Monday, June 9, 2014

Smith & Wesson's M&P Shield with No Manual Safety

mampp shield no safety

Guns dot com

Smith & Wesson is going to make a lot of people happy with the announcement of new M&P Shield concealed carry pistols without manual safeties. The original Shield pistols have thumb safeties on the side.
A small but welcome change, as many people who choose to carry a concealed handgun believe that there shouldn’t be extra steps between drawing and shooting a gun. Manual safeties add a layer of security but also add an extra step when seconds matter most.
Smith & Wesson heeded the call and is now delivering a “No Safety” version of the Shield. These polymer-framed striker-fired single-stack subcompacts have quickly become some of America’s favorite concealed-carry pistols with their solid capacity, low recoil and compact package.
Everything else remains the same, so people will be able to use the same magazines, night sights and aftermarket accessories like holsters and laser sights. The “No Safety” Shields have the same 18-degree grip angle, the same oversized trigger guard for use with gloves, the same low-profile takedown lever and low-profile slide stop. The only change is that these new Shields don’t have thumb safeties.


  1. A gun without a safety should not be allowed. If a shooter cannot make a safety click as part of their shot, then they should not be shooting at anything including in a life threatening situation.

  2. So in other words, this pistol works no differently than a revolver of a Glock. Revolvers have been out there for quite a while. So it isn't like having no manual safety is a new development.

    1. That unsafe rational doesn't change what I said. You sound like the child who says they are all doing it (some unsafe idiotic thing) so it's ok for me and others to do it.

    2. "You sound like the child who says they are all doing it (some unsafe idiotic thing) so it's ok for me and others to do it. "

      "Glock pistols have become the company's most profitable line of products, commanding 65% of the market share of handguns for United States law enforcement agencies as well as supplying numerous national armed forces and security agencies worldwide."


      A majority of law enforcement agencies seem to think pistols with no manual safety are just fine. Or are you contending that a majority of law enforcement agencies are making unsafe and idiotic choices?

    3. That's right. The fact that revolvers have been around a long time without safeties does not mean they shouldn't be a part of the more popular semi-automatics.

      Do you own guns without safeties, ss? Do you accept the rationale that the time it takes to switch the safety off can make the difference in a life-threatening situation?

    4. Mike, California even includes Glocks on their roster of pistols allowed to be sold in the state. The roster is billed as those firearms that have passed the required safety tests. Revolvers are still manufactured and sold at a brisk pace even today, and they are also included on the California safety roster.
      I do own a revolver, though I carry a pistol. One with a manual safety. I personally don't feel the safety slows down its use because it gets set to fire as it clears the holster. And the finger goes into the trigger guard as the sights come on to the target.
      But everyone has their own technique.

    5. Yes, a personal choice. But you don't agree with the stated rationale.

      I wonder how many of the negligent discharges we read about are done with Glocks or other non-safe guns. I wonder how many kids have gotten a-hold of a gun that had a manual safety engaged and nothing bad happened.

    6. Yes. In fact I would call it stupid. Go ahead and chastise me. I would support a law making it illegal for any gun to be produced without a safety. I would like to know if these negligent/accident gun discharges happened with a gun with no safety. It should be part of the report of any of these cases.

    7. Yes, ban the evil Glocks.