From a legal standpoint, thwarting a firearm's safety device is not very wise. If it becomes the subject for discussion in a court of law, it will definately not yield positive results for the gun owner. However, it is the right of the gun owner to do whatever he feels suits his needs.......He must understand, however, that there is a legal risk involved by defeating the safety.
RoyB: Our exchange on this subject seems to have been lost with the server change at GB. I feel that you misinterpreted the meaning of what I said then. Let me say this.... I feel Seecamp would have been better off to forget about the magazine safety alltogether, but since they did see fit to incorporate it into the design, the buyer should be familiar with it's use, as applied to their own particular circumstance. If it doesn't fit the indivudual need, he should think about another firearm for that particular purpose.
I agree that no safety device is a substitute for safe handling.....but, safeties are, as they should be, used when applicable.
IMHO, Seecamp made an unwise choice when deciding on the magazine safety. If a safety device was a necessity for their design, there are other ways to accomplish the job without disabling the pistol during a magazine change.
hogship