legit advice on modifications?

[Earlymonk]

Just completed an 8-hour state-mandated CCH class yesterday.

Not sure what to make of this exchange (when I explained my plans to modify the PX4 from F to G):


Instructor: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I've been an expert witness in multiple cases. If you are involved in a shooting, and it's determined that you did anything to make your gun 'less safe,' that will be bad.
Me: What if the modifications result in a configuration that's already offered by the manufacturer?
Instructor: Well, maybe if you had a gunsmith do it...

I feel like I've seen Mas write about things like this, but the specific F->G mod in Berettas seems to be in a different boat.

I wonder, for instance, if it would be more "legally defensible" to 1) use the G stealth levers conversion kit (http://www.berettausa.com/en-us/px4-safety-low-prof-type-g-mfg/c89169/) vs. 2) just removing the spring and detent from the stock levers? Even though they accomplish the same thing, the latter is REMOVING a factory part and the former is INSTALLING a factory part (though, granted, one with fewer parts).

What say you, P-F wise ones?

[SecondsCount]

If the bad guy deserves to be shot, I really don't see how a gun modification matters.

An instructor should always give instruction that works well for the masses. They have no idea of your level of experience or training when it comes to shooting or working on a firearm.

[45dotACP]

A well known defensive trainer (Ernest Langdon) modifies his guns as such. You're probably good.

The consensus seems to be that if you have an easily articulated reason for modifying your gun, you're probably alright.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Artemas2]

Can you articulate why you did "X" and preferable only use quality stuff. The political leanings of your most frequented area can also be a factor
Somewhere on PF is a good thread about modified guns. Mas and a few other guys laid out some good stuff. Trying to find it, but as it turns out this is a popular topic!

Below is some opinions from other well known instructors, though I do not believe they has Mas's legal experience.
http://overwatchprecision.com/blog/aftermarket-bits-for-the-glock-17/

http://www.breachbangclear.com/a-critical-look-at-trigger-pull/

[Qaz98]

What Mas talks about isn't whether your or right or wrong, but how much money and time are you willing to spend on the issue. If you use a stock gun, then all attention is spent on the shooting. If you made any modifications, then the DA may sidetrack the jury with how you made the gun less safe, more shootable, or other claims we know to be false, but not the jury. So that is just more hours of attorney fees for them to explain, hire an expert witness, etc.

As for diy modifications that the manufacturer offers... Again, you'll probably be fine, but again, just another opportunity for the DA to attack you. I'm not saying it's right. Its just the legal system.

I have zero qualifications, but basically summarizing what I've read from acldn, Mas, and Andrew Branca.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[karam.19]

Just completed an 8-hour state-mandated CCH class yesterday.

Not sure what to make of this exchange (when I explained my plans to modify the PX4 from F to G):


Instructor: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I've been an expert witness in multiple cases. If you are involved in a shooting, and it's determined that you did anything to make your gun 'less safe,' that will be bad.
Me: What if the modifications result in a configuration that's already offered by the manufacturer?
Instructor: Well, maybe if you had a gunsmith do it...

I feel like I've seen Mas write about things like this, but the specific F->G mod in Berettas seems to be in a different boat.

I wonder, for instance, if it would be more "legally defensible" to 1) use the G stealth levers conversion kit (http://www.berettausa.com/en-us/px4-safety-low-prof-type-g-mfg/c89169/) vs. 2) just removing the spring and detent from the stock levers? Even though they accomplish the same thing, the latter is REMOVING a factory part and the former is INSTALLING a factory part (though, granted, one with fewer parts).

What say you, P-F wise ones?

As an attorney, I am always skeptical of what an “expert” witness has to say on the impact of the case with a specific fact. There is a lot that goes on that witness are not aware because of what is called separation of witnesses. There may have been motions in limine, specific jury instructions given or other witnesses that may testify on the matter. If I was litigating the case, I would put the focus not on any modification of the weapon used for self defense, but rather the sole question of whether the affirmative defense of self-defense was warranted, i.e. was the defendant fearful of imminent substantial harm or death? Once you’ve proven that aspect, then you are justified in using deadly force. There is not a caveat to that in terms of deadly force in the safest manner possible. You could use a hatchet, stick, sling shot or a g-configuration PX4. Deadly force is very much a two sided coin. Either it is or it isn’t. There is a question about using that force which is necessary to repel the attack, but that pertains to the duration of the self-defense and not the initiation. So, the safety is immaterial. Moreover, if the prosecutor wishes to make hay with modifications to show a question of intent, you can bet that I would make multiple objections as to relevancy and the prejudicial value of that information given the sole question of whether deadly force was justified. Also, if information pertaining to modification would be permitted, I would put my own expert on to say that having a G model makes it safer to law abiding citizens and having an F model may have resulted in your own death as opposed to the perpetrator. This is just my two cents. I just get a little annoyed when “expert” witnesses think they are experts on the law, as opposed to the subject matter they testify about. They should keep watching people’s court and stay in their lane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

There is a lengthy thread on the topic of modifications here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27448-Punisher-Skull-on-a-Self-Defense-Firearm&highlight=punisher

While I realize there's a lot to wade through and not all addresses your specific concern, there's plenty of real world feedback from folks with experience in how criminal and civil cases work. It's worth the read.

[Earlymonk]

It's worth the read.

Certainly is! Thanks.

Among the gems is this link:
http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6896

[Earlymonk]

And these:


...MAG40 (and MAG20 classroom) is chock full of Lessons Learned from defense shootings, and when Mas says "the only modifications to your gun should be intended to make it more accurate and reliable without compromising safety; any cosmetic mods should be carefully considered" I believe him.



You can set things up so that you are able to present the best picture of yourself possible.

...

Equipment – Got a reason for that modification? Does it help sell your case? What does it do for you?

Does it make you shoot faster…or increase your visual feedback allowing you more information & time to process it so you can make a better decision?
Does anything you do to your gun make top people in the field look at you as if to say, “Huh…wut?”

Reasonable people can disagree.
Reasonable people WILL disagree on a lot of things, but if a consensus of experts would look at something, then say, “I wouldn’t do that shit if I was you…”

Well.

...If experts look at something you did to that gun saying “Nah, dawg! You roll that way…I’m gonna not go with you…” (Backing away SLOWLY from the nutball…) you probably shouldn’t do it.

...

Generally speaking (I hate that term…) if you have to sell something hard, it is shit.

[Mas]

The gun modification issue can come up in various ways. A prosecutor bringing an unmeritorious case for political reasons might find a Manslaughter charge (recklessness/negligence being key elements) easier to sustain with a jury than a Murder charge, in which they would have to prove the element of malice to satisfy the mens rea element. A classic example is Florida v. Luis Alvarez, when the prosecution's theory of the case under then-Dade County States Attorney Janet Reno was that the officer had negligently cocked the hammer of a revolver which had had a few coils removed from the trigger return spring, leading to the negligent death of the "victim" in question. A defense team led by Roy Black and Mark Seiden eventually convinced the jury of the truth: the officer had deliberately and intentionally fired a single shot, double action, when the decedent reached for a loaded revolver with the obvious intent of killing Alvarez and his young partner. Between the shooting and the trial, Miami PD had all service revolvers converted to double action only, as LAPD had done a decade or more earlier for similar reasons. It took eight or nine weeks of trial to win the acquittal, a defense that might have cost over a million dollars today, as the seven-week George Zimmerman trial did in 2013. Miami PD adopted the Glock only after ATF had ruled it to be double action only.

On the civil side, recklessness and negligence tend to be what the plaintiffs want to establish. They know that self-defense is a perfect defense, but also a defense reserved for intentional acts. If their theory of the case is that the officer or armed citizen used a weapon modified with what they will call a "hair trigger," and they allege that the shot was fired unintentionally, they have their "hook" on which to hang their BS case. A trigger pull lighter than factory recommendation for a duty gun gives them that hook. In modern striker-fired pistols, look up Santibanes v. Tomball, TX (Glock 21 with 3.5/4.5 lb OEM Glock connector) and Galmon v. Phebus (Louisiana, Travis Haley Skimmer trigger in Glock 35). Both were high-stress unintentional discharges, victim-precipitated, and essentially ruled excusable by the criminal justice system, but resulting in substantial out of court settlements in subsequent civil litigation.

The shorthand answer with lightened or shortened trigger pulls is "Good news: they're easier to shoot. Bad news: they're easier to shoot." Opposing counsel will argue that the gun was negligently made too easy to fire unintentionally. My experience has been that if it's a duty/self-defense weapon (as opposed to a designated target pistol) with the factory's duty spec trigger pull weight or greater, this is unlikely to be an issue. (Note that Glock's policy with the Tactical/Practical G34, 35, 40, and 41 pistols is that they are listed under Sport in their catalog, not LE or Self Defense, and when shipped to police departments leave the factory with 5.5 pound triggers at a minimum.)

Removing a safety device from a lethal weapon is an easy sell for a plaintiff's lawyer trying to convince a jury that a defendant has a reckless disregard of safety issues. Mark Seiden recently discussed one such case at length in the ACLDN Journal. (armedcitizensnetwork.org)

Rambo-esque names or decorations on guns are obvious "lawyer bait." The "You're Fucked" logo on the dust cover of the involved officer's AR15 in Arizona v. Phillip Brailsford led to the officer's firing and appears to have played a part in Mesa PD's decision to fire the officer. Yes, he was acquitted and yes, the dust cover was kept out of the trial thanks to a successful motion in limine by defense attorney Michael Piccarreta. However, Piccarreta told me that it took at least ten hours of just his time to craft and argue that motion, which could just as easily have gone the other way. Manny Kapelsohn, the expert witness for the defense in that case, is also an attorney. He was on the Panel of Experts on Firearms/Deadly Force Training that I ran at ILEETA last month in St. Louis, and he told the audience that he estimated total cost of that successful motion to keep out the dust cover was probably in the area of $15-$20,000. Brailsford was acquitted, but will probably be unemployable in his chosen career henceforth.

In conclusion, I respectfully recommend (1) Trigger pull in keeping with the gun manufacturer's minimum or greater duty spec; (2) If you don't like a particular safety device, buy a gun that doesn't have it to begin with; and (3) avoid Rambo-esque names and decor.

[karam.19]

I also hate this question because it flys past a significant assumption and fact. That assumption/fact is that you just SURVIVED a lethal encounter where someone was trying to kill you. It seems to me that the first goal should be to meet that assumption. When you are confronted with the level of violence where may have to use a firearm, if you are contemplating how a jury may think of this that or another, you may already be in trouble. You are playing for keeps. I think the first question when buying or possibly modifying a firearm for self-defense is how can you best put yourself in a situation to survive, not beat a rap. Let the lawyers do what they do and let the cards fall where they may. I would rather my daughter visit me in prison instead of my grave. A little dramatic? Maybe, but I think this issue of defense in a courtroom is collateral question to a more important one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Larry T]

I'm in the camp that "buying skill" might get you from 95% to 100% of your potential, but it's training and correct practice that gets you from 0% to 95%. Unless you've worked your way to 95%, spend the "new trigger money" on training.

[Kyle Reese]

An easy solution would be to just buy a factory new, G configured PX4 to eliminate this potential line of inquiry.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[blues]

I'm going to humbly disagree that any modification to a gun is going to result in your family visiting you in prison vs visiting your grave. That is such a non-sequitur as to border on ridiculous. If someone feels that's true, that's great but I'd suggest they need to buy a different gun, to practice more, or to get training from a competent instructor (or all three). The good news is that we are in the golden-age of handguns and firearms instruction -- there are so many excellent choices of both currently available. Or people can cling to the assertion that they need to modify their gun or die.

So, will the Gadget take the place of cigarettes for barter in the big house? Forewarned is forearmed. ;)

[Earlymonk]

In conclusion, I respectfully recommend (1) Trigger pull in keeping with the gun manufacturer's minimum or greater duty spec; (2) If you don't like a particular safety device, buy a gun that doesn't have it to begin with; and (3) avoid Rambo-esque names and decor.

I am most grateful, sir.

::wanders off in awe of the SME knowledge bombs that are ONLY dropped on P-F::

[karam.19]

I'm going to humbly disagree that any modification to a gun is going to result in your family visiting you in prison vs visiting your grave. That is such a non-sequitur as to border on ridiculous. If someone feels that's true, that's great but I'd suggest they need to buy a different gun, to practice more, or to get training from a competent instructor (or all three). The good news is that we are in the golden-age of handguns and firearms instruction -- there are so many excellent choices of both currently available. Or people can cling to the assertion that they need to modify their gun or die.

If you were referring to my post, I perhaps failed in showing the grave v. Prison point. My point in that comment is to say that making myself legally defensible is a secondary issue to surviving a lethal encounter. Putting myself in a position to look good in front of a jury necessarily depends on me having a heartbeat. And let’s be honest, as an attorney, I can spin whatever I want. For example, I could possibly see an attorney spinning the fact that I practice at least once a week that I was itching for a fight. Does that mean I stop practicing or limit it? No. It’s about keeping the eye on the ball, which is self-defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[navyman8903]

So a lot of people worry about modifications and there's nothing concrete in law that will determine you guilty in a court of law based on a modification. There's stupid shit, like putting "you're fucked", other morale stuff, or punisher skulls. That will possibly go against you on the intent aspect.

But putting sights, changing the pistol's factory configuration to another factory configuration, changing sights, or even changing triggers isn't going to land you in definite hot water. It's all scare tactics because the defense or prosecution brought it up in court. I can't tell you how many stupid things I've had to put up with when testifying on a case I investigated by a defense attorney. Just because they bring it up, doesn't mean anything. They'll throw shit all over the wall to see what sticks.

I've asked this question a million times and no one can give me a legitimate answer. What is the difference between a guy using a Ruger 1911, or a Ed brown in a self defense situation? A factory glock, or an agency arms glock? If you can buy the configuration or send it to someone to get it made that way, there's no reasonable argument against using it. Now, if you're talking about sear work, whole different ball game potentially based on the outcome. But sights, decocker only mods, changing an HK45 from V1 to Light LEM, putting an SRT trigger in a P226, or anything like that isn't going to get you there. Some people are scared to stand up and defend themselves or be assertive now a days.

You think what I'm saying is scary, listen to some thunder ranch classroom talk on youtube.

[karam.19]

So a lot of people worry about modifications and there's nothing concrete in law that will determine you guilty in a court of law based on a modification. There's stupid shit, like putting "you're fucked", other morale stuff, or punisher skulls. That will possibly go against you on the intent aspect.

But putting sights, changing the pistol's factory configuration to another factory configuration, changing sights, or even changing triggers isn't going to land you in definite hot water. It's all scare tactics because the defense or prosecution brought it up in court. I can't tell you how many stupid things I've had to put up with when testifying on a case I investigated by a defense attorney. Just because they bring it up, doesn't mean anything. They'll throw shit all over the wall to see what sticks.

I've asked this question a million times and no one can give me a legitimate answer. What is the difference between a guy using a Ruger 1911, or a Ed brown in a self defense situation? A factory glock, or an agency arms glock? If you can buy the configuration or send it to someone to get it made that way, there's no reasonable argument against using it. Now, if you're talking about sear work, whole different ball game potentially based on the outcome. But sights, decocker only mods, changing an HK45 from V1 to Light LEM, putting an SRT trigger in a P226, or anything like that isn't going to get you there. Some people are scared to stand up and defend themselves or be assertive now a days.

You think what I'm saying is scary, listen to some thunder ranch classroom talk on youtube.

I just wish I could sit in a jury room to hear the discussion. That’s where the rubber meets the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nwhpfan]

I can only tell you what goes on in my neck of the woods... But when one person shoots another, it's the actions of the people involved that is investigated.

IF the shooting was said to be an "accident" and the shooter claimed a malfunction, then that would be explored.

I've never heard, been a part, of any kind of checking for after market striker springs or non OEM mag buttons to see if the gun is IDPA Stock Service Pistol compliant :)

[Mas]

In most jurisdictions, a gun used in a shooting goes to the crime lab, where a firearms & toolmark examiner will give it a routine check to determine if it is in working order, if spent brass/test bullets match those in evidence, and weighing trigger pull is usually part of the mix. Among other things, in a genuine murder case they are looking to head off a claim by defense counsel that "the defective pistol went off by itself." Most of these reports that come across my desk will include trigger pull weight single and double action.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We and every other forum has discussed this intensively. I'll spare the long repetitive post. Not a lawyer but a cognitive psychologist who has studied decision making a touch and researched it a bit.

So bullet points so to speak:

1. If you are on trial, it's not a good shoot and not obvious it was self-defense to some

2. You will object to a gun issue. Not a lawyer but a panel of lawyers had a discussion that I read and they said in their jurisdictions it was 50/50 if the objection was upheld.

3. Jury research on objections (ref to follow):
a. Juries are not necessarily intelligent and rational decision makers.
b. They make take from your objection that the issue was really bad because you are waving your arms about.
c. In deliberation they make not remember a complex argument from your expert. They just remember the topic that the issue is a bad thing. Better vett your expert. Get a test jury (that costs).
d. Can't trust gun folk to support you. Studies show that they might think the gun issue indicates you are a doofus for it as it clashes with their 'expert' view.
e. The prosecution may not have to make a big deal about it (I OBJECT), they can simply describe the gun as a fact without histronics. Such increased exposure has influenced juries without histronics.

4. Your intuitions or your lawyers' intuitions tell him or her that such an issue makes no difference. Expert intuition can suck in many situations (read Kahneman's book - Thinking Fast and Slow, summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

The classic case was OJ from what I read. Marcia Clark had an intuition about African-American women on the jury that was contrary to her jury experts. Guess who was correct?

A good read on jury decisions in general (not just gun world) to show important factors is:

Devine: Jury Decison Making: The state of the science.

If I had to have a lawyer defend me, I would want one who had reasonable expertise in firearms issues and how decision making occurs. Did they read, take a CLE, or other seminar on such? Will they test their strategy?

Whether the OP issue's might influence someone - well, get me the Galactic Corps Lens from Arisia and I'll tell you.

BTW, if you get 3 or 4 people who buy your position from the get go (opening statement) with the rest unsure, they seem to carry the day, according to some studies.

[BehindBlueI's]

I think the first question when buying or possibly modifying a firearm for self-defense is how can you best put yourself in a situation to survive, not beat a rap.

Luckily, you can have both. If you require major modification to a handgun to shoot well enough to get through a self-defense shooting then you should consider two options. One, you suck. Train and practice to remedy that. Two, you chose unwisely. There's a wide variety of factory guns and if you chose one you can't shoot well, try something else. If you can't shoot a particular revolver to save your own ass without reducing trigger weight...maybe you shouldn't be carrying that revolver instead of trying to cut the trigger pull weight in half. If you want Glock weight trigger pulls...buy a Glock. If you want 1911 trigger pulls...well, you see where I'm going with this.

Regardless of if you are shooting because someone is trying to kill you, if you're preventing a forcible felony, defense of others, etc. the marginal gains to be had in hardware modification aren't particularly significant in winning a gunfight.



When you are confronted with the level of violence where may have to use a firearm, if you are contemplating how a jury may think of this that or another, you may already be in trouble..

I completely agree. The time to worry about it is now, before you are in that situation. Know the law and have a plan now. Know how to interact with responding officers now. I've been through the process myself and investigated a butt ton of others. Nothing I carry is modified by anyone other than the OEM or by my department's armorer. The only non-OEM parts are sights. For a hunting gun, range play-toy, I play by different rules. For anything that can (or has) gotten me in a deposition or subpoena'd to a grand jury? OEM. No engravings, no out of factory spec trigger weights no gee-whiz trigger kits, etc. It is one less thing to worry about.


I'm in the camp that "buying skill" might get you from 95% to 100% of your potential, but it's training and correct practice that gets you from 0% to 95%. Unless you've worked your way to 95%, spend the "new trigger money" on training.

So much this. There's also diminishing returns in pure technical skill. Shaving a .05 seconds off your split time simply isn't that valuable in the context of fighting. Without going down that particular rabbit hole, shooting is often the easy part.

[BehindBlueI's]

If you can buy the configuration or send it to someone to get it made that way, there's no reasonable argument against using it.

The problem is the assumption only reasonable arguments are made. When I got depo'd for wrongful death, I was asked about hobbies. Obviously my hobbies have nothing to do with how justified my use of force was. I was asked if I had a Facebook account (no). Again, nothing to do with why were supposedly there, that I'd wrongfully killed someone.

Particularly in a civil suit, arguments don't have to be reasonable as long as they are legally permissible. They can be strictly to confuse a jury and for theater. I've been asked if I performed forensic tests that don't actually exist. The attorney knew it didn't exist, and had to know I knew. But the jury didn't know.

Now, that said, I agree with you that sights and OEM configuration swaps are very easy to defend and aren't likely to be made into hay, even in a civil suit. I think it's a bit far to say just because you can get one means you can modify something else to get there. Just because you can buy a pre-lock S&W doesn't mean hay can't be made about your "disabling a safety" by removing the lock in an ILS equipped S&W. Again, keep in mind the goal is to confuse the jury and create a narrative about you. Even though the lock is a storage lock, not a safety, why allow the possibility of the argument?

[JCS]

I’m curious.... BBL, Mas, etc. would these same rules apply to revolvers? I ask because one of the most common things people recommend for j frames is an apex duty spring kit. Would you recommend against these as well?

[BehindBlueI's]

I’m curious.... BBL, Mas, etc. would these same rules apply to revolvers? I ask because one of the most common things people recommend for j frames is an apex duty spring kit. Would you recommend against these as well?

A modified gun is a modified gun, revolver or rifle isn't the issue. Does the Apex kit drop it below factory specs as far as trigger weight? If so, refer back to Mas' comments on "easier to shoot...but easier to shoot".

Personally, I do not put spring kits in "for real use" guns. Others may draw the line differently, and it will *almost certainly* not be an issue. However not having it there removes the "almost"...

[JCS]

A modified gun is a modified gun, revolver or rifle isn't the issue. Does the Apex kit drop it below factory specs as far as trigger weight? If so, refer back to Mas' comments on "easier to shoot...but easier to shoot".

Personally, I do not put spring kits in "for real use" guns. Others may draw the line differently, and it will *almost certainly* not be an issue. However not having it there removes the "almost"...

Thank you for your response. That’s what I figured. I heard Andrew Branca discussing the fact that the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case used the fact that he was carrying with a round in the chamber and tried to paint him as a killer because of that.

This thread is timely and I’m going to switch all my defensive guns back to stock. Aftermarket parts are a rabbit hole anyways

[Mas]

A modified gun is a modified gun, revolver or rifle isn't the issue. Does the Apex kit drop it below factory specs as far as trigger weight? If so, refer back to Mas' comments on "easier to shoot...but easier to shoot".

Personally, I do not put spring kits in "for real use" guns. Others may draw the line differently, and it will *almost certainly* not be an issue. However not having it there removes the "almost"...

What BBI said.

This is why LAPD, NYPD, Montreal PD after Crown v. Gossett, Miami PD after FL v. Alvarez, etc. modified their revolvers to double action only. Not only because a cocked revolver was more likely to AD or ND, but because a revolver with cocking capability intact gave opposing counsel the opening to argue that at WAS a "negligent cocked gun hair trigger discharge" when in FACT it was an intentional, justifiable shot.

Interestingly, in decades of doing this type of case, I've never seen the allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was "the trigger pull was too LIGHT." Nor did I ever see an allegation of a "double action only hair trigger."

When you are in shark-filled waters, it is wise to keep as much blood out of the water as possible beforehand.

[StraitR]

There in lies the rub, and this is my issue with using a highly modified AR for HD. Is it easier to shoot than a handgun or shotgun? You bet. Mine being suppressed, is it much quieter/pleasant than an unsuppressed handgun or shotgun? You bet. Would it look absolutely horrific when held up and paraded around a courtroom or pictured on MSM outlets? You freaking bet. Would that ever make a difference? I don't know, but based on some opinions by those with experience in such things, it's a solid maybe, and that becomes an odds vs stakes issue for me.

I really want to use the AR for all those positive attributes, but have moved to a stock Benelli for HD. I'm sure it would look scary to some, but I've left it completely unmodified. I've only added external accessories to include a white light, T-2, velcro cards, and a sling. Don't get me wrong, I would love to add a Ti extended mag tube, but I prefer to leave it stock for it's intended use. I guess I'm banking on the fact that LE agencies tend to add accessories, but don't often make internal modifications or fiddle with functionality, so that's the approach I'm taking.

[critter]

What's the opinion of caliber conversion barrels with otherwise stock Glock? 27/9mm precisely. Vetted, and have carried it occasionally. I've also considered it for EDC in that configuration. I guess it *is* a change that could be trouble... "So, you wanted higher capacity for slaying more people..."

[Olim9]

While a lot of these things may come up in a trial, I would just have a functional pistol that isn’t prone to “just going off” and being able to articulate every modification on the gun. You’ll get shit for carrying a round in the chamber, almost everyone here is using some sort of aftermarket sight and the people who will be making judgements about you in a courtroom have no fucking idea how violence or at least how firearms work. No way in hell would something a juror may or may not say have any influence on why I have a set of fiber optics on my carry gun. That being said, I am not condoning blood splatter frames, tacky slogans or punisher backplates on a carry gun.

I have Dawsons on my gun since I’ve found that a red fiber optic front works best with my eyes and lets me put bullets where they need to be in a fairly quick manner depending on the distance. I’m not switching to shitty plastic OEM Glock sights or big fat Ameriglos and end up having a whole bunch of hits off target because hey, it came like that from the factory! I have never been in a shooting or in a courtroom but I wager I’ll better deal with having to defend why I have “competition” sights on my gun than have to explain why one of the rounds I fired happened to miss who I intended to shoot. My Glock 19 I currently use for carry is pretty vanilla but everything I have on it makes for being able to place rounds where I need them to be a little bit easier.

I’m very inexperienced to just how to the legal system works but this sort of concern is something I really do not subscribe to.

[Joe in PNG]

I wonder- if you're in a politically sensitive shooting situation similar to Zimmerman or Alvarez, wouldn't the prosecution be pretty much throwing any and everything at you, trying to see what would stick?
Such as hollowpoint bullets, "high-capacity" standard capacity mags, carrying with a loaded chamber, carrying a semi-automatic pistol instead of a revolver, carrying a backup gun, carrying a spare mag, carrying at that time and place, attending firearms training classes, and so on.

[BillSWPA]

I wonder- if you're in a politically sensitive shooting situation similar to Zimmerman or Alvarez, wouldn't the prosecution be pretty much throwing any and everything at you, trying to see what would stick?
Such as hollowpoint bullets, "high-capacity" standard capacity mags, carrying with a loaded chamber, carrying a semi-automatic pistol instead of a revolver, carrying a backup gun, carrying a spare mag, carrying at that time and place, attending firearms training classes, and so on.

Any decision you make can be portrayed as showing evil intent. A big part of the answer is to make reasonable decisions, be prepared to explain and demonstrate why your decisions were reasonable, and to avoid those decisions that are clearly going to be problematic in front of a fact finder.

If your decisions are truly reasonable, and reflect what knowledgeable people do, a prosecutor trying to portray those decisions as bad is setting themselves up to be made to look like an idiot.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bucky]

An easy solution would be to just buy a factory new, G configured PX4 to eliminate this potential line of inquiry.


This seems like the best approach. While silly, it is cheap insurance.

Consider this, if something were to happen 4 years from now, there’s a good chance that one or more members of the jury had eaten Tide pods, or snorted condoms.

Hedge your bets to the lowest common denominator.

[BehindBlueI's]

I wonder- if you're in a politically sensitive shooting situation similar to Zimmerman or Alvarez, wouldn't the prosecution be pretty much throwing any and everything at you, trying to see what would stick?

Yes. Even if it's not a politically sensitive shooting. Civil trial may never make the news, but the worse you look the more $$$ for the guy painting you as a reckless asshole.

Which is a good reason to limit there "ammo". The more they have to throw, the more a pattern can stick in the heads of the uninformed jurors, and the more likely they are to believe at least some of it.

I've personally not seen the capacity of a weapon (revolver vs semi-auto) come up in screening decisions (where it's decided if criminal charges will be filed), but number of shots fired has. I have seen type of ammo (Green tip 5.56 specifically), but it was more of an aggravating factor in a clearly bad shoot.

[BehindBlueI's]

What's the opinion of caliber conversion barrels with otherwise stock Glock? 27/9mm precisely. Vetted, and have carried it occasionally. I've also considered it for EDC in that configuration. I guess it *is* a change that could be trouble... "So, you wanted higher capacity for slaying more people..."

I think as you are replicating a factory setup, it's not a huge opening. It's an authorized modification for an off duty qualified pistol for us, which indicates City Legal is fine with it.

[ralph]

What BBI said.

This is why LAPD, NYPD, Montreal PD after Crown v. Gossett, Miami PD after FL v. Alvarez, etc. modified their revolvers to double action only. Not only because a cocked revolver was more likely to AD or ND, but because a revolver with cocking capability intact gave opposing counsel the opening to argue that at WAS a "negligent cocked gun hair trigger discharge" when in FACT it was an intentional, justifiable shot.

Interestingly, in decades of doing this type of case, I've never seen the allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was "the trigger pull was too LIGHT." Nor did I ever see an allegation of a "double action only hair trigger."

When you are in shark-filled waters, it is wise to keep as much blood out of the water as possible beforehand.


On another board, where the subject pistol is'nt a Glock, but is a striker fired pistol with no manual saftey, A number of folks have taken to replacing the trigger with an aftermarket trigger, springs, and the also do some polishing..The results of all this is a reduction in trigger pull weight from 5lbs from the factory, to as light as 3lbs 5oz. I posed a question asking if these guys were using these guns as target, gamer, or as carry guns.. Noting that IMO, that under 4lbs is getting kinda light for a carry gun with no manual saftey. I got one reply, this from a guy who admitted he uses his pistol for both EDC,as well as gaming, and target practice, he has admitted elsewhere in the same thread that his pistol's trigger is now 3lbs 14oz..scary light for a SF pistol with no manual saftey, in his reply to my question, he said, that his trigger finger was his manual saftey.. I just wonder if he has any idea how much trouble he's possibly letting himself in for..

[Mas]

On another board, where the subject pistol isn't a Glock, but is a striker fired pistol with no manual saftey, A number of folks have taken to replacing the trigger with an aftermarket trigger, springs, and the also do some polishing..The results of all this is a reduction in trigger pull weight from 5lbs from the factory, to as light as 3lbs 5oz. I posed a question asking if these guys were using these guns as target, gamer, or as carry guns.. Noting that IMO, that under 4lbs is getting kinda light for a carry gun with no manual saftey. I got one reply, this from a guy who admitted he uses his pistol for both EDC,as well as gaming, and target practice, he has admitted elsewhere in the same thread that his pistol's trigger is now 3lbs 14oz..scary light for a SF pistol with no manual saftey, in his reply to my question, he said, that his trigger finger was his manual safety.. I just wonder if he has any idea how much trouble he's possibly letting himself in for..

Ralph, the answer is that your friend is opening the door to a lot of trouble. We've discussed earlier why both the politically-motivated prosecutor and the greed-motivated plaintiff's lawyer with an unmeritorious case may frame your intentional self-defense shooting as an indefensible negligent discharge. The defense of "I never put my finger in the trigger guard unless I intend to fire" is flawed from the get-go, because it translates as "I never make a mistake." Your friend can expect opposing counsel to say, "Mr. Defendant, we know you're supposed to keep your finger off the trigger -- and we are saying that you made a mistake and did so! Are you telling this jury that you are the first perfect human being incapable of making a mistake to walk this Earth in 2018 years?" They're trying to frame your friend as an arrogant SOB who marches to his own drummer, and he has walked right into the trap. Any of us can ask our own mothers if they think we are perfect human beings incapable of making a mistake; Mom's answer will give a preview of how well that will fly in front of a jury.

A clever lawyer on the other side may even, in his opening statement, tell the jury: "This defendant is so arrogant he can't bring himself to admit his terrible mistake. Why, he'll probably get in front of you like Inspector Clouseau and say, 'I meant to do zat.'" And now, when your friend does present exactly that defense, he fulfills opposing counsel's prophecy.

[Drang]

in his reply to my question, he said, that his trigger finger was his manual saftey.. I just wonder if he has any idea how much trouble he's possibly letting himself in for..

You might point out to him that anything he has posted on the Internet is public domain, and discoverable, which means it is grist for the prosecutor's or plainiff's mill.

You might also point out that, if he is quoting an incident depicted in a certain movie, the Operator being quoted admitted that he was actually in the wrong in that incident, and regretted it.

[ralph]

Ralph, the answer is that your friend is opening the door to a lot of trouble. We've discussed earlier why both the politically-motivated prosecutor and the greed-motivated plaintiff's lawyer with an unmeritorious case may frame your intentional self-defense shooting as an indefensible negligent discharge. The defense of "I never put my finger in the trigger guard unless I intend to fire" is flawed from the get-go, because it translates as "I never make a mistake." Your friend can expect opposing counsel to say, "Mr. Defendant, we know you're supposed to keep your finger off the trigger -- and we are saying that you made a mistake and did so! Are you telling this jury that you are the first perfect human being incapable of making a mistake to walk this Earth in 2018 years?" They're trying to frame your friend as an arrogant SOB who marches to his own drummer, and he has walked right into the trap. Any of us can ask our own mothers if they think we are perfect human beings incapable of making a mistake; Mom's answer will give a preview of how well that will fly in front of a jury.

A clever lawyer on the other side may even, in his opening statement, tell the jury: "This defendant is so arrogant he can't bring himself to admit his terrible mistake. Why, he'll probably get in front of you like Inspector Clouseau and say, 'I meant to do zat.'" And now, when your friend does present exactly that defense, he fulfills opposing counsel's prophecy.

Mas:
Just to be clear, I don't know this gent, so, he's not a friend of mine..I simply posted a question in order to see what kind of answers I'd get..
Trolling? Yeah, I suppose so, I'll admit I was kinda shocked by the answer I got..

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If your decisions are truly reasonable, and reflect what knowledgeable people do, a prosecutor trying to portray those decisions as bad is setting themselves up to be made to look like an idiot.

And you know that how? Seriously, some studies show that wearing glasses influences a jury. How do you know that a jury of non-experts will think your decisions are reasonable? One can test that before hand with mock jury for lots and lots of money.

I'll play the game for Charley the Homeowner. DA - you modified the gun in manner X because trained military and law enforcement have used such trigger mechanisms? So you think of yourself as a military or law enforcement person? Did that influence you to take a violent action inappropriate for a homeowner? Has the defendant X trained up to the level with the modification in the manner that the military and law enforcement do? OH, you have trained and competed intensively?

While Ms. Steele says that is a good thing for a defendant, IIRC and your lawyer can make the point - competition and training has come up as a negative in some trials, if I also recall correctly.

[willie]

Carrying or using for home defense an unmodified firearm adopted/approved for police use in one's locale is a tactic to minimize some of the pitfalls discussed in the thread. I've had my share of handguns that were made less reliable by having been worked on and required another trip or two back to the smith to correct. That's one reason why long ago my viewpoint became "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Changing out mainsprings or hammer springs to achieve a lighter trigger pull has been in vogue for a few years. Also, shooters experiencing light strikes has been a commonly reported event. So, such modifications may not be a best practice for self defense weapons from a reliability standpoint. I write this comment to reiterate that changes to a stock pistol or revolver may give you a weapon that you really do not shoot better and which may be less reliable.

[GardoneVT]

It should be noted that location matters. Naturally the willingness of a DA to file charges on a legitimate self defense case is influenced by local politics. Many of these guys who say “not worried about court” may live in places where the DA shoots in the same IDPA league as them.
All well and good ,until they go on a family road trip to AntiGunVille and get into an incident. At that point IDPA DA can’t help them; and if they were carrying a Glock 20 with punisher slide plates and a 2lb trigger connector it’ll be another case Mas gets to cite as why you don’t mod your carry gun.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Willie has a good point. A few years ago, I bought a used SW Model 19. I took it to the range and had many light strikes. Someone modified the springs. The gun store had a guarantee and fixed it up. However, if I just bought it and put it in the underwear draw for whatever, it might have been a nasty surprise.

[BehindBlueI's]

And you know that how? Seriously, some studies show that wearing glasses influences a jury.

I've mentioned it before, but we had a prosecutor who wanted detectives to wear shoulder holsters to court. Juries were responding better to detectives that looked more like TV detectives was the reason I was given.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think I mentioned a case on CourtTV when it still showed trials. There was an officer who shot a developmentally challenged guy with a rake. The officer was on trial. A picture of him at the time had him in a buzz cut, white walls with a stern glowering look. On the stand, he had a full head of nicely done hair, a three piece suit and half glasses when he read from some report.

[BillSWPA]

And you know that how? Seriously, some studies show that wearing glasses influences a jury. How do you know that a jury of non-experts will think your decisions are reasonable? One can test that before hand with mock jury for lots and lots of money.

I'll play the game for Charley the Homeowner. DA - you modified the gun in manner X because trained military and law enforcement have used such trigger mechanisms? So you think of yourself as a military or law enforcement person? Did that influence you to take a violent action inappropriate for a homeowner? Has the defendant X trained up to the level with the modification in the manner that the military and law enforcement do? OH, you have trained and competed intensively?

While Ms. Steele says that is a good thing for a defendant, IIRC and your lawyer can make the point - competition and training has come up as a negative in some trials, if I also recall correctly.

I fully expect exactly that from the prosecutor. This is exactly why I did not just say to be prepared to explain why you were reasonable, but to be prepared to explain and demonstrate why you were reasonable. That difference is how I would expect to win over the jury.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

Does anyone know of a trial following an SD shooting where one of those "self defense" modifications had been performed on a polymer pistol? e.g., grip reduction, stippling, etc. Those are sold and performed by at least a few well regarded shops, so seemingly there should be many of them in circulation for EDC.

[BehindBlueI's]

Does anyone know of a trial following an SD shooting where one of those "self defense" modifications had been performed on a polymer pistol? e.g., grip reduction, stippling, etc. Those are sold and performed by at least a few well regarded shops, so seemingly there should be many of them in circulation for EDC.

Stippling is also an authorized modification for us. Like sights, it doesn't change mechanical function and is, therefore, considered easier to defend.

To clarify, stippling does require approval, basically to ensure its stippling and not a work around the ban on engraving.

[OlongJohnson]

Interestingly, in decades of doing this type of case, I've never seen the allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was "the trigger pull was too LIGHT." Nor did I ever see an allegation of a "double action only hair trigger."

I've read your statement to this effect many times.

Personally, I find so many manufacturing defects in firearms, I could spend ten or thirty minutes describing in detail firearms I've inspected that left the factory in defective condition. So the idea that the factory did the job right and there's no reason to do anything but clean, lube and shoot it simply doesn't hold water for me. I tend to go through every pistol, detail strip it and deburr the pieces before taking it to the range, or even doing dry fire work beyond a function check. Many guns leave the factory with defects that will actually cause damage to the parts if not corrected before being placed into service. No amount of trying to use gun parts to remachine other defectively made gun parts will achieve a correct result - it can only make the situation worse. Most recently, for example, a P220 with a mismachined slide causing problems with the barrel lockup and a MIM hammer with such a pronounced mold parting line that it was digging a groove in the bottom of the slide as the gun cycled. Before that, a safety lever on a Browning Buck Mark with such a pronounced stamping burr that it was extremely difficult to use and digging a trench on the inside of the frame.

When it comes to warranty or other factory service, I'm two for two on sending firearms back to the manufacturer (S&W and Ruger) to correct an out-of-the-box defective condition and having it come back with a mechanical issue it didn't have when I shipped it to them, so that's no guarantee of a correct result.

My experience over decades with service providers from A/C installers to auto mechanics to even medical doctors is that almost all of them, even if competent, have days where they can't be bothered to pay attention and take care to do the job right, and many of them systematically don't follow best practices. I have personally seen no evidence that the average gunsmith is likely to be any better, and much that he will not be. From YouTube videos of a "pro" representing a well-known shop simply failing to address important parts of the mechanism and failing to follow obvious best practices in a trigger job (like actually cleaning the parts after stoning them and before final assembly), to having to take my Beretta 1301 trigger assembly back to Briley Manufacturing to have them replace their obviously defective trigger parts, the evidence before me is that I have no choice but to serve as the final backstop of readiness, whether I want to or not.

To be honest, just as with a car or a motorcycle, I will only have "sleep like a baby," "bet-your-life" certainty that a machine is correct if I have inspected its parts with my own eyes (sometimes aided by a 10x magnifying loupe) and assembled it with my own hands, then vetted the final result.

I have found that the majority of the friction and unevenness in a pistol's action likely does not come from the hammer/sear interface, and therefore cannot be eliminated by any amount of work on those parts. Comprehensively eliminating manufacturing defects (or artifacts) from the entire mechanism so that every surface that slides against another surface is reasonably smooth (not necessarily "polished," but the big bumps and the peaks of the high points flattened) generally yields excellent results. Most of the time, it is sufficiently good that one forgets any ideas one might have had about changing springs. So I tend to think that changing springs without a comprehensive action detailing and cleanup is a backward approach. And the factory design for the geometry, including pre-travel, creep, reset, etc. works just fine.

[StraitR]

Lot's of excellent and insightful information posted by industry professionals and SME's here. We've been given actual examples of modifications being called into evidence with some pretty stiff financial penalties as a result. Whether or not we choose to acknowledge that reality and make changes is determined by our individual tolerance and acceptance of risk.

Either way, "it absolutely doesn't matter" has been disproved, leaving us with "it absolutely might matter", so we all now know that going in. It's a very different lens to look through when it comes to mission drives the gear train.

[BillSWPA]

It appears that the question regarding Apex spring kits for J frames was answered above, but not quite directly. To attempt a more direct answer, there is good reason for concern on a gun that is capable of being cocked, since the single action trigger pull would also be lightened. However, on a gun capable of only double action, the resulting trigger will still be long and heavy enough so that a credible allegation that the modification was unsafe cannot be made.

I have only one gun with a professional trigger job: a North American Arms .380. That gun is DAO, and the trigger is still long and reasonably heavy. My accuracy was significantly increased after the work. I carried this gun daily for several years, and would not hesitate to do so again.

While I would never recommend a Glock with a minus connector and standard trigger spring, my Glocks have minus connectors with NY1 trigger springs. One of them is carried daily in this configuration, and I am aware from Glocks own publications that they have supplied guns with this configuration to various police departments.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willie]

Many of these types of issues pertaining to anti gun or politically motivated prosecuting attorneys are reasons that the farther I travel from home, the more concerned or more careful I am about how I conduct myself when carrying a weapon as a licensed person. I can't assume that in this new place I will encounter the same attitudes as I find in my own little corner of the world. How I conduct myself includes keeping my mouth shut, maintaining a clean and professional appearance, avoiding trouble spots, making a point of being courteous, not projecting a negative body language, and not staring at anyone. I make a point not to telegraph to others that I have a weapon--like subconsciously touching it or pulling up my pants or wearing clothes permitting printing. What I'm paranoid about is involvement with the criminal justice system.

[BillSWPA]

Many of these types of issues pertaining to anti gun or politically motivated prosecuting attorneys are reasons that the farther I travel from home, the more concerned or more careful I am about how I conduct myself when carrying a weapon as a licensed person. I can't assume that in this new place I will encounter the same attitudes as I find in my own little corner of the world. How I conduct myself includes keeping my mouth shut, maintaining a clean and professional appearance, avoiding trouble spots, making a point of being courteous, not projecting a negative body language, and not staring at anyone. I make a point not to telegraph to others that I have a weapon--like subconsciously touching it or pulling up my pants or wearing clothes permitting printing. What I'm paranoid about is involvement with the criminal justice system.

All good practices all the time, not just when traveling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peally]

I don't even bother thinking about it, life's too short and I'm not a tinkerer anyway. I don't visit communist leaning states which reduces (although doesn't eliminate) any potential issues. If all I have is an open gun lying around or the option of dying I'm gonna whip out that 38 super.

YMMV

[car541]

Does anyone know of a trial following an SD shooting where one of those "self defense" modifications had been performed on a polymer pistol? e.g., grip reduction, stippling, etc. Those are sold and performed by at least a few well regarded shops, so seemingly there should be many of them in circulation for EDC.

Of the 100+ or so OIS's that I have investigated, debriefed or reviewed, about 10 have included these types of mods, including wagwells, extended baseplayes and grip reductions. None has made it past the grand jury, the modifications have never come up as an issue. But then, they were all clearly justified.......

I have seen several controversial, heavy press attention shootings with guns that were modified, including 2 worked over 1911's. in all of those, the modifications never came up, despite people grasping for anything to make the officer look bad. But then, the shootings were justified based on the facts.

I think the key for salient characteristic of these incidents is that I have never had an officer claim his gun just went off on its own. All in my direct experience have included a statement that the discharge was intentional (or: despite these modifications, it worked exactly as intended, when intended)

2 agencies in my area have had that claims that their guy intentionally drew their weapon, intentionally aimed it at a vital area on a suspect, and while it was pointed at that vital area, despite never having discharge accidentally before, it went off at just that moment. One of these was with a box stock gun, which resulted in a conviction, and one with a modified gun which did not (that case is actually mentioned earlier in the thread, but the modification was a side show to other more material issues)

Given all of that, to address the original question, changing a beretta to another factory configuration is somewhat of a non issue IMO.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While the specific mod may not be an issue since it seems benign and within 'normal' (whatever they are) ranges, I wonder about avoiding 'communist' states. Independent of the misuse of the term 'communist', one should remember that a state can have a patchwork of political identities. In right wing gun nut Texas (get my sarcastic point), some of the big cities are not gun friendly. In 'gun hating' NY, if you get outside of the metro areas like NYC or Buffalo, and into places like Niagara county, it's more gun friendly.

Anyway, no overall demographic modal opinion statistic guarantees your jury will be pro or con. Even more nuanced, it is something I mentioned before - a gun knowledgeable person or one who is an autodidactic self proclaimed expert might just not agree with your modification or gun choice. Look at all the veterans who proclaim that status and denounce EBRs. IIRC, even the vice-principal who used his 1911 to detain a school shooter isn't ideologically pure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/school-shootings-teachers.html

An Armed Principal Detained a Campus Gunman. But He’s Against Arming School Staff.


But one assistant high school principal who survived a school shooting — after loading his Colt .45 pistol, then chasing and detaining the suspect at gunpoint — says the idea is misguided.

“Teachers have to teach, and that’s what they should be doing,” said Joel Myrick, the former assistant principal at a high school in Mississippi. “It doesn’t matter what a pistolero you are, or think you are. You don’t need to be in school in charge of protecting children.”

...

That was a topic Mr. Myrick, who vividly recalls the damage that a relatively slow lever-action rifle caused on a high school campus, wanted to discuss, too. “If Luke Woodham had an AR-15, he probably would have killed 20 people instead of two,” he said. “There’s not a soul on the planet who needs an AR-15 except military.”


That was from the anti-communist state of Mississippi. See the flag in the picture. Guy drives a truck.

[BillSWPA]

I would agree that changing a gun from one factory configuration to another factory configuration would be unlikely to be an issue, as long as that factory configuration is not for competition or recreational shooting only.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

While the specific mod may not be an issue since it seems benign and within 'normal' (whatever they are) ranges, I wonder about avoiding 'communist' states. Independent of the misuse of the term 'communist', one should remember that a state can have a patchwork of political identities. In right wing gun nut Texas (get my sarcastic point), some of the big cities are not gun friendly. In 'gun hating' NY, if you get outside of the metro areas like NYC or Buffalo, and into places like Niagara county, it's more gun friendly.

...

This is a real concern. Where I live (rural suburb) is very self reliance, self defense, among others, oriented. Where I work (Atlanta) is like a daily journey through the looking glass into leftist la la land. I have zero doubt that the two jurisdictions have very different mentalities and approaches toward self defense scenarios.

[Earlymonk]

Continuing to read all replies and very grateful for the many contributions/perspectives!

If try to summarize, it seems to come down to:

a) THE SPECIFIC MODS I ASKED ABOUT would likely not be consequential but could be.
b) Since nothing is certain in legal proceedings, you must weigh your own risk tolerance when it comes to introducing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) variables (like weapon modifications) into a DGU.
c) More than a few advise that you press the easy button on this and do NOT introduce such variables.

How'm doin'?

[BehindBlueI's]

Continuing to read all replies and very grateful for the many contributions/perspectives!

If try to summarize, it seems to come down to:

a) THE SPECIFIC MODS I ASKED ABOUT would likely not be consequential but could be.
b) Since nothing is certain in legal proceedings, you must weigh your own risk tolerance when it comes to introducing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) variables (like weapon modifications) into a DGU.
c) More than a few advise that you press the easy button on this and do NOT introduce such variables.

How'm doin'?

Sums it up pretty well.

[Earlymonk]

Sums it up pretty well.

Pretty big takeaway for Noobiford McNoob here is that if you buy a base gun and upgrade over time (in order to spread the cost of those features out) that gun would best serve as your range/training gun. Then you save to buy the fully featured gun for carry.

In my case, JXC9F21G initially and then JXC9GEL for realsies...

[beenalongtime]

I would agree that changing a gun from one factory configuration to another factory configuration would be unlikely to be an issue, as long as that factory configuration is not for competition or recreational shooting only.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Pretty big takeaway for Noobiford McNoob here is that if you buy a base gun and upgrade over time (in order to spread the cost of those features out) that gun would best serve as your range/training gun. Then you save to buy the fully featured gun for carry.

In my case, JXC9F21G initially and then JXC9GEL for realsies...

The quote above yours, is/was a point of contention I have with EL about the JXC9GEL. I brought it up in post number 4 and it was discussed in the thread by those as several missed it. In the first post he says something is listed as a competition part, and yet another part that is also listed as a competition part, is used in defense/production guns, such as the one you want and the PX4, .45.
From a potential juror, I would then see the competition part as inconsistent and moot.

[Earlymonk]

The quote above yours, is/was a point of contention I have with EL about the JXC9GEL. ...In the first post he says something is listed as a competition part, and yet another part that is also listed as a competition part, is used in defense/production guns, such as the one you want and the PX4, .45.
From a potential juror, I would then see the competition part as inconsistent and moot.

Not sure I follow your reasoning exactly, but we could be in agreement here. If a part is in two guns--one sold as a "carry" gun and one sold as a "competition" gun--I believe we'll be just fine using the "carry" gun for self-defense, i.e., as it was designed and marketed.

Nissan puts the same 3.5L V-6 that's in my minivan in the Maxima SR. Despite sharing significant parts, the two vehicles were designed for very different applications.

[psalms144.1]

The quote above yours, is/was a point of contention I have with EL about the JXC9GEL. I brought it up in post number 4 and it was discussed in the thread by those as several missed it. In the first post he says something is listed as a competition part, and yet another part that is also listed as a competition part, is used in defense/production guns, such as the one you want and the PX4, .45.
From a potential juror, I would then see the competition part as inconsistent and moot.Just as a data point, from my agency's perspective, any part/component/accessory that is labeled "COMPETITION" anywhere by the manufacturer is prohibited from duty use.

But, we allow Taurus personally owned weapons on duty, so...

[Bucky]

Just as a data point, from my agency's perspective, any part/component/accessory that is labeled "COMPETITION" anywhere by the manufacturer is prohibited from duty use.

But, we allow Taurus personally owned weapons on duty, so...

By the way this is stated, it sounds like there might be at least one that does just that. :(

[Ed L]

While a lot of these things may come up in a trial, I would just have a functional pistol that isn’t prone to “just going off” and being able to articulate every modification on the gun. You’ll get shit for carrying a round in the chamber (snip)

Get shit for carrying a round in the chamber? That's easy enough to explain. This is the same way that every LEO in the US carries their sidearms in order to be able to quickly respond to an emergency situation while maximizing their chance to survive, and end the situation as soon as possible. Ask the responding agency how they carry their handguns.

Every credible firearms instructor in the US teaches to carry with a round in the chamber.

[navyman8903]

A lot of the advice I'm seeing here is going to keep people from carrying a shootable weapon. Lot's of lack of confidence in the delivery of an explanation. I always carry a round in the chamber, I modify my guns as I see fit (sights and factory configurations for carry), and maybe it's because I've testified more than my fair share of times, but a lot of these "could be" situations shouldn't prevent you from carrying a competent defensive weapon.

I still have yet to hear anything that will get you snapped up in court for carrying a round in the chamber, changing factory configurations, adding aftermarket sights, and all of these basic things. I hate to break it to everyone, shooting someone is the most stressful part of this whole thing. The next is being grilled for actually fucking shooting someone. Gun modifications unless your gun says "You're fucked" or a punisher skull or any other morale thing that indicates the love of slaying bodies, isn't going to be a huge point here. A prosecutor is going to grill you on EVERYTHING. Your facebook, your personal life, if you've ever used a racial slur, if you've ever said you would kill someone, why you escalated to deadly force, has anyone in your family been convicted of a crime.........and so on. I get the idea of this thread is to mitigate variables, but you're worrying about a window switch on a car with a blown engine and transmission.

[TheNewbie]

Just as a data point, from my agency's perspective, any part/component/accessory that is labeled "COMPETITION" anywhere by the manufacturer is prohibited from duty use.

But, we allow Taurus personally owned weapons on duty, so...

Your agency allows Taurus??? I'm guessing the gadget is a no go.

[BehindBlueI's]

A lot of the advice I'm seeing here is going to keep people from carrying a shootable weapon. Lot's of lack of confidence in the delivery of an explanation. I always carry a round in the chamber, I modify my guns as I see fit (sights and factory configurations for carry), and maybe it's because I've testified more than my fair share of times, but a lot of these "could be" situations shouldn't prevent you from carrying a competent defensive weapon.

I still have yet to hear anything that will get you snapped up in court for carrying a round in the chamber, changing factory configurations, adding aftermarket sights, and all of these basic things. I hate to break it to everyone, shooting someone is the most stressful part of this whole thing. The next is being grilled for actually fucking shooting someone. Gun modifications unless your gun says "You're fucked" or a punisher skull or any other morale thing that indicates the love of slaying bodies, isn't going to be a huge point here. A prosecutor is going to grill you on EVERYTHING. Your facebook, your personal life, if you've ever used a racial slur, if you've ever said you would kill someone, why you escalated to deadly force, has anyone in your family been convicted of a crime.........and so on. I get the idea of this thread is to mitigate variables, but you're worrying about a window switch on a car with a blown engine and transmission.

I'd disagree on a few things. One that the shooting itself is more stressful than the investigation that follows. LEOs often report the media attention and investigation are more stressful than the actual shooting. While everyone and each incident is different, that mirrors my recollection.

Also, the prosecutor is limited on what they can "grill" you on, as it must be relevant. Civil depositions, that's where things go off the rails.

[Robinson]

A lot of the advice I'm seeing here is going to keep people from carrying a shootable weapon. Lot's of lack of confidence in the delivery of an explanation. I always carry a round in the chamber, I modify my guns as I see fit (sights and factory configurations for carry), and maybe it's because I've testified more than my fair share of times, but a lot of these "could be" situations shouldn't prevent you from carrying a competent defensive weapon.

I still have yet to hear anything that will get you snapped up in court for carrying a round in the chamber, changing factory configurations, adding aftermarket sights, and all of these basic things. I hate to break it to everyone, shooting someone is the most stressful part of this whole thing. The next is being grilled for actually fucking shooting someone. Gun modifications unless your gun says "You're fucked" or a punisher skull or any other morale thing that indicates the love of slaying bodies, isn't going to be a huge point here. A prosecutor is going to grill you on EVERYTHING. Your facebook, your personal life, if you've ever used a racial slur, if you've ever said you would kill someone, why you escalated to deadly force, has anyone in your family been convicted of a crime.........and so on. I get the idea of this thread is to mitigate variables, but you're worrying about a window switch on a car with a blown engine and transmission.

I don't think anyone posting is actually advocating carrying without a round in the chamber, the point was simply made that it could be the subject of a question in some jurisdictions.

And there has been at least one expert posting in this thread with real world experience with court cases in which gun modifications were a factor. Why discount that expertise? I think the point is if a person plans to modify a gun that will be used for defensive purposes, it might be smart to limit the modifications to things that don't remove safety features, make the trigger lighter than factory spec, etc... -- especially in places where a CIVIL CASE may/will be brought.

[navyman8903]

I'd disagree on a few things. One that the shooting itself is more stressful than the investigation that follows. LEOs often report the media attention and investigation are more stressful than the actual shooting. While everyone and each incident is different, that mirrors my recollection.

Also, the prosecutor is limited on what they can "grill" you on, as it must be relevant. Civil depositions, that's where things go off the rails.

I agree and disagree with you. I agree Civil dispositions do indeed go off into left field and frequently. Now as for the prosecutors are limited, yes they are, but it's also about what the court allows. What the judge allows. It isn't necessarily a set in stone thing. Yes they have boundaries. But I've heard those questions asked as well. Sometimes they get an objection, sometimes they do not. Sometimes it's sustained and sometimes it's overruled. There's not a set in stone COA. I will say, it's easy to get used to a particular Judge, and DA/prosecutor over time. But each Judge is a different animal, each proceeding is different based on that fact.

[navyman8903]

I don't think anyone posting is actually advocating carrying without a round in the chamber, the point was simply made that it could be the subject of a question in some jurisdictions.

And there has been at least one expert posting in this thread with real world experience with court cases in which gun modifications were a factor. Why discount that expertise? I think the point is if a person plans to modify a gun that will be used for defensive purposes, it might be smart to limit the modifications to things that don't remove safety features, make the trigger lighter than factory spec, etc... -- especially in places where a CIVIL CASE may/will be brought.

Two things I observed in your response, and I'm saying this respectfully. First where did you see I said making a trigger lighter than factory spec? Secondly you're inserting your own interpretations into the modification piece. It's a very broad area of conversation.

Also based on that fact you brought up about lighter triggers, what if two people are involved in a shooting in the same state use the same gun, made by different people? What if Person A used an Ed Brown 1911 with a 3.5LB trigger, and person B used a Ruger 1911 with a 5 or 6 lb trigger? I get that they're not modified, but one man just purchased an already customized gun. What's the difference between ordering an already customized gun, and putting in drop in parts, or say, changing my DA/SA HK45 from its original configuration to a Light LEM which is a factory configuration? The trigger is lighter. But I can also buy a light LEM. The parts all say HK on them. Same with dropping in G34 parts into a G17.


I'm not doubting their experience. I'm doubting the blanket application of that experience as there's no case law to back it up. There's a huge difference between the two. I'm positive a ruling in NY or CA is different than a ruling in TX or NH.

[Robinson]

Two things I observed in your response, and I'm saying this respectfully. First where did you see I said making a trigger lighter than factory spec? Secondly you're inserting your own interpretations into the modification piece. It's a very broad area of conversation.

I suppose I was responding to this line in your post:

I still have yet to hear anything that will get you snapped up in court for carrying a round in the chamber, changing factory configurations, adding aftermarket sights, and all of these basic things.

Modifying a trigger to be lighter than factory spec might fall under your broad term "changing factory configurations". But if you are saying you would make a distinction then we have nothing to argue about on that point.


Also based on that fact you brought up about lighter triggers, what if two people are involved in a shooting in the same state use the same gun, made by different people? What if Person A used an Ed Brown 1911 with a 3.5LB trigger, and person B used a Ruger 1911 with a 5 or 6 lb trigger? I get that they're not modified, but one man just purchased an already customized gun. What's the difference between ordering an already customized gun, and putting in drop in parts, or say, changing my DA/SA HK45 from its original configuration to a Light LEM which is a factory configuration? The trigger is lighter. But I can also buy a light LEM. The parts all say HK on them. Same with dropping in G34 parts into a G17.

Are you assuming the jury in a civil case will have the same knowledge of these things that you have, and will judge rationally? I think it's quite possible for a jury to become focused on "the shooter modified his trigger to make it easier to shoot people" or "the shooter screwed with the trigger and made the gun unsafe". Again, they probably won't be as educated on firearms as you are.


I'm positive a ruling in NY or CA is different than a ruling in TX or NH.

Yeah that's sort of the point.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Depends on the jury composition in TX or NH. Here is the Democratic candidate for senator in TX:


“There is no reason an AR-15, a weapon of war designed for the sole purpose of taking lives as effectively and as efficiently and [in] as great a number as possible should be sold to civilians to be used in our schools, in our churches, in our concerts, in public life in this country,” O’Rourke said. “I have no idea how that polls, and I could give a shit what the NRA thinks about it because it’s the right thing to do.”

He might win or get 45% of the vote. Wendy Davis got about 39% of the vote when running for governor. She waffled on gun control but was primarily anti.

So to use the overall state figures (locales could make it worse), 40% of the jury pool could be antigun in some manner in TX. I'm too lazy to figure out the probability of a majority antigun jury. It would have been a good question on one of my statistics exams.

[OlongJohnson]

NM...

[psalms144.1]

BLUF - y'all gotta do y'all. If you want to run a modified pistol on duty or for defensive purposes - knock yourselves out. But, if it turns around and bites you in the ass, it's not because a LOT of REALLY experienced people haven't advised you not to.

Carry on - I'll be in the area all day.

[navyman8903]

I suppose I was responding to this line in your post:

I still have yet to hear anything that will get you snapped up in court for carrying a round in the chamber, changing factory configurations, adding aftermarket sights, and all of these basic things.

Modifying a trigger to be lighter than factory spec might fall under your broad term "changing factory configurations". But if you are saying you would make a distinction then we have nothing to argue about on that point.



Are you assuming the jury in a civil case will have the same knowledge of these things that you have, and will judge rationally? I think it's quite possible for a jury to become focused on "the shooter modified his trigger to make it easier to shoot people" or "the shooter screwed with the trigger and made the gun unsafe". Again, they probably won't be as educated on firearms as you are.



Yeah that's sort of the point.

I see where your confusion is and I realize I am partially at fault, though I did site a few examples. Changing from one factory configuration to another is what I meant.

I also plan on the Jury being the most ignorant on a subject possible. Not stupid, but ignorant.

[LSP552]

I also plan on the Jury being the most ignorant on a subject possible. Not stupid, but ignorant.

I’ve seen some stupid juries in my time and I’d bet most LE can say the same thing. You can also NEVER predict what will happen when a matter goes to the jury. They can fixate on one issue and give it way more importance than it deserves. Again, suspect many of us have seen that more than once.

[BehindBlueI's]

I also plan on the Jury being the most ignorant on a subject possible. Not stupid, but ignorant.

Plan for both. A jury trial puts your fate in the hands of 12 people who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty.

[GardoneVT]

Depends on the jury composition in TX or NH. Here is the Democratic candidate for senator in TX:



He might win or get 45% of the vote. Wendy Davis got about 39% of the vote when running for governor. She waffled on gun control but was primarily anti.

So to use the overall state figures (locales could make it worse), 40% of the jury pool could be antigun in some manner in TX. I'm too lazy to figure out the probability of a majority antigun jury. It would have been a good question on one of my statistics exams.

It is interesting when a gun owner mods their pistol ,relies on the fact they live in a “red state”, and trusts that a jury pool will thus automatically understand the intricacies of a Glock trigger spring of things go to trial.

I currently live in a state solidly ranked “F” in gun safety according to the Brady website. My office is 4 hours away from a store where a shopper can literally buy alcohol, tobacco,firearms (and gasoline) from the same singular establishment. My coworkers in said office are analysts ,and thus not morons. Many of them own more guns then I do. Guess what- they don’t know the difference between a Glock trigger spring and a hole in the ground.

Which means when a prosecutor and/or civil attorney states a Glock pistol with a competition only trigger spring was negligently modified , they’ll believe it. Guess whose attorney now has to refute that statement?

Paying hundreds of dollars so 12 jurors can be taught Handgun Engineering 101 by an expert witness at your hearing is a generous thing,but it’s an act of charity I’m opting out of.

[Bill]

I'd recommend the followers of this thread listen to the recent episode of Ballistic Radio on which Mr. Massad Ayoob was the guest.

[Robinson]

I'd recommend the followers of this thread listen to the recent episode of Ballistic Radio on which Mr. Massad Ayoob was the guest.

Not a whole lot about gun modifications, but still a good interview that addresses court hearings and juries. What Mas said about judges not allowing statements made to investigating officers after a defensive shooting to be heard in evidence because it is too beneficial to the person who acted in self defense is a little scary.

[Hambo]

(when I explained my plans to modify the PX4 from F to G):

TL;dr all the pages of replies. I put G levers in every 92 I own except the one I carry. That one came from the factory as G Model.


Instructor: Oh, I wouldn't do that. I've been an expert witness in multiple cases.

This should scare you more than G lever/no G lever. Is this instructor a true expert (like Mas) or were his instructor creds enough? More than that, how do you know he testified and didn't just read Mas's articles on the matter?

[Erick Gelhaus]

... I hate to break it to everyone, shooting someone is the most stressful part of this whole thing. The next is being grilled for actually fucking shooting someone. ...

While I wouldn't ask you to explain your experience with this publicly, I must respectfully disagree with your position.

[Bill]

What lots of people fail to understand is the "show me case law" argument is complete B.S. It makes a supposition and then demands proof in the negative to be disproven. Plus, there are many ways that cases resolve that doesn't involve the creation of caselaw at all. As it stands now, well over 95% of cases never make it to trial, they end in either a negotiated plea, and open plea, or dismissal. No caselaw is generated. Criminal cases that are never appealed also don't generate any caselaw. Moreover, case law varies widely state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even judge to judge (as Mr. Ayoob rightly points out in the Ballistic Radio piece). Case law, even if directly on point, isn't necessarily binding on any future case, regardless of if it "should" be or not. In the self defense community, we often like to use the phrase "its not the odds, its the stakes" in explaining our decision to commit so much time, energy and money to the pursuit of our self defense capabilities. It is my opinion that the same should apply to your equipment: The question is not, what are the odds that modifying your gun will be a dispositive issue in the courts should you ever need to use your weapon, its what are the stakes? Your freedom and everything you own could be at stake. So while, taking every advantage you can get in the way you set up your equipment is a totally valid exercise, being completely dismissive of conservative opinions on the issue may not be wise. Your "good shoot" isn't necessarily going to be self-evident to everyone involved, even if it appears so on its face. God knows there are plenty of other issue involved, and other interests that will tug at the strings of the powers that be. It may be a DA who is trying to make a name for him or herself, or other local politicians doing the same. It may be a civil plaintiff-"victim" who knows your insurance provider will only pay out if your shooting was accidental or negligent, and not intentional, and may accordingly take the position that you shot by accident, regardless of what your version of the story is, or however justified you feel the shooting was.

Consider for a moment that another gun owner, a less educated, less trained, and less responsible gun owner were to shoot someone you knew and claim it was self defense, or even just an accident. Would YOU take a hard look at their social media presence looking for aggression? Would you want to know if they performed some dremel trigger job on their Springfield Xd? Wouldn't that be relevant to you? Do you think the average juror or even DA knows the difference between an Overwatch Precision Glock trigger that maintains all factory safeties and someone who cuts coils off their springs to make a 2 lb trigger pull?

All just food for thought.

[navyman8903]

What lots of people fail to understand is the "show me case law" argument is complete B.S. It makes a supposition and then demands proof in the negative to be disproven. Plus, there are many ways that cases resolve that doesn't involve the creation of caselaw at all. As it stands now, well over 95% of cases never make it to trial, they end in either a negotiated plea, and open plea, or dismissal. No caselaw is generated. Criminal cases that are never appealed also don't generate any caselaw. Moreover, case law varies widely state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even judge to judge (as Mr. Ayoob rightly points out in the Ballistic Radio piece). Case law, even if directly on point, isn't necessarily binding on any future case, regardless of if it "should" be or not. In the self defense community, we often like to use the phrase "its not the odds, its the stakes" in explaining our decision to commit so much time, energy and money to the pursuit of our self defense capabilities. It is my opinion that the same should apply to your equipment: The question is not, what are the odds that modifying your gun will be a dispositive issue in the courts should you ever need to use your weapon, its what are the stakes? Your freedom and everything you own could be at stake. So while, taking every advantage you can get in the way you set up your equipment is a totally valid exercise, being completely dismissive of conservative opinions on the issue may not be wise. Your "good shoot" isn't necessarily going to be self-evident to everyone involved, even if it appears so on its face. God knows there are plenty of other issue involved, and other interests that will tug at the strings of the powers that be. It may be a DA who is trying to make a name for him or herself, or other local politicians doing the same. It may be a civil plaintiff-"victim" who knows your insurance provider will only pay out if your shooting was accidental or negligent, and not intentional, and may accordingly take the position that you shot by accident, regardless of what your version of the story is, or however justified you feel the shooting was.

Consider for a moment that another gun owner, a less educated, less trained, and less responsible gun owner were to shoot someone you knew and claim it was self defense, or even just an accident. Would YOU take a hard look at their social media presence looking for aggression? Would you want to know if they performed some dremel trigger job on their Springfield Xd? Wouldn't that be relevant to you? Do you think the average juror or even DA knows the difference between an Overwatch Precision Glock trigger that maintains all factory safeties and someone who cuts coils off their springs to make a 2 lb trigger pull?

All just food for thought.

Let me respond to your first comment. Case law is never bullshit. Ever. It's actually what keeps people in NY and CA from prosecuting HR218 cases. Which is especially relevant to me because I am a MPI. Case law for shoots and particular self defense situations are very relevant. Additionally supreme court rulings are also, very important. Saying case law isn't important makes me question your source information or reference knowledge, respectfully though, I don't want that to sound like a personal attack.

While I definitely respect Massad Ayoob and would learn from him in a heartbeat. He is not the end all be all. He has a wealth of knowledge, has experience, and almost certainly knows more than I do. However, it comes down the lawyers, judge, and if applicable, the jury. I've seen a shitload of cases go the other way. I had a SLAM DUNK rape case, with 3 recorded phone confessions and a confession in writing go south because of the victims trying to kill themselves. The guy is still in the Navy. Still an MA at that, and got promoted to E6. I've been in and out of both military and federal court. I've seen people go down for the dumbest shit I've ever seen/heard, and predators/killers go free. There's advice sure, but it is not a definite cold hard grantee. Which you and many on here are treating as gospel. These cases were in both military courts and Federal courts before anyone tries to throw the "Military justice system is different" argument at me. I've also been called as a witness in civilian incidents which were outside of our jurisdiction.

Sure, polishing (especially with a dremel) can definitely land you in hot water. If you make the gun fully automatic. Or occasionally it burst fires because you change the sear engagement geometry. Any idiot that ruins their gun in such a way can face penalties and is responsible for them in my opinion. I'm still apprenticing under a real master gunsmith. I've got waaaaay more to learn, but we don't use dremels. It's stones or nothing. Cutting coils, or any of that other cheap stuff could land you in a similar situation. Sure. But this is all "Can" and "possibly" not "Definitely" unless you modify the action of the weapon by doing so, then that's a definitely. IE making a 1911 into a fully automatic pistol because you don't know what you're doing.

Secondly what I carry is what I carry. It changes based on my needs. But I know as an experienced shooter and someone who carries a gun every day, I have preferences. Off duty it's something with a 4-4.5lb trigger in SA. Be it my P30L or my VP9, or my G19 or my P30sk or my HK45 in Light LEM. I'll put whatever sights and trigger configurations I see fit to fire a well placed shot in a stressful situation. Again, no one has been able to answer me where you can legally only carry a certain weapon. The difference between a high end custom gun purchased as is, and the same gun stock or from a different manufacturer. Sure in MA you might be able to articulate there's a difference where there's required trigger poundage. But Texas or Florida, or any free state. No one can do that. Because it isn't a thing. If you play around with your guns fire control system, then we can discuss that. But once again, sights, changing from one factory configuration to another factory configuration, drop in parts, and other typical modifications are not risks. The lawyer can bring it up all day long, they'll either hit or objections will be filed and sustained. A lot of people treat bringing up the subject in the courtroom as something that's ALWAYS GOING TO HURT YOU. It's not.

My experience with this is plenty of times I've either made a clerical error on paperwork, or didn't follow a procedure to the letter because of a circumstance. The defense lawyer pressed me in court about my actions and I responded flatly and truthfully. Zero negative effects, I still have my creds. It happens. It's based on your responses.

Lot's of people go to Massad Ayoob, but there's a bunch of other people out there with other advice regarding weapons and modifications. I honestly don't touch the carry guns I have. I've never needed to. But I buy nice guns. You best believe if there was a trigger that made my P30's like my HK45's, they'd get dropped in and I would carry them everywhere. I'm not saying ignore Massad Ayoob , take all the advice you want from him. Just know there's others out there. Thunder ranch being one of them, which is also a respected training facility last time I checked. You'll get advice in multiple directions but at the end of the day, what it comes down to is, was it a good shoot, did you have a legal right to arm yourself, was the firearm purchased legally, and the circumstances of the shoot. The little things are there, but you have to take the stand and articulate them. Or not, and have a badass lawyer.

[navyman8903]

Deployment internet double tap

[navyman8903]

While I wouldn't ask you to explain your experience with this publicly, I must respectfully disagree with your position.

I haven't had issues explaining my actions in boards or on the stand. Maybe other people have. I also haven't had a case on the news so, I imagine something with national attention may be difficult. But I haven't been in that position.

[navyman8903]

Deployment internet again.....sorry.

[OlongJohnson]

...we don't use dremels. It's stones or nothing.

To add to my earlier comments, ^^^ THIS.

I don't own a Dremel, and I don't believe I would be able to do the detailing and cleanup of manufacturing artifacts that I do with a Dremel. Felt wouldn't accomplish it, and spinning stones or burrs couldn't be controlled to do it. Plus, something that's spinning can't readily be used to create a flat surface without some mechanism to precisely control its motion, like a vertical mill, for example.

The trope that gets kicked around in discussions like this that the alternative to a person who has spent years in gunsmith school is a "There I fixed it" level hack simply doesn't reflect reality.

[GardoneVT]

But Texas or Florida, or any free state. No one can do that. Because it isn't a thing. If you play around with your guns fire control system, then we can discuss that. But once again, sights, changing from one factory configuration to another factory configuration, drop in parts, and other typical modifications are not risks. The lawyer can bring it up all day long, they'll either hit or objections will be filed and sustained.

In Florida, the prosecution argued that Zimmerman carrying with a loaded chamber constituted negligence. I’m sure every informed reader of this post is carrying exactly in that manner as do many law enforcement and military agencies : so if that can be a “thing”, yes anything else done to the pistol can be as well.

As the Zimmerman case once again shows,carrying a pistol represents legal risk regardless of mods or no mods. The facts are mods increase that risk depending on ones jurisdiction,political environment,and other factors. Some folks can carry a 10mm with a 2 ounce trigger and punisher grips with a low probability of court issues, while others face a stiff legal response carrying a MA model M&P with a safety. This is not a one answer fits all subject.

[Ed L]

In Florida, the prosecution argued that Zimmerman carrying with a loaded chamber constituted negligence. I’m sure every informed reader of this post is carrying exactly in that manner as do many law enforcement and military agencies : so if that can be a “thing”, yes anything else done to the pistol can be as well.

First, any prosecutor who tries to argue that carrying a handgun with a round in the chamber is setting himself up to look like a clueless idiot who knows nothing about firearms, and lose overall credibility with the jury once it's pointed out that every law enforcement agency in the US carries with a round in the chamber, every credible firearms instructor in the US teaches carrying with a round in the chamber, along with the reasons for carrying a round in the chamber. The only thing that allowed Zimmerman to successfully defend himself was having a round in the chamber. Zimmerman is a perfect example of why you need to carry your defensive firearm with a round in the chamber.

Second, Zimmerman should not have left his car. A lot of avoidable problem situations occur when someone leaves the safety of their car or their home to search for or confront an unknown danger. This point has been stated before by many people and does not require one to be a member of Mensa to come up with this on your own.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Can anyone show me a case where someone lost a gunfight because they didn't modify a stock quality gun used in a self-defense situation? SHOW ME A FIGHT! Is it the FBI reports or the NYPD summaries?

This debate always goes in circles. I suggest those who worry about such act to assuage their anxieties. Those who are sure they will have a sympatico jury in a 'free state', that the judge won't allow discussion of some gun or appearance issue and that a jury of peers/millennials/snowflakes/ or dumbos will understand your explanation or that of your expensive expert are free to carry, modify and appear as they desire.

I am perfectly comfortable in the first group with a quality stock gun and skipping the decorations of malevolent intent in my EDC. I admit to adding night sights.

Last, Zimmerman might have won the court case on reasonable doubt, but there is not too much doubt that he acted in the most foolish manner then and later in his life.

[TheNewbie]

Ok, I am sure this has been covered in here but.....

What is the consensus on things like Grip work, NY1/2 triggers, or the Gadget on Glocks?

[psalms144.1]

Newbie - I can't say what grip work would affect, NY1/2 triggers INCREASE trigger pull, so I'd imagine they're "safe." The Gadget INCREASES safety on your pistol by giving visual/tactile indication of trigger movement, so I can't see how that would be used against you.

[Ed L]

Can anyone show me a case where someone lost a gunfight because they didn't modify a stock quality gun used in a self-defense situation? SHOW ME A FIGHT! Is it the FBI reports or the NYPD summaries?

You are not going to be able to forensically dissect many of those cases because the person would be dead, and also sometimes it is hard to examine the where's and why's and conclude that it was that made the person lose.

You can take a look at things like the 2012 Empire state shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting) where the two NYPD cops engaged a gunman at distances from 10-20 feet. The officers fired 16 rounds , hitting 3 bystanders and injuring another 6 bystanders with ricochets and fragments of bullets that hit other things. The handguns they were using were Glocks with NYPD triggers that not only have a pull weight of 12-13 lbs, but feel like they are broken and will not pull if you are accustomed to a normal Glock trigger. The NYPD put them on the guns for their perceived liability reasons to prevent accidental discharges as opposed to better training and more continuous training. In this particular case it made the guns harder to shoot accurately and resulted in poorer shooting results and injured bystanders.

[GardoneVT]

You are not going to be able to forensically dissect many of those cases because the person would be dead, and also sometimes it is hard to examine the where's and why's and conclude that it was that made the person lose.

You can take a look at things like the 2012 Empire state shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting) where the two NYPD cops engaged a gunman at distances from 10-20 feet. The officers fired 16 rounds , hitting 3 bystanders and injuring another 6 bystanders with ricochets and fragments of bullets that hit other things. The handguns they were using were Glocks with NYPD triggers that not only have a pull weight of 12-13 lbs, but feel like they are broken and will not pull if you are accustomed to a normal Glock trigger. The NYPD put them on the guns for their perceived liability reasons to prevent accidental discharges as opposed to better training and more continuous training. In this particular case it made the guns harder to shoot accurately and resulted in poorer shooting results and injured bystanders.

...and conversely,a terrorist incident was successfully halted by an RCMP member with a 5946, a gun with a similar trigger weight as the NYPD Glocks.

[TheNewbie]

Newbie - I can't say what grip work would affect, NY1/2 triggers INCREASE trigger pull, so I'd imagine they're "safe." The Gadget INCREASES safety on your pistol by giving visual/tactile indication of trigger movement, so I can't see how that would be used against you.

That's what my thought process is.

I would think the same of grip work, unless it's some insane pattern with skull and cross bones on it.

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, I am sure this has been covered in here but.....

What is the consensus on things like Grip work, NY1/2 triggers, or the Gadget on Glocks?


Grip reduction/stippling seems pretty easy to defend, and we're allowed it on personal guns as long as we get permission and an armorer's inspection (which, I think, is mostly to make sure you aren't trying to pass engraving off as stippling). To me that says City Legal also agrees it's an easy thing to defend.

We have minimum pull weights, but no maximums, and used to issue the NY trigger with the Gen 2 Glocks. I don't see why you'd want it, but seems like it'd be an uphill argument that it made the gun less safe.

Gadget seems to be untested territory, but as it has no effect on the function of the gun and is a safety device, seems like it'd be an easy sell if it did come up.

[Ed L]

...and conversely,a terrorist incident was successfully halted by an RCMP member with a 5946, a gun with a similar trigger weight as the NYPD Glocks.

Liukily there weren't that many bystanders around for that one.
If you read the account https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ottawa-shooting-sergeant-at-arms-shot-suspect-at-point-blank-range-after-diving-around-pillar-9818365.html you will note: "The stone alcove was left with nine bullet holes and a stray round was found embedded in a library desk the other side of a door."

I am not saying a gun with an overly heavy trigger cannot be effectively used, but it cannot be used to shoot as accurately as one with a standard trigger. Do we really have to debate this?

[Ed L]

All that is old is new again.

From a thread in 2013 where boardmember JLW, who is a Chief Deputy having been sworn at the local, state, and federal levels with Over 3500 hours of total POST credit training hours wrote:


Come on, folks. Modifications are only going to be an issue if their is a claim of malfunction in an accidental shooting.

[wsr]

All that is old is new again.

From a thread in 2013 where boardmember JLW, who is a Chief Deputy having been sworn at the local, state, and federal levels with Over 3500 hours of total POST credit training hours wrote:



Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
Come on, folks. Modifications are only going to be an issue if their is a claim of malfunction in an accidental shooting.


That has always been my take on it, the cases that are trotted out all the time arent represented accurately IMO...its always perpetuated that the prosecutor just goes after the light trigger pull for no reason when in reality the claim of a AD/ND comes originally from the shooter
Of course they are going to drag you through the mud, you just said you shot and or killed someone on accident...I mean how can you accidentally shoot someone in self defense?

[BehindBlueI's]

...its always perpetuated that the prosecutor just goes after the light trigger pull for no reason when in reality the claim of a AD/ND comes originally from the shooter

Sure about that?


We've discussed earlier why both the politically-motivated prosecutor and the greed-motivated plaintiff's lawyer with an unmeritorious case may frame your intentional self-defense shooting as an indefensible negligent discharge. ....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUHT97p0GQ

You think if this was intentional or unintentional might come up, regardless of her statement? She's being sued and is still on admin leave with, as far as I know, no decision made yet on criminal charges.

[wsr]

Sure about that?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUHT97p0GQ

You think if this was intentional or unintentional might come up, regardless of her statement? She's being sued and is still on admin leave with, as far as I know, no decision made yet on criminal charges.

Is that one of the cases that hat is always used as a example???

And if the prosecutor does go after her it’s not really for no reason, that could come across as intentional or accidental especially after her comment

[JAH 3rd]

I try to look at things from a simple (understandable) point of view in a complex world. As far as firearm modifications go, I look at it from the aspect leave everything as it left the factory. That way you don't have to defend any modifications you made as well as the qualifications (training) you have or NOT have to do those modifications. Same with ammo, factory original. How often one practices as a civilian or frequency and type of training if in law enforcement.

There will always be questions asked in a self-defense shooting incident. I just look at ways to eliminate some of these questions in the first place.

[BehindBlueI's]

Is that one of the cases that hat is always used as a example???

And if the prosecutor does go after her it’s not really for no reason, that could come across as intentional or accidental especially after her comment

It's pretty knew, the civil suit isn't done yet, and there's no decision on criminal charges so I don't think it's been an example anywhere yet.

We all imagine our shooting will be completely clean and obviously so. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. "Little" things could be scale tippers. When you say the shooter is always the one to initiate the AD discussion, this video and Mas' comment shows that not to be the case. REGARDLESS of what this officer says, a reasonable person could be persuaded she didn't mean to break that shot. You think it's going to come up in the civil case?

[Clusterfrack]

I really appreciate all the info here--especially from our SMEs.

In all my guns--defensive and competition, rifle and pistol--I prefer crisp, predictable 2-stage triggers. I do not like surprise breaks.

My carry and home defense handguns are set up with similar trigger weights, and have heavier pulls than my competition guns. I put in so many rounds and dryfire cycles on my competition guns that when I shoot one of my carry/defense guns, I really notice the weight of the trigger. I like that, and think it's a good thing for defensive use.

For example:
Shadow 2's (competition): 6# DA; 2.25# SA

P-07#1 (stock): 9# DA; 3.75# SA
P-07#2 (CGW Prograde Kit): : 8.5# DA; 4# SA (note that because I used an 0.020" sear spring, I was able to increase the SA pull to 4#).

All of my non-competition Glocks use standard weight OEM triggers and fire control parts.

[wsr]

It's pretty knew, the civil suit isn't done yet, and there's no decision on criminal charges so I don't think it's been an example anywhere yet.

We all imagine our shooting will be completely clean and obviously so. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. "Little" things could be scale tippers. When you say the shooter is always the one to initiate the AD discussion, this video and Mas' comment shows that not to be the case. REGARDLESS of what this officer says, a reasonable person could be persuaded she didn't mean to break that shot. You think it's going to come up in the civil case?

I didn’t say or mean to imply that the shooter is always the one that initiated the AD/ND comments...I was specifically referring to the cases that Mas and others always use as examples in the lightened trigger pull cases, those 4 or 5 cases all (as far as I can tell) started with the shooter making the statement

I agree it would be easy to convince people that was a AD/ND but again that is very different than a prosecutor pulling the trigger job line out f thin air and making it convincing

[Robinson]

I really appreciate all the info here--especially from our SMEs.

I second that.


In all my guns--defensive and competition, rifle and pistol--I prefer crisp, predictable 2-stage triggers. I do not like surprise breaks.

While I understand the concept of the surprise break, with my 1911s I've never thought of it that way personally. I pretty much know exactly when the gun is going to go bang.

I use 1911s as my defensive guns, and I never do anything to change the factory trigger. I limit modifications to sights, stocks, and perhaps swapping out the grip safety and hammer, neither of which change the function of the weapon. I suppose it could be argued that installation of a different hammer alters the trigger mechanism because the hammer interfaces with the sear, but that's why I have the work performed by an experienced gunsmith.

Since the 1911 has a relatively light trigger to begin with, reliance on proper use of the thumb safety is obviously crucial.

[Artemas2]

Now where do the "duty/carry grade" triggers like Overwatch and SSVI fall in to this? They do not alter the weight, but do shorten the LoP. Which I rarely see brought up in these discussions. The LoP has been considered more critical than the actual weight.

As a side observation, I have shot a few matches now with a DA/SA and gun. When the buzzer goes off, I could not tell the differences in weight or LoP while shooting. On paper though I can always pick out my DA flier.

[psalms144.1]

Now where do the "duty/carry grade" triggers like Overwatch and SSVI fall in to this? They do not alter the weight, but do shorten the LoP. Which I rarely see brought up in these discussions. The LoP has been considered more critical than the actual weight.

As a side observation, I have shot a few matches now with a DA/SA and gun. When the buzzer goes off, I could not tell the differences in weight or LoP while shooting. On paper though I can always pick out my DA flier.In my opinion, they're a risky call- especially since many of these "reduced pretravel" triggers affect factory safety configurations.

I'm getting more conservative as I get older and have more to lose. If I absolutely COULD NOT effectively shoot a stock GLOCK trigger, I would not carry a GLOCK. Too many other workable options out there.

[Drang]

Now where do the "duty/carry grade" triggers like Overwatch and SSVI fall in to this? They do not alter the weight, but do shorten the LoP. Which I rarely see brought up in these discussions. The LoP has been considered more critical than the actual weight.
Can you (or your expert witness) articulate while under oath why a shorter length of pull is safer, or is beneficial while being no less safe?

Part of me thinks we're getting down in the weeds where Internet Gun Nerds love to argue about how many operators can dance on the head of a firing pin, but
both the politically-motivated prosecutor and the greed-motivated plaintiff's lawyer
may well leap on an otherwise inconsequential modification and argue it indicates... something... that should be grounds to lock you away for life.

[Artemas2]

Part of me thinks we're getting down in the weeds where Internet Gun Nerds love to argue about how many operators can dance on the head of a firing pin, but


Sometimes I wonder if we aren't hurting ourselves with theses discussions. Any computer literate prosecutor or juror can google these debates and draw a conclusion without any practical experience.

[Drang]

"If it's on the internet, it's discoverable."

[willie]

For me swapping out Glock triggers was my solution to a better trigger. Generous tolerances permitted my finding best triggers. Hand polishing with Flitz helped. The electroless nickel wear layer on trigger parts is thin and will not withstand vigorous Dremel tool polishing. I'm blessed with three older Gen 3 pistols, two 19's and a 26, and all shoot as they should with no brass to the face. The 26 is a death ray on distant jugs, stumps, and dirt clods. :cool:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As Mas and I know, lawyer's CLE can touch on these issues. They are not unknown to smart people. My concern was not that you can modify a gun to be a bad shooter by things like the NY Trigger, which supposedly made it 'safer'. We know from the human factors folks that finger on the trigger of most guns with 12 lb triggers can still lead to a ND.

Mine was if the gun was modified in a way that, perhaps, could be portrayed by an evil prosecutor or civil attorney as making you look more blood thirsty, reckless or accident prone - was it worth it vs. efficacy of the stock triggers of most common guns in usage now? So, we can parse that a lighter, SA trigger might have caused some bad shoots. Can we parse out a 'lost' gun right because of a standard trigger?

So if there is a risk of a modification on an accidental or appearance issue (even it is small), does the benefit of your modification exceed that risk in a cost/benefit analysis?

We are confounding performance vs. appearance (Die MF engravings) on a standard gun a bit. I would agree that I don't think that my 1911 having an ambi safety and night sights is not horrible. The punisher skull grips on an instructor's gun that I once saw - I might pass on that.

[Toonces]

I use 1911s as my defensive guns, and I never do anything to change the factory trigger. I limit modifications to sights, stocks, and perhaps swapping out the grip safety and hammer, neither of which change the function of the weapon. I suppose it could be argued that installation of a different hammer alters the trigger mechanism because the hammer interfaces with the sear, but that's why I have the work performed by an experienced gunsmith.

Would you please elaborate on this? Changing the hammer is most definitely changing the factory trigger "group". Why are you changing it? Hammer bite, pull weight, pull smoothness, something else...?


Since the 1911 has a relatively light trigger to begin with, reliance on proper use of the thumb safety is obviously crucial.

This is not meant as confrontational in any way, as I've read plenty of your posts and know you're not out looking for trouble, but...If I was a lawyer in a case against you, I would use the above statement to show that you thought the trigger was unsafe due to being too light. And you still used it.

[Artemas2]

Since the 1911 has a relatively light trigger to begin with, reliance on proper use of the thumb safety is obviously crucial.
Don't mean to tag team you here, just saw your post and was reminded of another reason I don't care for 1911s.

What is proper use of a safety? Absent of LE/"tactical" use, I believe many instructors teach disengaging the safety somewhere between the draw and sight alignment leaving you with a short light trigger well below any striker gun (albeit unmodified)

[Robinson]

Would you please elaborate on this? Changing the hammer is most definitely changing the factory trigger "group". Why are you changing it? Hammer bite, pull weight, pull smoothness, something else...?

The only time I have a different hammer installed is the case where I switch from a GI grip safety to a beavertail grip safety. The choices are to install a Commander or enhanced hammer or bob the GI hammer, so I opt to switch out the hammer. I don't make any modification to reduce the "pull weight" of my guns.


This is not meant as confrontational in any way, as I've read plenty of your posts and know you're not out looking for trouble, but...If I was a lawyer in a case against you, I would use the above statement to show that you thought the trigger was unsafe due to being too light. And you still used it.

My statement about using the thumb safety is based on the manual of arms of the 1911. It's a single action trigger. It's equipped with multiple mechanical safeties. The use of the thumb safety is basic to the safe handling of the 1911 pistol. I can articulate the hows and whys, as many others here can as well.

[Robinson]

Don't mean to tag team you here, just saw your post and was reminded of another reason I don't care for 1911s.

What is proper use of a safety? Absent of LE/"tactical" use, I believe many instructors teach disengaging the safety somewhere between the draw and sight alignment leaving you with a short light trigger well below any striker gun (albeit unmodified)

If this thread devolves into "why 1911s should not be used in a defensive role" I will be disappointed.

But since you asked, read my second answer to Toonces above. Use of the thumb safety is basic to the operation of the 1911. There are advantages to other triggers, especially double action triggers, when it comes to having your sights lined up on someone and making a decision not to shoot at the last possible moment. I especially can understand the benefit to a law enforcement officer. If I have not made the decision to fire, then my gun will most likely not be pointed at the assailant with the safety off. If I draw and the safety comes off, I've decided I have no choice but to shoot. If I draw to a low ready position, my muzzle will not be pointed at the person and the safety will be on. If a person is not going to become familiar with the operation of the safety to the point that its manipulation is automatic then the 1911 is probably not the best choice for that person.

Beyond that, since this thread is about gun modifications if you want to discuss all the disadvantages of the 1911 I suggest starting a new thread and it can be discussed there. I'm not a moderator, that is merely a suggestion.

[Ed L]

Can you (or your expert witness) articulate while under oath why a shorter length of pull is safer, or is beneficial while being no less safe?

Shorter length of pull allows you to shoot more accurately which reduces the chance of round that could miss the target. More accurate shots allow you to shoot more accurately, maximizing your chances of hitting where you are aiming, hopefully minimizing the times you have to shoot a threat. Besides, guns are not just for defense, but also for targetshooting where accuracy is something that is prized.

Having said that some modifications make me uncomfortable. Anything that sacrifices or risks reliability or safety is a no-go. I believe it was the installation Travis skimmer trigger that disengaged one of the Glock's safeties, or something like that. In fairness, I could be wrong about which product did this.

There was also a gunsmith or two that worked on Smith & Wesson M&Ps when they first came out and had crappy triggers. These guys gave the guns a great trigger, but after a number of rounds sent downrange you could wind up with a dead trigger.

For myself I am comfortable with the H&K VP9 and VP9SK as it comes from the factory in terms of trigger pull, reliability, and the way it fits my hand. I am also comfortable with my factory Gen2 Glocks and 19s which I bought used--though they don't have as good of a trigger as the VP9, nor are they as accurate or do they fit my hand as well.


Part of me thinks we're getting down in the weeds where Internet Gun Nerds love to argue about how many operators can dance on the head of a firing pin, but may well leap on an otherwise inconsequential modification and argue it indicates... something... that should be grounds to lock you away for life.

I agree completely with your above sentence.

[Bucky]

But since you asked, read my second answer to Toonces above. Use of the thumb safety is basic to the operation of the 1911. There are advantages to other triggers, especially double action triggers, when it comes to having your sights lined up on someone and making a decision not to shoot at the last possible moment. I especially can understand the benefit to a law enforcement officer. If I have not made the decision to fire, then my gun will most likely not be pointed at the assailant with the safety off. If I draw and the safety comes off, I've decided I have no choice but to shoot. If I draw to a low ready position, my muzzle will not be pointed at the person and the safety will be on. If a person is not going to become familiar with the operation of the safety to the point that its manipulation is automatic then the 1911 is probably not the best choice for that person.


The talk about the 1911 here does make me think about this, as it pertains to me and my training. As a long time USPSA competitor, I'm so ingrained to riding that thumb safety, that just by naturally gripping the gun, the safety is off. I've tried practicing with holding the gun with the safety on, and it does feel a bit awkward.

More back on topic, regardless of whether you do or do not keep the safety on until the decision to fire, short of a good body cam, there would be no way to prove it one way or the other.

I'm neither LE or a lawyer. I admit, watching the Zimmerman trail and seeing what a big deal they made about his gun and how it was carried certainly did get me thinking, and interested in learning about other cases.

[45dotACP]

IANAL but my idea is this:. You should assume that because you had the audacity to use force to protect yourself, if you're getting charged with a crime, the person in charge of proving you are a terrible person who deserves jail will seize upon every chance they get to prove that. Whether it is by implying you are stupid, unsafe, negligent, aggressive, mentally ill or whatever. I suspect it is not specifically limited to choice in defensive weapons.

For instance, a guy shoots for a double leg on an assailant, armbars him and pulls his shoulder apart. If it comes to criminal charges, training in Jiu Jitsu just might be called into question as being premeditation or having violent fantasies that predisposed you to the criminal thing they are trying to convince the jury you did.

Just have an explanation why, don't be a belligerent dick (that applies to social media, clothing choices, "you're fucked" dustcovers etc...) maybe consider carrying a gun and ammunition issued to a known police department and probably carry liability insurance.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Martial arts: I have had this article around for awhile.

31 GONZLR 413 Page
(Cite as: 31 Gonz. L. Rev. 413)

Gonzaga Law Review
1995-96

*413 EMPTY HANDS, [FNa1]DEEP POCKETS: TORT LIABILITY AND POTENTIAL FOR
RECOVERY AGAINST INDIVIDUALS APPLYING MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING IN SELF-DEFENSE

Bryan P. Whitaker [FNaa1]


VII. CONCLUSION

Martial artists face a difficult decision when applying their skills in a self-defense situation. The person initiating the attack may become a future litigant, attempting to recover damages for injuries sustained in an altercation which he initiated. Parents who enroll their children in martial arts training, and the instructors who provide the training, may also find themselves responsible for injuries inflicted by a child or student in self- defense.

As with any other weapon, the martial artist must not only know how to use his skills when necessary, but must also have complete control over his skills. Without control, injury and death could result in situations where excessive use of force is inappropriate, thus causing suffering to all parties involved.



There may be newer articles around, but I recall this was sitting on my hard drive.

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

Martial arts: I have had this article around for awhile.

31 GONZLR 413 Page
(Cite as: 31 Gonz. L. Rev. 413)

Gonzaga Law Review
1995-96

*413 EMPTY HANDS, [FNa1]DEEP POCKETS: TORT LIABILITY AND POTENTIAL FOR
RECOVERY AGAINST INDIVIDUALS APPLYING MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING IN SELF-DEFENSE

Bryan P. Whitaker [FNaa1]



There may be newer articles around, but I recall this was sitting on my hard drive.

Is this an example of the legal implications of applying excessive force, especially after the threat is neutralized, applied to Martial Arts or specified for Martial Artists? It had always been the standard that if you are not paid to contact fight, no category or warning distinction is legally applicable.

In Martial Arts thinking... a person that takes some lessons (maybe a lot) can apply or not apply his skills in a fight. A Martial Artist "is" and these movements and ways of movement and response are all he or she can do. They are integral and not applied or not.

[critter]

Whatever happened to personal responsibility for the consequences of one's own actions? "had you not initiated and engaged in your chosen behavior, you would have incurred zero injuries at this specific time and location. You are solely responsible for your injuries. Please file suit against yourself. Case dismissed."

Imagine what this slope leads to in a century or two. "Did you think about defending yourself? Pay your attacker $xxx,xxx,xxx."

[JAD]

The talk about the 1911 here does make me think about this, as it pertains to me and my training. As a long time USPSA competitor, I'm so ingrained to riding that thumb safety, that just by naturally gripping the gun, the safety is off. I've tried practicing with holding the gun with the safety on, and it does feel a bit awkward.

That differs from my experience. For me the natural way to hold a 1911 is with the safety on and my finger straight (actually slightly up). It takes conscious effort for me to disengage the safety and move my finger to the trigger, and those two motions are intimately linked for me.

[Robinson]

Is this an example of the legal implications of applying excessive force, especially after the threat is neutralized, applied to Martial Arts or specified for Martial Artists? It had always been the standard that if you are not paid to contact fight, no category or warning distinction is legally applicable?

In Martial Arts thinking... a person that takes some lessons (maybe a lot) can apply or not apply his skills in a fight. A Martial Artist "is" and these movements and ways of movement and response are all he or she can do. They are integral and not applied or not.

All I know is that if I am in a position where I need to defend myself with just my hands I'm not going to purposefully disregard 25+ years of training because utilizing that training could make me look too competent. The effects of that training will simply be there on tap and I will pour out as much as required. I'm not some badass, but I didn't train all those years for nothing either.

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

All I know is that if I am in a position where I need to defend myself with just my hands I'm not going to purposefully disregard 25+ years of training because utilizing that training could make me look too competent. The effects of that training will simply be there on tap and I will pour out as much as required. I'm not some badass, but I didn't train all those years for nothing either.

Agreed. If you have trained for 25+ years you should not be able to "turn it off", as there would be nothing else you know how to do in these circumstances.

My wife has been in the Martial Arts for about 24 years.

[akatrd]

After reading all of this, would it be advisable to NOT carry my new Wilson Beretta Centurion with the Wilson action job as a carry gun? They are both firearms manufacturers.

[BehindBlueI's]

After reading all of this, would it be advisable to NOT carry my new Wilson Beretta Centurion with the Wilson action job as a carry gun? They are both firearms manufacturers.

Once again going by what City Legal is apparently ok with, my department has Scattergun Technologies 870s so I'd be fine with carrying it.

Speculating, but I suspect that it's a tough sell for "them" to argue a OEM or near OEM's "custom shop" isn't really just another variation on the factory gun. Ie, I can buy a Sig Nitron or SAS or Rainbow Bright or Diamondplate or...you get the idea. A Sig Custom Shop gun is, IMO, difficult for a lawyer to differentiate in a juror's mind as not just another factory gun.

[Bucky]

After reading all of this, would it be advisable to NOT carry my new Wilson Beretta Centurion with the Wilson action job as a carry gun? They are both firearms manufacturers.

Perhaps don’t mention the action job? (Or oops, too late?)

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

When we discuss the ramifications of self defense with a firearm and how it could play out legally, I also find a vulnerability in one’s defense that has moral implication, as well as possible legal defense vulnerabilities. It might not come up in court, but it could. I think it conscience worthy to bring it into the discussion.

Firstly, I will be clear- I wish that all good guys and gals were sufficiently armed and I am in favor of our 2nd amendment rights, etc..


Here’s the thing: I find in my many years of studying and dealing with self defense (including LE time) that there is a loss of “minimum force necessary” in many people’s thinking.

If a person only counts on his firearm for action self defense there is a lack there. I’m not referring to precautionary strategies, situational awareness, de-escalation or prevention plans, just referring to action once a decision is made to physically defend oneself or another.

If all you count on is shooting the attacker, is that morally justified? If you are old, disabled or some other mitigating factor, that’s different. There are situations where you must shoot and do so quickly and effectively. But so many defensive situations could be handled with less than deadly force. Though the bad guy is responsible for creating a violent situation, we have a responsibility as humans to be better prepared, IMO.

If you had Martial Arts training or self defense training... if you were skilled at using EWs (environmental weapons), if you had less lethal means... if you stayed physically in shape to defend yourself... could you have ended the threat without ending a life? Not all attacks justify killing. But if you have no other tools than a firearm... is that good conscience? That which is good conscience is defensible to 12 peers looking for “within reason” to judge an action.

I was once attacked in a large room with lots of children in it. I could not choose a firearm safely, but resolved it with an “effect distance limited” weapon, because I was prepared. I also had a back-up, more lethal, limited distance effect weapon on me. That’s just one example.


This might not come up in court, or it might. I only bring into the discussion the question for each to ponder... Do you count on deadly force as your only tool? Or are you willing to train and prepare for “minimum force necessary”?

[wsr]

When we discuss the ramifications of self defense with a firearm and how it could play out legally, I also find a vulnerability in one’s defense that has moral implication, as well as possible legal defense vulnerabilities. It might not come up in court, but it could. I think it conscience worthy to bring it into the discussion.

Firstly, I will be clear- I wish that all good guys and gals were sufficiently armed and I am in favor of our 2nd amendment rights, etc..


Here’s the thing: I find in my many years of studying and dealing with self defense (including LE time) that there is a loss of “minimum force necessary” in many people’s thinking.

If a person only counts on his firearm for action self defense there is a lack there. I’m not referring to precautionary strategies, situational awareness, de-escalation or prevention plans, just referring to action once a decision is made to physically defend oneself or another.

If all you count on is shooting the attacker, is that morally justified? If you are old, disabled or some other mitigating factor, that’s different. There are situations where you must shoot and do so quickly and effectively. But so many defensive situations could be handled with less than deadly force. Though the bad guy is responsible for creating a violent situation, we have a responsibility as humans to be better prepared, IMO.

If you had Martial Arts training or self defense training... if you were skilled at using EWs (environmental weapons), if you had less lethal means... if you stayed physically in shape to defend yourself... could you have ended the threat without ending a life? Not all attacks justify killing. But if you have no other tools than a firearm... is that good conscience? That which is good conscience is defensible to 12 peers looking for “within reason” to judge an action.

I was once attacked in a large room with lots of children in it. I could not choose a firearm safely, but resolved it with an “effect distance limited” weapon, because I was prepared. I also had a back-up, more lethal, limited distance effect weapon on me. That’s just one example.


This might not come up in court, or it might. I only bring into the discussion the question for each to ponder... Do you count on deadly force as your only tool? Or are you willing to train and prepare for “minimum force necessary”?

There is usually a finite amount of time respond and win a altercation...what happens if your minimum force doesn’t work? What makes you believe you will have the opportunity to move on up the use of force continuum?

I’ve had this type of discussion with a lot of guys who carry and have the attitude that “the gun is the option of last resort”
My take on it is that you use your gun when it’s appropriate...first, second, last option has nothing to do with it

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

There is usually a finite amount of time respond and win a altercation...what happens if your minimum force doesn’t work? What makes you believe you will have the opportunity to move on up the use of force continuum?

I’ve had this type of discussion with a lot of guys who carry and have the attitude that “the gun is the option of last resort”
My take on it is that you use your gun when it’s appropriate...first, second, last option has nothing to do with it

I think I understand where you're coming from.

Perhaps the missing factor would be a significant enough skill level to be able to move any force application to a more lethal point. This does not necessitate a change of weapons, but of force.

I would also add that experience, training, confidence and instinct would affect the judgment call of what to do. Not all or many situations are the same, as you know.

To directly answer your questions, "what happens if your minimum force doesn’t work? What makes you believe you will have the opportunity to move on up the use of force continuum?" I can only state personal experience and the experience of those I’ve trained. Preparedness and training to increase force instantly as needed.

I agree, things happen very quickly, with instant violence and the decision of winner or loser will normally be decided in the first seconds. This also draws me back to unarmed physical self defense, since it is the only thing that can respond and initiate defense as quickly as a surprise attack.

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

My questions, for pondering... If a gun is pulled, you can’t out draw a drawn gun... if a knife is pulled by surprise quickly and close in, can you draw while stopping that knife from stabbing and slicing you? If there is no clear field of fire and a knife is thrust at you...?

The fast professional firearms instructors seem to be able to draw in under a second when ready and waiting on a shot timer. If you are confused by what’s happening and all of a sudden have a knife right at you to stop, how fast can you draw? A firearm is not effective if it cannot be deployed to the fight.


I hope this is not going away from the thread’s intention about legal vulnerability. My intent was legal defense ability by showing you prepared for less lethal force, but had to shoot. If you had no other preparations it would seem that you planned to shoot your way out of anything. Though I welcome all discussion.

[PNWTO]

My questions, for pondering... If a gun is pulled, you can’t out draw a drawn gun... if a knife is pulled by surprise quickly and close in, can you draw while stopping that knife from stabbing and slicing you? If there is no clear field of fire and a knife is thrust at you...?


Semi off-topic, but the answer you seek lies in some ECQC goodness. There is a good reason why centerline fixed blades and BJJ are popular around here; at one point either here or on TPI I think I saw the term Brazilian Jiu J-Frame.

[wsr]

My questions, for pondering... If a gun is pulled, you can’t out draw a drawn gun... if a knife is pulled by surprise quickly and close in, can you draw while stopping that knife from stabbing and slicing you? If there is no clear field of fire and a knife is thrust at you...?

The fast professional firearms instructors seem to be able to draw in under a second when ready and waiting on a shot timer. If you are confused by what’s happening and all of a sudden have a knife right at you to stop, how fast can you draw? A firearm is not effective if it cannot be deployed to the fight.


I hope this is not going away from the thread’s intention about legal vulnerability. My intent was legal defense ability by showing you prepared for less lethal force, but had to shoot. If you had no other preparations it would seem that you planned to shoot your way out of anything. Though I welcome all discussion.

Those examples are very different than “minimum force necessary “ they are more of couldn’t use the gun or gun wasn’t appropriate situations

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

Those examples are very different than “minimum force necessary “ they are more of couldn’t use the gun or gun wasn’t appropriate situations

I apologize for causing that confusion. As I wrote, I don't disagree with you, because in my opinion, you're not wrong!

The application of minimum force necessary was expressed by me in the type of response force, not limit of response. My communication of my point was (and perhaps still is) not clear.

[Ed L]

Martial arts: I have had this article around for awhile.

31 GONZLR 413 Page
(Cite as: 31 Gonz. L. Rev. 413)

Gonzaga Law Review
1995-96

*413 EMPTY HANDS, [FNa1]DEEP POCKETS: TORT LIABILITY AND POTENTIAL FOR
RECOVERY AGAINST INDIVIDUALS APPLYING MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING IN SELF-DEFENSE

Bryan P. Whitaker [FNaa1]

There may be newer articles around, but I recall this was sitting on my hard drive.

This seems like hype from the type of thinking that once believed that black belts had to register their hands as lethal weapons.

Martial arts and martial artists span a wide variety of practicality, applicability in real life and capabilities of the individual. Individual capabilities vary widely based on a whole host of attributes--how long they were training, what they were training in-how good they are, how strong and fast they are, their mental outlook and tenacity, strategy and tactics they employ, experience, etc..

In short, if I had to bet on either the Tae Kwon do black belt who lives across the street and an individual who just got out of prison after 5 years of hard time, my money would be on the ex-con.

I remember during the George Zimmerman trial the prosecutor called Zimmerman's mixed martial arts instructor to the stand and asked him about Zimmerman's martial arts training and how he could have used that to defend himself against Trayvon Martin.

The prosecutor did an amazing job of making himself look clueless.

First, he asked Zimmerman's martial arts instructor whether Zimmerman could have used some type of arm lock against someone mounting him and pounding his head in. Anyone who knows anything about fighting, much less MMA knows this is an impossibility in real life unless the attacker is a small child.

Then the prosecutor asked the MMA instructor about Zimmerman's martial arts skills. The instructor answered that they were pretty weak.

Bottom line, if you are an in shape 20-40 year old MMA practitioner and get attacked by an unarmed geriatric, doing a double leg followed by a ground and pound will get you in trouble, will get you in trouble when you could have ended the attack using less force.

[Earlymonk]

Noticed this reply from BUSA in another thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?31026-FYI-Beretta-PX4-FS-DAO-trade-ins-for-259&p=738266&viewfull=1#post738266):


Thank you for contacting Beretta Customer Support.
Sir, the following parts, with part numbers, are required to convert a "D" model to a "C" model.
SNIP
Please be aware that Beretta does not recommend and modifications from original factory configuration, this is for informational purposes only.
Best regards,
Beretta Customer Support

Underlining is mine for emphasis...and I think she/he meant "any" not "and."

[NH Shooter]

I have found that the majority of the friction and unevenness in a pistol's action likely does not come from the hammer/sear interface, and therefore cannot be eliminated by any amount of work on those parts. Comprehensively eliminating manufacturing defects (or artifacts) from the entire mechanism so that every surface that slides against another surface is reasonably smooth (not necessarily "polished," but the big bumps and the peaks of the high points flattened) generally yields excellent results. Most of the time, it is sufficiently good that one forgets any ideas one might have had about changing springs. So I tend to think that changing springs without a comprehensive action detailing and cleanup is a backward approach. And the factory design for the geometry, including pre-travel, creep, reset, etc. works just fine.

This describes my recently-purchased Walther PPQ to a T. The pull out-of-the-box was horrid at best, the long DA pull hanging up in several spots due to rough spots on the trigger bar. A light clean-up of the bar by hand using only metal polishing paste on cleaning patches, along with cleaning and proper lubrication totally resolved the issue.

The question in my mind is would this correction of a factory defect constitute a "modified trigger" in a court of law?

[Mas]

This describes my recently-purchased Walther PPQ to a T. The pull out-of-the-box was horrid at best, the long DA pull hanging up in several spots due to rough spots on the trigger bar. A light clean-up of the bar by hand using only metal polishing paste on cleaning patches, along with cleaning and proper lubrication totally resolved the issue.

The question in my mind is would this correction of a factory defect constitute a "modified trigger" in a court of law?

FWIW, I've done a number of hair trigger cases going back to the early 1980's, and have not yet seen an allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was that the trigger pull was too LIGHT.

[NH Shooter]

FWIW, I've done a number of hair trigger cases going back to the early 1980's, and have not yet seen an allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was that the trigger pull was too LIGHT.

Mas, thanks for your insight!

BTW, I have a number of your books from when they were available from Police bookshelf in Concord. At the time I believe you lived in Dunbarton, NH - my wife and I now reside in Bedford (not far at all from Dunbarton, for those not familiar with NH). We enjoy passing through Dunbarton on our way to Concord and you always come to mind when we do.

[OlongJohnson]

FWIW, I've done a number of hair trigger cases going back to the early 1980's, and have not yet seen an allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was that the trigger pull was too LIGHT.

To add a decimal point...

Have you ever seen or been briefed about an allegation that the pull was too light when all the springs were original factory spec?

I guess I should qualify that by saying, outside of cases where someone or was alleged to have cocked a DA/SA pistol or revolver into single action prior to the first shot? (Because this thread is meant to be about modifications, not manual of arms selection.)

[Mas]

To add a decimal point...

Have you ever seen or been briefed about an allegation that the pull was too light when all the springs were original factory spec?

I guess I should qualify that by saying, outside of cases where someone or was alleged to have cocked a DA/SA pistol or revolver into single action prior to the first shot? (Because this thread is meant to be about modifications, not manual of arms selection.)

Kind of a mixed bag there, bro. In one case, they made a big deal out of two coils having been removed from an S&W Model 64's trigger return spring, and Janet Reno's puppets found a prostitute expert to testify that this had made the gun "more lethal, with greater firepower." This was in tandem with a false cocked gun allegation, and at a time when S&W Armorer's School approved that modification for on-duty service revolvers, an approval that subsequently disappeared IIRC. As a general rule, the Firearms and Toolmark Examiner at the crime lab will weigh the trigger of the evidence gun, and that pull weight will be compared to the gun manufacturer's (NOT the aftermarket trigger manufacturer's) specs for "duty use" to determine whether or not it was below standard.

What makes the cocked gun argument relevant is that when the other side is trying to establish negligence, the allegation that "the defendant made the gun too easy to shoot" is the core of the thing, just as it is with a lighter than factory spec trigger pull. Two sides of the same coin.

[Nocturnalis Discipulo]

To clarify how would say a Wilson Combat gun be considered, a custom gun or a production gun? If production would that mean that anyone that sold guns as a package after doing custom work be considered factory? BehindBlueI's Mas

[BehindBlueI's]

To clarify how would say a Wilson Combat gun be considered, a custom gun or a production gun? If production would that mean that anyone that sold guns as a package after doing custom work be considered factory? BehindBlueI's Mas

Akatrd asked earlier in the thread. My response was:


Once again going by what City Legal is apparently ok with, my department has Scattergun Technologies 870s so I'd be fine with carrying it.

Speculating, but I suspect that it's a tough sell for "them" to argue a OEM or near OEM's "custom shop" isn't really just another variation on the factory gun. Ie, I can buy a Sig Nitron or SAS or Rainbow Bright or Diamondplate or...you get the idea. A Sig Custom Shop gun is, IMO, difficult for a lawyer to differentiate in a juror's mind as not just another factory gun.


As far as "anyone"...I don't know that I'd go that far. Joe Tabletop might not be viewed the same as the big boys. I don't know where the hair would be split, but my gut says the smaller the shop and the less likely the shop is to have corporate attorneys on the payroll, the more likely it could be an issue. Again, hair splitting most likely.

[Mas]

To clarify how would say a Wilson Combat gun be considered, a custom gun or a production gun? If production would that mean that anyone that sold guns as a package after doing custom work be considered factory? BehindBlueI's Mas

More uncharted territory. Very few shootings involve $2000-$3000 semi-custom 1911s. When the allegation is "negligent adjustment of a machine, death or serious injury resulting," there are essentially two standards, one or both of which might apply. One, of course, is manufacturer specification for duty use (as opposed to a dedicated target or sport pistol). The other is "common custom and practice," i.e., how do people who use these machines for a living under working conditions (read: "under extreme stress" for the topic at hand) recommend the machine be adjusted? If a boutique maker put a 3-pound trigger in the gun, you're covered on the first standard but not the second. 1911's at the time of their adoption had a Government spec of 5-7 pound triggers; last I knew Colt armorer's school recommended 4 pounds minimum for a serious business 1911 (you can give Wayne Dobbs a shout-out here to see if that's still up to date); and NRA has long had a 4 pound minimum for a 1911 used in the Distinguished and President's Hundred matches for service pistols. That rounds out to a "common custom and practice" of four pounds minimum.

It doesn't cost anyone anything but their own recreational time here to advocate light triggers on an Internet gun forum. It costs several hundred dollars per hour for your lawyer and your expert witness each to debate the issue in court, and you have to consider the many hours beforehand that both will be putting in to prepare for the case, the motion in limine which may or may not keep the pull weight issue out of evidence at trial, etc. We all need to balance that against what advantage one pound of trigger pull weight will be in a typical defensive use of a firearm.

As always in any important decision, "cost/benefit analysis."

[Toonces]

FWIW, I've done a number of hair trigger cases going back to the early 1980's, and have not yet seen an allegation that the trigger pull was too SMOOTH. Every single time, the allegation was that the trigger pull was too LIGHT.

A quick look at the Glock, H&K, S&W, and Beretta websites shows a mixed bag of readily available information. Glock 17/19/26 Gen 4/5 show 5.5 lbs (seems like a reasonable pull weight). The Gen 4 G34 is 4.5 lbs but the G5 G34 is 5.4 lbs. S&W refers to the "Crisp trigger with lighter trigger pull" for the M&P 2.0 but no info on the pull weight. H&K shows 11.47/4.5 lbs for the DA/SA P2000, but no data for any LEM variant. Beretta doesn't seem to list pull weights. Feel free to correct me, I hope I'm completely wrong on the availability of this info and just wasn't looking in the right spot.

On another note...how accurate is your trigger pull gage if you are cutting is close? I've got 20 years of experience in industrial gages and calibration, so I'm used to spending big $$$ (other people's) for accurate gages and to get things calibrated. My personal trigger pull gage is not calibrated, and I wouldn't trust it to within 20-25% if I had to report data to the outside world. I would bet the state lab checking trigger pulls has calibrated gages. A trigger pull gage similar to my own (spring type) could easily be off a POUND on a 4-5 lb trigger pull compared to the calibrated gage the lab will use after your self defense shooting, putting your "good" trigger on the wrong side of factory spec.

[Mas]

A quick look at the Glock, H&K, S&W, and Beretta websites shows a mixed bag of readily available information. Glock 17/19/26 Gen 4/5 show 5.5 lbs (seems like a reasonable pull weight). The Gen 4 G34 is 4.5 lbs but the G5 G34 is 5.4 lbs. S&W refers to the "Crisp trigger with lighter trigger pull" for the M&P 2.0 but no info on the pull weight. H&K shows 11.47/4.5 lbs for the DA/SA P2000, but no data for any LEM variant. Beretta doesn't seem to list pull weights. Feel free to correct me, I hope I'm completely wrong on the availability of this info and just wasn't looking in the right spot.

On another note...how accurate is your trigger pull gage if you are cutting is close? I've got 20 years of experience in industrial gages and calibration, so I'm used to spending big $$$ (other people's) for accurate gages and to get things calibrated. My personal trigger pull gage is not calibrated, and I wouldn't trust it to within 20-25% if I had to report data to the outside world. I would bet the state lab checking trigger pulls has calibrated gages. A trigger pull gage similar to my own (spring type) could easily be off a POUND on a 4-5 lb trigger pull compared to the calibrated gage the lab will use after your self defense shooting, putting your "good" trigger on the wrong side of factory spec.

When in doubt, contact the manufacturer and ask them for their minimum duty trigger pull weight spec on the given firearm. Wouldn't hurt to get it in writing.

If in doubt as to the veracity of your pull gauge, check it against a second pull gauge.

[OlongJohnson]

Or do it the old fashioned way with gravity.

[Ed L]

Kind of a mixed bag there, bro. In one case, they made a big deal out of two coils having been removed from an S&W Model 64's trigger return spring, and Janet Reno's puppets found a prostitute expert to testify that this had made the gun "more lethal, with greater firepower." This was in tandem with a false cocked gun allegation, and at a time when S&W Armorer's School approved that modification for on-duty service revolvers, an approval that subsequently disappeared IIRC. As a general rule, the Firearms and Toolmark Examiner at the crime lab will weigh the trigger of the evidence gun, and that pull weight will be compared to the gun manufacturer's (NOT the aftermarket trigger manufacturer's) specs for "duty use" to determine whether or not it was below standard.

What makes the cocked gun argument relevant is that when the other side is trying to establish negligence, the allegation that "the defendant made the gun too easy to shoot" is the core of the thing, just as it is with a lighter than factory spec trigger pull. Two sides of the same coin.

The reason that the other side was trying to establish negligence is because the defendant in this case, Miami Officer Luis Alvarez initially, initially claimed that the shooting was accidental, which was a key factor in this case which brought into focus questions about what type of modifications Alvarez might have done to his gun, or other factors that could lead to a negligent discharge.

Luis Alvarez was a Miami police officer who was holding someone at gunpoint in a video arcade while searching him and felt a suspicious bulge. When Officer Alvarez asked him what it was, the suspect replied that it was a gun. While Alvarez and his partner were struggling to disarm the man since the gun was stuck the suspect's clothing, the suspect spun toward Alvarez with his arm moving in a manner that was similar to that of drawing a firearm. Alvarez could only see that the suspect's upper right arm was coming forward and fired, killing the suspect.

If there wasn't the initial claim of an accidental discharge, and the officer articulated that he knew that the man had a gun and the man's actions were consistent with bringing a gun to fire, and thus he feared for his life and shot him, I don't see trigger weight or modifications being an issue. Being liability averse, after this the Miami PD modified all of their revolvers to be double action only. As did the NYPD with all newly issued revolvers. Likewise their Glock 19s use a special NY2 trigger that has a 12-13lb pull. There is a saying I have heard again and again in Policework that a department would rather pay for an officer's funeral than deal with a lawsuit.

Police departments have standard issue weapons, and if an officer modifies it in non-approved ways, such as action jobs, lighter triggers, etc, they risk departmental discipline if they get caught, and having the department not support them if they get involved in a shooting.

Having said all this about trigger weights, there are guns with triggers that I feel are far too light for anything, period. Someone I met at a gun range handed me an STI 1911 that apparently had some work done on it to check out. After checking it ensure that it was empty I brought it up to a target to dryfire and the trigger discharged as soon as my finger touched it. The person offered me a loaded magazine to put into the gun to fire some live rounds, and I responded, "No thanks, I'm good."

[OlongJohnson]

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the initial claim of an accidental discharge in the Alvarez case. That’s the same thing that got the Hi Power mag disconnect guy in trouble.

[GardoneVT]

Before we go down the road of “I said it was intentional and that’s that”, note also that there’s research (the German police study among others) which states that some people will trigger check under stress regardless of their training. Refuting an accusation of negligence will not be an open/shut discussion.

Let’s also discuss the minority politics of this in 2018: it’s an ugly subject but the grim reality of being legally armed and light skinned in the 21st century is a nonzero risk of being a political target. If the defender is white and the shot attacker is a minority, the case is likely to be scrutinized extremely closely with a high likelihood of charges (supported by evidence or not) being filed. If a LEO can be charged and jailed for the sake of political appeasement regardless of the case facts, do not think for a moment any of us (including me) are exempt from this risk. A modified pistol is an excellent way to give a DA under public pressure the hook for a criminal charge.

Note that the media circus around Zimmerman (and Luis Alvarez) was in a relatively pro-gun state. Picture how that’d have played out in downtown LA or Baltimore.

[BehindBlueI's]

On another note...how accurate is your trigger pull gage if you are cutting is close? I've got 20 years of experience in industrial gages and calibration, so I'm used to spending big $$$ (other people's) for accurate gages and to get things calibrated. My personal trigger pull gage is not calibrated, and I wouldn't trust it to within 20-25% if I had to report data to the outside world. I would bet the state lab checking trigger pulls has calibrated gages.

This is from my most recent Crime Lab report on a self-defense shooting:


The trigger pull was tested and resulted in a range of 6.51 to 6.61 pounds.

[StraitR]

To clarify how would say a Wilson Combat gun be considered, a custom gun or a production gun? If production would that mean that anyone that sold guns as a package after doing custom work be considered factory?


When in doubt, contact the manufacturer and ask them for their minimum duty trigger pull weight spec on the given firearm. Wouldn't hurt to get it in writing.

If in doubt as to the veracity of your pull gauge, check it against a second pull gauge.

Wilson Combat lists 3.5 - 4.5lbs as standard weight for their guns. If you build one, you can spec whatever you want, but if you buy off the rack from Wilson or a dealer, that's your window.

My Wilson Compact Carry Professional averages 3.74lbs after nearly two years of use. I do do carry it daily, so I can't say I'm in love with that weight given the information shared by Mas above.

[OlongJohnson]

Before we go down the road of “I said it was intentional and that’s that”, note also that there’s research (the German police study among others) which states that some people will trigger check under stress regardless of their training. Refuting an accusation of negligence will not be an open/shut discussion.

Right, but it seems relevant that in two of the big cases most commonly referenced for modifications having been used as an element to support a negligence allegation, the initial claim of non-intent to shoot came from the defendant. It wasn't something the prosecution just made up out of thin air, but the tendency in the gun community is to discuss the cases as if it was.

(Just to keep things from getting mixed up, the allegation of cocking into SA mode apparently was fabricated in the Alvarez case, but not in the Hi Power guy's case - neither of which has anything to do with hardware modification.)

[Ed L]

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the initial claim of an accidental discharge in the Alvarez case. That’s the same thing that got the Hi Power mag disconnect guy in trouble.

The fact that Alvarez initially claimed that it was an accidental shooting has largely been forgotten or left out of a lot of dialog when referencing the case in discussion. This is why questions about modification to the gun and whether it was cocked arose. Keep in mind that case was 26 years ago! Had Alvarez not initially claimed that it was an accidental shooting a lot of the material that came up regarding modifications to the gun or questioning was it cocked would not have been relevant.

Speaking of Police modifying revolvers to fire D/A auto, if I remember correctly the sadly departed but superb firearms instructor Pat Rogers once relayed one of his experiences during the 20 years he spent on the NYPD (I believe he retired in 1993). He and another detective met two officers from another unit and were proceeding up a stairway to a suspect's apartment when he heard the distinctive sound of a hammer being clicked. Pat froze, turned around and commanded the man in quite colorful terms to uncock that revolver. One of the last things that you want to be doing is proceeding up a flight of stairs in a tense situation is having someone with a cocked revolver behind you.

Some time after that (in the 1980s) the NYPD started issuing revolvers that were double action only.

I can see the value in that because it prevents lesser trained people from cocking it at inappropriate times. The only time I could see the ability to cock a revolver being useful is if an officer was behind cover and had to take a difficult shot. I like having the ability to cock the hammer on my few full sized revolvers because it makes it easier to sight the gun by firing in single action. Also, for recreation purposes it is sometimes nice to have the single action capability to take more difficult shots on the range. All of this is academic to NYPD revolvers, since all of them were issued with fixed sights so there was no sighting-in.

My S&W 640 is D/A only and I prefer it that way that since I use it for pocket carry where not having a hammer gives it a smooth profile that can easily be drawn from the pocket. Besides, for my likely defensive use with it at the types of distances and circumstances I am likely to encounter, S/A fire is not likely to ever be needed.

[Ed L]

Before we go down the road of “I said it was intentional and that’s that”, note also that there’s research (the German police study among others) which states that some people will trigger check under stress regardless of their training. Refuting an accusation of negligence will not be an open/shut discussion.

I know that you are a Beretta guy. Are your guns set to be D/A only?


Let’s also discuss the minority politics of this in 2018: it’s an ugly subject but the grim reality of being legally armed and light skinned in the 21st century is a nonzero risk of being a political target. If the defender is white and the shot attacker is a minority, the case is likely to be scrutinized extremely closely with a high likelihood of charges (supported by evidence or not) being filed. If a LEO can be charged and jailed for the sake of political appeasement regardless of the case facts, do not think for a moment any of us (including me) are exempt from this risk. A modified pistol is an excellent way to give a DA under public pressure the hook for a criminal charge.

Note that the media circus around Zimmerman (and Luis Alvarez) was in a relatively pro-gun state. Picture how that’d have played out in downtown LA or Baltimore.

If we are going to take that outlook we may as well expect that the D/A will try to paint anyone who had a carry permit or did a lot of training to be characterized as "someone who was obsessed with guns and just looking for an excuse to shoot someone--since their lifestyle did not involve transporting large amounts of cash that would make them a target for a robbery, and they were not engaged in any type of life style that would likely lead them to encounter criminals.

The truth is, that there have been a lot of defensive shootings since Zimmerman, including cross racial ones and most of them did not go to trial. There were some very specific elements in the Zimmerman that led it going to trial--the cross racial nature of it and the avoidability of the shooting--the fact that Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to go looking for someone who was otherwise not a direct threat to him or anyone else.

[Joe in PNG]

The truth is, that there have been a lot of defensive shootings since Zimmerman, including cross racial ones and most of them did not go to trial. There were some very specific elements in the Zimmerman that led it going to trial--the cross racial nature of it and the avoidability of the shooting--the fact that Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to go looking for someone who was otherwise not a direct threat to him or anyone else.

There's also the timing- just a few months before the 2012 election. It's the kind of event (racist white guy shoots black kid, and he's protected by racist laws*) that is good for getting people to turn out and vote.

*which is not what happened, but that's how it was portrayed.

[NH Shooter]

I measured the "smoothed up" trigger pull on my PPQ just now: it consistently holds just over 5 pounds of weight, but will not reliably hold 5 lbs. - 4 ounces. This is using a large Ziploc bag holding the weights with a zip tie looped through the bag and around the trigger.

The factory spec for the PPQ is stated as "around 5.6 pounds." Internet research indicates some variation in pull weight out of the box, and that some samples can drop to as low as 4.5 pounds after extended use.

It should be noted that before I buffed the trigger bar and applied grease to a few high-friction points, the pull on my sample was rough and uneven. There was one rough spot in the pull (where the trigger bar engages the firing pin safety plunger) that required quite a bit of force to overcome, certainly a lot more than 5.6 pounds if I did a slow pull.

My take away from all of this is that the trigger pull weight on the PPQ is significantly influenced by initial machining quality of the trigger bar, long term wear (smoothing of the rough spots) and lubrication. So once the trigger system parts are fully broken-in providing a nice, smooth pull, how does one deal with the resultant reduction in pull weight that appears inevitable with this trigger design?

The PPQ uses a trigger return spring that is easily replaced. One user researched aftermarket springs (http://www.waltherforums.com/forum/ppq/48039-spring-replacement-increase-trigger-pull.html) and found a few that are dimensional identical but slightly heavier, adding about 1/4 to one pound of weight to the pull. Using one of these replacement springs (not Walther parts) would bring the pull weight on my PPQ up to just over the factory spec. While I'm not uncomfortable with a long DA pull of around five pounds, considering how smooth the pull now is I don't believe getting it closer to six pounds would cause me any upset.

So would replacing the factory trigger return spring with a heavier aftermarket one to increase the pull weight pose a potential legal liability?

My layman's inclination is that it would not, especially considering I have already "modified the trigger" by buffing the rough spots on the trigger bar (instead of waiting for them to wear away from use). As Mas stated, the argument is never about "too smooth" but rather "too light" especially in combination with any trigger part that could be construed as user-modified.

[GardoneVT]

There were some very specific elements in the Zimmerman that led it going to trial--the cross racial nature of it and the avoidability of the shooting....

George Zimmerman is not Caucasian.

[Ed L]

George Zimmerman is not Caucasian.

True. But he was being described as a "white Hispanic" by some and it was being treated as a black vs. white issue by many.

[StraitR]

True. But he was being described as a "white Hispanic" by some and it was being treated as a black vs. white issue by many.

Zimmerman was being called "white" until it was made public that he was registered to vote in Florida as "Hispanic", at which point CNN coined him "white Hispanic" just to keep "white" in the story.

It goes to show how facts can be twisted to best fit pre-conceived ideas, agendas, or a narrative. Modifications, however simple and innocent they seem to gun owners, are subject to the same interpretation, vilification, and misrepresentation to achieve the desired affect, be that on public perception or a jury.

[Ed L]

Zimmerman was being called "white" until it was made public that he was registered to vote in Florida as "Hispanic", at which point CNN coined him "white Hispanic" just to keep "white" in the story.

It goes to show how facts can be twisted to best fit pre-conceived ideas, agendas, or a narrative. Modifications, however simple and innocent they seem to gun owners, are subject to the same interpretation, vilification, and misrepresentation to achieve the desired affect, be that on public perception or a jury.

Following that logic a regular person who has a carry permit or who takes training classes can be cast as someone looking for an excuse to kill someone. After all, no one needs a carry permit unless they are a terrorist or criminal target, like a District attorney, or they are involved in carrying large amounts of money that might make them a criminal target.

I remember reading Massad Ayoob's topic on Glock Talk where someone actually asked him replacing a worn recoil spring in a Glock would look bad in court. This is the absurd extreme that some people have taken this to.

Most legit defensive shootings don't even wind up in court unless there was something questionable or the shooter did something really stupid that led to a shooting that was otherwise avoidable (like leaving their car to search for someone like Zimmerman, or leaving the safety of their house to confront someone who otherwise wasn't a threat to them or anyone else).

Here is a link to a shooting that took place inside of New York City where the storeowner used a pistol gripped shotgun to shoot 4 robbers, only one of whom had a gun, killing two of the 4. The shooting was not even brought before a grand jury, nor was the shooter arrested for the shooting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/nyregion/14shoot.html

Another category of encounters that often land people in court is shooting someone they know or had a long running beef with. This raises the question was the person who shot them was a participant in an argument that escalated or was it a legit case of self defense.

As already discussed, accidental discharges are another matter, and things that might make the gun more likely to discharge accidentally will be an issue.

And what specifically are we talking about with modifications? A trigger job that allows you to shoot the gun more accurately shoot that lots of people do? Different sights that are easier to see that make the gun more accurate to shoot or more suitable for defensive use? Having a gunsmith remove the groove in the inside bottom of the trigger guard of the HK P30 and HK45 that can sometimes painfully wack your trigger finger during recoil?

Bottom line is don't do anything to the gun that makes you stand out like a wierdo or unbalanced person or someone with an agenda--like duracoat the gun the colors of the confederate flag or have Nazi thunderbolts engraved on it.

On the other hand there have been burglars shot with war souvenir and collectable Lugars without ths homeowner being charged or being labelled a Nazi:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/84-year-old-korean-war-vet-shoots-burglar-german-luger-pistol-war-article-1.1074925

[NH Shooter]

Most legit defensive shootings don't even wind up in court unless there was something questionable or the shooter did something really stupid that led to a shooting that was otherwise avoidable (like leaving their car to search for someone like Zimmerman, or leaving the safety of their house to confront someone who otherwise wasn't a threat to them or anyone else).


And what specifically are we talking about with modifications? A trigger job that allows you to shoot the gun more accurately shoot that lots of people do? Different sights that are easier to see that make the gun more accurate to shoot or more suitable for defensive use? Having a gunsmith remove the groove in the inside bottom of the trigger guard of the HK P30 and HK45 that can sometimes painfully wack your trigger finger during recoil?


Bottom line is don't do anything to the gun that makes you stand out like a wierdo or unbalanced person or someone with an agenda--like duracoat the gun the colors of the confederate flag or have Nazi thunderbolts engraved on it.


All really great points.

As responsible, conscientious people we tend to think in terms of worst case scenarios, which is certainly a good way to discuss the "what ifs" of armed self defense. While we can discuss the minutia to ridiculous detail (good to do, IMO), the minutia will only matter if you do something substantially stupid to start with. I believe discussions such as these further inoculate us from momentary lapses of good judgement as well.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Please think of how long this thread has gone one.

Please think of how much debate has gone into determining what is custom, what is factory, if factory configuration swaps are okay & the like...

All on a well educated, pro-gun board.

Here’s my opinion:

Modified firearms aren’t the kiss of death as some people think they are, but you need to look at them in the context of the aftermath’s most important component:

“The Sale”

To whom are you selling the package?

You are selling it to:

Da Po-Po
Lawyers & Politicians
Media (somewhat)

Yes. You can use a modified firearm.
No. The scope of those modifications are no going to be as broad as you would like.

Do as little as possible to screw the sales pitch of yourself as the reasonable person.

There is a gradient of reasonable in modified firearms.

Things like factory configuration swaps in which a gunsmith used factory parts to turn a gun X(1) into a X(2), or the Glock 3.5/NY-1 combination are on one end over here with buying factory customized guns like Wilson Beretta things...

On the other end are people who remove firing pin safeties from Guns to get s better trigger...


Remember that convoluted explanations usually suck. If your explanations for your gun involve extreme detail & require advanced knowledge then it’s a tough sell.

[David S.]

In conclusion, I respectfully recommend (1) Trigger pull in keeping with the gun manufacturer's minimum or greater duty spec;

Because of this thread, I asked Beretta Customer Support about the PX4 Storm. They don't have a trigger weight spec for their guns, "Duty" or otherwise. Ernest Langdon and a couple other folks with extensive PX4 experience also report that there is no such thing. Unlike Glock, for instance, Beretta doesn't even advertise trigger weights on their website. The best I can find with a quick google search is reported weights from gun reviews.

What does "manufacturer's minimum duty spec" mean? Where would one find such information? How would one apply this recommendation if the spec doesn't exist?

Respectfully,
David S.

[Mas]

I'm surprised to hear that, David. They usually cover that in the factory armorer's school. Alas, I have never been to Beretta armorer's school.

[OlongJohnson]

It's been awhile, but if I recall correctly, the military armorer's manual for the M9 has a pull spec, including detailed description of the approved measurement procedure.

[David S.]

I'm surprised to hear that, David. They usually cover that in the factory armorer's school. Alas, I have never been to Beretta armorer's school.

Mas,

It was a surprise to me too.

I asked about the same question (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29049-Trigger-Job-in-a-Bag-PX4-amp-92-Series&p=761182&viewfull=1#post761182) in another thread and here's the response that Ernest Langdon gave when I asked him. (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29049-Trigger-Job-in-a-Bag-PX4-amp-92-Series&p=761610&viewfull=1#post761610) P-F members PX4 Storm Tracker and SD Storm, who both have significant experience with the platform, were also unaware of a "duty spec." I've PM'd you Beretta Customer Service's response to my inquiry, but they also said there's no standard spec.

Cheers,
David

[PX4 Storm Tracker]

Mas,

It was a surprise to me too.

I asked about the same question (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29049-Trigger-Job-in-a-Bag-PX4-amp-92-Series&p=761182&viewfull=1#post761182) in another thread and here's the response that Ernest Langdon gave when I asked him. (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?29049-Trigger-Job-in-a-Bag-PX4-amp-92-Series&p=761610&viewfull=1#post761610) P-F members PX4 Storm Tracker and SD Storm, who both have significant experience with the platform, were also unaware of a "duty spec." I've PM'd you Beretta Customer Service's response to my inquiry, but they also said there's no standard spec.

Cheers,
David

Unfortunately, trigger pull weights are not reliable measurements sometimes.
If a pistol is very dirty, lacks lubrication or has parts that have worn in, trigger pull weight can be affected and yet the hammer strike delivered to the firing pin plunger would be equal.
The companies will determine how hard the firing pin will be hit as a standard. But, this is not necessarily indicated in trigger pull weight.

[OlongJohnson]

It's been awhile, but if I recall correctly, the military armorer's manual for the M9 has a pull spec, including detailed description of the approved measurement procedure.

Do a search for "ARMY TM 9-1005-317-23" to find this document in PDF.

Page 0017 00-2 has the trigger pull test.

Specs are:
4.1 to 6.5 lb for SA
9.6 to 16.5 lb for DA

This is a post-maintenance function check, so it is intended to be done with everything thoroughly clean and appropriately lubed, and any operational/component issues already corrected.

[David S.]

What are the official minimum "Duty Use" trigger weight specifications (double action and single action) for of the G model PX4 and PX4 Compact?

Thanks,
David S


Hello David:

Thank you for contacting Beretta Customer Support.

I have spoken with our Product Management team and the engineers. There is no trigger weight specifications because the firearm is developed to meet NATO specifications of firing pin indent depth. The trigger weight can vary dramatically to achieve the proper indent depth on the primer of a spent casing. Since there is a linear correlation between trigger weight and indent depth when the depth needs to be slightly adjusted the trigger weight can go up or down depending on the depth of the primer indent. Thus we have not set trigger weight specifications or weight range specifications.

Furthermore, minimum and maximum trigger weights would be set via a contract and not by us. Meaning if the military or other agency was to purchase a new duty weapon they could specify in the contract that the trigger weight cannot be below a certain weight or above a certain weight. However, the indent depth need to met for these contract and we would test weight prior to shipping under these circumstances. This would be the only use for the minimum "Duty Use" trigger weight specification and since the indent depth of the primer is the more important of the two specifications that is what we use.

Best regards,

Beretta Customer Support

[Bill]

I really think your focus on "duty" pull weight is misplaced. Think about it instead as stock v. modified at the user level. If your concern is over legal ramifications, you should NOT expect any sort of nuanced or articulable argument being a safe bet in a court room. All the prosecutor has to say is user modified, and no explanation of pull weight or articulating trigger control is gonna 100% undo that. Wanna avoid that? Don't modify your gun from stock in any mechanical way, simple.

[BehindBlueI's]

Moved to Reference Section.

A recent case made me think of this thread and the Punisher engraving thread again.

I can't/won't comment on it publicly much at this point, but a case that I believe to be a clear self defense shooting is pending prosecutorial decision. The prosecutor has specifically requested trigger pull weight prior to making a final determination. The shooter did not claim an unintended discharge and did provide a statement that they intended to shoot the decedent.