M&p Safety Question

[darrenk75b]

I know that IDPA rules prohibit the deactivation of any safety devices, but I find this rule a little grey when applied to the Smith and Wesson M&P.

The M&P comes from the factory in three configurations:

1) With an internal lock and magazine disconnect

2) With a magazine disconnect only

3) With no lock or magazine diconnect

To go from one system to the other requires only a $25 sear housing swap or a $4 spring, depending on what your pistol started out as and what you want it to end up as.

Anyhow, say I purchase a pistol configured from the factory that conforms to type #2 above. Would I really be breaking the rules to modify it the type #3, as this is a factory supplied configuration?

Some may ask, "why not get #3 to start off with?" Well, I tried. However, two days after I ordered it, and before it was shipped, California changed which version of the pistol it would allow, going from a generic "M&P 9mm" to specifying types #1 and #2 only.

[Jim Watson]

Not a gray area. Changing the housing to a non disconnector version means taking out the one with the disconnector. That is exactly removing a safety device and is against the rules.

The only Plastic M&P I have seen without magazine disconnector ex factory had a warning on the slide that it would fire with magazine removed. If that is consistent, then a knowledgeable MD could tell whether the factory had left out the disconnector or you had taken it out whether by swapping housings or the little internet tweak.

But will he know? Will he look? Will he CARE? Most places they are willing to shade dubious rules like that to keep your business.

[raz-0]

The only Plastic M&P I have seen without magazine disconnector ex factory had a warning on the slide that it would fire with magazine removed. If that is consistent, then a knowledgeable MD could tell whether the factory had left out the disconnector or you had taken it out whether by swapping housings or the little internet tweak.

There are at least a couple people claiming that they have gotten a pistol ordered as a No mag safety sku that did not have the laser etching.

Then there are folks who have purchased a disconnect SKU sent it into S&W and have had the message etched on. (and one person who said they didn't).

It's not the only gun with multiple safety configs.

heck, the new FNP can have several different types from cocked and locked hammer to striker fired system.

[Carlos]

Rules is rules. but . .

-would there be any competitive advantage to the shooter who took out the stupid mag disconnect?

-are the M&Ps the have the factory warning on the slide and the right SKU - unsafe?

I do not see how taking it out violates the spirit of the IDPA game or makes the gun unsafe.

[Jim Watson]

No, no, and me, neither.

Rules is rules, as we found when they started weighing guns at this year's Nationals.

But you will not find me taking my time to peer at a shooter's gun to check the minutae of its markings and equipment.

As long as all shots land somewhere near the target, I am content.

[darrenk75b]

My reason for asking the question revolved primarily around what Carlos questioned, that being how my pistol, with mag disconnect removed, would be any more unsafe than a person next to me with an M&P from the factory without the disconnect. I understand if the design of the weapon in question never intended for said safety device to be deactivated, but when it comes from the factory that way, the "grayness" starts to appear.

To further complicate the matter, the pistols with mag disconnects can either a ) have the mag disconnect pulled (requiring the replacement of a $4 spring) or b ) have the whole sear assembly replaced with another factory part that does not include the mag disconnect ($25 component).

The replacement of the sear housing is not deactivation or disconnection of a safety device in-and-of itself, but replacing one factory component with another.

Here's an example. Springfield Mil-Spec pistols come from the factory with a standard thumb safety. The loaded models with an ambi. Say I swap out the ambi on my Loaded for the standard on the milspec for personal preferences. Doing so provides no real competitive advantage. Does swapping the ambi safety for a single sided one mean that I've disassembled or deactivated the right side safety lever and therefore is not allowed due to the lack of safety resulting from this modification? No. As it comes from the factory, the Mil-spec is safe and is acceptable for use in an IDPA match. In my opinion, this is similar to the mag disconnect on the M&P. One factory component for another; one no less safe than the other.

The mag disconnect does not affect the trigger pull of the M&P. Removing it therefore will do nothing to incease my level of competitiveness, but merely keeps me from having to carry a dummy mag in my pocket for the "lowering of the hammer" at the end of each stage.

Edited December 5, 2006 by darrenk75b

[Jim Watson]

The real reason is that the rulers of our country are lawyers who are always out to provide business for their colleagues.

If my lawyer could talk faster than your lawer and convince the lawyer in the black robe and the jury that your removing a "safety device" proved that you were a wild and dangerous character, even though it did not contribute to you shooting me in the foot, my lawyer and I would acquire everything you own. And my lawyer would have included the gun club, IDPA, and S&W in the suit because they have more money than you do. So Bill W's lawyer said for him to make a rule that you could not do that, to cover him.

I am rather surprised that S&W is willing to sell the plain variant or its parts to American Commoners at all. Of course government agents always have an exemption because you cannot sue them.

[Mayonaise]

Interesting thread. Here's my take. Since the extended mag and slide levers on Glocks are standard on the 34 and 35 they are therefore legal to use on the other models in SSP and ESP. So, if S&W offers the same pistol with or without the trigger lock and magazine release safety would it not follow the same logic that removing or adding them on the same model gun would be legal?

[TxD]

Interesting thread. Here's my take. Since the extended mag and slide levers on Glocks are standard on the 34 and 35 they are therefore legal to use on the other models in SSP and ESP. So, if S&W offers the same pistol with or without the trigger lock and magazine release safety would it not follow the same logic that removing or adding them on the same model gun would be legal?

I think the difference is that a mag release is not a "safety device".

[Carlos]

Interesting thread. Here's my take. Since the extended mag and slide levers on Glocks are standard on the 34 and 35 they are therefore legal to use on the other models in SSP and ESP. So, if S&W offers the same pistol with or without the trigger lock and magazine release safety would it not follow the same logic that removing or adding them on the same model gun would be legal?

I think the difference is that a mag release is not a "safety device".

But do we really believe that the magazine disconnect makes the weapon any more "safe" ?? Apparently, the California DOJ thinks so - though I would not want to agree w/ them on any gun-related issue.

However - what if we view the M&P's magazine disconnect not as a "safety" but rather as a "security" device that is OUTSIDE the rule? No one questions the S&W internal key lock that comes on every new S&W revolver. Take that thing out and you would be OK - because its not a "SAFETY" device. Same w/ the 1911 ILS or lock-able mainspring housing. Change that internal kiddie loch and all is well.

I think that IDPA should look at the magazine disconnect NOT as a safety, but as a SECURITY feature like an internal lock. That solves the problem.

[Fireant]

Carlos has it there. If SW had called it a safety, you could not remove it. They call it a mag disconnect so you can remove it. No safeties are involved. I have seen some factory guns with no lock and no disconnect without the engraving on the slide. That alone would make it impossible to enforce.

[richardschennberg]

IMO it is either no difference or actually safer for the SO to be able to clear a shooter without him having to stick an (allegedly?) empty magazine in the gun. Since we are talking safety at IDPA matches, I think it should be permissable to disable this security device.

[raz-0]

Carlos has it there. If SW had called it a safety, you could not remove it. They call it a mag disconnect so you can remove it. No safeties are involved. I have seen some factory guns with no lock and no disconnect without the engraving on the slide. That alone would make it impossible to enforce.

Actually the description of the ones without read "w/o mag safety".

There goes that logic.

[TxD]

Carlos has it there. If SW had called it a safety, you could not remove it. They call it a mag disconnect so you can remove it. No safeties are involved. I have seen some factory guns with no lock and no disconnect without the engraving on the slide. That alone would make it impossible to enforce.

Actually the description of the ones without read "w/o mag safety".

There goes that logic.

On the S&W website, it is called a mag disconnect.

Interesting.

[darrenk75b]

If you go the M&P pistols section on the S&W website, and click on one for further description, it lists all models in that caliber. In this windown you can see that S&W calls it a "mag safety."

[kdmoore]

Of course, this arguement has already been made with the hi power. There were certain years/manufactures where the mag disconnect was not included with the pistol (I don't remember them off hand) and they are legal to shoot in that factory configuration. It has been determined (asked and answered by powers that be) that all other HP's must not have disconnect removed. By that reasoning, any pistol created with a MD in place must keep it. Of course, don't believe me, ask HQ for clarification instead. But if they are consistent, that's the way it will be ruled.

I disagree with the comparisons with slide releases, mag releases, and ambi safeties. In none of those cases was the feature removed, only changed. Disconnect is removed in this discussion, so the logic doesn't work as an arguement against.

Also, the HP does get better (in competition) with removal of the disconnect. Trigger gets better, and the mags release more reliably. Polishing the mag face can help both of these. Don't know if either applies to the M&P.

So, am I for it? NO. I agree that it's lawyerproofing and therefore ridiculous!!!

I think the best argument has been made above. and could be extended. How many pistols have no mag disconnects? Are they all more dangerous than the M&P or BHP's? Of course not.

[Punkin Chunker]

IMO it is either no difference or actually safer for the SO to be able to clear a shooter without him having to stick an (allegedly?) empty magazine in the gun. Since we are talking safety at IDPA matches, I think it should be permissable to disable this security device.

I'm with you there. I've seen people trying to "unload and show clear," then, "slide forward, hammer down, and reholster" with magazine disconnects. Sometimes it's a cluster. Double check, empty mag, insert mag, hammer down, mag out, etc., etc., etc. One SO required the shooter to give him an empty mag to carry, so that at the end of the stage HE could hand it to the shooter, to ensure it was an empty mag.

When I shoot BUG stages, I shoot a Bersa .380, which has an MD, but the activator for it is exposed at the bottom of the grip, so I can push up on it to drop the hammer. Some SOs still get excited when I move my left hand up -- they think I'm bringing a new mag up.

But from the rules standpoint, if it is a safety device, then yes, it should probably stay. After all -- the grip safety on my 1911 is a safety device, but I always have a firm grip on the weapon when I'm shooting, so the grip safety is irrelevant, right? (Just playing Devil's Advocate here )