Magazine disconnects - positives?

[orange]

Try as I might, I can't think of a single positive. Useless feature.

 

[Sylvain]

That's what he's saying.

During a tac-load, it would be nice to have the ability to still fire your weapon if you needed to quickly.

Thanks I was not clear I was clear in my post.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I'm not a fan of the magazine disconnect, and I'll bore everyone with my reasons why.

First, I like to perform "function checks" on firearms I've just cleaned and reassembled. I also put the hammer/striker down on firearms I store in my safe, it's something I've always done. Inserting a magazine into a firearm that's supposed to be cleared so you can pull the trigger to check function or to otherwise make it safe is back-asswards to common sense.

Some folks believe that in a surprise attack where someone tries to snatch your firearm, you'll have the time and presence of mind to hit that little button to drop your mag from an awkward position in an effort to disable your handgun to avoid being shot with it. Who here practices dropping the magazine from the holster? If you have enough of a warning to have time to do this, you have enough of a warning to take other measures to make sure they don't get your gun from you, magazine or not. You can also buy a good retension holster if you're really that worried about it.

Heck, you're just as likely to get into a struggle with your gun drawn and have the magazine accidentally released thereby making your would be single shot pistol a rather diminutive 17oz club...

People say they prevent accidental discharges because novices tend to think if the magazine is out of the firearm, the gun is empty. Perhaps this is true, but I'm not a novice and I don't want my defensive arm treating me as such. If it were optional, that would be great. But pistols that employ them never have them as an option it seems - thus I hate them all.

They add unnecessary complexity to a machine that should be as simple as possible. Ask any mechanical engineer, the more moving parts the more likely you'll experience a failure. Glock often touts the low parts count in their pistols for this very reason. It's a fact of Murphy's Law; if can fail it will fail at the worst possible moment. I don't want anything increasing the chances of a failure in a device I may have to depend on in a life and death situation.

For a range gun or plinker, sure... lawyer the thing up. But for a defensive arm I want it stupid simple and with as few moving parts as possible... especially moving parts that are designed to completely disable my firearm if the magazine is removed.