Question on the Third Gen magazine disconnect

[Jeffytune]

Hi all.

I am ASE mastertech, and I usually do the work on my own firearms.
I have a question for the armors and gunsmiths here.
I have the schematic of my 6906 and my 6946, if I am seeing it correctly, to remove the magazine disconnect it look like I need to remove the rear site and remove the spring and nylon plunger from the left side of the slide.

Is this correct or is there more to it?

 

[armorer951]

You are correct. And there is more to it that you're apparently not seeing, especially from a liability standpoint.


2013 article concerning gun modifications .......https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/gun-modifications

 

[Sevens]

Bah, the liability is wildly overblown. I don't have any S&W pistols that have had the mag safety disconnected but I also have over a dozen S&W pistols that never find themselves in a defensive role. Every last one of them is for pride of ownership and pure shooting enjoyment.

There is zero liability on my pistols, and even less if I were to sell any of them.

 

[nocents]

well there ya go......zero liability if no mag safety disconnects are removed..done

 

[TTSH]

There is zero liability on my pistols, and even less if I were to sell any of them.

well there ya go......zero liability if no mag safety disconnects are removed..done

I'm confused. What are you guys saying?

Anybody can sue anybody over anything. Any anti-2A DA or prosecutor can make as much trouble as they want for anybody over anything.

If I suddenly had the urge to start removing or altering safeties on my guns, I'd sure as heck put them back to the normal factory condition before I sold them. Is that what you are talking about here?

 

[Sevens]

The "disabled magazine safety used in defensive shooting" discussion is very much like the "carrying handloads for defense" discussion in that legions of folks warn of impending doom and major apocalypse and discussions get very divided and heated but both center far more around ideas rather than actual precedent.

It's never wrong to consider an idea or choose a side and buy in to the concept but those topics typically take any discussion down the drain.

In this thread...
The OP very clearly asked a technical hardware question and it immediately gets re-directed to a philosophical/political/"boogeyman" discussion. Obviously, I'm guilty for my part of it.

If the magazine disconnect safety were EASIER to disable, I would do it on my pistols. The first pistols that would get it would be my Model 52 pistols.

It occurs to me that completely non-gun people and the average European/non-American thinks the average American is a looney-tunes Gun Nut that approaches any conflict with the goal of shooting his way through it. Obviously, I when I think of my handguns, I immediately imagine the joy of dropping steel plates and the chase for one-hole groups on a paper target. And -YET-, a simple question about defeating one of the most annoying "safety" features ever to grace a handgun comes up and it's immediately "Oh no, liability, they'll hang you in court!"

Whatever.

 

[Jeffytune]

I forgot to say that I have a guy here in Portland that has a laser engraver and I am going to have him engrave the same safety warning that the M&P's have on there slides. "Capable of firing with magazine removed"

 

[JohnHL]

Just my opinion, but if I were disabling a magazine safety I would only remove the spring and leave the plunger in place.
One less hole for dirt to get in.

John

 

[nocents]

I'm confused. What are you guys saying?

:

what I was saying was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.......but me thinks it was taken way too seriously

 

[TTSH]

what I was saying was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.......but me thinks it was taken way too seriously

To be honest, the whole topic confuses poor, old, half-senile me. There must be something really great about removing the magazine safety that I've never figured out. But no matter. Ignorance is bliss and so it's a complete non-issue to me. But there are a lot of things like that... i.e., things people want to do that I see and I ask myself "why"?

Liability? The way I see it, there is a metric ton of liability to practically everything today. But trying to contain it is ultimately futile. If you are going to get rammed, you are going to get rammed. Do what you feel you must do and let the chips fall where they may. That's my feeling.

But just one thing: If you are going to alter the safety or operational features on anything you want to sell me, just please put them back to factory before doing so. Thank you!

 

[KSDeputy]

For a peace officer, the magazine disconnect can be lifesaving. I have it on my carry pistol, and several other gen. 3 pistols I own. It ups the odds that a peace officer can come out alive if a bad person tries to, or gets your gun. As you fight for the gun, push the magazine release button. The gun won't fire. Most bad people aren't smart enough to know why, they throw the gun down and run. Your next action, if you are not injured, is re-insert a loaded magazine, or use your back up pistol, chase the suspect down and handcuff him, or hold them at gunpoint until back up arrives. Anything mechanical can fail. I do not guarantee that the magazine disconnect will work all of the time, but at least it gives the officer a chance. A magazine can accidentally be dropped, I would rather have that, than being shot with my own weapon. I carry a back up pistol, a Gerber boot knife, and a Gerber pen. I give myself as many chances to survive as I can.

 

[P71]

The other side of the coin is that in a gunfight, if the magazine is ejected or partially ejected inadvertently, it is probably better to wind up pulling the trigger on a single shot pistol than a zero shot pistol.

The only liability you are exposed to by removing the disconnect if it was originally equipped with one is when your gun gets used by someone else and they pull the trigger with the belief that it is equipped with the magazine disconnect (which is why I personally would not leave the plunger in place), but even the S&W manual is non-committal about the presence or absence of the disconnect - it says that "some" S&W centerfire pistols are designed to prevent the trigger from firing the pistol when the magazine is removed from the pistol.

 

[Sevens]

The big "advantage" for me on a S&W 52 is there simply is no way to lower that hammer without a magazine. On your typical DA/SA pistol (which covers most S&W 1-2-3rd Gens), there's a lever that allows you to lower the hammer.

 

[Jim L]

what is the difference if his 3rd gen S&W can fire without a mag or his Glock (or other handgun) can fire without a mag?
Point is, they both fire without a mag!

 

[ericlw]

I'm still trying to figure out why you want to disable the mag safety myself?

 

[grcoffman104]

When teaching firearms to cops in the 80's. I would wager a beverage that I could get a 2nd/ 3rd gen to fire without mag, after a student would tell me the " gun struggle dump mag " story. On the line, with eyes and ears protected I would point weapon down range with pressure on trigger.
I'd have mark eject mag. Pressure on sear had engaged prior to mag departure. Hammer rose fell and round downrange. Free beverage followed. Less honed to rookies, don't count on this during struggle for weapon, it may not work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Muss Muggins]

If you want a gun with/without a magazine disconnect, buy a gun with/without a magazine disconnect . . .

 

[Jeffytune]

Boy, I see there are some strong opinions on this subject.

I am not a LEO, and I have no delusions that I am one, I do not even play one on TV.
Most modern self defense handguns do not have a mag disconnect (Unless required by law to have one)
I have carrier everything from a 1911 (Pre-1970 model) to a 4 inch model 57. In my mind, the mag disconnect is just one more thing to fail, this is why I switched from a 6906 to this 6946, no safety, no decocker just a 7-8 pound trigger press every time.
In the training I have taken, they try to teach student to have a pistol that is safetyless as close to a 12-15 shot revolver as possible.

If I have to defend myself, and the suspect runs away, well I am not going to chase them, I am going to get the hell out of there and report it to the police, again, I am not a cop.

Lastly, my youngest is 27 years old and does not live with the wife and I any more.....no grandkids...just the wife and I.

So, in my case removing it to my mind makes it safer for me, one less thing that could go wrong.
And I never throw these things away, if I sell it, it get reinstalled.

 

[Jeffytune]

If you want a gun with/without a magazine disconnect, buy a gun with/without a magazine disconnect . . .

I do get your point here, and I understand the merits of what your saying, but in my case there is one other item to take in to consideration.
In 7th grade my right hand was broken, and it was not set right, thus the bones in my hand have to be able to fit the pistol. I can't fire a Glock for very long, the M&P shield is a bit better, but the third Gens fit it like a glove. If I shoot a 1911, it has to have a arched mainspring housing. Most revolvers I can find or make a set of grips that will work, my point is, I do not want a new pistol, I want to stick with what works for me.

 

[armorer951]

In the final analysis you are free do do what you want. It's your gun.

Caution, soap box/rant:

To me, some things are just inherently dangerous and carry with them risks that go beyond what is acceptable. Some people have the "it would never happen to me" attitude when assessing risk, and consequently, don't see a problem with modifying a firearm's action so that the trigger pull is below factory recommendations, or removing a factory installed integrated safety mechanism, like the hammer block or magazine safety. These are the same people who leave their keys in the ignition of their cars, and a an unsecured, loaded firearm in the console or under the seat.

The voluntary action of modifying or removing any safety feature of a gun installed by the manufacturer is both dangerous and irresponsible and carries with it substancial risk both for the gun owner, family members and bystanders. This action also greatly increases the already sizeable burden of the gun owner's liability, both civil and criminal.....and such action is, I believe, indefensible in court.