GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2014, 22:03   #1
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,409
Shield without Thumb Safety available soon.

Saw this in my FB news feed shared by Theis Holsters.

http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2...eld-a-reality/

Should make a lot of folks happy.
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2014, 22:17   #2
NavyVet1959
Senior Member
 
NavyVet1959's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Fort Bend County, Texas
Posts: 230
If a person does not want the safety and the gun has one, then they have the option of just not using it. Which is a no cost option.

If a gun does not have a safety and the person wants one, the person doesn't really have any option other than what might end up as a major modification to the firearm. Which is likely to be a costly option (if it is even available).
__________________
When you fill out your income tax forms at the end of the year, look and see how much money you have given the government throughout the year. Then, take a moment to ponder -- has the government done $X worth of stuff FOR you or TO you this year? I tend to believe the latter...
NavyVet1959 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 04:57   #3
John Biltz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,017
The safety is the main reason I have not bought a Shield.
__________________
A little government and a little luck are necessary in life; but only a fool trusts either of them.
John Biltz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 07:00   #4
FCastle88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyVet1959 View Post
If a person does not want the safety and the gun has one, then they have the option of just not using it. Which is a no cost option.

If a gun does not have a safety and the person wants one, the person doesn't really have any option other than what might end up as a major modification to the firearm. Which is likely to be a costly option (if it is even available).
The if you don't want a safety just pretend it's not there argument is downright dangerous. The safety can still got knocked into the safe position even if you don't use it. If the gun has a safety you should be training to make sure the safety is off every time you draw, whether you use the safety or not. I'm a lefty, so when carrying the safety would be facing out away from my body, making it susceptible to being knocked or brushed against. If it did somehow get knocked into the safe position, I'd be screwed, as there's no way a lefty is flicking the safety off in a hurry.

It's about time they made a Shield without the safety, it was a deal breaker or at least an unwanted feature for many. If you want a safety buy the model with a safety. If you don't want a safety, buy the model without it. What is there to complain about?
FCastle88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 09:06   #5
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 19,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Biltz View Post
The safety is the main reason I have not bought a Shield.
Same here. But now I'm interested

Hope it doesn't have the key lock.
ithaca_deerslayer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 09:16   #6
cowboywannabe
you savvy?
 
cowboywannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: on a planet near you
Posts: 21,331
I couldn't wait, I put money down on a PPS.
__________________
with Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, Nyssa, and Tegan.

Facts are no match against enthusiasm and ignorance...
cowboywannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 17:39   #7
diamondd2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 728
I already have one. Its called the Beretta Nano.

And since the shield is larger than the Glock 26, I can say I have 2.
diamondd2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 18:00   #8
itstime
Senior Member
 
itstime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 7,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondd2 View Post
I already have one. Its called the Beretta Nano.

And since the shield is larger than the Glock 26, I can say I have 2.
How do you like the Nano?
itstime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2014, 20:15   #9
JMag
Senior Member
 
JMag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA:Love it or leave!
Posts: 11,092


Meh. I bought a Kahr CM9. Happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire
__________________
JMag
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Sir Winston Churchill
JMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 08:38   #10
FCastle88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 1,411
I have a CM9 as well, and while I like it I'm debating buying a Shield when the new model is available. The CM9 is smaller, but for me it's still borderline for pocket carry. I can fit it in jean pockets, but there's a noticeable bulge, and depending on the pocket it can be difficult to draw(my big hands don't help). I bought a CW380, much better for pocket carry, and I'm more accurate with it, due to the lower recoil. The CM9 has less recoil/muzzle flip than most other guns it's size, but it's still pretty snappy with defensive ammo. Overall I really like the trigger, though I'd prefer a shorter reset.

I've only been able to dry fire a Shield, but many reviews say it has significantly less recoil than the PM9/CM9, and even the G26. Trigger is pretty much a wash, not as smooth as the Kahr, but pull and reset are shorter. I was mostly carrying the CM9 in a paddle holster under a jacket during the winter/spring. Now that it's summer I've been pocket carrying the CW380. For IWB/OWB carry under a cover garment, jacket, etc., there's not much difference between the CM9 and Shield. Not sure the extra round and softer recoil is worth buying a new gun though.
FCastle88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 08:54   #11
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 21,880
I wonder what was the protocol when a lot of guys carried for instance a S&W 4006 or 5906 - whether they were trained to sweep off the safety every time they drew or of they carried with the safety off and did not seem to encounter issues.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 11:53   #12
Nakanokalronin
JMB & MTK
 
Nakanokalronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondd2 View Post
I already have one. Its called the Beretta Nano.

And since the shield is larger than the Glock 26, I can say I have 2.
Only a tiny bit in height due to a 7rd. staggered mag vs. a double stack 10 round mag. It's smaller in every other way.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Nakanokalronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 12:05   #13
Rancher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
I wonder what was the protocol when a lot of guys carried for instance a S&W 4006 or 5906 - whether they were trained to sweep off the safety every time they drew or of they carried with the safety off and did not seem to encounter issues.
We did not call it a safety, it was a de-cocker. Gun always stayed "hot". Was only used when we were done firing to drop the hammer.

Rancher
Rancher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 12:07   #14
Rancher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 1,322
Then it was ready for DA/SA again. Wish the Shield was like that. Happy otherwise.

Rancher
Rancher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 15:08   #15
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 14,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rancher View Post
Then it was ready for DA/SA again. Wish the Shield was like that. Happy otherwise.

Rancher
Decockers on a striker-fired are silly.
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 15:11   #16
hunter 111
Senior Member
 
hunter 111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: TRAVEL -
Posts: 1,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboywannabe View Post
I couldn't wait, I put money down on a PPS.
they be nice
__________________
"The law isn't necessarily justice nor is justice necessarily lawful "
hunter 111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 19:19   #17
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 21,880
I am thinking that the "decocker" sometimes had a third postion in addition to the middle-fire postion and the lower-decock position. But I admit my memory is fuzzy.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 21:30   #18
Rancher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy1964 View Post
Decockers on a striker-fired are silly.
I got paid to train with one so I am biased. Over 50 now and still like them. Not going to sell off any of my Glocks!

Rancher
Rancher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 21:34   #19
Rancher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
I am thinking that the "decocker" sometimes had a third postion in addition to the middle-fire postion and the lower-decock position. But I admit my memory is fuzzy.
Not on the Smith 59 series or any of the Sigs we used.

Rancher
Rancher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2014, 22:57   #20
1badsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5
Any idea if these will make it into California?
1badsl is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:57.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,008
268 Members
740 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42