Keep 'em Stock!

This is a discussion on Keep 'em Stock! within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Changing sights is totally fine as it doesn't alter the inner workings of the handgun. In fact my Glocks and 1911 have Trijicon night sights...I ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Keep 'em Stock!

  1. #16
    Member Array PhoenixTS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    305
    Changing sights is totally fine as it doesn't alter the inner workings of the handgun. In fact my Glocks and 1911 have Trijicon night sights...I like that they sit higher than Novaks (for 1911s) and afford a solid edge for one handed malfunction clearances.

    As you mention, the operative words regarding modifications are "if done properly"...I have seen $0.25 trigger jobs end up with 2 round bursts. I also mention in the video and above that all gunsmiths are not created equal.

    I have seen far too many inadvertent mag dumps due to extended mag releases, as well as accidental slide locks arising from extended slide stops. I think it's best to try to find a handgun that fits you. Someone on another forum mentioned that he files down his extended mag releases...a good fix.

    As I mentioned I changed the plug and bushing on my 1911 due to a defective design. Needless to say, with the current state of Glocks, changing extractors and ejectors is a modification to correct a flaw.

    I had 2 Springfield Professionals, put 1000 rounds through one and could not get it to shoot consecutive rounds so I sold it back to the gun shop and told them about its issues (did not want to stick it to a private party). I also sold the second unfired one to someone and he raves about its reliability. My Colt Officer works without any issues...despite all the talk about the unreliability of 3.5 inch barreled 1911s.

    Of course any handgun can fail (cheap or expensive), it's the nature of any mechanical device, however, I see far too many overzealous gunsmiths ruin handguns that worked fine.

    At the end of the day, you are correct, to each his own. My observations are just that, mine. I have not conducted a scientific study but have seen many overly worked guns fail. Outside of fixing/correcting manufacturing flaws I do not see the need for any modification that changes factory internal workings of a handgun. As they say on the internet, YMMV:)

    Thanks for your great input!

    Quote Originally Posted by TSiWRX View Post
    My buddy ran his custom 9mm Harrison 2011 for a three day class with Costa, last summer:











    ~2000 rounds over the course of 3 days, without any cleaning or supplemental lubrication. The range surface was fine sand/dirt - http://rangerat.files.wordpress.com/...7-12-20123.jpg (warning, large, high-resolution picture, 56K = die!), as-evidenced by the dirt and debris in his magwell. Costa's classes aren't static: we spent quite a bit of time hitting the dirt. Guns got *VERY* dirty.

    That same series of classes, over the course of 6 days, also saw Wilsons, Nighthawks, and a few STIs that never had any problems and required minimal to no maintenance.

    Yet a Springfield Loaded failed (the glued ejector came undone). A couple of stock Glocks, a stock Sig, a stock H&K, and a stock XD went down in those very same classes. We had about 60 in the class over the course of the six days - any of us can confirm what I'm reporting here. Yes, some of these were just small-parts breakages: ejectors, take-down levers, barrel lugs, cracked slides. But the results of these failures would have been "catastrophic" in an actual gun-fight.

    Yes, "tight," high-priced 1911s/2011s can fail. So can "loose" low-priced examples of that same platform - but at the same time, I've also seen a stock Citadel run flawlessly in a class where all the participants were literally covered head-to-toe in mud (no, crawling wasn't among the requirements - actually, it was a beginner-level class: the students did not even learn to shoot from kneeling).

    When it comes to durability/reliability, it's about getting *YOUR* gun sorted. It's about both knowing your gun as well as having taken proper care of it so that you know that it'll run under extreme conditions. That gun can be a $4K custom 1911 or a $400 second-hand bone-stock Glock.

    As for the generalization of keeping the gun stock and unmodified?

    Glock's factory sights leave much to be desired - not necessarily in terms of accurate shooting: but rather, simple durability (BTW, in his class last April, Bob Vogel specifically made it a point to tell us students that the "25-cent trigger job," if done properly, is really all that the Glock trigger needs - this was due to the then market-fever over the Haley Skimmer drop-in, of which we had an example of, in that class). The same goes for the XD/XDm roll-pin. And would many argue that a good set of Apex trigger components is a detriment to the operation of the S&W M&P semi-autos? Or a revised ejector and Apex extractor on many late-model Gen4 and Gen3 Glocks? Late-model M&Ps with noted mechanical accuracy issues? How about that owner of the above-mentioned Springfield having taken the time to pin the ejector instead of leaving it in stock form?

    What about issues with the magazine catch, ones that can be easily addressed with any of a number of highly reputable aftermarket components that have been specifically designed to address such ergonomic/individual-fit shortcomings?

    The problem is not whether or not if a gun is stock or modified. The problem is, as with many things shooting related, that the shooter needs to understand what he/she is doing - or is having done - to the gun.

    "Staying stock" may well be the lowest common denominator solution, but it should not be THE solution.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Distinguished Member Array TSiWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio - USA
    Posts
    1,287
    ^ Exactly - I think that the problem is just that guns are simply a mechanical device manufactured by human beings. The latter - us humans - is imperfect in any state , and the former is limited by the varying tolerances of the system.

    A lot of people like to think of their guns as some kind of magical amulet that wards off evil: that it's not bound to the rules of the real world that we live in. The truth is that any gun can fail, in any of a number of ways, when it's been pushed hard enough. It's not about whether if a gun can go X number of rounds without "malfunctioning" (which in and of itself conveys different things to different people) - rather, it's about how the shooter will react to the problem when it does inevitably arise.

    You're absolutely right - I've seen the same kind of issues you've seen, with my fellow line-mates. Slide-locks inadvertently tripped. Magazine releases inadvertently hit. Sometimes it happens because of mistakes of technique/execution. Other times, it's simply how that gun interacts with that unique shooter. Certainly, sometimes, aftermarket parts can be found to be the root cause, but there are also more than just occasional incidents where it is simply clear that the ergonomics of "the gun," as it exists in its stock/unaltered format, will not work with the unique body/needs of the shooter. In such cases, one's left with two options: to either get another gun, outright, or to modify the existing gun to suit that specific shooter's unique needs.

    The gun needs to be modified with a specific goal in mind. Done properly, it allows both the shooter and the gun to excel. Done improperly, well, like you said, it's better not done at all.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

emstock 2013

,

www.royblack/files/alvarez.pdf

Click on a term to search for related topics.