Any cons of a thumb safety?

[red04montels]

I'm looking at getting the Smith and Wesson M&P Compact 9mm with the thumb safety.

I'm mainly looking to get the thumb safety because I will be teaching my girlfriend and family how to shoot, so the extra precaution will ease my mind.

Other than not being able to get the laser grip, do you guys know of any cons that there may be to getting the model with the thumb safety? I figure if I want a laser I'll just put one on the rail since I can't think of anything else that I may want there.

They seem to be lower priced, must not be as appealing to most.

I'm not too worried about resale either as I won't be selling the gun.

Also, anyone know what the rail length is on the M&P Compact along with if they're going to be a revision of it next model year?

 

[ATLDave]

It depends on whether you have a high grip. If you have a high grip, the safety on M&P's can be ridden just like on a 1911. This is what I do with mine (full size, not compact, but there's no relevant difference for this discussion). For people who like to grip lower, some find that the top of their thumb bumps the safety on.

In my mind, this is just a further incentive to develop the kind of high grip that affords the best recoil management. But if you're really wedded to a lower grip, it could be an annoyance. Try gripping the gun. If you are comfortable riding the safety, then it's a big plus. If you're not, it might become an annoyance. Which might still be worth it in view of the regular benefits of an external safety, if you believe in those (I do).

 

[ny32182]

Depends on your grip; with mine, my support hand flicks the safety on.

It is one more thing to think about for a newbie especially; I personally don't believe it adds anything but unneeded complexity.

I think, but am not sure, that the frames are interchangeable and you can add or delete the saftey from any M&P with just a few bucks worth of parts... I'd have to confirm that.

 

[CurlyQ]

Just my humble opinion, but the only thing that manual safeties are good for is to some day prevent the gun from firing when you need it the most.

 

[red04montels]

I don't plan on carrying at the current time and it'll be a range gun.

As far as preventing the gun from firing, that's more of a 'know your gun' type of thing don't you think?

 

[ATLDave]

Just my humble opinion, but the only thing that manual safeties are good for is to some day prevent the gun from firing when you need it the most.

Yeah, because nobody has ever accidentally/negligently discharged a firearm while, say, holstering. No point to a manually safety at all.

For a frame-mounted, down-to-fire safety (as found on a 1911 or a S&W M&P), one can easily develop a grip that takes the safety off automatically. There is a 0% chance of the undesirable "preventing the gun from firing" problem with that configuration.

 

[wally]

but the only thing that manual safeties are good for is to some day prevent the gun from firing when you need it the most.

I'd wager there are a fair number of LEO out there that didn't get shot with their own gun because of one, who'd strongly disagree!

Only disadvantage I see is it requires some extra training. But once you are used to them, you reflexively wipe 'em off even on guns that don't have them.

 

[red04montels]

Does anyone know about any good laser sights that will fit the shortened rail on the Compact?

I have found the following:

http://www.armalaser.com/rss.html

http://www.crimsontrace-laser.com/cmr-201-rail-master.html

I prefer the looks of the Arma laser personally minus those little silver pieces which can be fixed. However, I'm curious about the durability of either.

 

[tipoc]

Any cons of a thumb safety?

No. Practice with it. The only time it can be a problem is if you forget that it is there when you need the gun to fire. So practice. If you think that you will forget that it is there then get a gun without one.

New drivers often ask "Heck I got a brake pedal and a gas pedal. What if I get nervous and forget which is which?" Of course that sometimes happens. So practice. The more you drive the more it becomes second nature and you don't forget which is which. Same with driving a clutch vs. an automatic.

If a person fears that they will forget then don't do it. If you know you're gun though, you won't forget. The more one practices correctly, the more safe gun handling comes to the fore and appears instinctual.

Either way there is no downside if you practice.

tipoc

 

[jmr40]

On a 1911, or other gun with a properly designed safety no. The M&P safety is not one I'd want. I bought one of the 1st to come out in 45 ACP thinking it would be the perfect compromise between my 1911's and G-21. On this gun I found the safety to be far too easy to engage and disengage. It was quite often in a different position than I intended it to be. I've read reports of others having the same issues.

Quickly sold the M&P, but would give another a chance, but no safety on the next one for me. I've never had a problem with any 1911, or BHP. I don't care as much for the CZ design, but it does work. Never actually owned one of the Rugers, but the ones I've handled seem OK.

 

[Takem406]

Personally for ME, not saying everyone, but I don't see a need for a manual thumb safety for a carry gun. The holster is enough of a safety for ME. Even with a thumb safety you'll still have to keep your finger off the trigger and practice basic safety.
So I have no issues carrying a hot Glock. Just have to keep a high trigger finger and keep clothing out of the way when reholstering. However I usually put the gun and the holster on at the same time.
Of course the 1911 would be my personal exception to this, because it was made to be carried cooked and locked.

 

[smalls]

It's really just personal preference and comfort level. I have no problem carrying a gun without one, but my 1911 has one so I train to unlock it as I draw. I'd have no problem carrying it without a safety, or unlocked (condition 0), but it'd require me to retrain myself.

It is a comfy spot for my thumb, though. And really helps get a high grip, like has been stated.

 

[Outlaw Man]

The only real safety is the one between your ears.

That said, I like the idea of having a manual safety when teaching a beginner. And a frame-mounted thumb safety like the M&P's is very instinctive to use.

 

[rcmodel]

The only time it can be a problem is if you forget that it is there when you need the gun to fire.

If you are that forgetful?

You probably shouldn't own a gun of any kind.

rc

 

[tipoc]

If you are that forgetful?

You probably shouldn't own a gun of any kind.

A question that should be posed more often.

tipoc

 

[ritepath]

Nope...

Get it practice and enjoy it you'll love the M&P, if my 9c had been so equipped I probably wouldn't have traded it. The safety becomes second nature pretty darned quick. (manual safeties were pretty popular in the 70's and 80's)

I do however.com like the small safeties like the Shield or SR's have, but that's just my preference in an SD firearm.

I can shoot the old SR45 5 shots, place it on safety and hand it to my 9yo son with few worries about him letting one fly by mistake. Of course he's also pretty good about keeping his finger off trigger.

Enjoy that M&P....I hope to pick up a 9 to replace my 9c some day soon.

 

[TestPilot]

If you are that forgetful?

You probably shouldn't own a gun of any kind.

rc

Using that logic, it is also possible to say "Are you not careful enough to never have a trigger pull without intending to? Then you probably should not own a gun."

Real gun safety comes from recognizing the obvious fact that we are not perfect.

 

[TestPilot]

It's all about risk management.

Thumb lever type manual firing inhibitor(does not sound like it is something all that good if you call it this way does it? For what it actually is), or any other type that requires motion separate from firing the pistol, may reduce some risk while increasing or creating some other risks.

It reduces risk of accidental discharge if something pulls the trigger when the user does not intend to. But, do not forget the obvious fact that it only works when the device is engaged. What does that mean? It means it will not save you from "I thought the gun was empty" discharges, since a user will deliberately pull the trigger and have the device disengaged in those situations. It will also not reduce that risk if you use the doctrine of holding the gun in ready position with the device disengaged.

The risk is that it can be engaged when user do intend to fire, resulting in the user being unable to stop a dangerous threat.

That can happen in a number of ways. The lever can be moved because it came into contact with an object while the user is maneuvering or while in a physical struggle with an opponent.

Some people argue that the accidental lever movement is not a problem because the user should keep downward pressure on the lever. However, that is not a universal solution because that style of gripping is does not result in the best shooting effectiveness with everyone. This writer, for example, do not want any pressure applied downward by the thumb on one side of the pistol, applying torqing force on the gun on both horizontal and vertical plane when I need stablity. Also, that solution would not work with slide lever or abbreviated type of lever on the frame.

Another risk is that the manipulation failure becomes a high probabliity if there is a hand injury.

Depending on your doctrine of using the device, it can make your response slower when the manipulation of the lever makes your shooting respose slower than if the gun did not have such a device. Many people will argue that there is no added time because the manipulation is done during transition from ready position or drawing to aiming position, but that is wrong generalization.

Most training institutions will teach trainees to constantly engage or disengage every time the gun comes off an intended target, and that may cause a person to encounter situation where they would be manipulating the lever while decision to shoot or not changes. When shoot or no-shoot decision changes multiple times quickly, the thought process and speed of thumb doing the manipulation may not be able to keep up with the decision speed, even if the manipulation process is subconscious, or cause a confusion.

Of course, that never becomes a problem on a range with paper target that basically says which target is a "shoot" and which target is a "no shoot" target with no ambiguity or dynamic "shoot" and "no shoot" changes, unlike real life.

Instructors such as Rob Pincus even challenged people to complete his course offiering that he would refund the tuition if the person is able to complete the course with no operator error of manual firing inhibitors.

Many advocates of the manual firing inhibitor said that manual firing inhibitor is not a risk with proper training. They are wrong on two points. Training do reduce the above mentioned risk associcated with the device, however it can only reduce it. It will never eliminate the risk.

Also, when people who states manual firing inhibitor is mandatory are claiming training will solve all risks of the device, they are contradicting themselves. Their reasoning is that manual firing ihibitor is needed because operators cannot eliminate all mistakes and unforseen issues that can lead to the trigger accidentally being pulled no matter how careful operators are. But, they contradict themselves when, at the same time, they claim all mistakes and unforseen issues that can lead to manual firing inhibitor not being manipulated correctly or expereince a device failure can be eliminated with training. It is irrational to claim training will not eliminate trigger mistakes no matter what the training level, and claim that training will completely eliminate manual firing inhibitor lever mistakes or other issues at the same time.

That is the reason why M&P40 without magazine disconnect and without thumb lever manual firing inhibitor is my parimary pistol. Those device creates more risk than benefits according to my own assessment. Your assessment does not have to be the same.

 

[tipoc]

... the manual firing inhibitor

On planet earth we tend to refer to these as external safeties or thumb safeties.

This odd and cumbersome term, "manual firing inhibitors" (which I've only read from TestPilot as far as I recall,) is misleading because it misunderstands, or mis- states the purpose of an external safety and the thumb safety in particular.

If we look at the external safeties on Glocks, the S&W M&Ps without the thumb safety, the Springfield XD and others we see that the "manual firing inhibitor" must be disengaged for the gun to fire. The action of placing ones finger lightly on the trigger does this. In a sense these type external safeties actual do "inhibit fire" if the gun is dropped or mishandled. The same is true for guns with grip safeties, like the 1911, Colt M1903, of the XD.

With the BHP, 1911 and some other single action designs the purpose is to allow for the shooter to have the gun in single action mode, fire several rounds, cease fire and then make the gun safe while moving from one location to another or do a task while maintaining the gun safely ready for an instant shot in single action. That is the single purpose of the thumb safety. It's purpose is not to "inhibit fire" but to make the gun safe and ready for an instantaneous single action shot. That is actually it's primary purpose. Without it, carrying a cocked single action firearm is about as safe as carrying a cocked revolver. Not good practice. But it's central purpose is not to inhibit fire but to place the gun in a state where it is instantly ready to fire. External safeties on the Glock design do not act in this manner.

With da/sa guns we generally see a decocker or a safety/decocker devised to solve the problem of once you have a gun cocked how to you make it safe in between strings of fire. The general practice is to decock the gun. This is the case with the M9. The external safety can only be engaged when the hammer is completely down. Here the purpose and intent of the hammer being fully down and the safety on is to make the gun impossible to fire until the safety has been disengaged an either the hammer cocked manually for a single action shot or pulled through a longer revolver like pull for a da shot. The M9, some S&W third gen guns, the P38 and others, with these designs place the emphasis on deliberation before pulling the trigger. The actions taken must be conscious and deliberate.

Th eSig guns generally operate a bit differently.

To lump all these systems, and others together as "manual firing inhibitors" is an error in my opinion.

Any of them have their strengths and weaknesses but training can overcome those, or at least help folks make a selection that fits their capabilities and concerns.

tipoc

 

[Byrd666]

The only con to a thumb safety for me, is not training and practicing with it. It is a habit that you HAVE to become very intimate with. Not a second nature, but, a First nature action. Most of my semi autos have a thumb safety on them, and the very first thing I do when I pick them up is to put my thumb on that safety to tell me if is safe or not to handle.

My M&P c9 that I carry daily does Not have a thumb safety on it because I didn't like the way it felt during my search for my EDC. With that particular safety, I had to use an uncomfortable grip in order to disengage it. And in so doing that, my firing grip was compromised unless I wanted to take the second or two to reposition my hand. I felt that was a compromise I just could not accept if me or mines' lives were at stake. With the full size pistol it was not a problem. But, with the compact it was.

I think you are making a fine choice if you feel comfortable with it. And will train with it accordingly, it will be a reliable defensive pistol.

 

[TestPilot]

This odd and cumbersome term, "manual firing inhibitors" (which I've only read from TestPilot as far as I recall,) is misleading because it misunderstands, or mis- states the purpose of an external safety and the thumb safety in particular.

If we look at the external safeties on Glocks, the S&W M&Ps without the thumb safety, the Springfield XD and others we see that the "manual firing inhibitor" must be disengaged for the gun to fire. The action of placing ones finger lightly on the trigger does this. In a sense these type external safeties actual do "inhibit fire" if the gun is dropped or mishandled. The same is true for guns with grip safeties, like the 1911, Colt M1903, of the XD.

So, you admit that the device inhibit fire, but at the same time you say the term "firing inhibitor" is misleading.

The above is also the reason why I specifically distinguish manual firing inhibitor and manual firing inhibitor that requires motion separate from firing the gun.

It is interestng you bring up the issue of misleading, because it is my desire to not participate in perpetuating misleading information that lead me to use the term "manual firing inhibitor" because the term "safety" when referring to the device wrongfully insituates that it makes a gun more safe when it just exchanges one set of risk for another.

Of course, it is unlikely that you would mind such insinuation, sicnce it is very clear that the device is emotionally favorable to you, going as far as saying there is no con to it, which is kind of a dagerously bold statement for such mechanical device I might add.

That is the single purpose of the thumb safety. It's purpose is not to "inhibit fire" but to make the gun safe and ready for an instantaneous single action shot. That is actually it's primary purpose. Without it, carrying a cocked single action firearm is about as safe as carrying a cocked revolver.

Why are SAO guns said to be "safe" when "cocked and locked"? Because the firing is inhibited. No matter what word you might like to use or substitute with, there is no getting around that fact.

To lump all these systems, and others together as "manual firing inhibitors" is an error in my opinion.

It depends on what aspect you are looking at.

If I have a 1911 with a 3.5 lb trigger, then I would want a manual firing inhibitor on that pistol. So, if you are saying different pistols have different need, I would agree.

However, the set of risk a manual firing inhibitor brings to a pistol user equally applies, even to a 1911 user. In that sense, they're the same.

 

[1SOW]

I rarely disagree with rcmodel, but I do this time.
The safety is needed on SA pistols, that usually have a 3.5# trigger (or often less) and only take a VERY short pull to release the hammer.

The M&P striker fired gun doesn't have a 3.5 short-pull trigger with a very short pull, unless you've modified it A LOT.
The DA and striker-fired hand guns require a deliberate pull to fire. Adding a safety only adds something else to do in an emergency. While it's NOT a lot more to do, when your heart rate is 180 beats/sec and someone's life may hang in the balance, JUST pulling the trigger can be managed easier than flipping the safety and then pulling the trigger.

In either case, what you practice repeatedly is what you'll "tend" to do without conscious thought processes. Nothing is simpler than pointing and pulling the trigger.

As a range toy, it makes no difference. What's safe fun for you and yours is the only issue. The M&P is a proven pistol with no associated safety issues that read or heard of.

 

[danez71]

I have the MP9c with the thumb safety. I wanted it because that's what I grew up with and its consistent with having a thumb safety on my BHP and my former 1911.


A couple of things....

It can be removed if you don't like it.
The right side can be cut off if you want to use the laser grip.
It can be shaved/filed to a lower profile if you find it sticks out too much.
It can be firmed up if you find it not positive enough (although the newer ones are a bit firmer).

All of this can be done by you. No gun smith needed.

Having No manual thumb safety, IMO, didn't start to get 'popular' until glock/mid 80s. That's a long time for the thumb safety to be the standard. That's also about the same time 'glock' leg became more popular too.

IMO, if you cant trust your thumb to remember when to flick off the safety, you shouldn't trust your index finger either... or walk and chew gum at the same time.. or wear a seat belt because you might forget to unbuckle if you have an emergency in which you need to get out of the car quickly... or hit the brakes and turn the wheel at the same time to avoid hitting something.

Practice with it.

Having said all that, IMO, the advantage of a manual thumb safety is, for most common practical action, is when reholstering.

 

[leadcounsel]

If you plan to keep your finger off the trigger, it's unnecessary.

 

[Jim K]

There is one "con" that is often overlooked, not about the safety itself or the gun that uses it, but what you are used to. That is the situation where a person is determined to show off his gun expertise by carrying a variety of guns. This often means carrying widely disparate guns at different times - a BHP on Monday; a Glock on Tuesday; a 1911 on Wednesday morning, switching to a 642 for tea, and a LCP with evening dress; a M1903 .32 Colt on Thursday, etc. Of course the folks who do this insist that while some ignorant people might get confused, that could never happen to perfect people like themselves.

To which I say, balls of BS! So, IMHO, if you regularly carry a Glock, I strongly suggest not switching to a gun with a manual safety or to any gun that doesn't work like a Glock. Otherwise, you just might die pulling the trigger on a cocked and locked 1911, and wondering why your Glock doesn't fire. Darned embarrassing, that!

Jim