dullh
Member
When peoples' first ever guns were Glocks...
Shield Thumb Safety Version Is Now A Studebaker
- Thread starter RussC
- Start date
When peoples' first ever guns were Glocks...
To the Ops original dilemma. Buy the new Shield. Then Swap out the sights. Sell the old version.. problem solved for you.
Agreed. Mine is always off. Might be handy if for example I want to lay the gun down at the range for a minute without clearing it. Muzzle pointed down range needless to say. It will never be on while I'm carrying it.
Atticaz
Member
Nothing wrong with the safety, IMO.
The full sized M&P pistol's safeties can "F-off". Just flimsy ****. They should have been designated like the Shield. That's why I went with the safety-less FS.
The full sized M&P pistol's safeties can "F-off". Just flimsy ****. They should have been designated like the Shield. That's why I went with the safety-less FS.
nocents
Member
the answer to both your questions is ...nothing...the safety on the Shield is so unobtrusive and at the same time so easy to engage and disengage...when you want to...that it may just be one of the best conceived safeties....for a right hander...ever....I had a Shield and I liked the safety.....that was one of the reasons I bought the gun....I will get another shield some day......WITH the safety
Edmo
US Veteran
As a lefty, the right-hand thumb safety is a waste of time and effort. It is more likely to get me into trouble than to save me from it.
Come to think of it, the yellow take-down lever has the same level of uselessness.
However, I'll keep my "safety" Shield since it has yet to malfunction in any way.
Edmo
Come to think of it, the yellow take-down lever has the same level of uselessness.
However, I'll keep my "safety" Shield since it has yet to malfunction in any way.
Edmo
71velle
Member
When I bought my shield I did not want a safety but the shield was perfect in every other way, so I figures I could deal with it. Now I am glad it does have a safety, It will never get turned on accidentally. If I ever choose to use it in a coat pocket where pocket holster dont typically work a safety is a must. Also as a night stand or glove box gun I would want it too.
A LOT of people who simply don't like External Safeties on Striker Fire Pistols. Believe it or not, Nothing more than that. Obviously, people of this forum are NOT part of that sample group, or they wouldn't have bought the original Shield.
This is simply S&W's way of making the Shield more appealing to THOSE people who don't like safeties. Is it that hard to believe?
Bozz10mm
US Veteran
Actually, a Studebaker in good condition is worth a lot of money. 
I don't know where the Glock thing came from but out of everything I've owned, the only handguns with a safety were 1911s and my shield. Glocks were way down the line. I don't want a safety because I have been carrying guns without them for too long and don't want something that can accidentally be swept on without my noticing. The Shield was always nice and positive engagement but I still didn't like it being on the gun.
OldCat
Member
Actually, a Studebaker in good condition is worth a lot of money.
Especially a nice Avanti.
My first car was a USED 52 Studebaker back in 1958
Could not agree more
scattershot
Member
I like the thumb safety, and I like Studebakers, too. I don't think your market is as limited as you think it is.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 7,100
Thumb Safety/no thumb safety. Magazine safety/no magazine safety. Rail/no rail. Button mag release in "American" position/paddle type Walther/HK release. Decock only/safety and decocker. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I notice that there are quite a large number of people who "always have a reason NOT to buy something," and when that is "fixed," then there is still another reason. The target is always moving for gun companies.
The fact is that the West German Police trials of the mid-1970s said, "no manual safety like we had on our Walther PPs and PPKs" and SIG made its P6 (P225), Walther its P5, and HK its P7. DA revolvers for the most part, save the strange French models made by S&W, have simply NEVER had thumb safeties, instead having internal, automatic safeties making them safe if dropped. Otherwise, pull the trigger and it fires. Lesson: Don't pull the trigger if you don't intend to fire the weapon.
Thumb safeties are redundant on the DAO type of semi-auto. That said, they make some people feel better, so having the option is nice. To be honest, I have had more trouble with the button type of "American" magazine release being accidentally activated in a pocket carry scenario than I have with unobtrusive thumb safeties accidentally going into the "safe" position." By unobtrusive, I am referring to the type on the Shield and the Ruger LC9. There are perhaps others that qualify as unobtrusive.
I am glad to have choices.
I wish we had as many choices with respect to internal locks on revolvers.
The fact is that the West German Police trials of the mid-1970s said, "no manual safety like we had on our Walther PPs and PPKs" and SIG made its P6 (P225), Walther its P5, and HK its P7. DA revolvers for the most part, save the strange French models made by S&W, have simply NEVER had thumb safeties, instead having internal, automatic safeties making them safe if dropped. Otherwise, pull the trigger and it fires. Lesson: Don't pull the trigger if you don't intend to fire the weapon.
Thumb safeties are redundant on the DAO type of semi-auto. That said, they make some people feel better, so having the option is nice. To be honest, I have had more trouble with the button type of "American" magazine release being accidentally activated in a pocket carry scenario than I have with unobtrusive thumb safeties accidentally going into the "safe" position." By unobtrusive, I am referring to the type on the Shield and the Ruger LC9. There are perhaps others that qualify as unobtrusive.
I am glad to have choices.
I wish we had as many choices with respect to internal locks on revolvers.
Last edited:
Stratajema
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 87
I have read posts on this message board about the Shield since the gun was first introduced. I have only seen one, maybe two posts where someone complained about the thumb safety being too easy to engage.
The Shield's safety is not a real world "problem" based on actual user experiences. It appears to be a psychological one based on carry-over memories of how easy it is to engage the safety on 1911s and maybe on some other M&P models.
I think the S&W legal department greatly influenced the decision to put a safety on the first models of the gun. The lawyers probably saw it as a potential "pocket" carry gun in cold weather climates. (e.g. inside the bigger pockets of coats). Of course the gun should always be in a holster when carried but in the real world there are people who don't know to do so.
The Shield's safety is not a real world "problem" based on actual user experiences. It appears to be a psychological one based on carry-over memories of how easy it is to engage the safety on 1911s and maybe on some other M&P models.
I think the S&W legal department greatly influenced the decision to put a safety on the first models of the gun. The lawyers probably saw it as a potential "pocket" carry gun in cold weather climates. (e.g. inside the bigger pockets of coats). Of course the gun should always be in a holster when carried but in the real world there are people who don't know to do so.
Last edited:
Lockback
Member
I've been a Glock guy for years so I'm used to and comfortable with autos lacking a manual safety.
I bought the 9mm Shield because I love the size, balance and thinness of it. The fact it has a safety bothers me not one whit: I simply don't engage it ... except when I holster it. An added level of safety.
Snick. Safety on as it slides into the holster.
Snick. Safety off as soon as it's set.
I've never had the safety accidentally engage. It's low profile and has a solid detent.
So to me the safety is a total non-issue. I think it's great Smith is offering it without now because I like having choices for the consumer. But with or without the manual safety, I would have bought the Shield anyway simply because it's a terrific concealable handgun that's proven to be reliable, accurate and a fantastic value.
I bought the 9mm Shield because I love the size, balance and thinness of it. The fact it has a safety bothers me not one whit: I simply don't engage it ... except when I holster it. An added level of safety.
Snick. Safety on as it slides into the holster.
Snick. Safety off as soon as it's set.
I've never had the safety accidentally engage. It's low profile and has a solid detent.
So to me the safety is a total non-issue. I think it's great Smith is offering it without now because I like having choices for the consumer. But with or without the manual safety, I would have bought the Shield anyway simply because it's a terrific concealable handgun that's proven to be reliable, accurate and a fantastic value.
Similar threads
