Shield - Saftey Off

[alistair]

Has anyone had personal experience removing the manual safety from their M&P Shield?

[thughes]

Why not just leave it disengaged?

[thughes]

Is this a range gun or a carry gun? While I am the last one to say it's a bad idea from a legal perspective to modify a carry gun (I have a replacement trigger on my BodyGuard), I would think that removing the safety from a carry gun might not be such a good idea. My biggest fear would be a civil suit resulting from a ND that happened to injure another person or property (kind of had to defend against that scenario when the prosecutor points out to the jury that you removed the mechanical safety).

Not trying to be "that guy" by bringing this up, just want to be sure that anybody considering something like this thinks it through....

[alistair]

Why not just leave it disengaged?

Want to avoid the potential that it will engage accidentally.

[Guest]

Oooo thug is thaaaaat guy!!

[WARFAB]

My biggest fear would be a civil suit resulting from a ND that happened to injure another person or property (kind of had to defend against that scenario when the prosecutor points out to the jury that you removed the mechanical safety).

If you injure someone or damage property from a ND, aren't you facing civil suit trouble regardless of whether the pistol has a safety? I'm not sure how having a safety would make you any less culpable for damage or injury.

[thughes]

If you injure someone or damage property from a ND, aren't you facing civil suit trouble regardless of whether the pistol has a safety? I'm not sure how having a safety would make you any less culpable for damage or injury.

Big difference between not having a safety and purposely removing the original factory-installed safety, right?

Yes, you are screwed all the way around but don't you think the fact that you physically removed the mechanical safety would be pointed out by the prosecution as some type of gross negligence that contributed or even caused the ND in the first place?

Maybe the Mods can move these posts (#3, 5, 6, 7) about legalities to this thread: http://www.nyshenaniguns.com/forum/g...-modified-guns so that we can get this thread back on-topic.

I apologize for the thread-crapping alistair!

[thughes]

Found a good video on removing the safety, he actually just modifies it internally so that it no longer operates regardless of the lever's position (not sure if this is such a good idea either but I'll keep my mouth shut):

[video=youtube;DRsxcPfZ8mE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRsxcPfZ8mE[/video]

[thughes]

And here's the thread in the S&W forums where i pulled the link from: http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-w...y-removal.html

[alistair]

And here's the thread in the S&W forums where i pulled the link from: http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-w...y-removal.html

Seen this and watched the video.

[Meketrefe]

I think thughes has a point. Most legal advice around ammo and modifications is to be conservative. If changes are done these might be done with aftermarket parts
and/or by a gunsmith. Also defensive ammo should be factory vs. reloads. I heard in some cases plaintiffs have claimed that the firearm or ammo was modified to
be more lethal. This seems arbitrary BS but it doesn't mean a jury might not listen, and they have in the past. If such claim is done with parts and/or ammo from manufacturers
there is the possibility to get those companies involved and therefore fight frivolous claims with a lot more legal horse power.

The same way they might call it more lethal you can claim less lethal but then more arguments to defend.
I am no lawyer but heard this type of possible arguments from firearms & 2A lawyers in several occasions.
Definitively don't tamper with the firearm in critical parts that might make it or just largely perceived as a liability.
Remember the remington triggers. The triggers were perfectly ok, the problem is people started to adjust them w/o a clue
of what they were doing and took all the pressure from the sear return spring. In reality firearms, cars, etc., should only be sold to people
with actual brains but, you know,, we have to be nice to those other 2 legged creatures.
I would personally leave the safety off if I don't want it but again the best thing is to condition oneself to do it w/o thinking.

Like the old wise samurai warrior once said... we fight at the Dojo and we play at the battlefield.

[dwa12479]

The safety should never engage or disengage on it's own. I carry mine with a round in the pipe and safety off. I've never once found the safety in a different position.

[Cgrutt]

No legal advise here but my personal opinion is that I wouldn't modify a gun you intend to use for self defense. Same with ammo use factory ammo for self defense carry. Enough to worry about carrying a gun within NYS without throwing gravy on the prosecutors case. Buy a Glock if you don't want a safety (and you will actually be getting three with no lever to worry about. I've had guns I didn't like and modified but they are no longer in the carry rotation. My two cents.

[Cgrutt]

The safety should never engage or disengage on it's own. I carry mine with a round in the pipe and safety off. I've never once found the safety in a different position.

I've actually had one where safety came off with normal wear. For this and other reasons its no longer a carry gun.

[big flash]

The safety should never engage or disengage on it's own. I carry mine with a round in the pipe and safety off. I've never once found the safety in a different position.

mine never moves either. might as well not even be one on there. it's never been accidentally engaged and i even tested this again this weekend at the range trying to "accidentally" engage it drawing, etc.