Question on M&P 45

[slowjonn]

Hi all. Just curious to know why most M&P 9mm's I see do not have a manual safety yet most M&P 45's seem to have one?

I bought a 9 awhile back and absolutely love it. I want to add a 45 to the mix and would like to have it the same as far as controls go for ease of transition. I know you can get the 45 w/o a manual safety.

I was just curious why so many of the 45's seem to have a manual safety. Thanks!

 

[GaryM&P]

Theory #1:
S&W intended for the 45 M&P to be sold to the US military which required a thumb safety.

Theory #2:
A lot of 45 shooters use the 1911 so they are familiar with the thumb safety.

Hey, I'm just guessing.

 

[Branned2010]

All 5 of the MP45 that I have seen do NOT have a thumb safety.

 

[slowjonn]

Thanks for the replies fellas. Guess that all makes sense. Now to find my desert tan M&P45 beauty to call my own!

 

[Wee Hooker]

My first M&P was a FS 45. Bought it largely because it didn't have the thumb safety. Check the S&W websight for current availability and options.

 

[chuck s]

The nicest thing about the M&P safety is how easily it can be removed and never replaced. I needlessly had to wait a couple of months for a non-safety M&P9 about 18 months ago, all I could find had the safety.

Not at all the same setup as the M1911 and few troops remember the old horse anyway.

-- Chuck

 

[sgtvilla]

I own an M&P 45 without a thumb safety. I wouldn't want it any other way.

In the military, the people that DO know how to use a handgun (surprisingly enough you see a lot of new officers with M9s on their hips that don't have a clue), will generally carry it safety off, hammer forward. Since its a double/single action gun, its ok to do.

Me personally, When I transition from my M4 to my pistol, I will use the safety as a "decock" to get that hammer forward again and then put it back on fire before re-holstering. As for M1911, I don't know.... haven't been in the army that long

MORAL OF THE STORY: thumb safeties on combat pistols are dumb no, not really... its merely my opinion but I don't like them

 

[Fastbolt]

Theory #1:
S&W intended for the 45 M&P to be sold to the US military which required a thumb safety.

Theory #2:
A lot of 45 shooters use the 1911 so they are familiar with the thumb safety.

Hey, I'm just guessing.

I'd think your first theory might have some merit.

When I originally asked about the thumb safety on a demo M&P 45, I was told that it had originally been developed because of an anticipated military bid spec for submission in some then-pending potential new military pistol testing (limited issue, not to replace the M9). The roll pin used for the extractor, instead of a solid pin as is used on the other models & 3rd gen models, was another change incorporated into the early M&P 45 for reason of an anticipated maintenance spec in the military submission.

The anticipated testing was suspended by the military, though.

It seemed that once the commercial public learned about the thumb safety developed for the M&P 45, the demand for it to be an available option in the rest of the line quickly developed.

 

[Stu454]

Thanks for the replies fellas. Guess that all makes sense. Now to find my desert tan M&P45 beauty to call my own!

Every tan M&P 45 I've seen in person or on Smith's website has the thumb safety.

 

[TSQUARED]

I shoot an M&P45 without a thumb safety. In my mind a handgun for defensive purposes is best when it does not have any external safeties.

 

[Nanook 450]

Mine has a trigger finger only safety, main reason I bought it. My brain and finger control the gun, not Hillary and her wife.

 

[tzvia1]

When I bought my M&P 45 a few weeks ago I bought it with safety because it felt like my 1911s, BHP and Firestar. My comfort zone, I guess.

 

[JRWnTN]

In the military, the people that DO know how to use a handgun (surprisingly enough you see a lot of new officers with M9s on their hips that don't have a clue), will generally carry it safety off, hammer forward. Since its a double/single action gun, its ok to do.

Me personally, When I transition from my M4 to my pistol, I will use the safety as a "decock" to get that hammer forward again and then put it back on fire before re-holstering.

I'm not understanding the difference in the two methods you describe. If the officers have the safety "off", in the up position, that's the same position you prefer. Do you mean the officers carry with the safety "on", in the down position?

 

[sgtvilla]

I'm not understanding the difference in the two methods you describe. If the officers have the safety "off", in the up position, that's the same position you prefer. Do you mean the officers carry with the safety "on", in the down position?

NO, what I meant was that a lot of new PLs, who are the ones that get issued most of the M9s (at least in the Infantry), just carry them as a "status symbol" and have never been trained properly, so in essence, its just a useless piece of metal hanging from their hips. Its not all of them obviously, but sadly, the majority. This is one more symptom of the huge gap of experience between enlisted and officers in the Army, and the subject for a very different thread. After that, I proceeded to explain the method that works for some of us.

I apologize, I should have been more specific.

 

[JRWnTN]

The problem is not limited to officers. Several years ago, at the range where I shoot, some Army reservists came by to fire one's privately owned Beretta 92. Members of a transport unit, they were getting ready to deploy to Iraq. I talked with them and they had been through familiarization firing of the M9, but had never drawn a loaded pistol from a holster and fired it.