M&P 9 FS - yes or no to thumb safety?

[oboe]

May I please have your thoughts, recommendations, and advice and most particularly your reasoning: My buy will be S&W M&P9 full-size 4.25" barrel. Should I get it WITH the thumb safety or WITHOUT the thumb safety?

[JDM]

How are you going to carry it? AIWB, IWB etc.

Do you have previous experience with thumb safety equipped weapons?

Do YOU feel the need for a manual safety?

[LittleLebowski]

If you're asking if you need it, you probably don't.

[Frank R]

If you're accustomed to carrying a 1911 and/or feel more safe with a safety, then by all means get one. Personally I think if you follow the usual safety guidelines one is not needed.

[orionz06]

The thumb safety can be removed but the sear housing block will not allow for such items as the Apex RAM. If you ever see yourself wanting to use that part the TS is a no-go.

[jslaker]

The thumb safety can be removed but the sear housing block will not allow for such items as the Apex RAM. If you ever see yourself wanting to use that part the TS is a no-go.

I was already planning on getting the non-safety version. That seals it.

[oboe]

My deer rifle had a thumb safety that was engaged until I was ready to shoot. My over/under shotgun also had a thumb safety on the tang that I was condition to slide off just as the gun was coming up for a shot - and in woods and brush of Vermont,'those shots had to be fast. That said, I am seeing a distict difference in this case. The pistol will be carried concealed either IWB or OWB depending on clothing and circumstances at 3:30 more or less [never AIWB] for self defense. It will be in the holster for carry or in the hand when it's needed for its intended purpose. In the holster, the internal safety devices will be sufficient. In my hand for self defense a thumb safety is one more thing that just might mess up my presentation and firing of the pistol - scary, considering the need would be to stop a BG and save my own life or the life of another innocent person. Also, the good stuff than can be done to the inyards would be curtailed in part in the TS version. Therefore, I have just convinced myself that it is in my own best interests to get the M&P9 FS WITHOUT the TS. Thanks for all of your input. It has been thought provoking and helped get me to my conclusion.

[WDW]

My deer rifle had a thumb safety that was engaged until I was ready to shoot. My over/under shotgun also had a thumb safety on the tang that I was condition to slide off just as the gun was coming up for a shot - and in woods and brush of Vermont,'those shots had to be fast. That said, I am seeing a distict difference in this case. The pistol will be carried concealed either IWB or OWB depending on clothing and circumstances at 3:30 more or less [never AIWB] for self defense. It will be in the holster for carry or in the hand when it's needed for its intended purpose. In the holster, the internal safety devices will be sufficient. In my hand for self defense a thumb safety is one more thing that just might mess up my presentation and firing of the pistol - scary, considering the need would be to stop a BG and save my own life or the life of another innocent person. Also, the good stuff than can be done to the inyards would be curtailed in part in the TS version. Therefore, I have just convinced myself that it is in my own best interests to get the M&P9 FS WITHOUT the TS. Thanks for all of your input. It has been thought provoking and helped get me to my conclusion.
I would not get a TS version. Good on you for reckognizing the difference in a need for a safety on a long gun than on a pistol. You nailed it. A pistol is in the holster or in the hand. A long gun is far more susceptible to ND and I wouldn't have one without a safety.

[Pennzoil]

I recently got a M&P 9 FS with thumb safety for just a little more assurance with holstering AIWB. I would rather have something like the gadget (hint hint) but safety works for now. If I wasn't carrying AIWB I wouldn't get the thumb safety and actually got the frame plugs just incase as I figured I would hate the thumb safety.

The major negatives of thumb safety for me are holster selection, lack of Apex RAM (mentioned above by orion) and reloads but reloading is more then likely a training issue for me as I'm new to thumb safeties. I usually ride my thumb on the slide release while inserting the magazine during reload. With the width of the stock thumb safety I can't really do this now so now I'm using support hand to release the slide instead and it's adding time to my reloads.


Disengaging the safety is part of my normal grip so I never mess it up like I do when hunting with shotgun/rifle. I'm an avid dove and quall hunter and understand what your talking about. From my notes my first hit on target is actually faster then same carry position with Glock which I think is gun just fitting me better so safety hasn't hindered me there. Even with crap reload splits I'm still faster overall with m&p thumb safety compared to my previous times with my last carry gun from same position.

[DannyZRC]

the RAM is coming for safety equipped models, last I read on m-p was that smith was moving all the production over to the MA compliant thumb safety sear block to simplify production (not sure if they're going to all thumb safety frames or not).

I just dros'd an M&P40 w/ thumb safety =D.

I never bought the "guns are always in holsters" line, none of my guns are in holsters right now (but I don't CCW, in a no-issue county in CA).

[oboe]

Just out of curiosity, Danny - when you're not using the guns, where are they that requires the safety? I've wracked my brain [such as it is] trying to imagine a situation where the pistol is more safe with a safety than without it - and in each wildly imagined scenario, I could see a better path to safety than to have it on the gun.

Walking through the woods with a loaded deer rifle or bird gun is different - because one can [and I have] lost my footing and probably was blessed by the safety.

I can see where a safety would provide some peace of mind re-holstering near the family jewels. Otherwise, I haven't been able to dream up the "pro-safety lever" scenarios. Accidents can happen either with or without such a lever, and I wouldn't want to depend on one. I'd rather depend on the safety lever between my ears. But hey, I'm still listening, so all opinions are welcome.

The stock safety on the M&P didn't exactly knock me off my feet. If for any reason I DID want a thumb safety, I'd have those after market thin and svelte ones installed to replace the stock.

P.S. [edit]: As for the internal lock and mag safety requirements, the makers of those rules clearly did not have the safety of the gun owner at heart.

[jslaker]

I never bought the "guns are always in holsters" line, none of my guns are in holsters right now (but I don't CCW, in a no-issue county in CA).

My guns are either in holsters or boxed up at all times if they're not in active use of some sort.

[oboe]

That's my point. Where could they be when a safety makes them safer? I don't get it.

[DannyZRC]

the PX4SC is on my nightstand (actually, GF's side), chambered and on safe.

My P2000 used to hang out on the hutch on my desk, but I was never really comfortable with it there so I got rid of it, now acquiring the M&P 40.

I may not end up liking the M&P, or it may not give me a warm fuzzy, in which case I'll move it along for a PX4 of my own, since I'm comfortable with that platform.

[oboe]

Thanks for sharing that. FYI, it's not responsive to my question, but HEY! It works for you.

[DannyZRC]

in all scenarios where you are safe (safe in this case to mean without unintended discharge) without a lever, you are safe with one.

in some subset of scenarios where you are not safe without a lever, you are still safe with one. that set being equal to the likelihood that the safety lever was applied when whatever safety transgression occurred.

[oboe]

Danny boy, I see what you mean. I mean something different b

[jslaker]

in all scenarios where you are safe (safe in this case to mean without unintended discharge) without a lever, you are safe with one.

in some subset of scenarios where you are not safe without a lever, you are still safe with one. that set being equal to the likelihood that the safety lever was applied when whatever safety transgression occurred.

If I follow you correctly, your concern is being safer than you intend to be. :)

[oboe]

Danny does not believe that a safety can be a detriment when the gun with the levers is to be presented for use in self defense. However, I do believe it is possible that the lever could be engaged at the time I need it to be disengaged, in which case I'd not be killed by my own gun but by someone else's gun. In that scenario, having the lever on the gun would be UNSAFE, while the unsafe condition would be obviated completely by the absence of the levers [one one each side]. In addition, the fit to holster would be affected by the protrusion of the levers on each side. Some kinds of mechanical improvement work can not be accomplished with the presence of the inside [non-lever] safety mechanism.

For these reasons, I do not at this time desire the presence of the safety levers or the safety internals. YMMV

[DannyZRC]

oh, I do entertain the possibility that a misused safety lever can hinder the effective use of the gun, but it is the tradeoff which I choose to accept.

IMO, it's much more reasonable to adopt something that requires more practice of the process of shooting, than it is to adopt a platform which has virtually zero margin for human error in the name of simplifying the process of shooting.

You practice shooting at a range, and mistakes are made in a place where the consequences are poor shot placement or slow speed of deployment. But there isn't a place to practice safety, you have to live it (of course true even with every safety feature under the sun). Unlike shooting mistakes which are most likely to happen on a range (where nearly all shooting is done), safety mistakes are equally likely everywhere.

If someone didn't want to train, or I were an institution that had to consider training a large number of people, then it would make sense to use a simplified weapons system like a revolver (civilian) or glock(military), but for a shooting enthusiast who has the time and enjoys practicing (or a policeman to whom the pistol is a primary), then I think there are mo' better solutions.

I'm just a dude, these are just my thoughts.

[oboe]

I get your point, even though I make a choice different from yours. In the end, each circumstance is a world unto itself, and our individual conduct - no matter what the configuration of the weapon - is the final determinant of the result.

[DocGKR]

I strongly prefer having a manual safety on a pistol that is used for uniformed LE use; I have twice seen officers' lives potentially saved when another person gained control of an officer's pistol, but the engaged manual safety prevented the weapon from firing--I don't like to think about the outcome if the pistols involved had been a Glock, Sig, XD, revolver, etc... Likewise, if you plan on carrying AIWB, a manual safety may prove to be a prudent item to use. If you are coming from a 1911 background, you may find the M&P safety to feel very familiar--in 25 years of 1911 use, I have NEVER had an issue with the thumb safety preventing me from firing when I wanted to. I firmly believe that the manual safety is one of the major advantages the M&P has over Glock...

[oboe]

Doc, although I can see differences between LE and permitted citizen situations, and you've made clear the LE snatched gun situation, in just what physical circumstances will the safety help the permitted citizen in a way that would otherwise be unavailable? Just what are the physical circumstances?

It appears - and I say appears - that the thumb safety has the same rational as the mag safety.

Just asking.

[DocGKR]

Imagine being mugged, hit over the head, and stunned; bad guy pulls out your pistol, but does not remove safety and so pistol fails to go off as he sits there squeezing the trigger...I personally saw this happen to someone.

You are at home and set your pistol down for a brief moment as you begin to change and your child who was hiding reaches up and grabs it....I personally have seen this occur once as well.

You are carrying IWB and your jacket zipper catches on the trigger as your attention wonders a brief second while re-holstering after a stressful encounter--boom...I have seen this happen to someone as well. This can be particularly tragic with AIWB...

[DannyZRC]

Thanks Doc for providing the firsthand accounts that clarify some of the situations where a manual safety provides benefit.

I have, over time, developed the opinion that 'risky manly man hobbies' like guns and motorcycles have developed an almost phobic aversion to the topic of safety. I don't know if this is reactionary against people constantly nagging about risks, if it's out of fear of legal prohibitions if risks are acknowledged, or if it is out of self deception and rationalization regarding the risks, but I find it an interesting and saddening phenomena.

I think glock makes a reliable and high quality pistol at a good price, and people have a drive to rationalize their decisions as the best decisions, it's natural but it's damned harmful to discourse, and in the case of these 'risky manly man hobbies' the combination of rationalizing one's own choices with the culture of safety aversion is a potent combination.

And yes, I know that firearms are both a hobby and a serious tool for personal defense and execution of professional law enforcement, so don't take my characterization of them as a 'risky manly man hobby' to in any way imply that I don't appreciate the practical concerns of firearms and their relationship to freedom and security.

[oboe]

Doc, this is probably the most articulate and demonstrative statement in support of the thumb safety that I've seen. I know that Massad Ayoob has advocated for the first reason - having one's gun taken and used to kill its rightful owner, all within seconds. I really need to ponder this one. The question is which risk to take - that of being done in by one's own pistol, or that of flubbing in the heat of the moment and failing to get off that important first shot.

As to the second scenario, I respectfully beg to differ. Yes, the safety would perform a function in that circumstance - but that is a circumstance which should not happen. In any case, the safety in that circumstance provides a false sense of security.

As to the last, it is the least likely if the holster covers the trigger guard and trigger. I for one do even consider AIWB due to that risk, but with the trigger guard and trigger covered, it just seems truly unlikely.

Have any of these things happened? In the huge universe or probabilities - they probably have. Whether the numbers will foster a hight regard for a thumb safety remains to be seen.

[oboe]

Danny, your concerns are well taken. However, the discourse is not about whether we should highly regard safety. The issue is, in the end, what constitutes safety. There is widespread disagreement on this issue. Doc has provided enough food for thought that I'll keep an open mind on the subject.

[oboe]

P.S. At this point, I am hoping the more experienced people will reply to the issues raised by Doc.

[Simon]

I was raised on a revolver, I carried one for 25 years. I see no difference in a revolver trigger and a DAO trigger or a striker fired gun if you have a reasonable trigger pull(not less than about 6 lbs). I believe that all uniformed officers should use a passive retention holster. After many years use, I could see no slowing of the draw. It just takes practice. Too many officers do not handle or fire their weapons at any time except qual.

I have never used a Glock, but I have read enough to understand why you would not want to carry AIWB. I have an M&P 40 and would not hesitate to carry AWIB if it was not so uncomfortable. If you have a competition M&P with 2 1/2 lb. trigger, the only place I would use it is on a range with a good competition rig. I use a retention holster with my M&P 40.

I forgot that this thread was about a thumb safety. I see no reason to have one on a DAO or striker fired weapon. I have a new Ruger LC9 and I do not use the thumb safety.

[Kyle Reese]

If a manual safety on a handgun tickles your fancy, go for it. If not, drive on.

[LOKNLOD]

As to the last, it is the least likely if the holster covers the trigger guard and trigger. I for one do even consider AIWB due to that risk, but with the trigger guard and trigger covered, it just seems truly unlikely.


Assuming you're still talking about the likelyhood of something getting caught upon reholster, I must disagree and say this is by far the most likely the the scenarios. One will likely never get mugged at all, and there are ways to limit exposure to kids, but one can easily reholster tens or even hundreds of times in a range visit or training class. Every time represents an opportunity for error or accident. And while a good holster helps prevent the holster itself from catching the trigger, it doesn't prevent things like zipper pulls and jacket adjusters from finding creative ways to ruin your day.

[oboe]

Point taken, LOKNOD, and there also are safe ways to work around that. Originally, in fact, that was my very reason for interest in a thumb safety - re-holstering. Knowing that point of exposure, one would protect against it. This is an interesting point, and again, I'd like to hear from the professionals.

[DocGKR]

Since 1985, at various times I have been issued, qualified with, or authorized to carry the Beretta 92F/M9, classic Sig P226/228 & P220, S&W 3rd gen pistols, Glock 9 mm's, S&W M&P's, various 1911’s, as well as several S&W revolvers including J, K, L , and N-frames. I also have a fair degree of experience with Browning Hi-Powers, Glock 22/23 & 21, various HK pistols. I have been certified as an armorer on several of these systems. All of these handguns had both good and bad characteristics.

In general, when push comes to shove, given my experiences in the military and LE since 1985, I prefer a manual safety. Is it a deal breaker? No, as I am currently qual'd on and carry both 9 mm Glocks (obviously w/o a manual safety) and M&P45's w/ambi safety, but it is definitely my preference...

[oboe]

You certainly have passed your quals with ME, Doc! That's impressive! Do you think that your preference for the thumb safety should be equally preferable for the non-LE citizen like me?

I do respect your cred. At same time, I see most departments - and all of which I'm aware here in the Sunshine state - issuing Glock or S&W with no thumb safety. It's not easy to know what to decide. And the experiences of most non-LE civilians is not at all comparable to LEO experiences. Many others of apparently also impressive quals do not all share your views on the thumb safety.

[fuse]

In my short shooting life I have mainly just used Glocks and sigs , and am of the opinion a manual safety would probably cost me precious seconds in a high stress encounter, in terms of forgetting to disengage it and attempting to fire. Would take some serious practice to undo that.

[MichaelD]

I say get it with the safety, simply because it's easy to remove should you decide you don't want it.

[Corvus]

I recently purchased my first M&P and I purchased the thumb safety model. I prefer one but I do think it is a personal preference and not a requirement. I feel I get a better grip / leverage on the handgun with my thumb on the safety.

[oboe]

Since the safety is not at all well placed for me, and since I do not think that it will make me personally a more safe shooter, and since it's one more thing that can go wrong just as Murphy has said - I have notified the dealer that I'll be buying it after the holiday with no thumb or mag safety and with no internal lock.

Thanks for all the input, guys. Once it's here, I'll be carrying [albeit concealed] the same side arm issued to the local gendarmerie.

Today, remember the fallen Americans whose sacrifice has made it possible for all of us to have this conversation and to keep and bear arms.

[jslaker]

I ended up doing exactly what I figured I would and skipping any extraneous safeties. I think magazine disconnects are stupid, I wouldn't use the internal lock, and I can do just fine without the thumb safety.