Update: What is the current general consensus on carrying a modified handgun?

[lee n. field]

So with trigger modifications becoming more and more prominent, would you feel more comfortable carrying a modified trigger?

I voted no, for taking one more thing off the table in a possible after the fact legal review. The better answer is "it depends".

[zincwarrior]

Unless the mod made the trigger heavier on a striker fired gun, no way I'd carry it.

Indeed. With a DAO, there's a reason the default is a 6lb plus trigger with moderate length of pull.

Most trigger jobs make the trigger lighter, crisper, with a shorter reset etc. These are great for competition firearms (one of mine is sub 3 lb) but not not preferred for a carry, unless you have an active safety (1911, etc.).

My $.02 anyway

[Lohman446]

No... though others have stated unless those modifications result in a firearm less likely to fire (such as a heavier trigger) and even then I still think no.

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the modification that is not available in a stock handgun (though perhaps not the stock one you have)?

To me lots of risk. Very little reward.

[lee n. field]

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the modification that is not available in a stock handgun (though perhaps not the stock one you have)?

I wonder that myself, exactly what people are perceiving when they declare a trigger "bad". There's more than simple pull weight that goes into that.

[Lohman446]

I wonder that myself, exactly what people are perceiving when they declare a trigger "bad". There's more than simple pull weight that goes into that.

Assuming we are not talking bulls eye shooting or some other extreme accuracy situation to me a "bad" trigger is a trigger that I am challenged to pull without adjusting my grip or pulling off target. Granted I don't have experience with every handgun out there but I cannot think of one common semi-automatic handgun that this is an issue with for me. Because there are a tremendous amount of options out there that fit my need my desire to enter the realm of a modified defensive handgun is extremely small.

[DT Guy]

I'm surprised that so many people think the target in a self-defense shooting *won't* be as challenging as a 'target shooting' target?

I personally don't know what kind of shot I might have to make to save myself or my family, but I suspect that it could include:

• Lots of innocents moving in and out of the area
• Moving targets (aggressors)
• Multiple aggressors SIMULTANEOUSLY attacking
• Companions, children or other encumberances

I try to be ready for the self-defense shot I hope I never have to take being the hardest shot of my life; I don't imagine adrenaline, movement, surprise or confusion are going to make the mechanics of accurately shooting a firearm somehow easier.

Larry

[stephen426]

Each shot that I fire is potentially deadly. I want to make sure I maximize my chances of hitting what I am aiming at while avoiding hitting anything that I am not aiming at. The addition of the Ghost Pro in my Glock 43 has made a improvement in my shooting. It wasn't horrible before, but it wasn't great either. Trigger is smoother and maybe marginally lighter, but certainly not a hair trigger.

Let's put a spin on this. What if we say that single action triggers like those on the 1911 have a short light trigger and those that carry them are looking to shoot people? What about the use of hollow point bullets designed to main? The list goes on and on. If we worried about every possibility, might as well lock ourselves away.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Stephen, those 1911's are in a factory configuration. The debate isn't light versus heavy triggers.


It's modified versus factory.

[Loosedhorse]

Originally Posted by DT Guy

Lots of innocents moving in and out of the area...
Companions, children or other encumberances...
...adrenaline, movement, surprise or confusion...

All of those sound like great reasons to argue for a heavier trigger, to minimize the chance of unintentional discharge under stress.

Not trying to be snarky. Just pointing out that, even when we agree on all the problems you listed, we may disagree on the best way to approach them.

Originally Posted by DT Guy

so many people think the target in a self-defense shooting *won't* be as challenging as a 'target shooting' target?

While I'm not sure I got that from the comments here, it is true that self-defense shootings tend to happen at close range.

NYPD in 2013 reported that 90% of its shootings are 0-7 yards. (Tom Givens has reported the same figure for the 56 shootings his previous students have experienced.) Earlier, looking at all their officer-killed shootings through 1979, NYPD noted that 34% happened at 1 yard or less, and 82% at 2 yards or less. The FBI looking at officer-killed shootings from 1991-2000 found 71% killed at 10 feet or less, with over 2/3 of those killed at 5ft or less.

Now, those are all just statistics. As an instructor of mine liked to say, "I'm a pretty smart guy but there's something I sure don't know: what your gunfight is going to look like."

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by stephen426

Let's put a spin on this. What if we say that single action triggers like those on the 1911 have a short light trigger and those that carry them are looking to shoot people? What about the use of hollow point bullets designed to main? The list goes on and on. If we worried about every possibility, might as well lock ourselves away.

There's a big difference between carrying something as it came from the factory and modifying it. Presumably, if a gun was designed with a short, light trigger, and both a thumb and grip safety, smarter engineers than I designed it that way. (I'm not an engineer.) If I start removing those things, we have a different kettle of fish.

As far as I know, HPs were not designed to maim. I haven't researched that, though, so I may be wrong. That said, AFAIK, every police department in the country carries HPs.

It's a sliding, risk-vs-reward scale. If you ever have to shoot anyone, you can reasonably expect to have to testify somewhere. Maybe in the criminal case, maybe in the civil case, maybe both. You danged well better be able to justify your choice to 12 people, chosen at random in your area.

[Lohman446]

There's a big difference between carrying something as it came from the factory and modifying it

I agree - my take on it is it is much easier to say "this gun came from a reputable manufacturer and was designed for its intended purposes" and let the manufacturer defend the design aspects of the gun then it is to say "well I thought the trigger was too heavy so I decided I would modify it"

[stephen426]

I guess this comes down to the personal choice, and whether or not one feels the risk being prosecuted (or sued civilly) for having an aftermarket trigger is worth the benefit of those aftermarket parts.

The examples I used were somewhat tongue in cheek. Why would we choose a more lethal round? Why not shoot to kill? I understand that something straight from a factory may seem easier to justify, but how about those who choose to use "assault rifles" to protect their homes?

[Lohman446]

I can't answer for others. I chose not to use a black rifle to protect my home partially because of the politics around them

[Onward Allusion]

I carry a G27 with a heavier trigger, does that count?

I would never carry anything with a lighter than factory trigger.

[JohnKSa]

...how about those who choose to use "assault rifles" to protect their homes?

Although that's not really on-topic for the General Handgun subforum, it is a good question, and one that should be given consideration.

[OldMarksman]

I can't answer for others. I chose not to use a black rifle to protect my home partially because of the politics around them

There is sound rationale for that decision.

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by stephen426

I guess this comes down to the personal choice, and whether or not one feels the risk being prosecuted (or sued civilly) for having an aftermarket trigger is worth the benefit of those aftermarket parts.

It does come down to personal choice, but it is my hope that folks reading and participating in this thread will make educated choices, rather than just dismissing the (potentially very expensive) legal risks that can come with some choices.

Let's get our terminology straight. Generally, one does not get "prosecuted or sued civilly for having an aftermarket trigger.* " Since having an aftermarket trigger, in and of itself, is neither illegal nor a violation of any established duty to our fellow citizens, that's not the reason that one gets prosecuted or sued. That said, that aftermarket trigger may sway a prosecutor, attorney or jury.


*= Unless, of course, that trigger makes your gun go full-auto, but that's a different problem.

Originally Posted by stephen426

The examples I used were somewhat tongue in cheek. Why would we choose a more lethal round? Why not shoot to kill? I understand that something straight from a factory may seem easier to justify, but how about those who choose to use "assault rifles" to protect their homes?

". . . . something straight from a factory may seem easier to justify . . . . " There are actually several facets to this that I see, in the legal context, and which ones are applicable may depend on both what modifications were done as well as who did them.

--
Examples:
1. Harry Hiddenholster carries a modified pistol. He had the trigger smoothed and lightened to 2.5#. He had the work done at a nationally-known shop. If Harry has to shoot someone:
(a) the weight of the trigger (being pretty low) may become an issue if someone decides to claim that the shooting was not intentional (a necessary element of an SD claim), but was negligent; and
(b) there's a neutral third party (the nationally-known shop) that can testify about the work done to the pistol without Harry having to take the stand. (He may have to testify anyway, but we lawyers like to keep our options open. Besides, if he shot someone, his credibility may already be an issue.)
(c) I still have to explain why a 2.5# trigger was necessary & why Harry couldn't have shot just as accurately with a 4.5# trigger.

2. Greg Gunderson also carries a modified pistol. His has the same 2.5# trigger as Harry's, a set of death's head grips, and he has removed a safety device for a better trigger. Greg did the work himself.
(a) If Greg shoots someone and shows up in my office and tells me all of the above, my price goes up. He has complicated my job by an exponential measure, for reasons that follow.
(b) By doing the work himself, he has eliminated the possibility that I can pick up the phone, call the shop and have them fax me the records on the work done. If I want reliable, admissible data on the trigger, I have to hire an expert and have him go test the pistol. Then I have to have him prepare a report, turn it over to the other attorney(s), and pay him big $$ to come testify.
(c) By putting the death's head grips on it, Greg has turned his pistol into a giant piece of demonstrative evidence that may well be shown to the jury every time the other side gets up to speak, and there won't be a damn thing I can do about it. This is a jury perception problem, but your lawyer has to deal with it one way or another.
(d) And I still have to deal with that 2.5# trigger.

3. Finally, Sally Semi. She bought a gun with a trigger that she liked, and it came with night sights from the factory. It's bland. It's boring. It's reliable. Sally likes her gun. Sally's lawyer likes her gun, too.

--

The jury perception problem mentioned above is a very real one. As a litigator of almost 15 years, I can tell you that being technically right won't always carry the day. If there are disputed facts, the jury has to find for one side and against the other. And yeah, a jury might well be swayed against someone who had death's head grips, a "wait for flash" engraving, or even used an AR for HD.

[JDBerg]

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=6896

The above article sums up the way I feel about modifying a defensive handgun. When I'm dry firing a pistol I'm interested in at an LGS or if I'm trying out a pistol I'm interested in at the LGR, my interest ends if I don't like the trigger, I don't think about modifying that trigger so I like it

[Loosedhorse]

Originally Posted by stephen426

Why would we choose a more lethal round?

I don't. Neither do police, for that matter.

I carry rounds that are more likely to stop an attacker quickly, with the LEAST number of shots fired; and rounds that are more likely to stop inside the attacker, not over-penetrate and endanger others beyond the target.

So the ammo I use makes thing safer for me, safer for bystanders...and safer for the person being shot, since I am less likely to have to shoot him many times before he stops.

I would NEVER choose to use a round based on its being "more lethal".* So, ammo labeled things like DRT, or RIP, or Terminator, etc.? No how, no way.

*I thought that lethality, like uniqueness, is a dichotomous quality: things are either lethal or they aren't. I thought terms like "more lethal" were the propaganda of anti-gunners, as in: "That assault weapon is way more lethal than my duck-gun, and so it should be banned."

Why not shoot to kill?

I never would. I would shoot to stop.

If I'm shooting to stop, and the guy falls, throws away his gun and puts his hands up, I get to stop. If I'm shooting to kill, well, he's still alive, so I have to keep shooting him even though he surrendered.

No way, no how would I shoot to kill. Ever.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Loosedhorse

. . . . If I'm shooting to stop, and the guy falls, throws away his gun and puts his hands up, I get to stop. . . .

This reminds me very much of a seminar I went to several years ago where Rob Pincus was the speaker. To paraphrase him, one thing he said that stuck with me was this: People always give me scenarios and ask, "Can I shoot?" They're asking the wrong question. The question they should be asking is, "Do I have to shoot?"

[Skolnick]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you're one of the people who believe that questions must have simple answers, then the most accurate answer is "Don't".

If you're willing to accept a more complicated answer, then the answer is: "It depends."

Very good distillation!

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Your fate will be decided by a bunch of people who learned about firearms from watching movies and tv shows. You won't be arguing your case against a bunch of gun enthusiasts ...

You'll be arguing against a person whose profession is making people look guilty ...

If the modification makes it easier to argue that your self-defense shooting was more likely to be an accidental shooting than an intentional one ...

It is not just lack of mechanical safety that will be brought up. A three-year old posting on FaceBook about "killing 'em all" or a Molon Labe bumper sticker will make it easier for that person -- whose profession is making people look guilty -- to make it look like you have been stalking the streets with murderous intensions.

When I attended a civilian police academy for my upscale suburb, they showed actual footage of a raid on a meth lab. In this incident there were no shots fired; there was no resistance; it was just a bunch of heavily armed police overwhelming a few mopes in seconds. Two of the women (in a class of 12) objected to, what they deemed to be, an uncalled for use of force.

The police officer/instructor told them that they had a warrant that authorized the raid, and that such force is necessary because they never know what they are going to encounter on the other side of the door. Both of the women said that such excuses didn't justify that use of force.

I saw that video and thought, "well done."

They saw lots of scary police armed with scary black rifles -- and they are the ones who are going to be on the jury when that person -- whose profession is making people look guilty -- says your four and half pound pull is a "hair trigger".

We live in a society where the evening news reporters gasp when they report on someone in possession of 500 rounds of deadly magnum ammunition.

[Frank Ettin]

Spats, OldMarksman, and JohnKSa have covered the ground very well. I'll just add this:

I know someone who is a police instructor and armorer and who would qualify as an expert witness. He will state that a 4 to 5 pound trigger is appropriate for a service handgun (single action or striker fired) and that he will not set a trigger lighter than 4 pounds. If I used one of my 1911s with a 4.5 pound trigger, he will be testifying for me. If someone used a 1911 (or another handgun) with a 3 pound trigger, he will be testifying for the DA. His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound to be reckless.

[Snyper]

His testimony will be something to the effect that as an expert he would consider carrying a gun with a trigger lighter than 4 pound to be reckless.

One only has to find another "expert" with a different opinion, since that's all he's offering.

There are far more important details in a defensive shooting than weight of the trigger pull.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Snyper

One only has to find another "expert" with a different opinion, since that's all he's offering.

You used the word "only." Have you priced expert witnesses lately? Do you know what it takes to get a legally-admissible expert opinion, either in terms of process or cost? And if you don't know about the process, you do realize you'll have to pay your lawyer to go about the work of finding you an expert, right? Your buddy Sam down at the LGS won't cut it.

The State has firearms experts at the State Crime Lab. They're on salary and the State has an almost unlimited budget compared to me. I generally try to avoid getting into "battles of the expert witnesses" with any entity whose budget dwarfs mine.

[DT Guy]

Spats, you are obviously an accomplished attorney, and you view and argue from that experience. I am (quite obviously) not; my experience is in tactics and deploying force. Let me add my perspective to your examples, below:

1. Harry Hiddenholster carries a modified pistol. He had the trigger smoothed and lightened to 2.5#. He had the work done at a nationally-known shop. If Harry has to shoot someone:
(a) the weight of the trigger (being pretty low) may become an issue if someone decides to claim that the shooting was not intentional (a necessary element of an SD claim), but was negligent; and
(b) there's a neutral third party (the nationally-known shop) that can testify about the work done to the pistol without Harry having to take the stand. (He may have to testify anyway, but we lawyers like to keep our options open. Besides, if he shot someone, his credibility may already be an issue.)
(c) I still have to explain why a 2.5# trigger was necessary & why Harry couldn't have shot just as accurately with a 4.5# trigger.

And let's not forget, you'll be starting from a position of a LIVE client who survived the encounter to stand trial.

2. Greg Gunderson also carries a modified pistol. His has the same 2.5# trigger as Harry's, a set of death's head grips, and he has removed a safety device for a better trigger. Greg did the work himself.
(a) If Greg shoots someone and shows up in my office and tells me all of the above, my price goes up. He has complicated my job by an exponential measure, for reasons that follow.
(b) By doing the work himself, he has eliminated the possibility that I can pick up the phone, call the shop and have them fax me the records on the work done. If I want reliable, admissible data on the trigger, I have to hire an expert and have him go test the pistol. Then I have to have him prepare a report, turn it over to the other attorney(s), and pay him big $$ to come testify.
(c) By putting the death's head grips on it, Greg has turned his pistol into a giant piece of demonstrative evidence that may well be shown to the jury every time the other side gets up to speak, and there won't be a damn thing I can do about it. This is a jury perception problem, but your lawyer has to deal with it one way or another.
(d) And I still have to deal with that 2.5# trigger.

Frankly, Greg sounds like a nightmare client; but again, a LIVING nightmare client. He's made his own defense harder with the imagery, for sure.


3. Finally, Sally Semi. She bought a gun with a trigger that she liked, and it came with night sights from the factory. It's bland. It's boring. It's reliable. Sally likes her gun. Sally's lawyer likes her gun, too.

Sadly, Sally was presented with a difficult head shot on an aggressor abducting her 5 year old, and Sally had to try and take a shot at a moving, bobbing target at 20+ yards. The 7# trigger, with grit and creep, was unmanageable, and she sadly struck and killed her own child.

From a legal perspective, however, Sally will not fact criminal charges or a civil suit, simplifying her legal needs.

Yes, hyperbolic, but to a purpose; if you find a trigger you can shoot better than a stock trigger (I have) you increase your chances of survival, and of not injuring an innocent, by using it. Some would argue that not doing everything within your power to increase the accuracy with which you can deploy a defensive sidearm is nearly negligent, although, again, I am not an attorney.


Larry