M&P TRIGGER JOBS ADVISABLE!

[Reggie Dunlop]

I will take my chances with the "what if scenarios" especially in states with castle doctrines.



C4

Exacty right!

 

[Lost Lake]

You are in your right to modify your gun all you wish. I have many guns that have been extensively modified, but my self defense guns are not. My preference.

Like CS and Massad say, lawyers can and will use everything they can get ahold of to paint you in a bad picture....

I can just see someone on the stand who doesn't remember exactly how many times he pulled the trigger, or exactly where he was aiming for each individual shot, or if he yelled 'freeze' or 'I've got a gun, don't come closer' and then the prosecutor asks if he had his finger on the trigger when he was yelling 'freeze' and did he intend to shoot before he yelled or after and exactly when did he shoot? How much pressure did he have on the trigger when he was pointing the gun at the victim? Why did he modify a professionally designed gun and make the trigger easier to pull when he knew he may be in a situation where he faced a person with his finger on the trigger....

 

[SylvaniaShooter]

Kinda funny

Jurors are reasonable people...like you and I. I think most of this 'junk' was covered in your CCW class...what to say, what not to say...and to get a Lawyer before you open your mouth...

If you're adrenaline is pumping, and your in fear of your life, limb and property..>Simply hilarious. Plus, not sure about your jurisdiction but the laws here are 'leaning' heavily towards the homeowner. We recently had a case where a homeowner returned home from work...caught 2 'thieves' in his house, one got away, the other was shot in the back running towards the door...he got off.

Modified weapon or no, laws will be laws, and courts will be courts, and lawyers will be lawyers. To make a weapon so you can better handle it, and more accurately place your shots...nothing wrong here. Remember jurors are 'reasonable' people...

 

[Florida Shooter]

You are mistakenly under the belief that the circumstances surrounding any shooting you would be involved in would be black and white. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen in every case. Things happen; bad or inaccurate police work, prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, bad eyewitness accounts, evidence that paints a less than accurate picture, etc. There are a hundred different reasons why your choice in making a modification could be called into question. On the other hand, if you DON'T make a modification, there is a 0% chance it could ever be called into question.

Really??

Prosecutor/Plaintiff's lawyer: "Sir, did you ever measure the weight or pressure require to operate the trigger on that gun?"

Defendant: "Yes."

Prosecutor/Plaintiff's lawyer: "Do you remember what that was?"

Defendant: "Yes."

Prosecutor/Plaintiff's lawyer: "What was it?"

Defendant: "I think it was about four pounds."

Prosecutor/Plaintiff's lawyer: "Not do you think, do you know?"

Defendant: "About four pounds."

Prosecutor/Plaintiff's lawyer: "Did you hear our expert testify that four pounds is just on the cusp of being too low for defensive carry?"

Defendant: "Yes."

Prosecutor/Plaintiff's lawyer: "Did you take any steps to assure that the trigger pull on your pistol would not be too light?"

. . . and blah blah blah. Any trial lawyer can take any subject and turn it in any direction they want. But all this talk is begging the question: If the shooting was in self defense and intentional, what difference does all this make? It makes a difference when the defendant is tried for negligent discharge.

With all due respect to Massad Ayoob - and the man definitely has my respect - the mere fact of having the trigger modified doesn't count for any more than the fact that it WASN'T modified. It depends on the goal and the effect of the modification.

If the pistol was modified to improve its performance in competition, and especially if it renders the trigger easier to discharge, that's one case. If in fact the trigger was modified (a) to increase the pull to five and a half to six pounds from an original pull of four pounds, and (b) to provide better feed back and control to the shooter . . . then . . . where's the foul?

 

[cshoff]

<snip>.....With all due respect to Massad Ayoob - and the man definitely has my respect - the mere fact of having the trigger modified doesn't count for any more than the fact that it WASN'T modified. It depends on the goal and the effect of the modification.

I won't pretend to speak for Mr. Ayoob, but to my knowledge, he never claimed it did, NOR did I. I have stated the opinion that ANY modification you make to the firing system or any safety system on the gun, could be a potential liability if/when you ever had the unfortunate occasion to use the gun in a defensive shooting. And that potential liability increases exponentially if any other aspect of the shooting is questionable. Your goal of the modification notwithstanding, it all depends on what a prosecutor, or even a civil attorney, can sell to a jury.

If the pistol was modified to improve its performance in competition, and especially if it renders the trigger easier to discharge, that's one case. If in fact the trigger was modified (a) to increase the pull to five and a half to six pounds from an original pull of four pounds, and (b) to provide better feed back and control to the shooter . . . then . . . where's the foul?

But that is the thing. It doesn't really matter where you and I might or might not see a foul. We are reasonable people who have at least a cursory understanding of the mechanics involved in the firing process of the average semi-automatic pistol. It's very unlikely that there will be 10 or 11 more just like us sitting on that jury. Your jury will likely consist of a majority of people that have never had any practical experience at all with a handgun other than what they've seen on TV.

The truth is, it's very easy for even a mediocre prosecutor twist your actions and words around and cause jurors to have second thoughts about the intentions and motives behind your modifications. You can completely eliminate the possibility of a firing system or safety system modification coming back to bite you by not making them in the first place.

 

[cshoff]

I will take my chances with the "what if scenarios" especially in states with castle doctrines.



C4

Seeing how you are a person who appears to make his living by modifying handguns, I can understand why this is your opinion on the matter.

 

[C4IGrant]

Seeing how you are a person who appears to make his living by modifying handguns, I can understand why this is your opinion on the matter.

This is actually incorrect. I do not make a living off of it. I do sell a FEW parts which amounts to .0005% of my business.

Nice try though.


C4

 

[cshoff]

This is actually incorrect. I do not make a living off of it. I do sell a FEW parts which amounts to .0005% of my business.

Nice try though.


C4

Nice try at what? Like it or not, your situation influences your opinion. That doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

 

[C4IGrant]

Nice try at what? Like it or not, your situation influences your opinion. That doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

You "attempted" to imply that since I sell a few parts that allow people to modify their triggers, that I am going to see no issues with people modifying their home defense/CCW guns. This was an incorrect assumption on your part.

I have had this opinion that it was ok to setup your gun any way you want LONG before I was ever a dealer or before States passed Castle Doctrine type laws.



C4

 

[cshoff]

You "attempted" to imply that since I sell a few parts that allow people to modify their triggers, that I am going to see no issues with people modifying their home defense/CCW guns. This was an incorrect assumption on your part.

I have had this opinion that it was ok to setup your gun any way you want LONG before I was ever a dealer or before States passed Castle Doctrine type laws.



C4

Fair enough. You can have whatever opinion you'd like.

As for me, I tend to look at the data and then make an informed decision based off of that data. If there is a way to avoid unnecessary, albeit unlikely, liability, I'd prefer to go that way. I'm not willing to knowingly assist some over-zealous prosecutor in making a case against me, no matter how remote the possibility is. Frankly, there are so many variables that you have no control over that could cause you legal and financial grief after a defensive shooting, that it doesn't make much sense to purposefully pile a few more on top of them that you DO have complete control over. YMMV.

 

[SmokeJumper]

So? Don't shoot a bad fellow with a target pistol or revolver? Even if it was all that was close at hand? Don't modify ANY firearm? Modifications are an industry-wide practice. A smoother trigger does not have to be a lighter pull trigger. Better gun control diminishes the possibility a bystander might be struck because a hard / long trigger pull caused the average self-defense shooter to move off target. On and on and on ...............

 

[cshoff]

So? Don't shoot a bad fellow with a target pistol or revolver? Even if it was all that was close at hand? Don't modify ANY firearm? Modifications are an industry-wide practice. A smoother trigger does not have to be a lighter pull trigger. Better gun control diminishes the possibility a bystander might be struck because a hard / long trigger pull caused the average self-defense shooter to move off target. On and on and on ...............

We talk about a number of different ideas and concepts in the various classes we teach. Of those ideas and concepts, there are a number of things that are best to avoid as a normal practice, but possibly necessary under the rare chance you would find yourself involved in a lethal force encounter. For example, when we talk about choosing an appropriate caliber for self defense, we never recommend a .22 rimfire, but certainly even the most ardent big-bore proponent must acknowledge that the diminutive .22 is a much better choice than NOTHING when you suddenly find yourself under attack. After all, who in their right mind would say, "The .22 is so worthless, I wouldn't even bother picking it up if I came under attack. Instead, I'd fight those three armed attackers with my fists"?

Another example would be handloaded ammunition. There are both legal and tactical liabilities involved with using handloaded ammunition as your normal, day to day carry ammo. Yet, if it's all you had at the moment you needed to use a gun to defend yourself, it would be foolish to NOT use it due to those liabilities.

Using a modified firearm has the same type of implications. While it would be foolish to purposefully modify your daily carry gun in a manner that could make it a high liability, circumstances beyond your control may dictate that the most prudent thing to do at a given moment is to use a modified firearm to defend yourself. Things happen, and they happen without warning and despite the best preparations we've made. YOU do not get to decide if or when you will be involved in a lethal force encounter. When it happens, common sense dictates that you use whatever tool(s) you have at your disposal at the time. Being alive to deal with any potential legal fallout at a later time is much better than the alternative.