Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
S&W M&P9c vs. other easily concealed handguns
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TonyT" data-source="post: 947691" data-attributes="member: 5923"><p>I don't understand why the M&P comes with a safety. I thought the design was much like a Glock with no external safety required. I carried both a Glock 36 and a S&W 99 for a while - neither of them had external safeties. I recently switched to a Kahr PM-9 (also no external safety) since it's slim size allowed me to conceal more reliably.</p><p>The external safety on S&W M&P's might be a local requirement but I do believe it is required for it's use. My S&W M&P9 Pro which I use for IDPA does not have an external safety. For defesive purposes I prefer a gun which is safe in ready to fire condition and does not require the use of a manual safety. Thus the preference for the Kahr, S&W 99, S&W M&P or Glock. I would never carry a 1911 style handgun for defensive purposes although I do shoot them in single stack matches.</p><p>While I have used the Glock 36 and Glock 17 both for serious purposes and competition I prefer the ergonomics of the S&W 99 or S&W M&P line.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TonyT, post: 947691, member: 5923"] I don't understand why the M&P comes with a safety. I thought the design was much like a Glock with no external safety required. I carried both a Glock 36 and a S&W 99 for a while - neither of them had external safeties. I recently switched to a Kahr PM-9 (also no external safety) since it's slim size allowed me to conceal more reliably. The external safety on S&W M&P's might be a local requirement but I do believe it is required for it's use. My S&W M&P9 Pro which I use for IDPA does not have an external safety. For defesive purposes I prefer a gun which is safe in ready to fire condition and does not require the use of a manual safety. Thus the preference for the Kahr, S&W 99, S&W M&P or Glock. I would never carry a 1911 style handgun for defensive purposes although I do shoot them in single stack matches. While I have used the Glock 36 and Glock 17 both for serious purposes and competition I prefer the ergonomics of the S&W 99 or S&W M&P line. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
S&W M&P9c vs. other easily concealed handguns
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom