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

[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.