M0nk3y Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Good Idea? I have a M&P40c that has an external thumb safety that I want to remove. Since this gun will become my CCW, I feel that a thumb safety (even if I keep it off) might, by accident, flip on if SHTF. It looks pretty darn easy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AmsNZ4OwJE I already ordered plugs to cover up the holes. As I read, this is standard on all of the models that are NON-Thumb safety already: http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii64/scb9900/Guns%20and%20stuff/DSC02410.jpg Any reason why I SHOULDN'T do this? Or am I doing the right choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I would keep it and just train yourself to flip the safety off as you draw your weapon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stangsn95gt Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Never had a problem with no external on my my Glocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M0nk3y Posted March 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I got an interesting email from S&W when I contacted them about removing the External Safety Hello, Unfortunately we are not allowed to perform that type of service due to BATF regulations. Regards, Dave Looks like it'll stay on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Oh man look at mister fancy-pants with his VTAC M&P! Leave the thumb safety there and train to use it. If you can't train yourself or have problems with it, THEN think about modifying. You'll feel a lot better about having a thumb safety when you have a 4 pound trigger and almost shoot yourself reholstering LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedfocus1647545489 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Oh man look at mister fancy-pants with his VTAC M&P! Leave the thumb safety there and train to use it. If you can't train yourself or have problems with it, THEN think about modifying. You'll feel a lot better about having a thumb safety when you have a 4 pound trigger and almost shoot yourself reholstering LOL Option B: Start by training not-shooting yourself (safety or not). :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I would remove it. The most important safety is the one between your ears. The gun will still have the passive safety just like all of the others without the redundant external safety. I'm not sure why the BATFE won't let S&W remove the safety, but you surely can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radio Flyer1647545514 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I would remove it. No external on my Kahr. It's one less thing to do in a CCW situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Automotive Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Never had a problem with no external on my my Glocks. Ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I'm gonna go against the grain here and say leave it, for a couple reasons. 1. If it's a CCW weapon, I wouldn't mess with it for legal reasons. If you ever have to use it, they are gonna grill you for removing a "safety", even if it is redundant. 2. It's in a great spot making it easy to disengage, akin to a 1911 and no one complains about those. Your thumb is going to be there anyways. That said, I agree with everyone else that it really is pointless to have it. I shoot glocks, so I'm all about the no-external-safety thing. If and when I ever buy an M&P, it won't have an external safety on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I'm gonna go against the grain here and say leave it, for a couple reasons. 1. If it's a CCW weapon, I wouldn't mess with it for legal reasons. If you ever have to use it, they are gonna grill you for removing a "safety", even if it is redundant. 2. It's in a great spot making it easy to disengage, akin to a 1911 and no one complains about those. Your thumb is going to be there anyways. Have you seen any cases following Ohio's adoption of the Castle Doctrine in which a shooter had any legal problems regarding the gun they used? I've always heard, and sympathized with that reason, but I'm questioning how accurate it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I'm gonna go against the grain here and say leave it, for a couple reasons. 1. If it's a CCW weapon, I wouldn't mess with it for legal reasons. If you ever have to use it, they are gonna grill you for removing a "safety", even if it is redundant. 2. It's in a great spot making it easy to disengage, akin to a 1911 and no one complains about those. Your thumb is going to be there anyways. That said, I agree with everyone else that it really is pointless to have it. I shoot glocks, so I'm all about the no-external-safety thing. If and when I ever buy an M&P, it won't have an external safety on it. This is basically what I was going to post. After going to a tactical pistol class, they taught straight thumb grip. It took me a while to get used to,.... but now I shoot better and it allows me to drop the safety as I draw and put my hands together. It really makes things so much more fluid, accurate, and fool proof. http://www.handgunsmag.com/files/2010/09/hgcombatg_100206d.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Have you seen any cases following Ohio's adoption of the Castle Doctrine in which a shooter had any legal problems regarding the gun they used? I've always heard, and sympathized with that reason, but I'm questioning how accurate it is. Admittedly, no, I have not. I just picture some gung-ho prosecutor tearing me apart for using some 'highly modified assault pistol' when I decided to off innocent little trayvon for being in my house @ 3am. I prefer to err on the side of caution when attempting to legally murder someone. :lolguy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedfocus1647545489 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Admittedly, no, I have not. I just picture some gung-ho prosecutor tearing me apart for using some 'highly modified assault pistol' when I decided to off innocent little trayvon for being in my house @ 3am. I prefer to err on the side of caution when attempting to legally murder someone. :lolguy: My gun has no safety, but I agree. Don't give them anything to use against you. Mods like that are probably not understood by the general public and are perceived as some Clint Eastwood shit. I don't even carry +P ammo for the same reason, though the EXPs are marginally the same. No super-bullet shit to use against me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Admittedly, no, I have not. I just picture some gung-ho prosecutor tearing me apart for using some 'highly modified assault pistol' when I decided to off innocent little trayvon for being in my house @ 3am. I prefer to err on the side of caution when attempting to legally murder someone. :lolguy: I guess we'll see what I think after law school. The affirmative defense portion of the law should cover your use of a modified weapon, assuming the modifications are legal. Just as long as there is no shoulder thing that goes up, I would hope there would be no issues. It's probably good to be cautious with a carry gun. I can imagine, if I have to use my G17 or 1911, they will love the modified triggers. I made them lighter so I could more easily take the life of the poor mugger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedfocus1647545489 Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I made them lighter so I could more easily take the life of the poor mugger. You clearly are a deviant predator and are purposely hunting humans. :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stangsn95gt Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 I made them lighter so I could more easily take the life of the poor mugger. Are you saying theres people that don't do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 Are you saying theres people that don't do this? According to the hypothetical prosecutor, this is an uncommon and dangerous modification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.