Keep 'em Stock!
I see many come to defensive handgun classes with various aftermarket parts installed in their handguns which quite often results in various malfunctions. Also, many take such classes with handguns with light triggers which could be legally problematic in case of a defensive shooting.
Very good information ! And I must totally agree , practice, practice, practice . The engineers and developers have already done the homework and testing ....
Can you cite an incidence where a light trigger was "problematic"?
Thanks for watching!
Originally Posted by Cheesewiz
Meant legally problematic (edited to clarify)...as per the video. Thanks for your comment!
Originally Posted by oneshot
Originally Posted by PhoenixTS
Yes, I know thats what you meant.
Can you cite me a court case where someone was sent up the river because of a lighter trigger than what was original to the pistol?
I'm kinda wondering how a prosecutor can come after you because of the trigger pull.I thought i knew the laws or most of them,this is a new one to me.
They can't. It's internet lore that's been propagated for years. Unfortunately people keep spewing it so even more people regurgitate it as gospel.
Originally Posted by gregnsc
Mas Ayoob cites 2 examples, but they are both with revolvers, where the shooter cocked the hammer manually, making it SA... They "accidentally" shot someone. One was a cop, one was a citizen. IIRC, they both did time. It is on an episode of the ProArms podcast, if you care to investigate further.
Originally Posted by oneshot
Most cases involve claims by the prosecution of hair trigger ADs...here is
LIGHT TRIGGER AD CASE:
NY vs Magliato
PEOPLE v. MAGLIATO*-*October 10, 1985
FALSE ALLEGATION OF HAIR TRIGGER (as told by Roy Black, Esq. in his book
Florida versus Alvarez - Roy Black. Esq. "Black's Law"
Where you live is also a factor as well as the social climate and
politicians' and media's portrayal of guns and gun owners.
man i agree 100% about keeping them stock, also only use factory bullet loads. a lawyer can easily twist the fact and make it sound like your bullets kill better.
Not to drag this out... but he was asking for cases in defense shootings... not AD/ND's.
I will only comment on the 1911 with regard to "staying stock" Certainly you should not wantonly add aftermarket parts to the 1911 without a complete understanding of the interaction of the all of the parts. It is extremely easy to "create" an unreliable or even an unsafe firearm if it's a home gun-smithing job and the owner is not intimately familiar with how all parts relate to one another with regard to functionality.
But, there is no reason to stay with an all "stock" 1911 if the firearm has been expertly modified to the shooters desires and specifications.
One of the huge advantages of the 1911 is that it is a firearm that can be custom tailored to the owner.
Why would a shooter with a smaller hand suffer with a longer trigger when they can have a short trigger?
If a shooter tends to hit low with a flat mainspring housing then why wouldn't they opt for an arched mainspring housing?
Also some 1911s will come from the factory with a trigger that has erratic creep or the trigger feels gritty or mushy. Everybody shoots any gun better that has a crisp, consistent, trigger - better than they will ever shoot the same gun with a lousy factory trigger.
I am not saying that an overly lightened trigger should be on a self-defensive firearm but, certainly you can keep a factory weight pull but, have it tuned to break clean with no creep, mush, bang.
I could go on but, I'm pretty sure that you get my point. There is nothing wrong with having common sense modifications made to the self-defensive 1911 as long as those modifications are expertly performed.
I am not a GLOCK guy but, I think your statements are a bit overly simplistic w/ regard to the 1911.
Thank you for your comment! Great points!
In the video I do mention that not all gunsmiths are created equal. I neglected to mention that I also installed a reverse plug and an EGW Melt Bushing in my Colt Officer. These changes were made due to the inherent flaw in this model and the propensity for the bushing/plug breaking. I understand the desire to add custom features to 1911s, however, if you insist, make sure it is done by a competent gunsmith. There is a well known local gunsmith who is notorious for DESTROYING perfectly fine 1911s. He insists on very light triggers and his reliability packages do the opposite. In fact, one of the major gun shops in town will not purchase used guns worked buy him.
I see many 1911s choke in class..most of which were worked on. I see tight tolerance 1911s choke during high count classes. At the same time, cheaper, stock 1911s keep on ticking. Again, this is not a scientific sampling or study...just our experience. Many problems with 1911s are also magazine related.
Many lighten their trigger because they think that is the panacea for better shooting. Focus should be on fundamentals, not on equipment modifications that SOMEWHAT hide shooting flaws. If you're a bullseye shooter I get it, but a defensive handgun should stay stock. With enough practice trigger pulls improve. If you are concerned with "mush" you should stay away from Glocks:)
Thanks again for your input!
Originally Posted by QKShooter
My buddy ran his custom 9mm Harrison 2011 for a three day class with Costa, last summer:
Originally Posted by PhoenixTS
~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. :biggrin2: 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 :wink: - 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.