Be careful what you ask for. Changes, even done properly to get everything to function correctly, are just that - it's now something different to get used to.
Mag release? Browning designed it for combat use, with only one or two additional magazines on hand. It is already sufficiently proud to operate with familiarity. But, adding height can make it more readily accessible for some. It's doesn't make it more tactical, tho, as the taller mag releases have a disadvantage - getting bumped in the holster causes them to release the mag, and on the draw you discover you have a one shot wonder with the mag lying on the ground. This happens in matches, too.
Browning knew what he was doing when he made the mag catch the height he did. Making it taller to have more malfunctions is not really "tactical" in that light, and goes to the overuse of the word for marketing hype. A tall mag release is for competitive use only - it's less tactical.
Mag well funnel? Again, the gun was meant to be used with the basic load of ammo, which was three magazines on the soldier, which was the standard up to 1985. Carrying the M9, I got one in the gun and one on the belt on patrol. Since the mag well funnel assists in rapidly reloading, that usually happens when a large quantity of ammo is needed - competition. Not daily carry. Ok if you plan to have dozens of magazines on hand with you, but it has to be asked, if you need that much ammo, what you really need is a 30 round magazine and the carbine to shoot it if self defense is the goal. Which is exactly what MP's and Marines issue under the circumstances, not a limited range, low power, and "restricted" capacity handgun.
it goes to all the "improvements" we see being touted as embellishments for competition much more than daily carry. If that is the point, by all means, improve away. However, the thing that most of the older shooters have learned is that the need has to be there - it's a known issue by having experienced it, and there is no other remedy.
Keep in mind that competition shooting introduces the time requirement - the lower amount of time to execute the shot is generally scored higher. In real life, tho, it implies you are rapidly acquiring targets - live human beings - and reflexively shooting each and every one with no regard for who they are. That doesn't happen - there are no zombies, and bikers almost never bust down your door. Unless, of course, you seduced one of their women who stole their stash of retail drugs.
Nope, what most of us have to do, and are required by law to consider, is if that live human being is actually a lethal threat to you. In the (non) typical instance you are in a large body of people shopping or watching a movie, the sudden presentation of a lethal threat banging away with their firearm is going to be complicated by dozens of panicked citizens fleeing - and they won't have any rhyme or reason in which direction they go. They will be in your line of sight, but they are NOT targets, and they are ALL "no-shoot" decision.
You only have one target out there under the circumstances - how is a flared mag well and ten magazines really going to help? Likely all that is a waste of resources. The money should have gone to training for a mass shooter, not a race gun modification for carry.
I say all this not because the OP was asking about what to improve on his carry gun, but because there is a myth that any competitive improvement for a gun automatically has value in a defensive firearm. And nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that a tightly fitted precision 1911 with all the race gun parts on it is a bear to draw, as all the proud sharp accessories hang up on clothing. They cause failure, not success. The money spent on them is wasted effort - and yet we do see thousands of gun owners doing this. If anything it's the bulk of the 1911 market right now, ostentatious race guns with exotic parts. They are NOT combat oriented as Browning and the Army intended.
Improvements for competition are one thing, and valid if and when someone has shot the gun for months and finally approached a plateau where specific issues can be identified. As for "I want to improve it" before that, it's basically an aesthetic decision, and the result is really intended to make the owner look better. For the most part, a lot of high end gun owners need a lot more time to be able to shoot the gun as well as it's really capable. Same as guys who buy knives used by the Navy SEALS - most aren't even SCUBA certified, what do they know about underwater knife fighting?
Be careful what you ask for.
