Browning HP mag release

A

ammo.crafter

New member
Does anyone know how to remove the “thing” that catches the releasing magazine and prevents it from being completely released like a 1911 mags does?
 
That video is just what I needed to know. Just went to the range to qualify and tactical reloads and combat reloads were slow because I had to drag the mag out instead of it free falling.

Thanks for the link.
 
the vid that WV links to...only works with older BHP...with the MK111...you will need the trigger assembly removed..down/out the trigger guard....to remove the MDS..
 
.40 BHP

Current Browning mags have a mouse trap type spring on the base plate that really eject the mag. They also have the mag safety, which as noted does not come out as easily as with the older verisons.
 
Although I have routinely removed the magazine disconnect from all of my shooter Hi Powers and not worry about it, you might want to research some of the threads on this forum about liability in court in case you have to use your HP for self defense. Personally, I think it verges on paranoia, but several "experts" have cautioned that removal of an alleged safety device can go against you in court in a SD scenario.
 
I'm not so much worried about litigation. I'm certified with my Browning and my 1911. Not having a magazine disconnect would be something I could reasonably explain away. I'm also experienced in competitive shooting from my days in the Corps as well as my Law Enforcement experience. I'll say this everyone must understand that no matter what you do you will likely get sued. To mitigate a lawsuit you have to train...train...train. Be knowledgeable and sure of your actions.

Just my $0.02
 
Current Browning mags have a mouse trap type spring on the base plate that really eject the mag. They also have the mag safety, which as noted does not come out as easily as with the older verisons.
Click to expand...

All BHP in 40 S&W are MKIIIs.
 
gyvel said:
Although I have routinely removed the magazine disconnect from all of my shooter Hi Powers and not worry about it, you might want to research some of the threads on this forum about liability in court in case you have to use your HP for self defense. Personally, I think it verges on paranoia, but several "experts" have cautioned that removal of an alleged safety device can go against you in court in a SD scenario.
Click to expand...

Liability is the key term! If you use of lethal force, whether the magazine safety is installed or not isn't likely to be an issue if you did what you had to, complied with the law, used lethal force properly, etc. From a criminal law standpoint, you're probably OK.

It's the CIVIL suit that sometimes follows that can be the problem.

Then, a jury might not be asked to concern themselves with "good shoot" standards, and they could go nuts. Here in North Carolina, the firearms law protect someone who uses LETHAL FORCE properly and shields the shooter from following civil cases. That is not true in all states.
 
"...“thing” that catches the releasing magazine and prevents it from..." There is no such device. There is a spring powered magazine safety that is shut off when a mag is inserted. That pushes on the mag, causing the mag to stay in and adds several pounds to the trigger pull via friction.
"...removal of an alleged safety device can go against you in court in a SD scenario..." Any decent lawyer would squish that in a heart beat. "It's not removing a safety device. It's fixing a European design flaw that causes poor trigger function. Thus it's removal enhances the accuracy of the pistol thereby removing the chances of a defensive shot not going where it was intended."
However, the rules for the shooting games disallow removing the useless mag safety. Said mag safety there only because the BHP was originally designed with the intention of selling 'em to European police who insisted it be there.
"...I'm certified with my..." By whom? Just curious.
 
I'm certified by my state certified firearms instructor. He is our Assistant Police Chief. Have been many times over through out my law enforcement career.
 
Gawd, I'm sick of hearing "don't do this" or "don't do that" because of liability, lawyers, courts, whatever. Somebody find me a court case where a DA prosecuted or attempted to prosecute someone over their disconnected HP mag disconnect. I won't hold my breath, because it doesn't exist.


OP and gasmandave -
Should you choose to remove the mag disconnect from your HPs an additional benefit is a much improved trigger pull. I took the disconnect out of the HP that my 13 y/o shoots in action pistol and the difference in the trigger is night and day - it's substantially lighter, smoother, and cleaner. The best mod you can make to a HP and it's free!
 
WC145 said:
Gawd, I'm sick of hearing "don't do this" or "don't do that" because of liability, lawyers, courts, whatever. Somebody find me a court case where a DA prosecuted or attempted to prosecute someone over their disconnected HP mag disconnect. I won't hold my breath, because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I used to feel as you do, until I talked with some attorneys with knowledge of these matters... (Some of them participate on this forum and The High Road. Mas Ayoob has participated in this type of discussion, too, and he has been involved in a number of civil cases as an expert witness. He has also participated in these discussions.)

I don't think modifying a weapon will necessarily get you in trouble with a DA, but such modifications COULD (not "will") lead to later problems in a civil suit. In the case of a magazine safety, there is the unanswered question as to whether it is really a SAFETY feature, or not -- as it is arguably intended to keep you from accidentaly/negligently shooting the weapon; but if you used the weapon with intent, the safety wasn't a factor.

In my earlier response in this discussion I didn't mention a DA prosecuting someone over their use of a modified weapon. In fact, I said in most jurisdictions, a "good shoot" won't lead to criminal charges. Criminal charges are only PART of the problem.

I did mention CIVIL SUITS which don't involve criminal law. If you don't know the difference between civil cases and criminal cases, you might want to do a little reading or ask some questions. If you do know the difference, you need to do some more study or talk with an attorney, and understand how they can make your life miserable.

In criminal cases, the government (prosecutor/DA) must prove every single element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury (or the judge, it there is no jury) must find that no reasonable person could conclude any other way. This is a very high threshold, and it is difficult to meet.

In civil cases, the standard is less stringent. The person filing the suit in a civil lawsuit (the plaintiff) only has the burden to prove his claim is supported “by a preponderance of the evidence,” which means. in effect, "more likely than not." Even if reasonable minds might differ, a plaintiff can still succeed.

In my state (NC), those who use lethal force in a legal manner are protected from related civil suits from their use of the weapon; if your state has a similar law (or laws) you may have no reason for concern. In some states, even that sort of protection won't keep someone from filing a suit, and forcing you to hire an attorney.

Remember OJ? -- the legal action that really brought him down wasn't the criminal prosecution, but the civil suit. (The following is from a Pennsylvania Gun Owner's Blog, talking about civil suits: http://pennlago.com/justified-iv-civil-implications-justified-use-deadly-force/

Simpson was charged with the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. In that case, People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, Simpson was ultimately acquitted. In the criminal case, in returning a verdict of not guilty the jury essentially found that the prosecutor had not proven Simpson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, following the acquittal, Brown and Goldman’s family members brought a civil suit against Simpson for the deaths. This time, abiding by the lesser “preponderance of the evidence” standard, the jury found Simpson liable, awarding the plaintiffs a total of $33.5 million between compensatory and punitive damages.​

That civil suit ruined OJ, deprived him of his property and most of his income. It also arguably led to his later actions, and he's now in prison.

A DA wasn't involved in the case that brought him down. To quote the Pennsylvania site, "the civil jury’s finding of liability only represents a determination that it is more likely than not, even if only 50.01% likely, that Simpson was in fact the killer." If the jury feels -- thanks to "proper" coaching by the plaintiff's attorney -- that modifying a weapon is a sign of a person just looking for trouble, a bad guy, etc., -- they may have a different viewpoint that most people. A lot of people don't like guns OR gun owners.

Do a Wikipedia search for Bernhard Goetz. This is from Wikipedia:

Bernhard Hugo Goetz (born November 7, 1947) is a New York City man known for shooting four young men when they tried to mug him[2][3][4][5] on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan on December 22, 1984. He fired five shots, seriously wounding all four men. Nine days later he surrendered to police and was eventually charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served eight months of a one-year sentence. In 1996, one of the shot men, who had been left paraplegic and brain damaged as a result of his injuries, obtained a civil judgment of $43 million against Goetz.​

Goetz had an unlicensedl weapon (no NYC permit to carry that weapon) and even though he shot and badly wounded his four assailants, the shootings didn't cause him big problems in criminal court. The jury found him guilty of using an "illegal" weapon.

But, when o the family of the most badly wounded assailant sued him in Civil court, for the medical bills and treatment needed for their son, they won a settlement for $43 million. While I'm sure the family didn't get even a fraction of that amount, Goetz's probably lost almost everything he owned, had saved, lost his job, ruined his family life, etc., etc.

Civil suits don't require that juries be sensible. To quote the blog above again (you can read it directly if you click on the link above):

Does that mean if somebody is justified in using deadly force, he can’t be sued? Unfortunately, that isn’t what it means. A plaintiff can initiate a lawsuit for anything, regardless of whether the lawsuit states a legitimate cause of action (there’s actually a nutjob out there who sues magicians regularly alleging that these magicians have stolen his “godly powers”). At the initiation of a lawsuit, the complaint is officially filed with the clerk. The clerk doesn’t have the ability to review the merits of the case. Consequently, as long as the plaintiff has the necessary papers and the filing fee, the lawsuit will be filed.[/QUOTE]

A stupid lawsuit may be quickly or eventually thrown out of court, but it's still going to take time and money to get from here to there.

Civil suits don't always get the same press coverage as criminal cases, but you'd be surprised how many city governments pay out big money for seemingly ludicrous claims as a result of civil suits.​
 
Still no citation from a civil suit where removing the magazine disconnect was an issue. Bernard Goetz did not use a Browning H.P.

In order for one to have a legal problem due to removing a magazine safety, the opposition would have to know first, what a magazine safety is. Second, that the Browning High Power ships with one. Third, that the magazine safety was removed.

A whole lot of assumptions, suppositions and "what ifs", that would only be legitimate if there has ever been a court case where the issue was pertinent, no matter what popular gun writer or legal expert contends.
 
Last edited:
Still no citation from a civil suit where removing the magazine disconnect was an issue. Bernard Goetz did not use a Browning H.P.

In order for one to have a legal problem due to removing a magazine safety, the opposition would have to know first, what a magazine safety is. Second, that the Browning High Power ships with one. Third, that the magazine safety was removed.

A whole lot of assumptions, suppositions and "what ifs", that would only be legitimate if there has ever been a court case where the issue was pertinent, no matter what popular gun writer or legal expert contends.
Click to expand...

We have had this discussion over and over again. The only case that is ever sighted is one which Mas Ayoob was consulted on. It was a case that involved a negligent discharge of a 1911 which resulted in someone getting shot.

The BHP with the mag disconnect removed was in the glovebox. It was taken as evidence and used as leverage to force a settlement. Ayoob sights it all the time but never discloses what actually happened because it is sealed. So take it for what it is worth.

Every other statement ever made is hypothetical what ifs and maybes.
 
dahermit said:
Still no citation from a civil suit where removing the magazine disconnect was an issue. Bernard Goetz did not use a Browning H.P.
Click to expand...

And the point was that just because you don't get prosecuted (under criminal law) for using a weapon doesn't, mean you won't face a civil suit for using THAT weapon from persons claiming harm as a result of your actions.

If the plaintiff's attorney can make the jury think the shooter is a cowboy, totally oblivious to appropriate "safety" concerns, it's hard to say how a Jury will react. Goetz wasn't prosecuted for shooting his assailants. The jury apparently thought it was a good example of self-defense. He WAS prosecuted (criminal law) for having an unlicensed weapon (carried concealed); he served 8-months for that.

The bigger problem for Goetz arose with the the CIVIL suit (brought by the family of one of the assailants) -- and it wiped him out financially. He lost everything. (But some folks thought he did the right thing.)

May Ayoob cites one case -- but many, many civil suits NOT involving firearms go to court every day, and some of the outcomes are almost unbelievable for the person, persons, or firms sued. Civil suits can be a real crap shoot. To quote Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky..."

Here in NC we're supposedly protected against such suits if you use lethal force (properly), but I don't want to be the one who tests the law.

I don't think that a lack of cited cases means you're safe. Some folks seem to think that the lack of evidence is evidence (or proof) -- it's not. It's just a lack of evidence.

Personally, I don't see how a juror would believe a BHP with mag safety removed is a bit more dangerous (or potentially more lethal) than a CZ in SA mode (cocked and locked); you might make a similar claim about the lack of safety for any weapon that doesn't have a mag safety. Some gun enthusiasts might even argue the mag safety's removal makes the trigger better, and could make the shooter more likely to hit his or her desired target rather an innocent bystander.

But, I'm not on one of those jury members, and they are the ones who will hear the plaintiff's attorney's arguments. And, who knows what the individuals in that jury room think about firearms?
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't see how a juror would believe a BHP with mag safety removed is a bit more dangerous (or potentially more lethal) than a CZ in SA mode (cocked and locked); you might make a similar claim about the lack of safety for any weapon that doesn't have a mag safety.
Click to expand...

Lawyers are masters of obfuscation, manipulation and chicanery. The majority of jurors are (a) Someplace they don't want to be, (b)Easily swayed by flowery words and (c) Most likely not at all familiar with how a firearm works other than going "bang."

A slimy lawyer will emphasize repeatedly that the defendant has "removed a safety device" without explaining what the actual function of that device is. All that the jurors hear is "...removed a safety device." Has he lied? No. All he has done is omitted certain relevant facts about his statement.

And don't ever think "It can't happen to me." We live in a country where a jury awarded a woman millions because the "coffee was too hot."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top