Browning HI power magazine disconnect

[amd6547]

The HiPower has been used for decades with the mag disconnect. Please present one documented case where it affected the outcome of a SD shooting.

[Frank Ettin]

JMBstudent, one might think that someone who styles himself a student of John Moses Browning would be able to get my [screen] name right. (Or perhaps you were just trying to be insulting.) Be that as it may.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...Suzy soccer mom is incapable of understanding issues involved with handguns or anything else involving technical issues....

No, I said no such thing. I said that such matters were outside her areas of interest and knowledge, that it could be difficult to get her to understand the technical arguments for why disabling a safety device on a gun is a good thing or at least innocuous, and that she might or might not "get it."

And therefore, I have no interest in betting my freedom on her, or anyone else on the jury, "getting it." I think it's a lousy bet. There's simply too much possible downside, i. e., may be going to jail; and there's no real upside, because there are plenty of suitable guns available to me that I don't feel a need to tinker with.

If you like that bet, go for it. It's not my problem.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...I would remind Mr Fiddlytown and his ally's that virtually every jury in the US has a broad cross section of jurors,...

How do you know? What do you know about jury composition in real life based on real world experience?

In any case, the matter of jury composition and jury selection has been addressed in post #103 (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...&postcount=103 ).

And no matter what sort of broad cross section of jurors one might get in shooting case in which self defense is claimed by the defendant, the jury will not include anyone interested in or knowledgeable about guns.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...I would suggest using an attorney with better communication skills who can indeed explain some of these rather simple concepts to a jury. Using the excuse that a jury made up of Suzy soccer mom and other less technically adept people as a factor in lost cases really points back to the attorney making the argument....

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not the interest of the jury, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal....

Yes, it's the lawyer's job to get the attention of the jury and to communicate. And good trial lawyers are very good at that -- better than you can imagine. But there is never a guarantee. Even the eloquent Clarence Darrow didn't win every case. (And in any case, he's not around to represent you.)

So the point again is that if you need to tell the story, it may or may not work. A lawyer can be eloquent and skillful explaining your side of things, and the jury can be obstinate.

The only sure argument is the one you don't have to make because the subject can't come up. And the only way to be absolutely sure that the subject doesn't come up is to not use a gun on which you've disabled a safety device. But if the subject does come up because you did use a gun on which you disabled a safety device, and even if you have an outstanding lawyer with the finest communication skills explaining things beautifully to the jury with the assistance of the most able expert witnesses on the planet (all at enormous cost to you), there is still the possibility that the jury won't buy it.

The only way to win this for sure is to not let it happen.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...Many cases involve far more involved and technical testimony than removing a magazine sensing device....

So what? Every case is different, and what we're talking about is the case you could possibly be the defendant in. Before anything happens, you have a choice. You can choose a gun for self defense on which you've disabled a safety device, thus making it likely that this will be a complicating factor. Or you could choose a gun for self defense on which you have not disabled a safety device, thus avoiding this as a complicating factor.

Personally, I choose the latter. You can do as you like.

[Mas Ayoob]

JMB student, with respect...

You've avoided the core element of the argument under discussion.

The other side may attempt to convince the jury that you were reckless and negligent by deactivating a safety device on a lethal weapon, and use that to attempt to convince the jury that this is part of a "pattern of continuing behavior" that indicates you were reckless and negligent in the shooting in question.

It was pointed out early on in this thread that it will be difficult to show a jury that you knew more about the Browning High Power pistol than your chosen namesake, John Moses Browning...and Dieudonne Saive...AND Fabrique Nationale.

Please tell us how you plan to convince the jury that you understood this pistol better than the three entities who made it as it was -- and is, to this day.

[mavracer]

Please tell us how you plan to convince the jury that you understood this pistol better than the three entities who made it as it was -- and is, to this day.

I suppose one could argue that the mag disconnect was only put in because the French requested one in their new military pistol and that's the only reason it was designed in.
I do agree it would be better to not have the fight in court.

[Mas Ayoob]

Mavracer, you're right, the French did specify it. However, they weren't the ones who came up with the concept.

John M. Browning's first patent for a magazine disconnector safety was applied for in February, 1910 and granted a year later as Patent Number 984,519.

The wording of the patent application indicates that JMB thought it was an important safety feature which would prevent a common pattern of accidental/negligent shooting.

Colt put a magazine disconnector safety into their Pocket Model pistols, beginning at serial number 468097 on the Model 1903 .32, and at serial number 92894 on the Model 1908 .380.

There are folks on here who know more about the P35 pistol than I do, I'm sure. Can any of them point to a nation or a military or police entity which ordered Browning Hi-Powers without the disconnectors? The only one I know of is the German occupation forces, who allegedly left out the disconnector to streamline production after they seized the FN factory when they successfully invaded Belgium during WWII.

If the only national entity that preferred its Hi-Powers without magazine disconnectors was Nazi Germany, I don't think it would help the defense much in the sort of case under discussion here.

[Walt Sherrill]

I understand Fiddletown's and your arguments about appearances, and the difficulty of dealing with technical points with a non-technical audience (and, implicitly, attorneys seeking to win the case, regardless). I agree, and I'll not carry a BHP with a disconnect removed. (I have one.)

But this discussion causes me to ask a slightly different question: why is the removal of a safety feature designed to prevent accidental/negligent discharges even an issue, if a shooting wasn't due to an accidental or negligent discharge?

Isn't that a bit like saying that a car with tires that could be driven at over 200 mph is somehow more dangerous than a car with standard load-rated tires, when the accident in which the car was involved didn't involve high speed driving?

[amd6547]

Mas is correct...I am currently carrying a Browning 1910 380, which has the mag disconnect.
Here is a pic of the browning pair I depend upon. Both with mag disconnects.

[Mas Ayoob]

I hear ya, Walt.

To win a criminal trial on Manslaughter or a wrongful death suit arising out of a shooting, opposing counsel needs to show recklessness and negligence. They are allowed to argue that there are "continuing patterns of behavior" that shows those traits in the defendant. Deactivating a safety device fits that pattern and gives them ammo to use against you. They hope to convince the jury that this shows you have a history of doing reckless, negligent things with guns, which supports their contention that you did so this time.

[Frank Ettin]

And Walt, as has been mentioned, it's not the lack of the magazine per se, it's what a jury might infer about the defendant, his character, motivation and judgment, because he removed a safety device installed by the manufacturer.

And the defendant's character, motivation and judgment is material, because he is claiming self defense; and the jury's perception of the defendant's character, motivation and judgment can affect how the jury evaluates his story about what happened and why he concluded that it was necessary to use lethal force against another human.

[BikerRN]

According to Fiddlytown, Suzy soccer mom is incapable of understanding issues involved with handguns or anything else involving technical issues.
I would remind Mr Fiddlytown and his ally's that virtually every jury in the US has a broad cross section of jurors, both male and female, that need clear information to make decisions.
Apparently Mr Fiddlytown has been unsuccessful with his attempts to make his arguments with the average juror.
I would suggest using an attorney with better communication skills who can indeed explain some of these rather simple concepts to a jury.
Using the excuse that a jury made up of Suzy soccer mom and other less technically adept people as a factor in lost cases really points back to the attorney making the argument.
Many cases involve far more involved and technical testimony than removing a magazine sensing device.
A device that is used in the small minority of handguns produced today.
It is the job of any attorney to bring a jury to a real understanding of the issues.
Sorry, a magazine safety MAY make clearing a pistol safer, MAYBE.
It has nothing to do with the operation of a pistol while being used in a self defense scenario.
In fact it can be shown that a magazine sensing device can actually increase the chance a handgun will fail when being used as a self defense tool.
This will take an attorney that is familiar with the issues, and capable of presenting the case.
Difficult, but not impossible.
__________________
JMBstudent
Learn something new each day.

Evidently not, see the part in bold, as both Mas and Fiddletown have tried to teach you the lesson, yet you continue to eat the covers off the schoolbooks.

With that said, I would like to say thank you to Mas and Fiddletown for posting on this topic. It obviously has it proponents on both sides of the debate.

I am not well educated enough to speak on the topic much beyond common sense, and knowing just a little something about the legal system and how people think. I know just enough about the legal system to be dangerous. Common sense tells me that if I don't have to make a certain argument in court, or my lawyer doesn't, then I am better off. Why fight battles you don't have to is my question?

You will be fighting a big enough battle if you ever have to answer for what you did involving a defensive shooting without even going into a courtroom.

Biker

[JMBstudent]

Mas is correct in citing JMB's patent 984519, applied for February 17, 1910 and granted Feb 14,1911.
This patent covered a number of features of of JMB's pistol which was to become accepted as the US Army Model 1911.
Page 2, lines 35 thru 55 describe a device to block the trigger when the magazine has been removed.
The purpose as described by JMB.....quote from the patent:
"is to produce a firearm of this class in which, to insure absolutely against the dangerous accidental firing sometimes liable to occur if the trigger is pulled after the magazine has been withdrawn, in the belief that all cartridges have been removed from the arm with the magazine, whereas the loaded cartridge still remains in the chamber, the magazine catch shall not only lock the magazine in its seat or at will release the magazine, but the catch shall also automatically lock the trigger against operation whenever there is no magazine in the seat, and shall automatically release the trigger when a magazine is entered into the seat and there is locked by the catch." A rather longwinded sentence, but that is how patents are written.

However the US Army chose not to incorporate this feature into the 1911.
In fact when the design of the model 1911 was revisited by the Army in the late 1920's a magazine safety was not incorporated as an improvement to the 1911.
The 1911 and the improved 1911-A1 remain in service with the US Army today, even after being replaced as the main issued handgun by the Beretta pistol.
Here we are in 2009, only 2 years from the 100th anniversary of this fine combat pistol. This pistol has been in the hands of millions of soldiers and civilians, and yet throughout this history of nearly one hundred years there has not been any movement to modify the 1911 pistol to incorporate a magazine safety.
Nearly 100 years of use by militaries around the world as well as police and security companies.
The 1911 has been hailed as perhaps THE pistol design of the 20th century.
It is the standard from which other pistols are compared.
Yet I hear no clamor from the Army, nor others to modify the 1911 to incorporate a magazine sensing device.
I know of no states, with rigid safety tests, that have failed the 1911 design because of its lack of a magazine sensing device.
Nor have I heard of any movement on the behalf of city, county or state police departments to recall handguns not equipped with a magazine present sensing device.
In fact huge numbers of other pistol designs do not incorporate a magazine sensing device.
I accept JMB's original position that a magazine sensing device prevents the accidental discharge while UNLOADING or RECKLESSLY handling a handgun.

Apparently the Officers of the US Army in 1911 and their successors for nearly a century, as well as all the firearm experts responsible for their various police, sheriff and other law enforcement departments were in error while allowing model 1911 handguns as well as countless other handgun designs not incorporating a magazine sensing device.
This of course counts the thousands of handguns used on the street today by law enforcement.
The odds are greater than even the officers armed inside the courtrooms, where these very arguments would be made, are carrying handguns without a magazine sensing device.
Fiddletown, I apologize for mis-spelling your name. I never intended any insult.
I feel the weight of my argument has shown there are other positions held by many people other than myself that have chosen to not require a magazine sensing device in a military or law enforcement scenario.
I respect your arguments, although they seem to depend upon the lack of firearm knowledge by a jury.
A real world problem we all need to be aware of.
I'm back to eating up the words in the many books I study and continue to study.
The covers remain intact. Thanks,

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But this discussion causes me to ask a slightly different question: why is the removal of a safety feature designed to prevent accidental/negligent discharges even an issue, if a shooting wasn't due to an accidental or negligent discharge?

How do we know the shooting wasn't an accidental or negligent discharge? Yes, my client broke into your house in violation of the law; but he had surrendered when he saw you were armed. You shot him accidentally out of nervousness when he presented no immediate threat and was in the process of complying with your orders.

Depending on the facts of the shooting, that might sound more plausible than you imagine. And while it might not get you a grand jury indictment, it might make a more appetizing civil case - and in a civil case, the burden of proof is lower and the accidental/negligent angle gives a deep pocket to go after (your homeowner's insurance).

[Walt Sherrill]

...yet throughout this history of nearly one hundred years there has not been any movement to modify the 1911 pistol to incorporate a magazine safety.

I don't know -- a number of guns using similar design features (like the more modern single-stack Starrs) have used a mag safety in their design.

I think you could use the same sort of logic you've used here to argue that the retention of the mag safety in the BHP, over many years, when it could have been removed, is ample proof of that features validity.

Personally, I think the mag safety was a solution in search of a problem -- but the points made here by Fiddletown and Mas Ayoob (in favor of keeping the mag safety in place) have nothing to do with the effectiveness or desireability of the feature, but simply address the best way to keep yourself out of deep do-do if you're ever involved in a civil lawsuit following a self-defense shooting.

Your reasoning seems to be addressing a different point, altogether.

[Poseidon28]

Perhaps we might say that, since we are raising character at trial, you have to look at removing the safety disconnect as part of the whole you are presenting at trial.

For a target shooter, or someone with a long and distinguished background, it's unlikely this is going to be viewed as a huge character defect, to want to be able to shoot all your guns accurately.

Convincing a jury that you actually feared for your life is going to be the hardest part of the entire thing. As I said earlier, they are sitting in probably the most secure position in their lives, and, you have to convince them that you were scared enough to think lethal force was necessary.

Just had a thought. In a city with a LOT of crime, your chance of getting a juror that is sympathetic, or been in a similar situation is greatly increased.

SF, last time I checked, had 1 of 17 people being victim of a violent crime, each year. Our area, it's way higher. 1 of 30 of a crime, but, 99% of the crime out here is property crime...

[Walt Sherrill]

How do we know the shooting wasn't an accidental or negligent discharge? Yes, my client broke into your house in violation of the law; but he had surrendered when he saw you were armed. You shot him accidentally out of nervousness when he presented no immediate threat and was in the process of complying with your orders.

I asked why it would be an issue if it WASN'T an accidental or negligent discharge. You can ask questions about your own scenarios...

Just because your client said he was complying with my order, why must we assume that a person shot after breaking into a house is going to be honest about his intentions or his actions?

Here in NC, it really doesn't matter -- if he has broken in my house, it makes no difference whether I shot him accidentally or intentionally. His presence in my occupied home says that my family and/or I are clearly at risk, and I am justified in using lethal force to protect our/my lives/life. There is both statutory and case law to support that course of action.

If it's different, in your state, you might want to move to NC...

[Poseidon28]

In Kali, you pretty much have a knife, bullet, stitches, something physical to show that you actually had a real reason to fear deadly bodily harm inflicted by the person in question. Otherwise, property is not a reason to shoot someone, even a burglar.

[amd6547]

There is nothing about the P35 mag disconnect which prevents accurate shooting in a combat scenario. Yes, some like to remove it to improve their bullseyes at the range, yet I get two inch groups at 25 yards using +P combat ammo with my HiPower...with intact mag disconnect. That is good enough for me in one of my two main HD and carry weapons.
I believe the main objection is theoretical..."I want my pistol to function as a single shot if I lose my sole magazine". Rather absurd, really.
I own many handguns without mag disconnects. I treat them, and the HiPower the same. They are all considered loaded until the chamber is visually checked, often, and repeatedly.
The 1911 is, of course, an excellent pistol. Yet, I wonder how many people have found out their chamber is loaded the hard way.

[Poseidon28]

The trigger on the HiPower made me sell two beautiful browning HP's, because, accuracy wise, the guns sucked compared to a tuned 1911. Most of the problem was the trigger.

I'll be happy to be an expert witness that would testify the trigger is a major factor in accuracy, and, the BHP needs trigger work. Period.

So I think would stephen camp..

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

..Fiddletown, I apologize for mis-spelling your name...

Accepted.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...Apparently the Officers of the US Army in 1911 and their successors for nearly a century, as well as all the firearm experts responsible for their various police, sheriff and other law enforcement departments were in error while allowing model 1911 handguns as well as countless other handgun designs not incorporating a magazine sensing device....

I'm sure not going to argue that the magazine disconnect is a good thing. I personally don't like it. And that's why I favor either a 1911 or an H&K P7M8, neither of which have a magazine disconnect. And a lot of knowledgeable people agree. In any case, it's a matter of controversy; and it is not by any means unanimous that a magazine disconnect is undesirable.

As I had mentioned earlier, a number of police agencies have, in the past, selected pistols with magazine disconnects as their standard service sidearm. Most recently, the New Hampshire State Police ordered Smith & Wesson M&Ps and specified that they be fitted with the optional (for LE) magazine disconnect. And California requires as of 1 January 2007 that any pistol to be added to the roster of approved handguns have a magazine disconnect.

So somewhere out there, there are potential expert witnesses who will testify that a magazine disconnect is a valuable safety feature.

But again, this is not about the utility or lack of utility of a magazine disconnect. It is about someone modifying a gun incorporating that device and disabling that device. The same legal issues arise in connection with disabling a grip safety or a firing pin block. If one doesn't like these attributes, there are suitable guns available without them.

Originally Posted by JMBstudent

...I respect your arguments, although they seem to depend upon the lack of firearm knowledge by a jury....

And such lack of knowledge is, in fact, highly likely.

Originally Posted by Poseidon28

In Kali, you pretty much have a knife, bullet, stitches, something physical to show that you actually had a real reason to fear deadly bodily harm inflicted by the person in question. Otherwise, property is not a reason to shoot someone, even a burglar.

Pretty much anywhere you're going to have to show a jury that a reasonable person in like circumstance would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. The standard may be slightly relaxed in certain situations in some states under various version of a Castle Doctrine law. But in general, defense of property will not be accepted as justification for the use of lethal force.

Originally Posted by Walt Sherrill

...the points made here by Fiddletown and Mas Ayoob (in favor of keeping the mag safety in place) have nothing to do with the effectiveness or desireability of the feature, but simply address the best way to keep yourself out of deep do-do if you're ever involved in a civil lawsuit following a self-defense shooting....

Bingo.

[darrentxs]

Is this likely to happen?

"Hello officer, I shot the BG with my trusty BHP. By the way I removed the magazine safety."

I don't think so. Just put the pin back in the trigger so it's not obvious the mag safety was removed and enjoy the improved pull. Keep the parts and re-install if you sell it. Assume it's removed and check with a snap cap on any used BHP purchase

There is a 100% chance it will shoot better at the range and about nil you will shoot anyone with it. That being said, I have 2 BHPs, one with and one without the mag safety removed. My '68 has a decent pull so I left it alone. My '80 BHP had a horrendous pull so there is no mag saftey now and it's MUCH better. My .02

[gyvel]

Owning about a dozen Hi-Power shooters, I have removed the magzine safeties from every one of them. In every case, the trigger pulls have been improved 1000%. Now, having said that, I do NOT use the Hi-Powers for defense, either out or at home.

Each side in this discussion has prevented many valid points.

However:

The way I see it, (yes, my very own opinion, "right" or "wrong") is that magazine safeties were intended for absent minded/distracted people who, having removed the loaded magazine from their pistol, forgot that the chamber might have a live round in it. Therefore, removal of the magazine disconnector (again my very own opinion) would have no bearing on my intents in a self defense situation, but merely show a disregard for my own personal safety OR someone else's safety in the event of an ACCIDENTAL shooting, which is a whole different matter than a self defense shooting.

Anyway, the main point is that it is relatively simple to remove the safety with no permanent changes and, yes, it does improve the trigger pull tremendously.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by darrentxs

Is this likely to happen?

"Hello officer, I shot the BG with my trusty BHP. By the way I removed the magazine safety."....

If you are involved in a shooting (even if you claim self defense) your gun will be taken from you at the scene as evidence and it will be examined by a Firearms and Toolmark Examiner, and it will be determined, among other things, whether all safety devices are functional (see post #105).

Originally Posted by darrentxs

...There is a 100% chance it will shoot better at the range ....

Originally Posted by gyvel

....Owning about a dozen Hi-Power shooters, I have removed the magzine safeties from every one of them. In every case, the trigger pulls have been improved 1000%. Now, having said that, I do NOT use the Hi-Powers for defense, either out or at home....

In our discussion of legal issues we've been focusing on using a BHP for self defense. If you need a gun for self defense, the trigger of a BHP can be improved significantly without disabling the magazine disconnect. Or there are other guns that can be used.

Originally Posted by gyvel

...removal of the magazine disconnector (again my very own opinion) would have no bearing on my intents in a self defense situation,...

Again, the issue is about what a jury might infer about the defendant, his character, motivation and judgment, because he removed a safety device installed by the manufacturer.

And the defendant's character, motivation and judgment is material, because he is claiming self defense; and the jury's perception of the defendant's character, motivation and judgment can affect how the jury evaluates his story about what happened and why he concluded that it was necessary to use lethal force against another human.

[darrentxs]

The mag safety is protection for knuckleheads that don't know how to ensure a gun is empty. It's function is easily explained to any jury.

As a gun owner I feel it's important to be able to shoot accurately any firearm I own. To that end improving the trigger pull via mag safety disconnect is the best ways to improve the trigger on a BHP. I'm sure competent gunsmiths would agree and testify to this.

I don't live my life in unlikely "what if" scenarios. I cannot be convinced that it will ever cause me difficulty and would do it again. I have and will continue to recommend it to anyone with a BHP seeking a better trigger pull.

I'm not here to argue. I appreciate differing opinions, however I deem the legal issues raised as extremely unlikley to be encountered and easily discounted in court.

I see the future and it goes like this: "You're a dummy, you're wrong, you will go to jail, you will cause someone else to go to jail." I'll respond now to what the future says (as I will not be in this thread again): Bull

[danez71]

My thoughts are this,
Does removing it potentially give an opening for them to say you disregard safety? Yes. But a single act doesnt show a pattern of disregarding safety.

And, if the mag is still in the gun at the time of the shooting, it becomes more of a mute point.

As an example, your Air bag light is on in your car. You pulll the fuse because the glare at night bothers you. You are now driving a car with-out that safety feature. You get in an accident. Does the fuse pulled for the air bag show a pattern of disregarding safety? No. Did the fact that you disabled the airbag safety have anything to do with causing the accident? No

However, I feel that giving them the topic to argue against me is a bad idea at best and has potentially a horrible downside.

The improved difference in trigger in a SD situation is not really arguable... maybe if there were a disproportionate number of DAO dead guys (harder trigger to master).

Can you imagine arguing that you couldnt hit the broad side of the barn until you removed that dreaded safety device!?!?! Bad, bad, bad defense. I know I exagereted but thats how a prosecuter will hear it and maybe the jury too.

Having said all that.... the jury is a hard one to predict. Doesnt anyone remember that OJ got off. And how many times have we seen innocent people get released from jail after being wrongly convicted?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by darrentxs

The mag safety is protection for knuckleheads ... It's function is easily explained to any jury.

How do you know? What do you really know about explaining things to juries? It doesn't appear from your profile that you have any training, experience or expertise in this area.

As has already been discussed at length in this thread (1) a jury in a shooting case in which the defendant claims self defense is almost certainly not going to include anyone with any knowledge of or interest in guns; (2) making technical arguments to a jury with no interest in or experience with the subject matter is difficult; and (3) if you're on trial you have a bunch of potential problems, so an issue like a magazine disconnect muddies the waters and makes it more difficult for your lawyer to adequately deal with those other matters.

Why do you want to make it harder for your lawyer than it already will be to save your skin?

For some discussion by Massad Ayoob about selling this sort of thing to a jury see --

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....9&postcount=21

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....8&postcount=29

Originally Posted by darrentxs

...To that end improving the trigger pull via mag safety disconnect is the best ways to improve the trigger on a BHP. I'm sure competent gunsmiths would agree and testify to this....

Well, Bill Laughridge at Cylinder & Slide is pretty well known as a competant gunsmith, and he offers a variety of tactical tune up packages for the BHP that retain the magazine disconnect.

Originally Posted by darrentxs

...I deem the legal issues raised as extremely unlikley to be encountered and easily discounted in court....

As to not likely to come up, well it's extremely unlikely that you will ever need to use your gun in self defense. And if you do, there's a good chance that it won't get to court, if you're lucky. But if you find yourself on trial, it will most likely come up.

As to "easily discounted in court", how would you know? It doesn't appear from your profile that you have any training, experience or expertise in this area.

Originally Posted by danez71

...I feel that giving them the topic to argue against me is a bad idea at best and has potentially a horrible downside....

And that's the point.