Disabling S&W Shield Safety

[SubieGuy4]

A friend is looking at getting a Shield soon as her HD/carry gun. She's in the same camp as me in thinking that manual safeties have no place on a defensive handgun. She asked me if I could remove or disable it so that it wouldn't interfere and would always just leave the gun is safety-off condition. I said I'd have to take a good look once she has it and see if I can do it safely. Does anyone have a Shield and know how this could be done? Anyone attempt it yet? I know the safety in the Shield is a turnoff for a bunch of people so I'd be shocked if no one has tried this.

Key for me is that I don't want to help her with it if it will hurt reliability or any of the gun's passive safety features. She knows she could train with it and practice taking the safety off while drawing, but I'm with her in that getting rid of it would be preferable.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Either epoxy it or do this

[video=youtube_share;DRsxcPfZ8mE]http://youtu.be/DRsxcPfZ8mE[/video]

But that leaves a hole in her gun now. APEX makes a delete somewhere though. I like her motivation though, manual safties are dumb.

 

[SubieGuy4]

Either epoxy it or do this

Perfect! That's super easy and accomplishes my preferred goal which is to leave the safety switch in place but have not do anything. Looks like I can just cot that little tab off that blocks the trigger bar and it'll be 100% as reliable but without the safety doing anything. Best part is I'm sure you can order just that safety piece so it would be possible to drop in a new one and have a working safety again.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

I'd probably consider a Shield if they got rid of the safety. But I don't even like the M&P line. If Glock ever makes a single stack 9 these will probably be discontinued. Good luck.

 

[SubieGuy4]

I'd probably consider a Shield if they got rid of the safety. But I don't even like the M&P line. If Glock ever makes a single stack 9 these will probably be discontinued. Good luck.

Trust me if the G42 had been 9mm and not .380 I told my friend I'd be recommending that. She originally was interested in the idea of the G42 and I'm a Glock guy but I couldn't live with myself if I recommended a .380 for defense.

 

[crazymjb]

I'd probably consider a Shield if they got rid of the safety. But I don't even like the M&P line. If Glock ever makes a single stack 9 these will probably be discontinued. Good luck.

I disagree. I hate glocks and love m&ps as do many others.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[Moderator]

If Glock ever makes a single stack 9 these will probably be discontinued.

Why? If every manufacture gave up on a line because Glock came out with a new product, there'd be nothing but Glocks out there. Remember, not everyone likes Glocks. I love my 19, but I also love some of my other guns.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Why? If every manufacture gave up on a line because Glock came out with a new product, there'd be nothing but Glocks out there. Remember, not everyone likes Glocks. I love my 19, but I also love some of my other guns.

And I love my XDs and also my 19. Simply stating some of the M&P nut swinging comes from Glock haters. And while there are legitimate reasons to not like M&Ps here in MA, Glocks are usually aesthetic driven. Unless you have some Gen 1 grip radius issue.

 

[Moderator]

And I love my XDs and also my 19. Simply stating some of the M&P nut swinging comes from Glock haters. And while there are legitimate reasons to not like M&Ps here in MA, Glocks are usually aesthetic driven. Unless you have some Gen 1 grip radius issue.

I don't think this answers the question on why you said S&W would stop making the Shield if Glock came out with a single 9.

 

[Chinfidel]

The Shield owners I know simply don't put the safety in the "ON" position. Same with those massified Kahr PMs.
If its that much an issue buy a Glock

 

[Seamsealer]

The Shield owners I know simply don't put the safety in the "ON" position.

That would be my answer to the safety.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Electrical tape would be another solution and a far less permanent one...

I don't think this answers the question on why you said S&W would stop making the Shield if Glock came out with a single 9.

Well they discontinued the compact series right? I could see them doing to the same thing to the Shield. Shield owners are probably owners of a double stack they are unable to conceal to their comfortability. I see it as a natural progression. I don't give a shit about the maker, just the end product. A single stack 9 Glock would sell hotter than a TV on Black Friday.

 

[SubieGuy4]

The Shield owners I know simply don't put the safety in the "ON" position. Same with those massified Kahr PMs.
If its that much an issue buy a Glock

Not something I'd consider or recommend to someone. Murphy's law. If it can be turned on it will probably end up on when you need it not to be. If the gun has a safety it needs to be part of your training to disengage it even if you never put it on. They serve no purpose as far as I'm concerned.


I like Glocks but Glock doesn't make a 9mm small enough for a 100lb woman to practically conceal.

 

[oilspill]

Just grind off the tab that blocks the trigger bar from engaging the sear, done. You can flip the safety on/off but it won't do anything.

 

[Moderator]

Electrical tape would be another solution and a far less permanent one...



Well they discontinued the compact series right? I could see them doing to the same thing to the Shield. Shield owners are probably owners of a double stack they are unable to conceal to their comfortability. I see it as a natural progression. I don't give a shit about the maker, just the end product. A single stack 9 Glock would sell hotter than a TV on Black Friday.

Fair enough. I agree a single 9 would sell in amazing numbers, I'm not sure S&W would discontinue the product unless it no longer was profitable. At least I hope not as a share holder.

 

[jhillnes]

A friend is looking at getting a Shield soon as her HD/carry gun. She's in the same camp as me in thinking that manual safeties have no place on a defensive handgun. She asked me if I could remove or disable it so that it wouldn't interfere and would always just leave the gun is safety-off condition. I said I'd have to take a good look once she has it and see if I can do it safely. Does anyone have a Shield and know how this could be done? Anyone attempt it yet? I know the safety in the Shield is a turnoff for a bunch of people so I'd be shocked if no one has tried this.

Key for me is that I don't want to help her with it if it will hurt reliability or any of the gun's passive safety features. She knows she could train with it and practice taking the safety off while drawing, but I'm with her in that getting rid of it would be preferable.

The safety on the Shield is very positive and when it is in the fire/hot position it will not interfere with how the gun is handled or operated. I've had one for a year now and until reading this post had forgotten my M&P even had a safety.
Put it on fire/hot and forget about it; this is a non issue...

 

[Wendell]

Everybody knows that deactivating a safety device is creating a can of worms that you hope never gets opened. I'd rather carry a Glock in .380ACP than a S&W in 9x19mm that had a deactivated safety device.

In the other M&P pistol models, S&W lets the customer decide which variant of M&P they wish to buy. In their wisdom, they've branded the Shield as the "M&P Shield" so - not seeing any necessity for the manual safety, like so many other would-be buyers - I don't understand why S&W doesn't offer the Shield without the manual safety.

Until S&W offers consumers what they want, a choice, some of them will continue to cross the street.

 

[Chinfidel]

Not something I'd consider or recommend to someone. Murphy's law. If it can be turned on it will probably end up on when you need it not to be. If the gun has a safety it needs to be part of your training to disengage it even if you never put it on. They serve no purpose as far as I'm concerned.


I like Glocks but Glock doesn't make a 9mm small enough for a 100lb woman to practically conceal.

Tough call. I just can't recommend chopping or gringing stuff off your EDC or HD. Is she set on 9? If not the G36 may be an option. The girls I know all carry the G30S.

 

[exo]

Everybody knows that deactivating a safety device is creating a can of worms that you hope never gets opened. I'd rather carry a Glock in .380ACP than a S&W in 9x19mm that had a deactivated safety device.

What can of worms is that, exactly?

 

[Warrior1A]

The Shield's safety isn't going to engage itself on its own. Modifying the firearm by permanently disengaging the safety device will end up lowering the resale value and it's pretty unnecessary. Just don't use it.

Not something I'd consider or recommend to someone. Murphy's law. If it can be turned on it will probably end up on when you need it not to be. If the gun has a safety it needs to be part of your training to disengage it even if you never put it on. They serve no purpose as far as I'm concerned.


I like Glocks but Glock doesn't make a 9mm small enough for a 100lb woman to practically conceal.

 

[exo]

The Shield's safety isn't going to engage itself on its own. Modifying the firearm by permanently disengaging the safety device will end up lowering the resale value and it's pretty unnecessary. Just don't use it.

So you don't think that it could ever accidentally be engaged? IMO, for any firearm with a manual safety, even if you don't use it, you should practice disengaging it / confirming it is disengaged on the draw. If you haven't practiced that, and it did accidentally get engaged, you could lose precious seconds in a self defense situation.

 

[Warrior1A]

Nothing wrong with .380 for defense. You're not shooting at somone 100 yards away, you're in CQB range. A .380 can and does kill, and is suitable to stop a threat, which is what you're trying to do when you're defending yourself.

Trust me if the G42 had been 9mm and not .380 I told my friend I'd be recommending that. She originally was interested in the idea of the G42 and I'm a Glock guy but I couldn't live with myself if I recommended a .380 for defense.

 

[Warrior1A]

Anything could happen. You should always know the posture of your firearms. I agree with you that you should develop muscle memory in training, which is probably why I choose to use the safety on the Shield. But disabling the safety because somehow the safefy may (unknown to you) be engaged seems extreme. I would have this woman train to simply disengage the safety as she draws, but honestly, if the safety bugs her that much, just know the posture of the firearm and don't use the safety.

So you don't think that it could ever accidentally be engaged? IMO, for any firearm with a manual safety, even if you don't use it, you should practice disengaging it / confirming it is disengaged on the draw. If you haven't practiced that, and it did accidentally get engaged, you could lose precious seconds in a self defense situation.

 

[Seamsealer]

I have a 380 and the trigger draw is long, just like a revolver. Hard to imagine it would just go off. Safety will not just go on by itself, you have to engage it.

 

[johnnymac101]

I carry my Shield with the saftey off... being left handed sucks sometimes!

 

[Retired-LEO]

I disagree. I hate glocks and love m&ps as do many others.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

I don't hate glocks, but I do like M&P's better!!!!

 

[rep308]

I carry my Shield with the saftey off... being left handed sucks sometimes!

Yes and it leaves me with a bit of doubt carrying my Shield. I'll never figure out that the safety is on, until I review the video from Heaven (or the other place)

 

[dcmdon]

So go buy a Kahr without a safety.

The CW9 is not that much money even in MA.

 

[exo]

So go buy a Kahr without a safety.

The CW9 is not that much money even in MA.

If we're talking about finding a non-MA compliant model Kahr, why not just go for a free state PM9? It's available without a manual safety.

 

[dcmdon]

Because the CW9 or CM9 costs about $250 less than a PM9 and its the functional equivalent of the PM9, just uglier.

You are also comparing apples to oranges.

CW9= less expensive P9
CM9= less expensive PM9

Everyone gets all worked up over the PM9/CM9 when most people would be better served by the P9/CW9. The larger guns are the same size as a shield.
So if you want to compare apples to apples, namely a slim 9mm with a grip large enough to get your whole hand on, the gun to compare with is the CW/P9

Remember one thing. Unless you are going to carry the PM9 in your pocket, it is almost universally inferior to the P9. I know. I've owned both and also an intermediate itteration that Kahr made in the late 90s called the P9 Covert which had a P9 slide and a PM9 grip.

My first polymer framed Kahr was a P9, then I got the covert, then i got the PM9 hoping to pocket carry it. It proved to be too heavy for me to pocket carry so I ended up carrying it in an IWB I still owned, from when I had the P9.

The PM9 is no easier to carry than a P9 in an IWB holster and its more difficult to shoot well and holds one less round. So my point is that most people do themselves a disservice by immediately and reflexively gravitating towards the PM9/CM9 when the P9/CW9 is probably a better choice. This is ESPECIALLY true of women or men who have diminished hand strength since the longer slide of the P9 tames the recoil a bit and the longer grip allows you to get your pinkie on the grip. (This obsession that men have with buying women cute little guns is another pet peeve of mine, but that is another rant)