I've seen articles where informed, over zealous prosecutors tried to show a defendant was negligent for lightening their trigger pull. You know how it is - even if it's a good shoot you can still get you arrested and tried. It all depends on where it happens. There are just too many anti-gun activists out there calling for the head of anyone who uses a gun even in self-defense.
My opinion is, buy a gun with a trigger pull you like for SD, and only use modified guns at the range.
Someone likened it to modifying a car to increase performance. Same principle. Buy a car that comes from the factory with the performance you want, and nobody can say you were negligent and unable to control your car because you modified it beyond design parameters. Example - you increased power by 50% but didn't install the larger brakes and suspension to compliment the performance.
And I would not assume your opposition is too dumb to know to test your gun. Just because a prosecutor doesn't know that doesn't mean he can't hire experts who do.
Here's an actual car-related trial as an example. I was on a jury for a car-accident civil case where the defendant ran into the back of the plaintiff. As you probably know, the lawyers have your name, address and occupation. I was a young machinist at the time. The defendant's lawyer evidently assumed I knew about cars, which I did, because he came over and looked right at me when he asked the plaintiff certain questions about how he was operating his car. Scenario: It was raining, it was a cobblestone road, and both cars were coming up to a light. The plaintiff stopped AFTER the white crosswalk line on the road. The defendant ran into him. It was defendant's claim he did not see any brake lights. Now, it's true the defendant was at fault but in my state at the time there was the principle of "contributory negligence" where a jury needs to assign blame as indicated. If it's at least 50% then the defendant's insurance company did not have to pay pain and suffering and loss of income damages. There was no "no-fault" insurance then. Even so, you can still sue to collect for pain and suffering and unpaid medical bills. Plaintiff drove a 3-on-the-tree. If you're under 30 you probably don't know what that is
The questions were, What gear were you in coming up to the light, and what gear were you in when you stopped? The answer was 1st. That indicated he downshifted to slow down because proper driving practices are to be in high gear and hit the clutch at idle speed. So it's entirely possible he downshifted instead of using his brakes - no brakes no brake lights. By not indicating he was preparing to stop he violated driving laws. He also violated the law that you have to stop before the crosswalk. Also, he refused to release his income tax forms to prove how much income he lost. With that evidence I concluded he contributed 50% to the accident. Also, I had personal experience with the defendant's car - my uncle had an identical one which I occasionally drove. They had very touchy GM brakes. Now, the defendant should have been driving more carefully - that's a given. But the law was the law. I was the only one who thought this way. After I explained it a few others on the jury agreed with me. Eventually they all agreed, but I'm sure it was only because we stayed pretty late for two days. So even one lawyer or person on a jury can make a difference, for or against you. IMO, it's not worth taking the chance.
