I say contrarian because I've seen so many complaining about the external, magazine and key lock safeties of the LC 9.
My handgun shooting experience started as a LEO in the mid '70's with an S&W Model 66. Had absolutely no interest in semi-autos until I shot a .45 ACP 1911 and became hooked.
"Growing up" with the 1911, the frame mounted external safety was just part of the package. Unlike the S&W autos of the time, dropping the 1911 safety was easily accomplished as a natural part of the draw.
As a result, the almost identical type safety found on the LC 9 is absolutely no problem for me. In fact, I'm a bit leery about guns like the Glock that have not a similar safety.
Now the magazine safety, I understand the concerns. But it is hard to document a case where someone was at a disadvantage because he could not fire his weapon between magazine reloads. Maybe in the military, but civilian and LEO, hard to find.
There are, however, numerous examples recorded by Ayoob where a goblin got a gun away from a good guy, but the GG was able to tap the magazine release slightly dropping the mag and rendering the gun inoperable to a clueless bad guy.
The same has been documented by Ayoob regarding the frame mounted safety.
Those few seconds when a bad guy is pulling the trigger with a big question mark on his face because nothing is happening gives the good guy time to access a back up gun, knife or environmental weapon (rock, chair, bat, etc) or continue the fight hand to hand (or maybe even run!).
Key lock? Doesn't bother me because I don't use it. However, can one not think of a situation where it might be nice to have?
What if you leave the house on vacation and the LC 9 is left at home for another weapon. Lock it and take the key and magazines with you. Not impossible for the crook make it operable again but it's going to be difficult and he may be dumb enough to take it to a gunsmith who's bright enough to recognize the situation and call LE.
I'm sure there are others who can disagree in a well thought out manner but that's my opinion.
My handgun shooting experience started as a LEO in the mid '70's with an S&W Model 66. Had absolutely no interest in semi-autos until I shot a .45 ACP 1911 and became hooked.
"Growing up" with the 1911, the frame mounted external safety was just part of the package. Unlike the S&W autos of the time, dropping the 1911 safety was easily accomplished as a natural part of the draw.
As a result, the almost identical type safety found on the LC 9 is absolutely no problem for me. In fact, I'm a bit leery about guns like the Glock that have not a similar safety.
Now the magazine safety, I understand the concerns. But it is hard to document a case where someone was at a disadvantage because he could not fire his weapon between magazine reloads. Maybe in the military, but civilian and LEO, hard to find.
There are, however, numerous examples recorded by Ayoob where a goblin got a gun away from a good guy, but the GG was able to tap the magazine release slightly dropping the mag and rendering the gun inoperable to a clueless bad guy.
The same has been documented by Ayoob regarding the frame mounted safety.
Those few seconds when a bad guy is pulling the trigger with a big question mark on his face because nothing is happening gives the good guy time to access a back up gun, knife or environmental weapon (rock, chair, bat, etc) or continue the fight hand to hand (or maybe even run!).
Key lock? Doesn't bother me because I don't use it. However, can one not think of a situation where it might be nice to have?
What if you leave the house on vacation and the LC 9 is left at home for another weapon. Lock it and take the key and magazines with you. Not impossible for the crook make it operable again but it's going to be difficult and he may be dumb enough to take it to a gunsmith who's bright enough to recognize the situation and call LE.
I'm sure there are others who can disagree in a well thought out manner but that's my opinion.
