selling points. The problem was that those agencies didn't want to take the time to properly train with the safety/decock so they just did away with using the safety as a safety. That's how we ended up with so many DAO, decock, ect., ect., platforms. All in a search to have a gun that performed like a revolver but was easy to reload and held more bullets. The striker fired things that we are using now are really just a compromise of this doctrine. The point is if you want to carry with a safety engaged, then go for it. It really isn't slower to have to disengage a safety when drawing the gun. What you do need to do is stick with your decision and practice with the gun in the condition it is carried. The problem comes when you go back and forth between carrying with the safety on or off.

 

[cmj8591]

There's a reason that police do not carry a weapon w/a safety, and w/a round chambered.

Yes there is but the reason isn't that a safety is too obtrusive, it's that most police agencies train to the lowest common denominator and don't want to take the time to properly train with the gun to incorporate the use of a manual safety.

 

[mrmike7189]

My shield is MA version with a 10 pound trigger so I am confident that it is a safe gun to carry without a safety.

 

[rkittine]

I only have double action carry guns, so it is chambered round, hammer down with the safety off.

Bob

 

[bnolsen]

It doesnt take any time, It should just be part of establishing a proper grip. Which u learn by practice and dry fire.
What it can do for is GAIN u some time to react in the event ur gun gets grabbed or picked up by someone unfamiliar with it.
I see zero negative to a manual thumb safety and possible positives.

If someone doesn't consistently train with the safety there can be problems with not disengaging. I have a safety on my shield and I use it but I've always owned pistols with a frame mounted down sweep manual safety and disengage it without even thinking on draw.

The shield's safety in particular might be slightly easier to possibly miss than one on a 1911 style, HK, taurus pt111 g2, etc.

Also the police, contrary to public belief, tend to be poorly trained with their firearms, with many if not most only shooting a couple of times a year. I know its not nice to beat up on police (and I know a couple) but one common theme that repeats over and over again with these mass school shootings (columbine, sandy hook, florida, etc) is that the police, when found, were always hiding behind their vehicles in the parking lots while shots were being fired. The surpreme court for countless times has upheld their right to do this.

Be smart, be safe.