No-Safety M&P Shield

shield

According to Gun Holsters and Gear, Smith & Wesson have given into popular demand. They will be making the M&P shield without the thumb safety. Apparently an all too eager dealer mistakenly leaked this promotional image a little prematurely; which led to discussions of its authenticity. However Gun Holsters and Gear’s sources have confirmed that it is real.

shield-no-safety

 

 

No details of when they will be available. MSRP will remain the same. I was honestly surprised it took S&W this long to make one when considering the multitude of variations that the M&P pistols come in.



Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Gwolf

    Dang it. Just got one of the originals not too long ago. Oh well.

    • iksnilol

      Why not just remove the safety if it bothers you? Or tape it in the off position.

      • John

        Removing a safety or taping it down is controversial. Many believe modifying a firearm to make it fire more easily can be construed as reckless behavior in court. T

        he case of Frank Magliato vs People of New York is often cited. In the case, the defendent used a .38 revolver with a three pound trigger job. He cocked the revolved and it resulted in a ND, killing his attacker. Magliato received jail time for the willfull creation of an unsafe firearm.

        Since the M&P shield is meant to be a carry pistol, messing with the gun is an action many don’t want to pursue

        That being said, whether or not it is true is up for debate

        • iksnilol

          I get now why removing it is a bad idea, but you can easily remove the tape after a DGU before the police arrives.

          • Risky

            Really, tampering with evidence is your solution?

          • Gwolf

            Well, if I did I have to use it to protect myself, I would not want to do anything shady to cloud the situation. That would also be compromising my integrity. Rather just buy the no-safety one.

          • Cymond

            It’s astounding that removing a safety is so controversial, yet buying a gun without a safety isn’t. It’s the same end result either way. It just speaks to the insanity of ‘public opinion’.

          • Bp. David

            I have heard of no legal problems concerning the use of an XD with grip safety only, so why the concern about other pistols going without a thumb safety?

          • Anon

            You are trying to apply logic to a possible interpretation of gun laws. One might also think that it wouldn’t be illegal to make a modification to a gun that was purchased at 163 dB to where it was 161 dB as they could purchase the same gun with a longer barrel that would be 159 dB…

      • Gwolf

        Reason as John stated.

        There was also a self defense case that I know of where the magazine safety of a Browning Hi-Power was removed by the owner and the prosecution used that as “A-ha! This guy’s a killer! He removed a safety to make it more easy to kill!” Derp.

        So I leave them as they come from the factory except for sights.

        I looked at the PPS versus Shield when I bought it for use as a slim IWB option. The safety on the shield was the lesser of two evils to me than the weird back strap safety on the PPS. If either of those guns got rid of those features I’d say they’d be just about be the perfect EDC for a good many folks.

        Looks like S&W finally did.

        Anyway, I’ll keep the one I have and get one of the new ones. Now that I have an excuse. This one goes to 11. 🙂

  • Rich

    Good. The safety on that model is often dangerously light (tried several NIB examples at 2 dealers).

    • Gwolf

      I can say that mine has been okay and feels positive, for the most part, but I just don’t like having it, nor the way they did it.

      I think that if a thumb safety is going to be present, then make it big and positive, like on my USP. Otherwise, don’t get cute and half-ass it by making it tiny like “Oh well, it’s so small, just ignore it if you don’t want to use it.”

      Okay. Until it’s engaged or not when you don’t want it to be, and it’s such a little nib that your sweaty thumb might miss it when can’t afford to.

      • Armed n Educated

        Agreed. If it’s going to be on there make it big enough to actually flip off if it’s on.

  • Drew
  • NotoriousAPP

    Damn these big companies are so dumb and slow. Why did it take them so long to do this.

    • wojtekimbier

      Why would they listen to customers about what gun they want to spend their money on? *Glock*

    • Justin

      At least they listened. Not once but twice now. First they released a single stack 9. Then they removed the safety after we asked. Glock has yet to fricken hit step one.

      • twency

        “Glock has yet to fricken hit step one.”

        Maybe, but they hit step two more than thirty years ago.

  • SD3

    Damn it, man. Just bought a Sig P290, precisely because I didn’t want that friggin’ safety.

    • TC LT

      No worries, just enjoy your Sig P290.

  • Gwolf

    Finally,

    Just thinking out loud, wonder if the removal of the safety and any associated gizmos in this model, will have any impact on trigger feel?

  • Steve

    I would never buy a handgun without some type of safety, or at a minimum a decocker. This “I need to be able to draw and shoot in 1.4 seconds” fantasy is nonsense.

    • Anonymoose

      If you know what you’re doing you’ll flip the safety off as you draw, and it’ll still take you less time than that to draw and shoot.

    • Duray

      I carry a big bag of money around in public for a living. I need to be able to “draw and fire in 1.4 seconds” as you put it. Not everyone has your luxury of bad guys who give you fair warning.

      • Sam Schifo

        Not to mention the average person could easily fumble the safety under stress. The simpler, the better; especially for self defense scenarios.

        • buzzman1

          Unlocking the safety is just another part of the manual of arms for a weapon. It needs to be practiced and it will become part of the drawing of the weapon.
          I see too many people at ranges pick up their pistols and immediately put their finger in the trigger well. Even so-called “trained Cops” do it and that’s why they had to go to heavy trigger pulls because even in non-stressful situations they were shooting themselves and others

          • twency

            “Unlocking the safety is just another part of the manual of arms for a weapon.”

            Agreed, but when it’s as tiny and fiddly as the one on the Shield I think it’s reasonable to expect some amount of fumbling under stress.

      • Bill

        Those of us who carry 1911’s have never worried over the “luxury of bad guys who give you fair warning.” Including those of us who have had need of our sidearms “for real.”

        Nevertheless, this is a good thing for the Shield. IMO the factory safety was just too small for rapid, positive manipulation.

        • Duray

          Oh I totally agree. I used to carry a Kimber, and I have no issue with a well designed manual safety. As others have pointed out, it really doesn’t slow you down appreciably. I was just taking exception to Steve’s idea that nobody might need their gun in a hurry. If I ever need mine, it’ll be in a hurry.

          • Bill

            Understood. My apologies for misunderstanding your initial post. Stay safe out there.

      • Steve

        Obviously if you’re carrying money around every day you’re in a tiny, tiny minority of people. Carrying a gun is part of your job. For 99.99% of people its not.

    • Adam

      It is retarded to put a safety on a striker fired handgun. You need a decocker on double/single action weapons and you need a safety on a single action handgun like 1911’s. A safety on a striker fired handgun is as stupid as putting a safety on a revolver.

      • Al Fig

        a fair point and one that glock obviously agress with. the safety is dont pull that trigger until you are ready to fire and the multiple stages of the trigger pull do serve as a safety as such. you have to pull back a fair distance and part of pulling the trigger is internally finishing cocking the gun. at least with glock. i think walther pistols have full cocked strikers, thus shorter/easier trigger pull.

    • AA

      For me it’s not just about the quick draw but simplicity under stress. If the safety is not ambidextrous things can be difficult if your strong hand is disabled or occupied defending yourself. Let’s face it. It’s probably a fantasy that you will ever even need to use you CCW,……. but if you ever do that fantasy may not be what you envisioned and will quickly turn into a nightmare.

  • PineNeedle

    When are TFB writers and editors going to learn the difference between “to” and “too”? It’s simply astonishing how often I see this mistake on TFB.

  • Bp. David

    What’s the big deal? Springfield Armory has had no safety other than the grip safety for several years on the XD series. I always treat my XD9 like it is loaded (it always is!) and have never had an accidental discharge. And I have never seen a recall on XD’s because of mishaps due to the lack of a safety. So unless you allow your 4-year-old to play cowboys and Indians with your loaded S&W, there should be no problem!

  • Geoff a well known Skeptic

    I haven’t shot one yet, but I did check the trigger pull. It was comparable to the single action pull on a new Colt 1911. I thought it needed the safety. I would not buy one. I have a SWaMPy 9c and a Kahr 9094 with heavier trigger pulls in that niche. Geoff Who is conservative.

  • Perturbo

    The best safety is between your ears, often times people load safeties on guns as a crutch. How many times have we hear the refrain “I thought it was on safe”? Safeties have their place, but they are not and can’t be a substitution for the 4 rules of firearms safety.

    • Steve

      Its not a substitute for the rules, its a backup for the imperfections in the human mind.

      • valorius

        What steve said.

  • TXZ45

    well your 3 months late S&W. I already bought a Nano and an XDS. oh well….

  • micko77

    Now if they would only get rid of the damnable trigger locks on the revolvers….though i’ve been told they will stop making all but Performance Center wheelguns by 2016. Word of mouth, not gospel.

    • Al Fig

      funny..back in the 1980s/90s wheel guns were it for personal protection because of reliability. pistols just had too many issues…now pistols are so good revolvers are slowly fading away. i bet smith still will make airweight .38 snubbies…i think those will hang around for a while longer, though i know my wife would rather fire a 9mm or 40 glock then a .38 snubby..less blast and recoil…

  • EVILJOE

    Ugh. I just spent a lot of money and time getting my Shield fully decked out with the Apex kit and trigger…now I’ll have to get one of these and redo everything.

  • Al Fig

    free market baby! want a shield with a thumb safety, buy one. want a shield with no thumb safety, buy one. i applaud smith for giving CUSTOMERS the option. unlike ruger that tries to baby proof every pistol they make with LOADED FLAGS and safeties and mag disconnects and anything else they can think of adding.

  • valorius

    No more s&ws for me til they move out of mass.

    I urge s&w to relocate to america.