Carry guns and modification.

Status
Not open for further replies.
So we make tactical sacrifices for (potential, possible) legal advantages? Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

I don't. Some legal minds advocate doing so, but I will take my chances. IMHO, I would rather explain my actions to the court than my family explain my wishes to the undertaker.
 
DT Guy said:
So we make tactical sacrifices for (potential, possible) legal advantages? Hmmmm...
Click to expand...
You and I have had this discussion before, and I don't buy your position.

I have trained with and competed with decent, service grade triggers, including the stock triggers on my Glocks enough to be confident that I give up nothing in performance. Too many people seem to be looking for a hardware solution to what is fundamentally a software (i. e., training and practice) issue.

Yes, it is naive of people to believe that good accuracy is not needed in a self defense handgun. No competent trainer would agree. Louis Awerbuck, for example, in the few classes I was lucky enough to take from, him would emphasize repeatedly the importance of accuracy and good shot placement and arrange his shooting problems so as to require good accuracy to successfully solve them.

But it is also naive to believe that such accuracy can only be achieved with a finely tuned, competition grade trigger. What is really necessary to be accurate is good training and diligent practice.
 
Frank what is your position on an aftermarket trigger that just smooths the pull on a DA or striker fired pistol, without reducing the weight of pull?
 
K_Mac said:
Frank what is your position on an aftermarket trigger that just smooths the pull on a DA or striker fired pistol, without reducing the weight of pull?
Click to expand...
I doubt that would be a problem. I touched on that in post 16 and in post 52.
 
The thing to remember is that this entire discussion revolves around whether you could find yourself in legal trouble after altering a gun that was later used in a shooting.it all depends on the guys who are looking for that trouble. An ambidextrous safety, hammer, firing pin, it would be really hard to make trouble for that. That's purely functional, shouldn't matter, but even a non-working part, like swastika grip medallions can draw attention.

It's just like driving the red sports car.
 
That's purely functional, shouldn't matter,
Click to expand...
:) That word..should,should not...keeps coming up.
"Should" combines a state of hope and optimism,and failing that,implies that if only we could step out of this unfortunate reality into the utopia that does not quite exist.....
You can bet on "Should"....I'll bet on Murphy. :)

DATA!!!. My obviously archaic,obsolete,from another era RCBS trigger pull guage will not go beyond 72 oz.
Perhaps it is only for measuring reckless trigger pulls!! Or ideas on trigger pulls have "evolved" Dadgum lawyers!!! :-) (Easy Frank,just kidding)

You see,I thought an RCBS trigger pull guage "SHOULD" be able to check a trigger.

Fortunately,I had a contingency plan.With a Redwing boot lace,I was able to rig a new,unopened 8lb jug of powder to the hook from the trigger pull guage.

Three times in a row,the new M+P trigger lifted the jug about 4 in before the click.I think if we allow for the tare of the jug,about an 8 lb pull.

I suggested I would have more confidence with a 25% better trigger.

That would be 6 lbs.

I think the Apex Duty and Carry will get ordered tomorrow.

You know....OK,I'm going to smile when I say this...no heartburn,but I would hope S+W knows what firearms are made for,and what makes a good one.

It would be very helpful if S+W was more interested in making a 5 lb ,responsible trigger than an 8 lb "Lawyer" trigger.

That is why there is an APEX,and that is why we find ourselves in these stupid dilemnas.

Since we speculate about the dangers of a "light" trigger,an 8lb trigger in a 24 oz gun CAN contribute to a miss which could kill an innocent person or get me killed.

I know.I'm responsible for every round.
And S+W has to worry about lawsuits.Wait..thats lawyers,too!


Seems rather one way. IMO,an 8lb trigger is as "reckless"as a 3 1/2 lb trigger.

If a 4 1/2 to 5 lb trigger is "duty and carry" per the expert witness armorer, then make them that way.
6 lbs?OK. But a firearm and shooter work together.

There is a "zone" between too heavy and too light.IMO,S+W missed it.That is a disservice.(IMO)
 
Last edited:
849,I'm not quite sure how to say this,but I'm going to try.

I really appreciate Frank.I consider his help to be very rich gold ore,for me to pan out.

Frank and I have no argument.I asked the question,then I mostly kept my eyes and ears open and my mouth shut.

I have nothing but respect and appreciation for Franks(and the others) help.

Now,OK,after all of this,I have put a little friendly banter about lawyers in.I pointed out "I smiled when I said it".I hope,truly,Frank is smiling,too.

Somehow I feel that you are adding something more abrasive.A little ground glass.
You seem to be coming from a place of winning and losing.With a little dancing on the face of someone thrown in.

I'm not.

Thank you,Frank and the rest of the legal wise!.I appreciate you.
 
Last edited:
DT Guy said:
So we make tactical sacrifices for (potential, possible) legal advantages? Hmmmm...
Click to expand...
No. I don't know what "we" do, but I examine the potential legal ramifications before I make choices about my EDC. For whatever it's worth, I also examine other ramifications, such as marital and financial ones. (Also known as "Mrs. McGee just might kill me if I buy another gun.";))

My perspective: I view every modification as fitting somewhere on two scales:
1. First, a scale that has "purely functional" at one end, and "purely aesthetic" at the other.
2. Second, a scale that runs from "totally safe" to "legally disastrous."

I guess you could also consider them two axes* of a graph. (*=plural of axis, not the thing for chopping firewood)

Example 1: Night sights. I'd put "night sights" down towards "purely functional" and "very safe" on those two scales. So I'd be comfortable putting night sights on a carry gun. I'm comfortable saying that night sights provide high functional value with minimal extra legal exposure. If necessary, I can explain to a jury that I put night sights on my gun to help me hit my target, so that I don't miss and risk killing or injuring others.

Example 2: Decorative engraving. I'd put this down as "purely aesthetic," as it has no functional value. On the second scale, said engraving could run anywhere from "pretty safe" to "legally disastrous," depending on what's engraved on the pistol. Social media recently blew up because a police officer had "You're [insert f-word]ed" inside the dust cover of his AR. Imagine if you had "[Insert racial slur], wait for flash" engraved around the muzzle of your gun, and you wind up killing a member of that particular racial group. Even if you're exonerated, your life will never be the same. I'd call that engraving "legally disastrous." There's no way to explain to a jury that you had a good reason to have that engraved on the muzzle of your gun.

We're all going to have different views on where any modification is going to fall on each scale. We'll all also have different "legal risk tolerance levels," for lack of a better phrase. My "legal risk tolerance level" is fairly low. If I had a 1911 with a 3.5# trigger, and practiced with it, I'd probably shoot it better than my Glock. The question to my mind is "how much better?" Would it really make enough of a difference at the most likely SD range (5 yards or less?) to warrant the additional legal risk of carrying a 3.5# trigger, as opposed to the 5.5# trigger on my Glock?

TimSr said:
I will not be making any major decisions about my self defense weapon (or ammo) based on fringe theories of how those decisions could be contorted into some kind of mental deficiency by an imaginary renegade prosecutor with a wild imagination, operating under an insane judge. If we ever get to that point, no defense will justify a self defense shooting.
Click to expand...
Well, be sure to let Mr. Magliato know that these are just fringe legal theories used by renegade prosecutors and insane judges . . .
 
So we make tactical sacrifices for (potential, possible) legal advantages? Hmmmm...
Click to expand...
I don't. Some legal minds advocate doing so, but I will take my chances.
Click to expand...
You think that carrying a pistol with a trigger that falls within the range considered acceptable by experts constitutes the making of "tactical sacrifices"?

You would be cut to pieces in court.
 
Glad you like it. And it's true, for MOST combat scenarios, even the crappiest trigger will suffice out to 10 yards or so. I just prefer what I can shoot the best, that's still safe to be handled/carried.

Good luck!
Click to expand...
As an M&Pc owner, the trigger is actually rather excellent for its use, but you have to run about 700 rounds through it. The trigger pull smooths out quite well, with a decent break at about 6.5lbs. At first I was not a fan coming from a cocked and locked 1911 with a 5 lb glass break trigger. BUT if you are using it without a safety I would not be comfortable with a lighter trigger.

I take mine to competitions about once a quarter. While you can tell the difference between it a comp tweeked pistol, it still holds its own.
 
Mine does have the thumb safety.
As I mentioned,the trigger will lift a sealed 8 lb jug of powder.

I,too am accustomed to a nice 1911 trigger.

I understand and accept the standard of 4 1/2 lbs for a 1911 system.

I agree that an M+P with no safety would suggest a long takeup 6 lb pull.Good idea!!.Fine for a draw and shoot gun.All good!

I don't even expect a better pull from S+W on a gun with a safety. 6 lbs with a safety!!. OK!!

Doggone,from 6 lbs to 8 lbs is a step!! Too much,IMO.

I'd like for it to be bone stock.Obviously,from this thread,we know why.

There is a reason Apex thrives. S+W could do better.

I think less of S+W for creating this situation.I'm going to risk the exposure and get the duty/carry kit.If I can get a 5 lb pull,I'll be delighted with the gun....and concerned about using it.
 
you know, you are right, the word "should" keeps coming up. It should. What it should tell you is that sure, the thing in question could bring up questions, but the issue is in fact, a grey area that could go unquestioned under reasonable circumstances.

A few functional performance changes, changes that in fact are often found on stock models, should pass the normalcy test,rather than setting off alarm bells and flashing lights all the way to the court house. other concerns, for example, if your tattoos are dogs playing poker, it shouldn't bring your character into question, but if you have a blueprint for mayhem printed all over your body, it could drag all sorts of unpleasantness to the overall questions.

If you've ever heard the word gestalt, it somewhat means an overall sense derived from of a set of information. The Decision could hinge on only a few pieces of data,and may be decided by the gestalt of all the observations.

for example, the district attorney has a file in his hand and he has ten minutes available for that file, and a decision to make. lets say that he Looks at the photos, and he sees no evidence that the shooter is a hardened thug. He looks at the criminal rap sheet, and there are a few petty infractions, but nothing serious. He finds a description of a modified gun, but not heavily modified, and not necessarily modified in a way to make it more dangerous. He finds that your handgun was actually legally purchased on the used gun market, legally, and you also have a legal right to carry it. Witness statements clear you of wrong doing. you look s If you ere re taken to the station wearing a mister rogers sweater, and behaved suitably. It happened while you were visiting your sick mother at the hospital or you were picking up your dry cleaning. He should have no clear reason, not individually or in totality to pass that file on for further examination, right? should is still vague and uncertain.

Should is actually a pretty good word. It takes the dangerous word "will" and factors in chaos, or murphy's law, if you will, and changes it from a rather completely unpredictable situation to an optimistic, yet still cautious uncertainty.

So, you should listen to "should", but it shouldn't guide your decisions completely, and it indicates a need for further thought and good judgement.
 
a grey area that could go unquestioned under reasonable circumstances
Click to expand...

I'm not certain why, in an adversarial system, you would expect one side to allow reasonableness to be a guide. Reasonableness of weapon modification is something that the jury will likely at least have some discussion of if it goes to trial.
 
I will opine that if you can't shoot a stock Glock, M&P or other modern quality handgun reasonably well, you won't be able to shoot the tuned up tactical special well either.

If I'm going to bet what gun bellies up at a match, it will be the 'tuned up tactical special' or the reloads that a dude makes better than factory.

Yes, there are folks who really do a great job tuning but then there aren't.
 
My training partner and fellow instructor runs the "Duty carry kit" on his off duty M&P 40c. Its a fine trigger and MUCH nicer then stock. His Agency wont let him do anything to his duty pistol (also an M&P 40).

Without the Dept limiting my choice of triggers i have gone exclusively to the FSS kits in my M&P's. Just a great trigger. Crisp break without the take up (slack) normally found on those guns.

I am not saying thats for everyone. Certainly NOT for the avg joe that goes to the range MAYBE once a year and does not have FULLY ingrained trigger finger discipline. In numerous videoed FoF training scenarios and dashcam vids of me drawing and pointing my gun at people it is clear my finger is OFF the trigger and outside the trigger guard until sights are on tgt and ive made the decision to fire a shot.

Now, before someone starts screaming about violating a safety rule. Let me state that in real life we point guns at people. Thats just the way the job is.

The reason my carry guns are modified the way they are, is ive been on the bad end of the bell curve in shootings. Ive had 1 pistol engagement that was measured at 40+ yards. (43, if memory serves).

I also currently teach active shooter mitigation to lots of different organizations and groups (businesses, churches and the like). In those scenarios, its unlikely to be a 3yd-3second-3round event. Long shots, as well as head shots are going to be needed.

A trigger that allows me to make a 20-25 yard braced headshot or a 50-100yarx thoracic cavity hit is BENEFICIAL. A trigger that makes that harder is just REDUCING my chance of stopping the threat at distance and allowing him to get into the building or closer to the massed innocents


ETA...i ABSOLUTELY agree that a tuned trigger is not the answer. Practice and TRAINING is the key to good shooting.

A master carpenter with Walmart tools will still make a good product. But, that same master carpenter with HIS highend tools will make a FANTASTIC work of art.

Skill FIRST...then fine tune the hardware
 
I'm not certain why, in an adversarial system, you would expect one side to allow reasonableness to be a guide. Reasonableness of weapon modification is something that the jury will likely at least have some discussion of if it goes to trial.
Click to expand...

To me, it looks like You have very unreasonably made the assumption that a person will wind up in court. In a recent shooting, a guy used a customized gun, a race gun holster, open carry, etc, and wasn't even considered for prosecution and a civil suit doesn't even appear likely.

A person who winds up in court has obviously got bigger worries than the titanium firing pin, skeleton hammer, trigger shoes, pretty wooden grips, magazine extensions, or other modifications that on the surface don't scream out loud that the gun was modified only for the purpose of killing people.

It is obviously possible that some vicious DA will recommend charges solely because a guy had some minor work done, but that's almost ridiculously slim. Without other compelling reasons, unless the defense is useless and the judge shares the same beliefs as the DA, the charge may be thrown out with prejudice because the complaint is stupid.

I have enough faith in the justice system that a person can't wind up in jail just because he tweaked his pistol a bit. If a person winds up in jail, ther will almost certainly have been other factors, factors that are pretty compelling.

Refer back to chaos and murphy's law. Just because something "can happen" doesn't mean that it will. IMO, sometimes you need to draw a line in the sand, suspend paranoia, trust in whatever system of faith you have, and expect that events will take a natural course.
 
Last edited:
I'm not certain why, in an adversarial system, you would expect one side to allow reasonableness to be a guide.
Click to expand...
What?

Reasonableness of weapon modification is something that the jury will likely at least have some discussion of if it goes to trial.
Click to expand...
Yes.

They will talk about the testimony given by experts about the trigger pull weight, and about whether it would be reckless for someone to carry a gun with such a trigger.

From Post #32:
I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who would qualify as an expert witness. He will state that a 4 to 5 pound trigger is appropriate for a service handgun (single action or striker fired) and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound to be reckless.
Click to expand...

I would not expect jurors to question the testimony one way for the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top