I must be missing something here.
Can you explain what you perceive that makes top good, bottom bad?
5 Likes
Yeah… they worked so hard to make it shoot… it took them 3 generations . 
Wait… I found Gen1 
5 Likes
We’ll first off the 1911 safety is not in the way as much as the M&P safety is. I have the M&P 2.0 FDE 5” with a Manuel safety. I personally don’t have any problems with it, but It feels in the way at times (if you look at its location in your picture the M&P safety is right over the rear serrations. It’s possible to scrape your hand on it when racking the slide. The 1911 safety does not cover the serrations). I’ve considered removing it, but I also like that it’s the configuration that was put forth for the military trials.
M&P 2.0 safety is probably the best striker fire safety on the market because you can ride it like a 1911, BUT I still prefer the 1911 safety. The M&P safety just feels in the way for me and it’s mechanically unnecessary.
It’s Just my preference. As a striker fire guy I prefer no safety. Most of the striker fire safety’s are an after thought to reach a market of people who won’t carry a gun without one. If I were to carry a striker fire with a safety, it would probably be the M&P2.0.
You’ll find old posts of mine praising my shield safety which many people find atrocious. My taste has changed and I do not engage the safety on my shield if I carry it anymore. It’s just not mechanically necessary where as a 1911 is. I also don’t have a 1911 for self defense. I jus my find them really enjoyable to shoot and I love their design.
3 Likes
That’s fair. As the chooser, you get to do that. 
If I didn’t believe in the value of a manual safety, I would not feel less safe for it to remain disengaged on a 1911. Trigger dongles don’t impress me much as a safety mechanism.
I’m not really following that one. Does anyone with a 1911 (other than a historic value safe queen) not use an extended safety? Admittedly, the Kimber in my photo was a poor example for that with its tiny nub of a safety lever (which I would replace in a second if it didn’t require the local blacksmith to fab a replacement).
With a (slightly) more conventional configuration, the 1911 vs M&P safety levers don’t obscure more or less of the slide — engaged or disengaged.
The serrations on the M&P are positioned farther aft — as a slingshot guy, I consider that all plus. I only use an overhand grip to manually lock the slide back — i.e. gun is unloaded and safety is off. Neither lever blocks anything with the safety disengaged.
A conventional 1911 won’t allow the slide to move with the safety engaged anyway — no matter how out of the way. I don’t care for the locked slide aspect of the conventional 1911 safety, because it prevents the pistol from being cleared with the safety engaged.
But we all see it how we see it, and act accordingly. 
Not to start a new (i.e. old) debate — which also has nothing to do with striker vs hammer — but I’ve never been able to find the advantage of riding the safety. I know it’s “the thing”, but it’s 
for me.
3 Likes
By obscure I mean your more likely to scrape your fingers on the M&P Safety. That’s not an issue with the 1911 because you can’t rack the slide while it’s engaged (I agree with you that’s not a plus).
I will always ride a safety if possible to ensure it never gets engaged by accident. The M&P safety on my gun is very easy to manipulate, and it’s a large safety lever. I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable without riding the safety. It’s also my way of making sure I didn’t forget to disengage it.
Keep in mind, I’m not a safety guy anymore. I really only like the 1911 Safety because I think 1911s are cool and I know it’s a necessity for the platform. My carry gun is a Glock 
.
Edit: here’s how I press check.
Here’s how I feel the safety is in the way at times. It’s not a big deal though. It can easily be worked around. Just not my preference.
I won’t argue, it’s the best striker fire gun safety I’ve seen. Most are too small or too difficult to disengage. The M&P is kind of the opposite for me. It’s a little too big and it is a little too easy to engage and disengage. I’d prefer the M&P Safety over the others though if that makes sense.
4 Likes
Concur. And on the Kimber it’s a little too small and a little too hard to engage and disengage. The correct amount of detent seems to have been known for 110 years. But for some reason there is a persistent design or manufacturing challenge. 
Of course how to design poor safeties has been known for at least as long, and they still seem to find their way onto enough guns that people have given up on the principle. 
I don’t “press check” to verify gun status. But I do the same motion of the slide by slingshot at least a couple hundred times a week in dry fire practice to reset the trigger. In that case the safety will usually be off, so no issue. If “press check” is something you want to do with a live gun, I can see that the easily moved M&P safety lever is going to get bumped too often.
3 Likes
I am a new gun owner having bought my first gun 2 years ago. Thanks to FauciVirus, training has been mostly YouTube and dry fire. My first handgun was a 1911 and my I still swipe the (nonexistant) thumb safety on my M&P and refuse to train that habit out. I am more comfortable carrying the 1911 because of the safeties, but I carry the M&P because I shoot better with the red dot. A 1911 milled for a red dot would be perfect! Maybe just learn to shoot the iron sights?
4 Likes
Or maybe get an M&P with safety. 
4 Likes
Realize also you have guns which appear to be striker fired but in actuality have an internal hammer which hits a firing pin. You also have HK P30 with V1 Trigger which is a true double action but the process of loading a round pre-cocks the hammer spring so the trigger pull is actually much like that of a striker fired pistol. The advantage being the exposed hammer allows you to place your thumb on the hammer while holstering. Though it’s not my carry gun, I believe this to be the best of both worlds
3 Likes