Shield Thumb Safety Version Is Now A Studebaker

RussC

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
953
Reaction score
395
Location
Utah
My Shield with the thumb safety just became a Studebaker when it comes to resale value with the announcement of the new version without an external safety. To add to the hurt I have $120 after market night sights.

S&W offer a $50 factory fix to remove thumb safeties.

Russ
 
Register to hide this ad
My Shield with the thumb safety just became a Studebaker when it comes to resale value with the announcement of the new version without an external safety.
This is why I have no intention on trading my perfectly good 2Y/O Shield for one of the new NTS Shields.

To add to the hurt I have $120 after market night sights.
Oh well... One of the risks one takes when adding aftermarket parts that don't add to Resale/Trade value.
Actually... ARE there any aftermarket parts that DO add to Resale/Trade value? Sights... No. Trigger Kit... No.
 
I sort of doubt that most potential purchasers care one way or another about the presence or absence of the TS. I know I certainly don't. I rarely use the TS, but it sure doesn't hurt anything in the off position. I can think of possible times it could be nice to have.
 
Thumb Safeties

My shield has a thumb safety and I like it. It could save your life some day, if a bad guy would get control of your weapon. It will give you a split second to get control of the situation. Every year law enforcement officers are shot with their service weapons.
Than being said I also have a Smith & Wesson 9C and that safety is terrible. Its dangerous because it slides up and down so easily, without any resistance. I wrote Smith a letter over a month ago and no reply yet. My suggestion is to make the safety lever smaller and a litter tighter to prevent it from being activated or turned off by recoil or while carrying in a holster. Otherwise its a great gun too.
 
I can think of possible times it could be nice to have.

I would like to kindly suggest that whether the safety is on or off, you carry the same way all the time. In a time of need, you may not recall if you are "on" or "off" that day, which could lead you to assume the horizontal position - permanently.
 
I have no issue with those that don't like a manual safety, and I understand why they don't want it, they worry it could get accidentally bumped/knocked on, when they carry with it off. But I do a lot of pocket carry, and a striker fired gun is just like the hammer back on a 1911. The manual safety allows that extra margin of safety, for that just in case situation. I practice swiping the safety off, as the barrel rises, so there is no delay in getting off a quick shot. The disengagement of the safety, for me, is as automatic as aiming/pointing of the gun.

There will always be a wide range of opinions, as to the value of a manual safety. There is no right or wrong opinion. But for me, depending on how the weapon is carried, there are situations that make the use of the manual safety sensible.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'm ready to call it that way. There is still a purpose to the safety. Some people clearly prefer it. I'm glad S&W has offered a choice.

You then train accordingly.
 
I don't think I'm ready to call it that way. There is still a purpose to the safety. Some people clearly prefer it. I'm glad S&W has offered a choice.

You then train accordingly.

Absolutely, well said.

These NTS threads are getting a bit redundant but I guess there's no harm in healthy discussion.

I can't see why the NTS version would cost any different than the TS version if both are in comparable used shape at the time of sale. Some people want the NTS, some want the TS. There will always be a price difference in used guns being traded in on new guns...that has nothing to do with a safety or not. Also, unfortunately, there will always be dealers that are gouging the price of the NTS so they can take advantage of people that aren't very savvy. If you are willing to pay more for a gun with the ONLY difference being the lack of a thumb safety then you get what you deserve...a lighter wallet.

I prefer the TS. As mentioned it can easily be used or ignored but whatever the decision, one needs to train with it that way.

The thing about the NTS is that you can't decide to use the thumb safety later if you want to because it isn't there.

I would rather have the option to use it if I want to and not use it if I don't want to.

Train properly with the gun you have and it won't make one bit of difference which one you select.
 
Hopefully I will find me a good Studebaker for a good price. I bought my wife a Shield 9mm with a safety, and now I like it so much I will be on the lookout for one for myself. At a steep discount, naturally. :)
 
I personally like safeties on my firearms. Most firearms have them from shotguns, rifles, 1911, and many polymer pistols as well. I also have young children in my home, so I also like that extra peace of mind.

How hard is it to click a safety off if you should need it? I can post several links to news reports and YouTube videos where Glock and antisafety gun carriers have shot themselves or others while holstering or un-holstering. Many law enforcement officers and military personal across the world seem to get by with having safeties on their pistols and rifles. Matter of fact, doesn't the military actually requires safeties (with good reason) on firearms? Wonder why that is? I have not heard of any cases where the aforementioned have forgot to take off the safety and it costed them their lives. Many gun ranges even ban from the holster firing because that is when many accidental discharges happen. Where is all this evidences that supports the accusations against guns with safeties? Can someone point me to a few stories where a legal gun owner forgot to take the safety off of their personal firearm while in a gun fight?

I think a bunch of Glock fans have started this unsubstantiated way of thinking that a safety is uncool and unsafe... I'm sure if Glocks always had safeties, this way of thinking would be reversed. I can understand the person preference argument, but can I get some substantiated proof please that there's more cons than pros to having a safety?
 
Last edited:
Being a lefty, the presence of the TS is a moot point. It's completely useless to me. I don't plan to trade my Shield for a new one unless they decide to make the Shield with ambi slide lock like the 9c, but since it's my EDC I've just trained to use the right handers controls on both to be consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Almost all the people I know that wouldn't consider the Shield as a cc option was because of the TS... Giving the old reason of "I'd never own a carry pistol that has a thumb safety". This group is now giving the Shield a 2nd look and either seriously considering getting one, or outright running out to order one.

As mentioned before... I'm not about to run out and trade mine for a NTS version, but it IS nice to now have a choice. :)

Sent from my Transformer TF101
 
Last edited:
I personally like safeties on my firearms. Most firearms have them from shotguns, rifles, 1911, and many polymer pistols as well. I also have young children in my home, so I also like that extra peace of mind.

How hard is it to click a safety off if you should need it? I can post several links to news reports and YouTube videos where Glock and antisafety gun carriers have shot themselves or others while holstering or un-holstering. Many law enforcement officers and military personal across the world seem to get by with having safeties on their pistols and rifles. Matter of fact, doesn't the military actually requires safeties (with good reason) on firearms? Wonder why that is? I have not heard of any cases where the aforementioned have forgot to take off the safety and it costed them their lives. Many gun ranges even ban from the holster firing because that is when many accidental discharges happen. Where is all this evidences that supports the accusations against guns with safeties? Can someone point me to a few stories where a legal gun owner forgot to take the safety off of their personal firearm while in a gun fight?

I think a bunch of Glock fans have started this unsubstantiated way of thinking that a safety is uncool and unsafe... I'm sure if Glocks always had safeties, this way of thinking would be reversed. I can understand the person preference argument, but can I get some substantiated proof please that there's more cons than pros to having a safety?

Not to change the main subject, you should post that over on the "CC one in the pipe thread". They will chop your head off in 10 minutes. I happen to very much agree with your statement.
 
My Shield with the thumb safety just became a Studebaker when it comes to resale value with the announcement of the new version without an external safety. To add to the hurt I have $120 after market night sights.

S&W offer a $50 factory fix to remove thumb safeties.

Russ

LOL. Come on Russ, Studebaker? Seriously? :D

The original version of the Shield is still as good as ever. Though my Shield is serving well, I wish S&W would offer it in two versions like all the other M&P pistols, extended thumb safety and no thumb safety. As a believer in thumb safeties, I have trained to be proficient with the original Shield safety but would love to have an extended version.
 
You've got to feel a little sorry for the gun companies and how they're constantly being puzzled by the buying public ...

S&W introduces the M&P pistol without a manual safety, thinking that's what everyone wants. Of course, then when they quietly design a .45 variation with a manual safety, because a then-anticipated military pistol submission program spec includes it ... suddenly everyone's clamoring for the same thing on the commercial model.

Fine, they make the revisions so they can introduce manual safeties to the commercial M&P line. They make an an option, even, so enthusiasts of both configurations can find something they might like. Problem solved.

Then, just when they think they've got their finger on the pulse of the fickle public, they make the Bodyguard .380 and the Shield with manual safeties from the get-go. That's where the heavy demand occurred in the original M&P line, right? They're ahead of the curve, right?

Nope. Now the public cries out that they don't want manual safeties.

S&W engineers originally gave M&P owners a nicely soft, non-distracting trigger/sear "reset" ... and suddenly everyone wants the same audible & tactile (and mildly annoying, to some of us) connector-slap reset found in another make of plastic pistol. Back to the drawing board.

Other gun companies seem to be paying attention, as another maker's new LE plastic striker-fired pistol is advertised as having a tactile trigger reset. Yay, right? :rolleyes:

Kind of like how Walther produced their P99 variation - the PPQ - with their standard paddle-type mag catch. Not good enough for a lot of the American buyers, though. So, they revised the frame to accommodate what a more commonly accepted mag catch button. Then, of course (predictably), American buyers started to clamor for the "original" PPQ (99) mag catch paddle lever assembly.

Fickle.

Even the magic 8-ball can't predict what the American public will want on any given day. ;)
 
Last edited:
You've got to feel a little sorry for the gun companies and how they're constantly being puzzled by the buying public ...
Yup just go and shoot the thing and get good with it !
 
When did a safety become an undesirable feature? For me, personally, no safety is a negative. I have become accustomed to carrying in condition 3 with my Glock 19 because I am simply uncomfortable with not having a traditional thumb safety. With my Shield, I will most likely begin to carry with a round in the chamber, because the safety gives me that extra sense of ND-protection I desire.

I could do without the loaded chamber fin, but the safety I like. There will always be a market for pistols with safeties, I'm certain.
 
Back
Top