Waywatcher
Member
That's only true if you and you alone get to decide the definition of "good shoot." But that's not reality:
Massad Ayoob said:
Last edited:
Gun Trigger Modifications a No Go According to Article
- Thread starter marathonrunner
- Start date
That's only true if you and you alone get to decide the definition of "good shoot." But that's not reality:
southcoast
Member
Hypotheticals unsupported by actual facts and reality are what the gun grabbers use to justify absurd gun control laws. For those that choose to subscribe to such thought, be my guest.
For those grounded in fact please have Ayoob, Marty Hayes, or any other expert with their infinite wisdom and years of experience cite one single case where modifications became legally relevant in an actual CCW self defense case. Seems fairly easy for any expert who has testified in so many cases. Until such time as requested case is provided my statement stands as true.
Waywatcher
Member
The very issue that will be discussed is whether or not you have been in a "good shoot." The prosecutor very well may accuse you of shooting him by accident due to your hair trigger. (This is documented; it has happened) If you lose in proving that you shot on purpose, you were thus involved in a "bad shoot."
What your asking for isn't going to exist due to simple logic--a good shoot becomes a bad shoot when it can be proven to a jury that the shooting was accidental due to "negligent" modifications.
What your asking for isn't going to exist due to simple logic--a good shoot becomes a bad shoot when it can be proven to a jury that the shooting was accidental due to "negligent" modifications.
southcoast
Member
The only good shoot in an actual CCW situation would be self defense. In any trial where the defendant is claiming they shot the victim on purpose, which is a requirement for any self defense claim, no prosector is going to claim the shooting was an accident. If so please cite me an actual case.
Last edited:
When you've had the chance over the years to see how some cases focus on issues and circumstances which may be used to speak to state of mind, or how simple preponderance of evidence may be used to support a theory in a civil case, you might tend to develop a desire to mitigate excessive exposure to unnecessary liability.
Some folks really seem to have a need to be "proven" wrong before they're willing to occasionally re-examine whether they have an unnecessarily increased risk of exposure to legal or civil liability in some circumstances.
Too bad that sometimes it's only after the horses have left the barn that someone is willing to reconsider the construction and security of their barn door.
Predictable is preventable. Or so the risk management saying goes.
Some folks really seem to have a need to be "proven" wrong before they're willing to occasionally re-examine whether they have an unnecessarily increased risk of exposure to legal or civil liability in some circumstances.
Too bad that sometimes it's only after the horses have left the barn that someone is willing to reconsider the construction and security of their barn door.
Predictable is preventable. Or so the risk management saying goes.
southcoast
Member
The simple point is there are no citable cases because of practical and legal reasons, which prevent an actual case from existing despite broad speculation of hypotheticals. As an attorney who has spent Yeats litigating in DC defending gun cases of all varieties i have researched extensively and the case will never exist under current or past legal doctrines.
I'm sure you feel that way. Having actually sat on a jury, I'm about as familiar with "the law" and court proceedings as a layperson can reasonably expect to be. It's also the reason why I wane pessimistic when it comes to DAs and the critical reasoning skills of your average juror.
This is a straw man. Nowhere did I state or imply that there are any parallels whatsoever between the needs of LEOs and CCers, or OISs and DGUs.
I disagree that they're "legally irrelevant," but I think we can both agree that in the event of a DGU, the modifications made to the firearm in question are but one piece of a much larger puzzle. In any case, go ahead and modify your firearms however you want; I've experienced no practical benefit to lightening the pulls on mine.
Can I hold you to that? You're licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, right?
southcoast
Member
I'm sure you feel that way. Having actually sat on a jury, I'm about as familiar with "the law" and court proceedings as a layperson can reasonably expect to be. It's also the reason why I wane pessimistic when it comes to DAs and the critical reasoning skills of your average juror.
This is a straw man. Nowhere did I state or imply that there are any parallels whatsoever between the needs of LEOs and CCers, or OISs and DGUs.
I disagree that they're "legally irrelevant," but I think we can both agree that in the event of a DGU, the modifications made to the firearm in question are but one piece of a much larger puzzle. In any case, go ahead and modify your firearms however you want; I've experienced no practical benefit to lightening the pulls on mine.
Can I hold you to that? You're licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, right?
I will prepare my pro hac paperwork. Always looking to assist those exercising Constitutional rights.
I'm one that modifies my trigger. I can hit the target with a factory trigger. But I can hit it better with a little lighter trigger.
It's been done for years by many before me and I'm not worried about it. I'm more concerned about missing. There are better things to worry about.
But as usual some seem to know what's best for everyone. Bottom line is that everyone must do what they feel is necessary to prevail in a fight. And there ain't no joe blow that's going to dictate how or why I do it. I will make those decisions myself and live with consequences if there are any.
Threads like this rarely contain fact. Only opinion. Much like the threads Open Carry vs Concealed, 9MM vs 45ACP, Reloads vs Factory, and Glock vs 1911.
It's a waste of time.
It's been done for years by many before me and I'm not worried about it. I'm more concerned about missing. There are better things to worry about.
But as usual some seem to know what's best for everyone. Bottom line is that everyone must do what they feel is necessary to prevail in a fight. And there ain't no joe blow that's going to dictate how or why I do it. I will make those decisions myself and live with consequences if there are any.
Threads like this rarely contain fact. Only opinion. Much like the threads Open Carry vs Concealed, 9MM vs 45ACP, Reloads vs Factory, and Glock vs 1911.
It's a waste of time.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,796
- Reaction score
- 7,225
Mr. Hayes good article not withstanding, there should be a sticky on this issue.
On the old Amback Forum, this debate went many pages with learned commentary by notable experts in the field. It's been previously raised here also. Unfortunately, there are folks who don't wish to have their cherished beliefs challenged. Not to mention many more who don't seem to know how to use the search function-which is why notable experts don't keep chiming in. Beating the dead horse is pointless.
Anyone who has examined older firearms-military especially- knows the 1911 didn't get it's mythical reputation with a crisp 4 lb trigger. Nor did most others. Strictly for defensive use, those who need something different from factory specification to be able to use the weapon at all have their modification defence right there. The rest of us simply need to work harder.
On the old Amback Forum, this debate went many pages with learned commentary by notable experts in the field. It's been previously raised here also. Unfortunately, there are folks who don't wish to have their cherished beliefs challenged. Not to mention many more who don't seem to know how to use the search function-which is why notable experts don't keep chiming in. Beating the dead horse is pointless.
Anyone who has examined older firearms-military especially- knows the 1911 didn't get it's mythical reputation with a crisp 4 lb trigger. Nor did most others. Strictly for defensive use, those who need something different from factory specification to be able to use the weapon at all have their modification defence right there. The rest of us simply need to work harder.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,796
- Reaction score
- 7,225
Expanded comment:
This is not to say that all "trigger work" is a bad idea or can lead to legal issues. However, manufacturers establish accepted ranges for a safe trigger weight on their products. For example, IIRC the range of weight for the SA mode of a S&W TDA semi-auto pistol is 4.5-6 lbs.
Where people err is when they-or Bubba-decide that the factory weight range is excessively burdensome and proceed to make unauthorized alterations. Alterations from factory specs (absent demonstrated physical impairment that may justify same), especially by uncertified persons, can equal a firearm that can be justly labeled as unsafe.
This is not to say that all "trigger work" is a bad idea or can lead to legal issues. However, manufacturers establish accepted ranges for a safe trigger weight on their products. For example, IIRC the range of weight for the SA mode of a S&W TDA semi-auto pistol is 4.5-6 lbs.
Where people err is when they-or Bubba-decide that the factory weight range is excessively burdensome and proceed to make unauthorized alterations. Alterations from factory specs (absent demonstrated physical impairment that may justify same), especially by uncertified persons, can equal a firearm that can be justly labeled as unsafe.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,839
- Reaction score
- 31,778
The Department Specification on all NYPD Double Action Only Guns is a 12 pound trigger pull! How many times have we seen on the news that 37 shots were needed by 4 Officers to bring down a Perp? Why you ask......... because it's very difficult to fire every round in DA ACCURATELY when your trigger is 12 pounds!
Why the NYPD Union hasn't fought this is beyond me. I guess they have "dumbed down" their weapons to the worst Recruits ability.
Why the NYPD Union hasn't fought this is beyond me. I guess they have "dumbed down" their weapons to the worst Recruits ability.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,796
- Reaction score
- 7,225
Those of us who started our shooting life long ago, LE or not, frequently did so with double action revolvers. The DA trigger on most of those might have been 12 lbs if we were lucky. We learned to deal with it. As did a whole bunch of folks before us. What NYPD did with their trigger weight spec was try to recreate revolver DA trigger weights. I'm not sure the M&P9 with NY compliant parts makes 12 lbs. More like 10. Not that I"m supporting either enhanced weight, I like the weight of my issue M&P40 standard trigger.
Armed encounters in the real world aren't like being on the square range where your target doesn't move and you generally don't either. Nor is your target shooting back. Large round counts often happen because folks aren't focusing on the fundamentals.
Armed encounters in the real world aren't like being on the square range where your target doesn't move and you generally don't either. Nor is your target shooting back. Large round counts often happen because folks aren't focusing on the fundamentals.
Last edited:
cmort666
Member
- I would NEVER in a million years compare the DA trigger on a Smith revolver with that of ANY DA/"safe action" trigger on ANY semi-auto. That's why I love my Smith revolvers and LOATHE autos with REAL DA (DAO or DA/SA).
- At least in DA revolvers, the issue is NOT (within reason) weight but SMOOTHNESS.
Every DA revolver that I ever expect to use for self-defense has had a trigger job to SMOOTH the SA and DA. - A LOT of DA autos (especially DAO) have HORRENDOUS trigger pulls, both insanely heavy AND rougher than Rosie Perez's vocabulary.
A friend of a friend is a Cleveland transit cop. His duty firearm is a Beretta 96D. The ONLY worse trigger pull I've EVER seen on a handgun was another friend's Colt All American 2000. It just goes on forever, grinding and scraping the whole way.
You'll forgive me if I make a slight correction to the above comment.
Large round counts often happen because folks aren't focusing on the fundamentals.
Needed larger font.
Haphazard work on fundamentals may only yield haphazard competence and results, especially if suddenly having to rely upon those fundamentals under real world conditions, meaning during an unexpected, rapidly evolving, dynamic & chaotic event.
Last edited:
Is this really the new reality?
I've been reading about trigger mods and bullet construction and safety mods being detrimental to self defense cases.
Is it actually a detriment to have a trigger that is conducive to accurate shooting? Is it a detriment to have an effective bullet ( commercial or hand loaded) that will most effectively stop a threat?
Is it detrimental to disable a liability mandated safety that may save your life? ( magazine disconnect )
It seems as if the very advantage we may possess to save our life is a legal liability any more.
When did this happen? And why?
I've been reading about trigger mods and bullet construction and safety mods being detrimental to self defense cases.
Is it actually a detriment to have a trigger that is conducive to accurate shooting? Is it a detriment to have an effective bullet ( commercial or hand loaded) that will most effectively stop a threat?
Is it detrimental to disable a liability mandated safety that may save your life? ( magazine disconnect )
It seems as if the very advantage we may possess to save our life is a legal liability any more.
When did this happen? And why?
Erich
Member
No one's answering because it's not. 
For a trigger mod to become an issue, either the gun went off unintentionally, resulting in death or injury or a plaintiff's lawyer must allege that his client had surrendered to you but your gun discharged anyway, the result of a trigger mod.
A similar scenario occurred during the revolver days where it was alleged an officer had cocked his revolver while covering someone with the result that the gun accidentally discharged.
Years ago, a "hair trigger" usually a double-set trigger, could be adjusted to fire with 6 to 8 ounces of pressure. In the 1960s, a 2.5 pound trigger in single action mode was considered normal. Today, lawyers would call that a hair trigger, mainly to impeach you and your gun.
For the most part, I would not concern myself with this nonsense.
A similar scenario occurred during the revolver days where it was alleged an officer had cocked his revolver while covering someone with the result that the gun accidentally discharged.
Years ago, a "hair trigger" usually a double-set trigger, could be adjusted to fire with 6 to 8 ounces of pressure. In the 1960s, a 2.5 pound trigger in single action mode was considered normal. Today, lawyers would call that a hair trigger, mainly to impeach you and your gun.
For the most part, I would not concern myself with this nonsense.
