18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

News M&P 2.0 10mm added to roster. Turners taking deposits.

Latest news
GoldensRule said:
Thanks for the insights.

So, tell me why you would remove the external safety? I have always liked having one. Also, it seems to me that intentionally altering a safety feature of a firearm could expose you to exponentially greater legal liability and even denial of coverage by your homeowner's insurance company in the event of an incident?
Click to expand...
It is incorrectly placed. It's better than what SIG did for the P220 SAO, but it still feels wrong.

No, because you must be able to articulate what you did and why. The problem is that laymen in the "gun world" have misunderstood what goes on in court for a long time now. They perpetuate incorrect ideas because they do not understand how to defend against even the most ridiculous of courtroom arguments. If you can articulate why you did something, and then show how it does not affect the gun, then you will just have wasted a few "lawyer hours" and nullified that avenue of attack.

S&W made the gun to be used with the thumb safety as an option. Removing it does not make the design "less safe". Conversely, adding the thumb safety does not make the gun "more safe". It's "safe" with and without the thumb safety; all it does is add an additional step to the firing process. An S&W engineer can testify if you need it (not sure on the details, but they can be called to respond). You can respond to such a claim in several ways. I'd probably respond with a fit issue since I find it's incorrectly placed for my hand and I cannot shoot it with my thumb on the safety. This then opens up the possibility of my thumb accidentally engaging the safety during the firing sequence, which is obviously "bad" in a fight. I already own several M&P M2.0 pistols without the manual thumb safety, so I can provide the court with an immediate example showing the gun without the thumb safety.
 
Last edited:
GoldensRule said:
.44 mag is a rimmed cartridge and I don't know of any modern .44 semiauto weapons, only revolvers. Have you seen semiauto .44s?

For my money, the 10MM is the sidearm round that can knock down any adversary, be it a brown bear or an enemy in body armor. Currently, I believe it is the ultimate sidearm round as long as the shooter is big and strong enough to handle the weapon.
Click to expand...

i scoured this thread solely to find the invetible bear reference. THANK YOU!
 
token said:
Looks like I'm selling the G20 to fund this
Click to expand...
Not a good idea. The original M&P 10 had trouble, perhaps this will too. I always wait awhile until the bugs are removed. Perhaps it'll be fine, but don't sell a known gun for an unknown one.
 
tomrkba said:
The original M&P 10 had trouble
Click to expand...
When you say "original", do you mean the M&P before the 2.0 models that we now call the 1.0?
I don't even remember there being a 10mm M&P before the 2.0 came out.
 
AR15barrels said:
When you say "original", do you mean the M&P before the 2.0 models that we now call the 1.0?
I don't even remember there being a 10mm M&P before the 2.0 came out.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant the M2.0 10mm when it was released about two years ago. I hear S&W modified the springs and fixed the issue.
 
tomrkba said:
Sorry, I meant the M2.0 10mm when it was released about two years ago. I hear S&W modified the springs and fixed the issue.
Click to expand...
OK, so you are talking about the 2021 guns when the 10mm 2.0's first came out...
 
The target ammo pice is not too bad. For me it is the same price as 45ACP price which is cheaper than .357 or 38 super.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom