Shield recall

Two Shield 9mm's bought seperately. Neither seems to have the problem mentioned in the "safety alert". However there is a little difference in the two when doing the check that S&W recommends. The one that I shoot, the little tab behind the trigger at the top, you can see more than on the one that has never been fired since it was purchased. It does look the same if I push slightly forward on the bottom of the trigger. The tab does appear on both guns after pulling back on trigger and releasing. Could this be from gun never been fired and needing some break-in? Curious as to what some might say. Thanks.

Friends, John
 
jblank37 said:
Two Shield 9mm's bought seperately. Neither seems to have the problem mentioned in the "safety alert". However there is a little difference in the two when doing the check that S&W recommends. The one that I shoot, the little tab behind the trigger at the top, you can see more than on the one that has never been fired since it was purchased. It does look the same if I push slightly forward on the bottom of the trigger. The tab does appear on both guns after pulling back on trigger and releasing. Could this be from gun never been fired and needing some break-in? Curious as to what some might say. Thanks.

Friends, John
Click to expand...

Thats what I am wondering. New stuff can be stiff.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
Anyone else's malfunction and you plan not to send it in?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
fallhunter said:
So really its nothing to worry about. I won't be sending mine in at all.
Click to expand...
I was going to give up, but this phrase concerns me. Someone not getting their malfunctioning gun fixed concerns me because it could be dangerous. So, I talked to a real engineer.

I work in the aerospace industry. I calibrate accelerometers for a living. Because of my experience, I knew instinctively that a simple drop of an M&P could generate more than 25g's. Alas, I'm not well versed in the actual math. So, I spoke to a friend who is well versed with this stuff. He is a system designer for data collection systems on test aircraft. Here is his response to my question:

The basic problem is simple in theory, but likely difficult to make the assumptions required. You need to first determine the velocity at impact (easy), then determine how long (correlating to how far) it takes to slow down, sounds simple at least.

Using the conservation of energy equation: 1/2*m*v^2 = m*g*h, you can find the speed at impact (5.425 m/s), but then you need to be able to determine deceleration at impact, which is what your looking for. This would be based on what material it landed on and how much energy went into rotational velocity (how much the gun spins after impact). Landing on a pillow would be far fewer g's than concrete after all.

Assuming no energy is converted to rotation (meaning it landed flat, and bounced up flat), and assuming constant deceleration, and assuming the total deformation (summing the ground material deformation, and the gun's deformation) was 1mm during the impact, you could find the deceleration rate:

a = (Vf^2 - Vi^2) / (2 * S)

where Vf is final velocity (0 in this case)
and Vi is the initial velocity (5.425 here)
and S is the distance traveled (1mm here)

a = -14715 m/s^2 or -1500 G's (assuming 9.81m/s^2 for 1g)
Click to expand...
He wrote a bunch more about elasticity and deformation, but it only adds to what I've posted above.

The affects we're talking about here are significantly higher than the 25g's some were concerned about. As you can see, just a simple drop generated 1,500g's and that didn't destroy the gun. The numbers would be much higher if the gun was impacted with more force, which wouldn't be hard to generate. Thrown down or dropped from a higher distance would do that.

This is what I've been getting at all along. The engineers at S&W have worked all this out through processes like I posted above and with more detail I'm sure. They wouldn't have put the safety there, considering the cost, if they didn't feel it was necessary. More, they wouldn't have put the Safety Alert out if they didn't feel this was a significant problem considering it will cost S&W plenty to fix them.

Whether or not a person decides to send their gun in for repair is a personal choice. Think hard about the ramifications should you decide not to get it fixed. The gun will only be gone for a couple of weeks. An accidental discharge could be a life changing event.
 
Last edited:
My issue is I JUST got the gun. Have not even had a chance to shoot it yet. If I send it in, I have nothing to carry. Not worth the time of not having it to me.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
If ur gun is having the above problem. I'd suggest sending it in and having it fixed. Its FREE and it likely could save a life from an accidental discharge farther down the road. IMO, u would be ignorant to carry a weapon that you know is defective and posses a possible risk to you or another persons life. Thats the reason there is a Safety Alert to begin with. S&W would rather fix it than to hear a story of a customer and an accidental discharge.

Now if ur gun checks out and its working as designed. I'd say carry on, and have a nice day.

Remember guys........SAFETY always comes first.
 
Yeah... Looks like S&W isn't the ONLY company playing it safe this week.
Half the folks over on XDTALK are doing a 'Chicken Little', while others are pounding their chests with indignation over their brand new $600 pistol being 'garbage'.
(Sound familiar?) :-)
I'm just glad that companies are playing it safe, so customers don't get hurt.

sent from my Commodore64 & acoustic modem
 
Smitty357 said:
If ur gun is having the above problem. I'd suggest sending it in and having it fixed. Its FREE and it likely could save a life from an accidental discharge farther down the road. IMO, u would be ignorant to carry a weapon that you know is defective and posses a possible risk to you or another persons life. Thats the reason there is a Safety Alert to begin with. S&W would rather fix it than to hear a story of a customer and an accidental discharge.

Now if ur gun checks out and its working as designed. I'd say carry on, and have a nice day.

Remember guys........SAFETY always comes first.
Click to expand...

Mine does not. But right now, being brand new, the time away from it does not justify sending it in.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
fallhunter said:
Mine does not. But right now, being brand new, the time away from it does not justify sending it in.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Striker blocks can fail...or should I say FP's can overcome a SB. So if you are relying on Internet physicists on the relevancy/redundancy of the drop safety, or the striker block alone...you might want to reconsider.

u3uqujyv.jpg
uha7y6ud.jpg
 
fallhunter said:
Mine does not. But right now, being brand new, the time away from it does not justify sending it in.
Click to expand...
I guess I just don't understand your logic here. You said you just got the gun. I get that you're excited about having it. I too hate sending things back. But, it won't be gone long.

You also state that this malfunctioning gun is the only gun you have to carry. Did you trade another gun in to get this one? If you didn't, what did you do before you got this gun?
 
I'm sitting here waiting on Kimber to recall all the UC 1911's. So far Shield and XDS. The Kimber UC cant be too far behind, lol.
 
Rastoff said:
I guess I just don't understand your logic here. You said you just got the gun. I get that you're excited about having it. I too hate sending things back. But, it won't be gone long.

You also state that this malfunctioning gun is the only gun you have to carry. Did you trade another gun in to get this one? If you didn't, what did you do before you got this gun?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. Thats part of why I am frustrated.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
Guns are mechanical, so they're subject to failure and redesign. These issues are not isolated to S&W.

LOOK at what I just got:
"Springfield Armory® is initiating this voluntary safety recall to upgrade 3.3 XD-S™ 9mm and 3.3 XD-S™ .45ACP pistols with new components, which eliminate the possibility of a potentially dangerous condition. We want to emphasize that no injuries have been reported to date.

Springfield has determined that under exceptionally rare circumstances, some 3.3 XD-S™ 9mm and .45ACP caliber pistols could experience an unintended discharge during the loading process when the slide is released, or could experience a double-fire when the trigger is pulled once. The chance of these conditions existing is exceptionally rare, but if they happen, serious injury or death could occur."
 
What happened to all the shield cool aid drinkers that were calling the OP a probable rumor starting idiot?
 
fire4606 said:
What happened to all the shield cool aid drinkers that were calling the OP a probable rumor starting idiot?
Click to expand...

Out returning the XDs they bought because they thought the Shield was the only one with an issue, lol.

Although they still did not RECALL the Shield. Its amazing how many people miss that part.
 
fire4606 said:
What happened to all the shield cool aid drinkers that were calling the OP a probable rumor starting idiot?
Click to expand...
They're hunkering down with the XD-S Fanboys that were laughing at the Shield Safety Alert. :D

And of course... We've all (hopefully) figured out by now that it's NOT a Recall, as the OP reported... So Part Right/Part False (for those that want to split hairs and pick knits). ;)

Edit to add... Smitty beat me to it by a few seconds.
 
RobzGuns said:
They're hunkering down with the XD-S Fanboys that were laughing at the Shield Safety Alert. :D

And of course... We've all (hopefully) figured out by now that it's NOT a Recall, as the OP reported... So Part Right/Part False (for those that want to split hairs and pick knits). ;)

Edit to add... Smitty beat me to it by a few seconds.
Click to expand...

I said it a few times, when my dealer called, he said it was a recall. I posted on here right after.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
 
Rastoff said:
Rastoff provided material from a guy who could actually do the (relatively simple) math for the position-velocity-acceleration expressions that are first-quarter material for any physics student whose course is based in differential math.
Click to expand...

Some of the physics pontification up to this contribution was laughable for the obvious flaw in all of it: failure to identify that the acceleration in question occurs when the pistol hits something solid, not when it is dropped or thrown. Obviously your arm cannot exert 25g on a pistol to throw it, and obviously it won't experience 25g while accelerating in freefall. And just as obviously, these observations while correct are completely irrelevant.

It's apparent what's happened here: some posters who actually understand the simple physics involved assumed that everybody understood that the inertia safety is designed to prevent accidental discharge *when the gun stops*. Apparently, this is a bad assumption so a straightforward statement may clear up the issue:

The M&P Shield's inertia safety is present to prevent the trigger from discharging the gun by experiencing sufficient force due to deceleration if the gun hits something and decelerates rapidly.

The assertion that a pistol trigger can't experience 25g of acceleration when the gun collides with a hard surface after being dropped even from a height of one meter is laugh-out-loud ridiculous. This strikes me as the guy at the local car show who is sure that if he just keeps adding gears to his car, he could drive 250 MPH. Or the guy who knows that if you just put wind turbines all around a car, you could capture all the energy of the car's motion and put it back into the car so that it wouldn't burn any gas once it's up to speed. Or (and this one is one of my favorites) the guy who positively knows that covering an airliner with solar cells would greatly reduce the amount of fuel consumed by the airliner.

Thankfully somebody making some basic assumptions showed just how ridiculous is the notion that the trigger can't ever see that kind of acceleration.

I'll be checking my new-to-me Shield when I get home. Despite the errant pontifications in this thread, I want to be sure my gun will not fire when dropped because the physics say it can happen.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that BuckeyeChuck.

It is never my intention to put someone down, though it may seem that way at times. There is a reason there are so few physicists in this world; physics isn't simple. The formulas are deceptively simple looking. Alas, while E=mc^2 looks simple, the logic, reasoning and application of it is not.

I tend to get trapped in some of these discussions. Like the fact that Centrifugal force is imaginary and doesn't exist. There are those who will argue until they pass out that it's real because they can feel it. When in fact, what they are really feeling is Centripetal force which is the force pushing in rather than out.

I understand why we think this way. As we turn in a corner we feel like something is pushing out so, it makes sense that centrifugal force is what we believe. Unfortunately, the math doesn't support it.

It's the same with things like G forces. It's difficult to accept that something as simple as dropping a gun can create numbers as high as 1,500g's; even if you see the math. Those numbers seem gigantic if you're not used to working with them.

My goal, as always, is education. We all become better as we grow in understanding. It is my hope that people make decisions based on reality rather than myth. That's all I'm going for and I apologize if I came across wrong.
 
I found nothing wrong with your explanation or that of your friend. We should be thankful that engineers spend multiple courses in college learning how to understand, calculate, and harness forces; without this detailed understanding, the machines in our lives would be less effective, less safe, and more expensive. We should also be happy that for some engineers, their learning merely starts in college and that they see situations they encounter in real lfe as a chance to enhance their knowledge.

Regarding the existence and nature of centripetal and centrifugal force, frame of reference is very important. When you're in a turning car, there are clearly TWO forces at work: the force the turning car applies to you, and the force you apply to the turning car. They are equal and opposite, which is why there is no relative motion between you and the car. These forces are not imaginary so the math must support their existence, and it does. Frame of reference helps us understand how the math applies to this reality.

Oh, I forgot to say... my Shield 9 does not have the issue referenced by this safety alert. The gun was manufactured in 2013.
 
Last edited:
so why don't revolvers have fancy triggers?

Still not buying the deceleration explanation. The only way the trigger is pulled is if it doesn't decelerate that fast, as in it keeps moving against the suddenly stopped frame. The only way it generates the astronomical G's you guys are reporting is if it comes to a sudden stop right along with the frame..... in which case there's still not a problem because the trigger didn't pull.

and given the calculations above, wouldn't the bottom half of the trigger also be subject to the same uber G force and just rotate the safety notch right out of the way?

also, why don't revolvers have fancy triggers?
 
and what did kahr say when you called and told them how stupid they are? haven't gotten the recall notice on my p380 yet...?
 
just read back through it again.... your 1500g calculation has the trigger with a final velocity of a big fat zero to get to that conclusion.... If the trigger is moving at a velocity of nothing, we're good here.....
 
motomed said:
just read back through it again.... your 1500g calculation has the trigger with a final velocity of a big fat zero to get to that conclusion.... If the trigger is moving at a velocity of nothing, we're good here.....
Click to expand...
Look, it's not the final velocity that makes it so, it's the change in velocity over a short period of time and distance. You can't look at one number and come up with the answer. You have to look at is as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Rastoff said:
Look, it's not the final velocity that makes it so, it's the change in velocity over a short period of time and distance. You can't look at one number and come up with the answer. You have to look at is as a whole.
Click to expand...

correct, but the acceleration calculations you posted with an astronomical value assume an instantaneous change and a trigger pull of 1 mm, which is not reality. the bottom line is something so light that would have to decelerate over a distance and time that is not zero would never produce enough force to overcome the trigger pull weight.

still curious why revolvers don't have these things.
 
I'm truly sorry that you don't understand this motomed. I'll try again.

The 1mm is for the frame. It's an assumed amout that the frame will distort as it impacts a hard surface. Obviously the trigger would continue to move, once the frame stops, if it didn't have the trigger safety.

I would explain the revolver thing to you, but it's clear you're not here to learn.
 
Rastoff said:
It's an assumed amount that the frame will distort as it impacts a hard surface. Obviously the trigger would continue to move, once the frame stops, if it didn't have the trigger safety.
Click to expand...
Seems like people no longer question the job of seat belts, but they do still question the function of a trigger safety in Striker Fire pistols. (I know... a VERY loose example of how they both relate to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion)
While trigger safeties vary from Brand to Brand, Glock, XD, S&W, Ruger's Striker Fire pistols... pretty much everyone who makes Striker Fire pistols uses 'em. If they didn't serve a purpose, I doubt if any of them would bother to incorporate them into the systems. Are they ALL wrong and simply messing with us??
Just my thoughts on it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dump1567
The 1987 L-Frame Recall 586/686
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
H Richard
H Richard
Dino44
Model 4046
Replies
1
Views
112
scottr
S
D
SHIELD X Series??
Replies
8
Views
502
Beju
B
D
First impressions of my new optics ready 3.1" Shield Plus 13+1 2.0
Replies
1
Views
312
M1A4ME
M1A4ME
RM Vivas
Stamp Collecting The NYPD Way
Replies
2
Views
271
MajorD
M

Latest posts

Back
Top