Modifying factory safety features to other factory configurations

[Suvorov]

One thing I just thought of,

What are the chances that the fire control group would be made available for those of us with legacy guns to retrofit? Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?

(CULLED FROM SA-35 thread - Mod)

[WobblyPossum]

Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?

First things first, I am not a lawyer of any kind. I think that if an overzealous prosecutor found out you removed a safety mechanism from the gun and wanted to bring it up during your trial, they would. The fact that another manufacturer makes a similar gun that lacks this mechanism doesn’t matter because you used your gun, not the other gun. You’d be paying your attorneys extra for the time it takes to address these points before and during trial, which may include research and consultation and testimony from expert witnesses. It’s up to you if having a better BHP trigger is worth the extra financial risk. I have a hard time thinking of a scenario where the thing determining whether or not your shooting goes to trial is your removal of the magazine disconnect. It’ll either be brought up because you’re going to trial or no one will care because you aren’t.

[Stephanie B]

Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?


First things first, I am not a lawyer of any kind. I think that if an overzealous prosecutor found out you removed a safety mechanism from the gun and wanted to bring it up during your trial, they would. The fact that another manufacturer makes a similar gun that lacks this mechanism doesn’t matter because you used your gun, not the other gun. You’d be paying your attorneys extra for the time it takes to address these points before and during trial, which may include research and consultation and testimony from expert witnesses. It’s up to you if having a better BHP trigger is worth the extra financial risk. I have a hard time thinking of a scenario where the thing determining whether or not your shooting goes to trial is your removal of the magazine disconnect. It’ll either be brought up because you’re going to trial or no one will care because you aren’t.

Mas has written about this before and it's been discussed ad nauseum here. Short answer: If you're going to take out safety mechanisms, designate that gun as a range toy/competition only gun. the last thing you want to do with a CCW gun is to create an issue that gives the other side, be it state's attorney or the attorney for the bad guy (or his relatives) an argument to hang you with. You'll have to hire experts to argue that removing the disconnector had no bearing on the use of the gun for self-defense. My guess is that'll cost you tens of thousands to do, on top of the other legal expenses.

In soccer, they call that an "own goal".

I bought a kind-of gunked-up Series 80 LW Commander from a widow. Her late husband had blanked off the Series 80 firing pin safety. The very first thing I did was buy the parts to restore that to operation.

[MandoWookie]

Mas has written about this before and it's been discussed ad nauseum here. Short answer: If you're going to take out safety mechanisms, designate that gun as a range toy/competition only gun. the last thing you want to do with a CCW gun is to create an issue that gives the other side, be it state's attorney or the attorney for the bad guy (or his relatives) an argument to hang you with. You'll have to hire experts to argue that removing the disconnector had no bearing on the use of the gun for self-defense. My guess is that'll cost you tens of thousands to do, on top of the other legal expenses.

In soccer, they call that an "own goal".

I bought a kind-of gunked-up Series 80 LW Commander from a widow. Her late husband had blanked off the Series 80 firing pin safety. The very first thing I did was buy the parts to restore that to operation.

I keep seeing this repeated, and while I mostly agree, how would this advice apply to guns that have 2 versions available , one with safety, and one without?
For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function? Because you are removing a safety feature. Or how about switching to decocker only on a Beretta 92? You are removing a factory safety.
If the argument is that those are factory parts and the company makes guns in variations that match the modification, then the argument about not removing something like the series 80 FPS falls flat because Colt offers guns both with and without that feature, and I have seen references to them using slides cut for that feature in Series 70 guns that simply didnt install those parts. Functionally identical to someone who had removed it.

[FrankB]

Has anyone ever been found guilty because they’ve modified a gun’s safety features?

[Stephanie B]

I keep seeing this repeated, and while I mostly agree, how would this advice apply to guns that have 2 versions available , one with safety, and one without?
For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function? Because you are removing a safety feature. Or how about switching to decocker only on a Beretta 92? You are removing a factory safety.
If the argument is that those are factory parts and the company makes guns in variations that match the modification, then the argument about not removing something like the series 80 FPS falls flat because Colt offers guns both with and without that feature, and I have seen references to them using slides cut for that feature in Series 70 guns that simply didnt install those parts. Functionally identical to someone who had removed it.

My recommendation would be to balance the cost of replacing the parts vs. the cost of swapping guns. Then figure out the likelihood of a SD shooting and the cost of having to argue those points in court before a jury, some of whom may have never held a gun in their lives.

Buying a gun that the factory didn't install feature X is a whole different kettle of fish than yanking out feature x.

[OlongJohnson]

Has anyone ever been found guilty because they’ve modified a gun’s safety features?

One of the two cases that are widely used to illustrate the risks of deactivating a "safety device" or modifying a gun's trigger specifically involved a Hi Power with the magazine disconnect removed. Mas has written about it extensively. The Hi Power was not involved in the shooting; it was used as a range gun and was merely in the possession of the person who shot a violent attacker. The removed magazine disconnect was argued to constitute evidence that the shooter was generally reckless/negligent with firearms.

There is a lot more to the case than that, however. In both that and the other high-profile example case (police shooting in FL), the hardware issue arose after the fact when the defendant initially stated that he didn't intend to fire the gun, then changed to claiming self-defense. The altered hardware was then used by prosecutors to lever each case back toward the negligence angle that arose from the initial situation of having shot someone without that being the intent.

If I recall correctly, one was convicted, one was acquitted.


I keep seeing this repeated, and while I mostly agree, how would this advice apply to guns that have 2 versions available , one with safety, and one without?
For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function? Because you are removing a safety feature. Or how about switching to decocker only on a Beretta 92? You are removing a factory safety.
If the argument is that those are factory parts and the company makes guns in variations that match the modification, then the argument about not removing something like the series 80 FPS falls flat because Colt offers guns both with and without that feature, and I have seen references to them using slides cut for that feature in Series 70 guns that simply didnt install those parts. Functionally identical to someone who had removed it.

Or take the example of Buck Mark pistols. They didn't have a magazine disconnect for a few decades, then they did. If a person has older and newer Buck Marks in the safe, some came with it, some did not. The different hardware is entirely concealed beneath the right grip panel. How safe is it to have guns in the safe that appear essentially identical, but have different manual of arms? What if a person had experience with one or more of the guns that had a magazine disconnect feature, and then was handling one of the guns that did not have it. How would they know the difference, other than very close supervision or being competent and following the safety rules, in which case the magazine disconnect feature wouldn't matter? One could certainly argue that, since it is not practical to add the feature to the guns that were originally manufactured without it, it is actually safer overall to have all the guns function the same way by removing the feature from the guns that have it.

[MandoWookie]

My recommendation would be to balance the cost of replacing the parts vs. the cost of swapping guns. Then figure out the likelihood of a SD shooting and the cost of having to argue those points in court before a jury, some of whom may have never held a gun in their lives.

Buying a gun that the factory didn't install feature X is a whole different kettle of fish than yanking out feature x.

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?

What about with the current push of 'modularity' with guns like the SIG P320? Where they are marketing the ability to swap out nearly everything at the user level as a feature?

[mmc45414]

Buying a gun that the factory didn't install feature X is a whole different kettle of fish than yanking out feature x.
I agree, but...


For example the M&P series. If one were to buy a thumb safety model, but decide that it doesn't work for them, and swap out the parts for a non safety version, does that constitute a liable modification, despite it being identical to a factory gun variation in function?

Has anyone ever been found guilty because they’ve modified a gun’s safety features?

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?
I know this is a hotly debated topic, but in the case of the M&P how would it even be known? Not even sure the sear block is a different part?

[Stephanie B]

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?

What about with the current push of 'modularity' with guns like the SIG P320? Where they are marketing the ability to swap out nearly everything at the user level as a feature?

First paragraph: You pays your money and takes your chances.

Second paragraph: I don't know.

[Stephanie B]

I agree, but...

I know this is a hotly debated topic, but in the case of the M&P how would it even be known? Not even sure the sear block is a different part?

Can you determine the factory configuration from the serial number? Or you might get asked about it in discovery.

[MandoWookie]

The Hi Power was not involved in the shooting; it was used as a range gun and was merely in the possession of the person who shot a violent attacker. The removed magazine disconnect was argued to constitute evidence that the shooter was generally reckless/negligent with firearms.
.

Well there goes the ' okay for a range gun argument's'.
If we are doing hypotheticals,if you own a .44 magnum, and have a classic movies DVD collection, a lawyer will argue you were a Travis Bickle wannabe who was looking to kill someone, despite the actual incident involving an ATM robbery by a crackhead fought off with a pocket .380.
The mere fact that you thought you needed a gun at all could be used by a zealous prosecutor in some areas. Meanwhile in others you could open fire on a group people robbing a store from across a field with a full auto machinegun and never see the inside of a courtroom.
Using some common sense in your modifications and what you decide to carry is good advice, but trying to preemptively out lawyer a theoretical lawyer over pedantic minutiae should be way down the list of concerns.

[wvincent]

So if I bought an M&P with safety, bought factory fire control parts for converting it to non safety, bought the factory frame plugs, all of which are sold by the manufacturer in their own web store, to convert to the gun to a condition that is offered in parallel with the version I purchased, and is functionally identical to a gun I could purchase and carry with no issue, that would be somehow a possible legal liability?

What about with the current push of 'modularity' with guns like the SIG P320? Where they are marketing the ability to swap out nearly everything at the user level as a feature?

"So you created a firearm that was less safe than it was the day you purchased it?" could well be the question that your attorney has to resolve for you, hopefully successfully.
I don't know about you, but my representing council bills by the hour, I'm not eager to create more billable hours if I can help it.
That's why I don't deactivate anything. If I want a G Model 92, I buy it. I don't retrofit the safety parts. Even if it means waiting.
The only exception is I did have my K frame converted to DAO, and the hammer spur removed to quell "he had it cocked and it went off in an act of negligence".
It all harkens back to "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".
Or, how much do you want to spend at your trial or deposition ?

[FrankB]

My wife represents the NRA through Lloyd’s of London. She just told me that they do look for modifications done to firearms, but she’s never handled a case in which the firearm was altered. A lot of these injuries/deaths occur in California, and at ranges. She won’t give me permission to give names and cases.

[MandoWookie]

"So you created a firearm that was less safe than it was the day you purchased it?" could well be the question that your attorney has to resolve for you, hopefully successfully.
I don't know about you, but my representing council bills by the hour, I'm not eager to create more billable hours if I can help it.
That's why I don't deactivate anything. If I want a G Model 92, I buy it. I don't retrofit the safety parts. Even if it means waiting.
The only exception is I did have my K frame converted to DAO, and the hammer spur removed to quell "he had it cocked and it went off in an act of negligence".
It all harkens back to "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".
Or, how much do you want to spend at your trial or deposition ?

Holy crap. I hope they dont argue that putting this much documented forethought into how to beat the rap doesn't count as pre meditation in any incident you get into.

[wvincent]

Holy crap. I hope they dont argue that putting this much documented forethought into how to beat the rap doesn't count as pre meditation in any incident you get into.

What? That I don't believe in deactivating factory safety features or that I ended up with a heavier trigger weight?

ETA For Clarity: It all goes to why do I carry a concealed firearm. To protect the life of my family and self. Whether it be due to past employment or just the becoming the victim of a random criminal. Gun is just a tool. It needs to be accurate, and factory configurations are designed by engineers, who are way smarter than me. I really can't justify bypassing or removing a safety feature, nor do I expect my attorney, who know less about guns than I do, to do it. This is the shit that get you into "expert witness" scope of legal fees.

When someone like Mas gives it the stinkeye, I call that clue.

But hey, you do you, and good luck!!

Try looking at it like this: Think of your concealed carry gun as an LE officer's duty weapon. Now, how many dept's authorize the removal of safety features by individual officers?

[wvincent]

Can you determine the factory configuration from the serial number? Or you might get asked about it in discovery.

My cousin used to work for S&W in Houlton, ME, and he once explained to me that the serial # is tied to the configuration as it leaves the Factory.

[Hambo]

I was trying to decide if I should buy a retro pistol because SAS/HRT. However, all the "how many angels can dance on a Series 80 safety" discussion has convinced me not to let one, or anyone who owns one, near me or my property.

[OlongJohnson]

Using some common sense in your modifications and what you decide to carry is good advice, but trying to preemptively out lawyer a theoretical lawyer over pedantic minutiae should be way down the list of concerns.

From the two cases I mentioned, IMO, the most important lesson to be learned is, don't shoot someone and try to beat the ride by telling the (other) cops, "I didn't mean to."

Underpinning that is the imperative that if you shoot someone, you better actually have meant to do so. Conduct yourself accordingly.

[MandoWookie]

My cousin used to work for S&W in Houlton, ME, and he once explained to me that the serial # is tied to the configuration as it leaves the Factory.

Why if S&W is making a pistol with certain safety features, are they making a version that has less safety features? If one version of their product has thumb safety, mag safety, loaded chamber indicator, isn't anyone who purchases a version that lacks these features liable for buying an 'unsafe' weapon should they ever use it? They had the option, but they went out of their way to purchase something that didnt have these things.

[wvincent]

Why if S&W is making a pistol with certain safety features, are they making a version that has less safety features? If one version of their product has thumb safety, mag safety, loaded chamber indicator, isn't anyone who purchases a version that lacks these features liable for buying an 'unsafe' weapon should they ever use it? They had the option, but they went out of their way to purchase something that didnt have these things.

That's a great question for S&W.
Perhaps you could contact them and relay the answer to the rest of us?

[FrankB]

The mere fact that you thought you needed a gun at all could be used by a zealous prosecutor in some areas.

The guy who shot and killed an unarmed man over a handicap parking spot said that he only confronted him because his gun gave him the courage! The detective asked him if he had ever been in a fight before, and he said, “No. Not even in high school.” Detective: Weren’t you afraid to approach this (much larger) man?” Idiot: “No, because I had a gun.” Straight to Jail! Start at 34 minutes in the link below.


https://youtu.be/sv0iN5J-9mk

[OlongJohnson]

That's a great question for S&W.
Perhaps you could contact them and relay the answer to the rest of us?

No, don't. We don't want them to discontinue the handful of no-lock revolvers they still make.

[Oldherkpilot]

If you are going to carry a legacy HP with the magazine disconnector installed, your range gun should probably be in the same configuration. If, for some reason, you want to remove the magazine disconnector on your range gun, I strongly suggest you employ mouse trap magazines with with your carry gun. Otherwise, you'll have drop-free mags on your range gun and not on your carry gun.

[wvincent]

The guy who shot and killed an unarmed man over a handicap parking spot said that he only confronted him because his gun gave him the courage! The detective asked him if he had ever been in a fight before, and he said, “No. Not even in high school.” Detective: Weren’t you afraid to approach this (much larger) man?” Idiot: “No, because I had a gun.” Straight to Jail! Start at 34 minutes in the link below.


https://youtu.be/sv0iN5J-9mk

A great example of how minding ones own business is always in season.

[paherne]

One thing I just thought of,

What are the chances that the fire control group would be made available for those of us with legacy guns to retrofit? Would replacing the trigger mechanism with a SAI trigger sans magazine disconnect be less of a liability than simply removing the disconnect from the gun?

(CULLED FROM SA-35 thread - Mod)

This is location dependent. It's also why giving broad legal advice is problematic. Many of the cops in the county where you live are carrying pistols that have custom trigger work or aftermarket triggers. In the 30 plus years I have worked in said county, this has never been a issue in a legitimate self defense shooting. I'm not saying it can't happen, but this is one of those issues that is blown way out of proportion. Guy who watches a Youtube video and decides to "improve" his Glock by "filing" and makes it into a gun that doubles and triples, yeah, that'll be an issue. Someone who takes factory parts to a qualified gunsmith or armorer and has them replaced, probably not an issue. "It's a 50 year old gun and it started having mushy trigger/safety problems , so I took it to the gunsmith and had the trigger and safety replaced. The manufacturer no longer supports it with factory parts, so I had to use another manufacturer." Especially if it meets a standard, like the National Match trigger pull weights, will be rather defensible.

I am not a lawyer. I am not allowed to give legal advice. I also know most lawyers are not SMEs on the subject. We should get coffee sometime at the Starbucks on Broadway. PM me if you're interested.

[Rick R]

Try looking at it like this: Think of your concealed carry gun as an LE officer's duty weapon. Now, how many dept's authorize the removal of safety features by individual officers?

In 1985ish when I presented my BHP to the armorer at my first agency he said “do you want the disconnector removed?”
I said “if it’s ok”. Five minutes later he handed me a tiny ziplock with tiny parts and approved my BHP for duty use.

Really the disconnector prevents idiot conscripts from firing an “empty” gun that they know is “empty” because the bullet box thingee in the handle has been removed. It’s not a safety. AND I choose to live in a state where judges/prosecutors don’t tend to let cases get wrapped around the axle.

That being said all the more modern guns I frequently ccw these days have totally box stock fire control groups.

[Erick Gelhaus]

This is location dependent. It's also why giving broad legal advice is problematic.

Yup. A LOT of truth here.

I'm aware of an OIS that attracted an awful lot of attention, media and otherwise. The involved pistol had several external & internal mods to it, including a replacement of the fire control group with after-market parts. Not once, at any level, were there ever any questions asked about any of the modifications made to the firearm. No doubt that was because they weren't the issue.

[mmc45414]

Can you determine the factory configuration from the serial number? Or you might get asked about it in discovery.

My cousin used to work for S&W in Houlton, ME, and he once explained to me that the serial # is tied to the configuration as it leaves the Factory.
Yes, I am sure they kept track through the serial numbers.
I didn't make my point very clearly, I wasn't arguing that it could or could not be determined. I was attempting to draw a distinction between something like a Browning where every single one of them left the factory with a magazine disconnect, and an M&P that may have been converted to mimic the way the other probably 9,999/10,000 of them left the factory, that are pretty much configured (trigger block, no thumb safety) like almost all the pistols in police holsters nationwide. I would be fine with a Springfield without a magazine disconnect, maybe less so with a Browning that no longer has one. For that matter the M&P used to be available with a magazine disconnect, pretty sure I never had one of those.

All that said my two primaries are 2.0 M&Ps that have only the sights changed.


The guy who shot and killed an unarmed man over a handicap parking spot said that he only confronted him because his gun gave him the courage!
And that dumb shit deserves to be in prison, he shot un unarmed guy that was retreating. Saying dumb thing after dumb thing after dumb thing just made it easier for the prosecution to bring justice.