M&P auto's

[Harkrader]

No. plus characters to exceed 10.

 

[Biscut]

If S&W where to offer their M&P line of auto's with a grip safety would you support their effort?

I say no. I often have a 357 sub compact with me and my kids are all over my car while I coach baseball. I know for me to ensure safe I have to remove the rounds....I don't want a mechanical safety to rely on. If I had one, I'd become dependent and would risk the screw up!

 

[NSXtech]

No. The only safety I want is a drop safety. The only safety I trust is my own finger.

 

[Arik]

It's that silly type of thinking that ruins pistols. If one safety is good then two is better and three is better than that. 50 is even better than that.

Why not throw a lawyer lock on it as well? Run a cable lock through the action at all times and have a combination lock and finger print verification holster. Then 1 less person a year will shoot themselves in the foot while violating every rule of gun safety.

It hurts my head to think that way but that is the type of thinking that is running US companies today.

Another level of safety would be welcome... no, no it wouldn't.

Yea this. !!!!!

 

[ivanwi11iams]

Before I took my gun to the range, (my first gun was a Glock 19 4th Gen), I watched countless videos, and read quite a few forums. I even had a friend, Police Woman take me to my first range visit.

I now own a M&P Shield 9mm. Again, I made sure to watch plenty of videos on how to use it, safety, cleaning, etc.

All that to say, I wanted to be safe and made sure I knew how to use and handle a gun, period. So, no, don't make it 'idiot' proof; if you're using a gun, you should know how to use it, and the safety of it, too.

Just my opinion.

 

[Rastoff]

Very interesting reply's, Would have thought that another level of safety would be welcome?

Why do you think that? If you spend any time here, you'll see that most here are very safety conscious. They understand that the most important safety device is their brain. The rest are just mechanical devices.

No, a grip safety would be just as useless as a thumb safety.

 

[MichiganScott]

Let's add this up. A trigger safety, a thumb safety, a grip safety, a trigger lock, mandatory storage in safe with ammunition in another location, a 30 day waiting period...................

A gun grabbers dream.

If it only saves one child...................

 

[PadreM]

No that is why I like my M&P with a thumb safety. Tried a XP did not like it at all.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2

 

[k80clay]

If you want a grip safety buy a 1911 or an XD.

Don't buy Ford and wonder why they didn't build a GM.

 

[Don 73]

No is my answer, no number of "safeties" will make a gun any safer, it's like the old saying: "If you make something foolproof, someone will just come up with a better fool."

Safety is between your ears and you trigger finger as long as your mind (and finger) are where they are supposed to be, you won't have a ND, AD or "Whoops - BANG"

 

[kannonvaggon]

NO.

I would NOT desire a lemon-squeezer on an M&P model ...

 

[M&Pmeister]

I think OP's question is really:

Do you prefer a trigger safety or a grip safety?

M&P, Glock and many others already have trigger safety. IMO, adding a grip safety is redundant, so the only reason for having it would be to replace the trigger safety.

Trigger safety is simpler (only ONE moving part), whereas grip safety has many. All things being equal, I'm take simpler and less weight.

 

[Rastoff]

The trigger safety and grip safety serve two completely different purposes.

 

[John R]

NO, I mean HELL NO!

Locks on revolvers is over the top in my book.

 

[krieger]

No, not on M&P

 

[Bozz10mm]

I would prefer not to see grip safeties on M&Ps, but the grip safety on my XDm does not bother me in the least. Don't even know it's there as far as functionality is concerned. Except when I want to lock the slide back to field strip it.

 

[snubbyfan]

No. I support training to learn the right way to handle the gun.
Unfortunately, that is up to the individual gun owner. Knowledge and skill can't be engineered into the gun.

Adding another "safety gizmo" strictly as an add-on is a mistake with a defense weapon.

I worked as a safety officer for awhile and one of the odd things I learned is that the more "idiot proof" you try to make a machine, the more the idiots rely on the safeties, and the more careless they get. More devices often translated into MORE INJURIES.
Safeties are mechanical devices that fail. Use them, but they do not substitute for proper handling procedures. Ever.

I can relate to this, I've worked in factories and warehouses for the majority of my adult life and I've seen people who had been badly injured depending on safety interlocks rather than thinking of what they were doing.
There's a story of a production employee getting crushed by a 500 ton plastic injection press when a safety failed. It was described as looking like a juicing machine.
I've been thinkin' of getting an M&P 9c as my first semi-auto. One of the things I like about it is the fact that it doesn't have a bunch of safeties on it. It'll be for concealed carry and I want it to be a lot like a revolver, just point and shoot, except with a higher capacity.

 

[uechikid]

Not interested. I like them the way they are.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

Has anyone seen that advert for the car that corrects lane drifting because the guy is distracted thinking about a phone call he has to make, then his car brakes for him so he doesn't rear end someone because he is thinking about an email he has to reply to?

I don't want him driving a car.

 

[Don 73]

Has anyone seen that advert for the car that corrects lane drifting because the guy is distracted thinking about a phone call he has to make, then his car brakes for him so he doesn't rear end someone because he is thinking about an email he has to reply to?

I don't want him driving a car.

and in the same commercial, it says all these devices are so that he can "concentrate on driving."