Anyone shorten the trigger pull on their P3AT?
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Joined
·
4,317 Posts
It could be done.
It would involve using a weaker firing pin return spring and
modifying the cocking cam on the lower right side of the hammer (hidden inside the grip and frame).
It might involve modifying the trigger bar as well.
It is not recommended that you do so, for safety reasons, among others.
It would involve using a weaker firing pin return spring and
modifying the cocking cam on the lower right side of the hammer (hidden inside the grip and frame).
It might involve modifying the trigger bar as well.
It is not recommended that you do so, for safety reasons, among others.
I would think a modified trigger in this way could cause legal headaches if you have to shoot someone in self defense. A lightened trigger could look as bad "intent".
I do not agree with this but it does open you up to additional risk if prosecutor or BG family wanted to go after you - just sayin'.
Bluesdog
I do not agree with this but it does open you up to additional risk if prosecutor or BG family wanted to go after you - just sayin'.
Bluesdog
Joined
·
4,879 Posts
The relatively long trigger pull is the safety feature of this gun. The law frowns on modified safety features. Besides, the last place I want my P3AT going off is as I'm putting it in my pocket; that's why I will never own a Glock. The short trigger pull has caused way too many to shoot themselves in the leg while holstering the stupid gun. Just do a web search on "Glock leg." I for one don't want a case of KelTec crotch or KelTec butt. :-?
I know it's an old thread but Glock's are among the safest handguns out there. They absolutely can not go off unless the trigger is pulled. If people shoot themselves while holstering, their finger was on the trigger. The finger should never be on the trigger of ANY gun unless you are about to shoot it. Then when done it should scoot back out along the slide/frame.billjohnso20 said:
Joined
·
32,164 Posts
Joined
·
1,267 Posts
certain guns there is no reason to mess with the trigger. the p3at is one of these guns. i would buy more ammo and practice. now as glocks goes. was issued a glock in the late 80 and have carried it in a holster, out of holster, no holster, etc..., on and off duty and never had a problem of it going off by itself. i have dropped it, thrown it, kicked it across the floor, dropped it in the ocean, used it as a "black jack", etc.... the only time i have seen one go off is when the fringer pulled the trigger. i have seen some state that their glock when off on it own, but after the investigation it was found that the fringer did it,,, not the cheap hoster, not the t-shirt, not the cheap belt, etc...
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
the reset is out there far forward. thats what bothers you.. i dont know how..
I did straighten out poly trigger with hair dryer & filed sharp tip down. Then you have the "white" ereaser add-on from 1bad69.com... These 3 things are great but ya still have forward reset.
I did straighten out poly trigger with hair dryer & filed sharp tip down. Then you have the "white" ereaser add-on from 1bad69.com... These 3 things are great but ya still have forward reset.
Joined
·
39 Posts
Can someone please post a citation of ANY case in which a person has been sent to prison SOLELY or using a modified firearm in lawful self defense? I hear this myth a lot but no one ever seems to be able to cite an example.
As has been said before, "If deadly force is authorized it doesn't matter if you use a machine gun or a weed-whacker."
Let's put this myth to rest already.
Sorry, but it is not a myth, and don't want anyone new here (who has not seen previous discussions on this subject) to think so. Have you read the Case Files of Massad Ayoob. More than one such incident in his case files on this subject where he was called by the defense as an expert witness.
One that sticks in immediate memory is a case involving an LEO who used his service Glock, shooting a "perp" in an apparent justified shooting. Unfortunately for the officer, a forensic exam of his "issue" Glock found that the officer had replaced the standard trigger connector with an aftermarket 3.5 lb connector to lighten the trigger pull. Based almost solely on the, the prosecutor alledged that the incident/shooting was not therefore a careful judgement by the LEO, but rather negligent homicide (arguing that the gun thus likely went off "accidently" and not by the LEOs intent. A judge agreed and the LEO was in serious trouble and going to trial. Another case (I don't remember the details at the moment) involved the disabling of the magazine disconnect feature on a Browning handgun, which resulted in charges against the owner, who had used that pistol in a self defense situation.
So, unfortunately, any mod that affects a firearms safety, even just perceived safety, can result in unfortunate legal consequences if an over zealous or perhaps anti-gun DA or Prosecutor thinks he can or should make a case out of it. Not that it will necessarily happen, but it has and can. Anyone carrying a defensive firearm that might be used one day, should be aware of the distinct possibility that some mods might well be used against them, if the gun is ever used.
Jim R
Joined
·
17,775 Posts
First you request a citation of a generalized statement, then you make your own generalized statement? Sorry. Citation please for your any weapon in a storm comment.
Massad Aayoub(sp?) comes to mind for the lightened trigger defense. He spends a lot of time testifying as a SME, and most of these kinds of theories seem to come from his past experience. Kind of like people who use reloads to make the round more lethal. Specific case law examples? Can't think of any, but I am not a lawyer looking to win a case either.
Maybe your 2nd post will be a little more along the lines of "Howdy" to the forum.
Joined
·
39 Posts
I'm not new here, I've been posting for years. I go through long periods of inactivity which force me to create a new profile every once in a long while.
Massad Ayoob writes for a VERY general audience. What he writes has to fly in very anti-gun places like New Jersey just as well in very pro-gun places like Alaska. (Hence his recommendation one only use police ammo.) Unless you live in a VERY anti-gun area, this is really a non-issue.
The two or three cases I've ever heard of a prosecutor trying to make a case against modified guns have all failed miserably for the prosecution. The defense needs to merely point out the opposite of what the prosecution claims: That those mods make the gun more accurate and therefore more safe (same argument for non-police ammo).
After a shooting your choice of modification (and ammo) is the LAST thing you should worry about. But if you want to wring your hands over an extremely small amount of failed prosecutions, be my guest. Like I said, I've yet to see ANYONE go to prison solely for using a modified firearm in a justifiable shooting. A prosecutor would really be grasping at threads if he went forward with that kind of case, especially now that it has such a failed track record.
Don't get me wrong. I like Massad Ayoob. Aside from his stance on the right to carry firearms (he is strongly against unlicensed carry), there is a lot to respect about the guy. But remember he has to cover his bases in a very general way. Not using the best possible gun or ammo based on his writings is a very flawed route to take.
Since you guys are specifying this would only happen with a very anti-gun prosecutor, I don't think we're in major disagreement here.
Massad Ayoob writes for a VERY general audience. What he writes has to fly in very anti-gun places like New Jersey just as well in very pro-gun places like Alaska. (Hence his recommendation one only use police ammo.) Unless you live in a VERY anti-gun area, this is really a non-issue.
The two or three cases I've ever heard of a prosecutor trying to make a case against modified guns have all failed miserably for the prosecution. The defense needs to merely point out the opposite of what the prosecution claims: That those mods make the gun more accurate and therefore more safe (same argument for non-police ammo).
After a shooting your choice of modification (and ammo) is the LAST thing you should worry about. But if you want to wring your hands over an extremely small amount of failed prosecutions, be my guest. Like I said, I've yet to see ANYONE go to prison solely for using a modified firearm in a justifiable shooting. A prosecutor would really be grasping at threads if he went forward with that kind of case, especially now that it has such a failed track record.
Don't get me wrong. I like Massad Ayoob. Aside from his stance on the right to carry firearms (he is strongly against unlicensed carry), there is a lot to respect about the guy. But remember he has to cover his bases in a very general way. Not using the best possible gun or ammo based on his writings is a very flawed route to take.
Since you guys are specifying this would only happen with a very anti-gun prosecutor, I don't think we're in major disagreement here.
Joined
·
17,775 Posts
And we're supposed to be clairvoyant and know this....
From our forum rules.
You did ask for citations on why we make these warnings. They were provided. You still haven't answered my request by citing your "As has been said before, "If deadly force is authorized it doesn't matter if you use a machine gun or a weed-whacker."" statement. Which I must admit I had never seen or heard before.
Since Ayoobs writings often come from his actual case files, and since they are generally published in gun magazines and other gun related publications, I don't think anyone but pro-gun folks ever read his material, so I don't think it matters much whether a particular area is pro or anti-gun. He is writing to a specific audience, and they are what matter. Others would never read what he writes so I tend to doubt whether his writing is designed to "fly" for those folks as well.
True, it is not too likely (though it has probably happened) that many of the folks in cases cited actually went to prison, but that completely overlooks the tremendous expenses, and even personal financial ruin that many might experience having to defend themselves against such charges. Such costs could easily cost 100K or more, and not many of us could readily afford such. Another aspect could well be, even if such charges eventually failed in criminal court, civil liability charges from the relatives of a deceased. Such charges do not need to meet criminal standards, and liabilities can run into millions. Quite a chance to take for a generally unnecessary modification, albeit it might make a firearm more pleasant at the range (which is not its role in any case).
But each has to make his/her own decisions on such issues and what is acceptable. The point being made here on the forum, especially for those relatively new to the CCW world, is to provide information so that such choices are informed, and made with full awareness of possible (not necessarily inevitable) consequences of any choice.
Safe shooting and may we never need the skills we strive to learn.
Jim R
Joined
·
39 Posts
Well said, PF9Newbie.
I live in Texas, so civil suits aren't a concern if the shooting is justified. There are also legal services available which cover 100% of lawyers fees if you are charged in a shooting. The catch is you have to pay the fees before you get into trouble. Cost is about $100 a year.
So essentially, nothing Ayoob writes about ammo and mods applies to me. It would definitely NOT be wise for a Texan to heed his mentioned warnings. But there's the catch. You have to do your homework and your own risk/benefit analysis. I'd wager most people don't live in places anti-gun enough to worry about Ayoob's advice, but like you said, it's ultimately your 6 o'clock (to paraphrase).
I think ultimately we all want to get the word out to shooters about possible unforseen consequences and risks; we're all on the same team here. I just think a couple of Ayoob's cautions are over-blown for most shooters and want to get a counter-point out there that I feel is important. Shooter beware!
Cheers!
I live in Texas, so civil suits aren't a concern if the shooting is justified. There are also legal services available which cover 100% of lawyers fees if you are charged in a shooting. The catch is you have to pay the fees before you get into trouble. Cost is about $100 a year.
So essentially, nothing Ayoob writes about ammo and mods applies to me. It would definitely NOT be wise for a Texan to heed his mentioned warnings. But there's the catch. You have to do your homework and your own risk/benefit analysis. I'd wager most people don't live in places anti-gun enough to worry about Ayoob's advice, but like you said, it's ultimately your 6 o'clock (to paraphrase
). I think ultimately we all want to get the word out to shooters about possible unforseen consequences and risks; we're all on the same team here. I just think a couple of Ayoob's cautions are over-blown for most shooters and want to get a counter-point out there that I feel is important. Shooter beware!
Cheers!
Joined
·
39 Posts
Never assumed such. So you're saying if my old account was deleted due to inactivity I can't make another?
Not really. I still haven't seen an example of anyone who went to prison for using a modified firearm in a justifiable shooting. The weedwhacker thing was something someone said on another forum. Didn't want to look like I was stealing his originality.
The one example of a cop was more about a prosecutor saying the shooting was negligent than it was about his gear. I really doubt the guys trigger was the sole factor in that decision. Like I said, I have yet to see where justifiable deadly force ever sent anyone to prison due to a modification.
Yes, shooters get prosecuted for bogus claims, just like thousands of other non-shooters do every day. It really isn't the huge deal many make it out to be and you shouldn't worry about it unless you live in a very anti-gun area.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Join the discussion
