Carry guns and modification.

[Lohman446]

I was not entirely clear that my answer was to the idea of a "Grey area that would go unquestioned under reasonable circumstances" Modify anything you want. Be aware that a prosecutor may make those modifications out to be at fault (or to reference a frame of mind). To assume they will go unquestioned in an adversarial system would not be a good plan.

 

[Lohman446]

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.

I am making the assumption it will end up in court. I do not know that making that assumption is unreasonable.

 

[OldMarksman]

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.

Well, in the criminal proceedings, one has the evidence against the shooter (evidence that he shot the person) and if a self defense instruction is given, at least some evidence in his or her favor.

Eyewitness and earwitness testimony might well be inconclusive, or worse, very damaging.

Will the state be able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as required in most jurisdicions? Maybe, and maybe not.

That pistol modification could prove damaging when it is added to the evidence, and it may make it easier for the state to obtain a conviction on "lesser included charges"--which could result in a jail sentence.

On the civil question, it's a lot easier for a plaintiff to get a favorable judgment--a preponderance of the evidence, no unanimous verdict required, and the trigger pull measurement could be all it takes.

 

[HiBC]

Glenn,
Its been a couple of decades,but I used to shoot in a handgun bullseye league.
I make no claim that my averages in the 270's is good shooting.Its mediocre,but reasonably competent.Thats a 9 for 30shot average.

My understanding is that most of the M+P's run about a 6 or 6.5 lb trigger.
It is also my understanding that the Apex M+P Duty and Carry kit gives something like a 5 lb to 5.5 lb pull with the right spring.
I won't quibble,I'd stay unmodified with a 6 lb pull,even 6 1/2.Its worth it over this legal stuff.

My trigger will lift an unopened 8 lb jug of powder.

I have been dry firing.If I shoot with extreme concentration,like a bullseye shooter,absolutely ignoring speed,I can keep the sights reasonably stable.

At this point,real world,I believe the 8 lb trigger would cause me to shoot a little slower and miss a little larger.

The discussion keeps wandering toward extensively tuned range guns,or under 4 lb triggers.I'm not going there.Not relevent

I have read Ayoob on handloads.I'm getting a start with 100 rds of Hornady Critical Defense to evaluate.I think that might be my choice.I do not think I can load better ammo.

Yes,I have components to reload Montana Gold and WCC brass. For practice,not carry.

Crap. I buy a new S+W to avoid all this .My LGS did not have one in stock,so we ordered it.S+W was kind enough to send an 8 lb trigger pull.

I'll be condemned if I mod the trigger to 5 lbs.I'm a woosey if I can't shoot a 24 oz gun with an 8 lb trigger,fast and accurately.

This is why I do not buy new guns.

It just isn't fun.It vacuums.

I'd rather build a sow's ear out of junk and enjoy it.

 

[briandg]

I am making the assumption it will end up in court. I do not know that making that assumption is unreasonable.

Between stand your ground laws, castle laws, other circumstances such as clear justification for the shooting, yes, it is very, very unreasonable to assume that the case will be prosecuted. the vast majority of states have castle laws,some of which clearly block prosecution without evidence of criminal behavior on the part of the shooter. There is nothing reasonable about believing that a shooting will have a strong likelihood of being prosecuted or subjected to civil penalties.

 

[briandg]

Regarding the ammo, I'd suggest that you just stick with factory. Are you absolutely certain of the perfection of your handloads, and that they are more reliable than a factory defense load? Forget legal problems of creating "magic bullets meant to kill innocent unarmed children" and just ask yourself if you'd rather trust the factory or the handloads?

My MP 380 fails to fire on 20% of my handloads but is mostly reliable on factory.

yes, I'm flinging it back at smith hard and fast, sometime soon, but the point remains that if I hadn't worked with the thing, I may not have known that the thing wasn't even as reliable as a drunk with a ten dollar bill that was given to him for food.

 

[849ACSO]

You think that carrying a pistol with a trigger that falls within the range considered acceptable by experts constitutes the making of "tactical sacrifices"?

That's what some of the lawyers here would have you believe.

 

[OldMarksman]

Between stand your ground laws, castle laws, other circumstances such as clear justification for the shooting, yes, it is very, very unreasonable to assume that the case will be prosecuted.

If we are speaking of a use of force incident that takes place inside one's home or in some places, place of business, and there is evidence that the person against whom force was used had entered unlawfully (perhaps with force), the likelihood of prosecution would be reduced.

"Stand your ground" laws do absolutely nothing other than eliminate a requirement that a defender justified in the use of force show why safe retreat had not been possible.

The question then is whether there is sufficient evidence of clear justification--of immediate necessity to use deadly force as a last resort.

There is nothing reasonable about believing that a shooting will have a strong likelihood of being prosecuted or subjected to civil penalties.

Absent the existence of sufficient evidence of justification, if one person has shot another, it is extremely likely that there will be prosecution.

The threshold for civil proceedings is a whole lot lower.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If we are speaking of a use of force incident that takes place inside one's home or in some places, place of business, and there is evidence that the person against whom force was used had entered unlawfully (perhaps with force), the likelihood of prosecution would be reduced.

However, one can screw up the interaction with the bad guy - remember the famous pharmacist kill shot? There is a basic inability among some to think that they could be the one that the law and jury thinks are in the wrong.

 

[HiBC]

Briandg....I'm sorry you have trouble with your handloads.

I have very little experience with that.I've been loading for 47 years.Mine work.I have more faith in my loads than just about anyone elses.

However,if you re-read my post,note I said I bought 100 Hornady Critical defense to evaluate.Likely,that is what I will use.In any case,per Mr Ayoob,I will carry factory loads.

I intend to shoot reloads for practice.

 

[briandg]

Anybody able to provide some factual data regarding defensive shooting and prosecution rates so we can find out what the risk factors are in a genuine defensive shooting?

 

[OldMarksman]

On the M&P Trigger...

Mine was gritty, and I did not like it. But I could hit with it.

But for some reason, my trigger finger would start to sting after a few shots at the range. After around one box I would have to stop.

Any ideas?

By the way, I replaced the M&P Compact with a Ruger SR-9c. But the disengagement of the safety was almost a separate operation, and I replaced it with a Springfield XD-S 9.

I do not like the trigger very much, but I do like the grip safety.

 

[zincwarrior]

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.

if you have already run 500 rounds through it and its still an 8lb pull, yes that is unacceptable. I would get an Apex or Burwell modification.

 

[OldMarksman]

Anybody able to provide some factual data regarding defensive shooting and prosecution rates so we can find out what the risk factors are in a genuine defensive shooting?

Wouldn't tell you anything useful.

First, who's to say it really was a "genuine defensive shooting"? The shooter's word? That won't begin to cut it.

Keep these things in mind:

• If one person shoots another unlawfully, there are three ways to try to avoid prosecution: (1) don't get caught; (2) if one is caught, try to deny it; (3) and if that doesn't work, try claiming self defense.
• Many people who honestly believe that actions were lawful find out that they were mistaken; the pharmacist case in Oklahoma City is a prime example--armed robbery, countered with more force than necssary.

And then the exculpatory evidence just might not tip the scale sufficiently. Read this:

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey_Booklet.pdf

 

[849ACSO]

Many people who honestly believe that actions were lawful find out that they were mistaken; the pharmacist case in Oklahoma City is a prime example--armed robbery, countered with more force than necssary.

This is understood, but much of this is subjective. What one perceives as a genuine threat at the time of the shooting, turns out not to be such, then that's a bad deal.

Something that fails to get added to these statements is the person can only be held accountable for what they knew/perceived IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME THE SHOT(S) WAS FIRED. Whatever facts are found later are certainly important, but not necessarily relevant, or as relevant as the facts that were known up to and during the shooting. It's whether or not those RELEVANT facts are found reasonable that make all the difference.

You can harp all day long about someone who shot someone and they found out after the fact there was no threat, but what was the perception that led to the shooting and was THAT PERCEPTION reasonable.

Again, I will stipulate that reasonableness IS NOT determined by the shooter, and there's a laundry list of variables, and no 2 scenarios are the same, etc............

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You can harp all day long about someone who shot someone and they found out after the fact there was no threat, but what was the perception that led to the shooting and was THAT PERCEPTION reasonable.

The jury or judge will decide in the end if that perception is reasonable. For the zillionth time, your perception may seem unreasonable if the appearance issues (like the punisher decal on the end of your Glock, your blather on the Internet about shooting bad guys) makes the judge or jury think you are less than reasonable in your evaluation and perceptions.

 

[849ACSO]

The jury or judge will decide in the end if that perception is reasonable.

Pretty sure I made that clear right here:

Again, I will stipulate that reasonableness IS NOT determined by the shooter

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Then why do you continue with posts that post in capitals and are then vitiated by your own prose in a snide fashion.

We have demonstrated that modifications pose some risks depending on circumstances. You really are added nothing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We stopped getting anywhere sometime ago.