Buy the feature if you like. I would choose not to buy.
I own a small .32 that has an interlock which prevents moving the slide back far enough to eject a round when the magazine has been removed.
It's an absolute pain in the neck to unload properly. I remove the loaded magazine. I must then insert an unloaded magazine and cycle the slide to eject the chambered round. Since I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia and can't get a ccw, I find myself having to go through this awkward drill in my car at stops in Nevada or Oregon.
This additional handling is just a further opportunity for something to go wrong.
Kalifornia now outlaws the retail sale of handguns without loaded chamber indicators. The accidental shooting which prompted this law involved a Beretta which HAD a loaded chamber indicator. The idiot who fired the gun didn't know what was being indicated.
If you support the anti-gunners with every "improvement" they seek, our guns will have to be outfitted with flashing neon signs and sirens designed to warn the user and anybody else within fifty yards.
If you support the anti-gunners with every “improvement” they seek, our guns will have to be outfitted with flashing neon signs and sirens designed to warn the user and anybody else within fifty yards.
____________
Interest in safety = supporting “the anti-gunners”. Got it.
Yep, the “loaded chamber indicator” and the internal “magazine safety” are both due to California law.
My wife’s Ruger has both (we don’t live in California). For a short time, I had a Jimenez 9 MM with both of those “features”.