Oh ARGH. This topic area comes up regularly on forums and is a constant source of frustration. The legal/social environment varies so much between states that specific research is going to be needed. I live and work in Washington, but what might happen here compared to Illinois where I used to be, or someplace really evil like NJ or California is not generalizable. One also has to understand the difference between civil and criminal exposure. Different standards of conduct, and different burdens of proof.

Here, I have some big institutional advantages, and others based on my experience. A huge one is that under Washington law, any form of civil recovery by an offender injured as a consequence their commission of a felony is barred by statute. Break into someone's house, and their landshark chews off a leg, followed by a couple gunshot wounds etc - tough. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Criminal exposure to a citizen using force in opposition to criminal activity is not likely, either. Even in the People's Republic of the I5 Corridor, the odds of a prosecutor filing a case against a citizen for an arguable use of force are modest at most. It's too politically costly, and it is also expensive.

I've also been a cop and prosecutor in two states. I handle both violent felonies and some civil matters, am comfortable in the courtroom, and like to fight. I have also written on use of force and other legal and training issues for LE, and have access to a lot of savvy potential expert witnesses. I actually know what I am talking about in a legal analysis or conflict about use of force; most lawyers (including criminal practitioners) and judges don't. I have had some pretty stupid comments made by defense attorneys whining about injuries to their clients resulting from fights with cops and citizens; a couple times I have been surprised I managed to get out of court without dropping an F-bomb on the record.

Most modifications to a firearm that are designed and correctly implemented to improve performance in that setting are not admissible in a criminal proceeding about an intentional shooting. Grips that fit; better sights including an RDS; a trigger that improves the likelihood of accurate shooting without deviating from safety practices (remember rule 3, which is more important than the mechanical issues anyway) etc - non-issues that should not be admissible under ER401/403 unless they can be used somehow to show some form of criminal premeditation on the part of the shooter. (Which is where the social/political issues come into play; in some places, the hostility to armed citizens may be such that this could be a problem.) I would not worry at all about using the APEX duty/carry kits for a better/smoother trigger. However, if you are worried about reset, and that is the driving incentive, slap yourself. That is a competition/target shooting concept and has no place in a discussion of fighting technique.

More likely to be a problem is an internet search that reveals some of the dumb comments I have seen on other forums (like shoot shovel and shut up; advocating shooting trespassers without any other indication of potential risk of death/GBH being presented to the shooter, etc).

Mas advocates positions based on his experiences, but they are context driven. Many of the cases that formed his views are (relatively) long ago, and we have a lot of improved knowledge on the legal and tactical analysis, and some statutory changes such as the immunities we have here in Washington and other states. The trend is away from the outcomes about which he has been concerned, at least in my experience.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.