[ShooterMcGavin]

Just as the title says. Most of the comments here have been against safeties and the internal lock. Now, I see many people saying that they want the 45 with the thumb safety. Why is that the case, and why did S&W add the thumb safety to the 45?



The rest of the gun's design didn't change, right?

 

[Ricky T]

Because the .45 was originally intended for the Army's trial for a new pistol, they required external manual safety. The 9s and 40s were originally designed for the non military sector. But I believe they have plan to have the manual safety on future models of 9s and 40s.

 

[mikenkansas]

I'm sure I'm missing something here but why would anyone (except Uncle Sugars S_F_Bs purchasers) want a manual safety on a handgun you can't carry cocked and locked? If Uncle supplied the Afgans with Sigmas without external safeties are we to assume Americans are less trainable? :roll:



Private/Airman/Seaman/Marine: Do NOT pull the trigger until you WANT to hear the weapon go BANG!

 

[choochboost]

Simply put, the M&P just happens to be a striker fired "wonder action" pistol and the specs called for a manual safety. I certainly don't want or need one on my M&P.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

... the specs called for a manual safety...

You mean, the Army's specs, right??

 

[choochboost]

More specifically the US Special Operations Command's specs. To clarify the manual safety issue, pistols with manual safeties were part of what was required for review.

The Minimum Quantity is 24 each Engineering Test Units (ETU's), 12 each with external manual safety and 12 each without external manual safety. The estimated Maximum quantities are: 45,000 no external safety JCP configuration and 600,000 JCP with the external safety configuration;

Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

 

[TAZ]

Actually I think it was the defunct Joint Combat Pistol that had the safety requirement. I dont think the SOCOM RFQ had a need for a safety, hence the low number for the no safety version vs the safety version in the max estimated delivery. Rumor also has it that teh SOCOM segment was filled with the G21SF, but I have no confirmation from any credible sources yet.



Anyway, the gist of the answer is that the RFQ for the Department of Defense called for a safety and puke brown frame, so we have that option for the civie guns now.

 

[choochboost]

The US Special Operations Command were the ones overseeing the JCP contract.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

 

[gsteve]

I want one because I plan to have the trigger lightened and like having a place for my thumb. Ive shot probably 200,000 rounds out of 1911s and like the idea of having a safety. sj

 

[yerasimos]

I want one because I plan to have the trigger lightened and like having a place for my thumb. Ive shot probably 200,000 rounds out of 1911s and like the idea of having a safety. sj

When I saw the M&P 45 with external safety and the front cocking serrations, my first thought was Smith and Wesson deliberately coupled those specific features with the .45 ACP caliber to attract the 1911/Gunsite/Modern Technique devotees.



I have no knowledge of military specifications or upcoming military contracts, but my perception is that for at least the latter half of the 20th century and up to the present, S&W has sold most of their wares to the private sector and LE agencies, not the US military.

 

[choochboost]

I have no knowledge of military specifications or upcoming military contracts, but my perception is that for at least the latter half of the 20th century and up to the present, S&W has sold most of their wares to the private sector and LE agencies, not the US military.

Much to S&W's chagrin.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

 

[JohnN]

I guess I don't see the problem, they intend to make the gun with and without the manual safety. Pick your poison. I prefer the version with the manual safety because I am use to it on a 1911 and in the event you lose your gun in a struggle it may take a few extra seconds for the bad guy to make the gun work in order to shoot you.

 

[DocGKR]

For uniformed patrol, I like having a manual safety on my pistol--I have personally have witnessed 2 instances where carrying an pistol with the safety engaged saved officers' lives.

 

[WizardBlack]

For uniformed patrol, I like having a manual safety on my pistol--I have personally have witnessed 2 instances where carrying an pistol with the safety engaged saved officers' lives.

You mean by would-be criminals that don't know how to operate their pistol?

 

[DocGKR]

I mean when bad guys have gotten on-safe pistols away from officers and said street scum couldn't get the pistols to fire and execute the officers.

 

[Eddo36]

If you have an external safety, there is no need for DA trigger.

 

[gsteve]

A safety is never a bad thing. I guess S+W will make everyone happy. You can get what ever flavor you want. sj

 

[justdavid]

Actually I think it was the defunct Joint Combat Pistol that had the safety requirement. I dont think the SOCOM RFQ had a need for a safety, hence the low number for the no safety version vs the safety version in the max estimated delivery. Rumor also has it that teh SOCOM segment was filled with the G21SF, but I have no confirmation from any credible sources yet.

I recall reading, some years back, the moderator of the SEAL forum on tacforums (himself an active-duty Team member) describing something he likes about hammer-fired designs, especially ones like the SIG that lack a manual safety: If you ride the hammer with your thumb when holstering, you can immediately tell if something (a flap, strap, loose twig, or whatever) has gotten into your trigger guard and is pressing the trigger.



On a 1911 or something with a similarly-placed manual safety, you can holster with your thumb riding under the safety, essentially "locking" it on. I've occasionally done this with 1911s. But the ones without safeties were earmarked for SOCOM, so...



My numbers aren't even in the same neighborhood as gsteve's, let alone in the same ballpark, but I have enough 1911 time that I'm seriously interested in getting manual safeties when I start getting these beasties.





D.

 

[TxPhantom]

Wish MP's had a manuel saftey

The only thing I would change about my two MP's would be to have a manual safety. I was almost tempted to buy another gun instead of the MP because of the lack of a safety. I love my MP's and don't regret buying them, but, I have got to admit I would feel safer with a manuel safety. It is very easy to flip a safety off. For those that don't want a safety, just don't use it.



I used my SW9VE Sigma as a CCW and car gun until I bought my MP's because of the harder, d.a. trigger, like a revolver. A recent article in Guns & Ammo, by Garry James, said the tested MP compact had a 5 1/2 lb trigger pull while S & W says it is 6 1/2 lbs. In either case, that is a much lighter trigger than a d.a. revolver. If the MP 45 didn't offer a manuel safety, I wouldn't buy one. Any auto pistol I buy from now on, will have a manuel safety.



I keep my MP 9mm compact loaded and within easy reach (usually, and no kids) while at home. I used to keep it in a Crown Royal purple bag to kinda keep it out of sight and to protect it. I quit this when I picked up the gun in the bag one day and my finger slipped into the trigger guard. I actually felt the trigger move a little. If there were a safety on it there would be no problem. I'll keep it handy but not in a bag where I might put my finger in the wrong place.

Again, I really love my MP's and I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me regarding the manuel safety but I would rather have it and have the option to use it or not use it. :wink: