# Modified? And Why???



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

What modifications have you made to your primary carry gun, and why?

External Mods?
- Sights
- Mag Wells
- Grip Tape
- Safeties
- Grip Reductions
- etc

Internal Mods
- Trigger
- Barrels
- Conversions

Or do you carry "Bone-Stock"?

Jeff


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Answering my own post:

XD9SC
- Pearce Grip Extension
- One strip of Grip-Tape on the front strap
- NiteSites sight dots

Future mods:
- Crimson Trace Grip (as soon as the damn things come out)


----------



## propellerhead (May 19, 2006)

Bone stock except for the Pearce Grip Extension on the magazine. I plan to get night sites on someday.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Night sights.

I have a Glock 23 that was modified with a grip reduction by its previous owner, but I haven't shot it enough to make it a carry gun yet. I do like the shorter trigger reach compared to my other Glocks.

I used to carry a pretty heavily customized Commander, but I have gotten away from custom guns. I like a gun that is ready to go from the box. It's the Indian, not the arrow.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> Night sights.
> 
> I have a Glock 23 that was modified with a grip reduction by its previous owner, but I haven't shot it enough to make it a carry gun yet. I do like the shorter trigger reach compared to my other Glocks.
> 
> I used to carry a pretty heavily customized Commander, but I have gotten away from custom guns. I like a gun that is ready to go from the box. It's the Indian, not the arrow.


You carry tritium inserts, right Mike? Which ones?


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

I put a spurless hammer for a snag free draw and a Tyler-T-Grip for a little better grip and control. It's a Ruger Speed-Six. It's post in the Gallery.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I prefer Meprolights. I like their slightly higher, blockier sight picture compared to Trijicon and others.

I use green-on-green. I know there is a theory floating around that you should have a different color for the front sight, to prevent misalignment. But you'd have to have an absolutely terrible grip on the gun to misalign the sights so badly that the front sight was to the side of the rear sight. I've never in my life drawn a gun with such a poor grip.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

On my Glock 23 I did a self stippling and a .25 trigger job.

My Kel ec P3AT is stock. The only addition to it is the lint balls in my pocket.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2007)

A little orange paint on the front sight of my SP101.


----------



## glock27bill (Dec 29, 2007)

I carry a Glock 27, the only mod I've made is to add an internal laser for fast target acquisition. I'd be afraid of what the lawyers would make of it if I made any significant modifications and ended up in court in a self-defense situation.


----------



## AZ Outlaws (Dec 3, 2007)

All stock right out of the box and they shoot straight, no mods needed.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

I forgot- I used model paint for my sights to brighting them. Worked great.


----------



## nukehayes (Sep 22, 2006)

I painted the excuse for sights on my PPK/S with black and white model paint. The stock sights were grey metal with red paint in the 'dot the I' configuration. My PM9 is stock although I might get a Pearce grip extension for cold weather carry. That 6 round flush mag is great for concealment but sucks on the draw.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

"Bone-Stock" for my Colt Defender. :smt023


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

I swapped out the grips on my ppk/s with something that felt a bit better. Polished the feed ramp with a bit of flitz on a finger. Aside from that, it's stock.


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

No mods to the carry gun. Everything is stock, especially the trigger. I don't need to use my gun in a defensive situation and then have some scumbag lawyer, especially in a civil suit, say that I modified my gun to make it more lethal.

I would like night sights on my next carry gun, but I really don't consider that a mod.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

I wonder if this is urban legend, or legit? Modify a gun to make it "more lethal"???? Come on people. I'll argue back that accurrizing a gun will make it less lethal. "I was just trying to slow him down with that double tap to the forehead...."

Jeff


----------



## Todd (Jul 3, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> I wonder if this is urban legend, or legit? Modify a gun to make it "more lethal"???? Come on people. I'll argue back that accurrizing a gun will make it less lethal. "I was just trying to slow him down with that double tap to the forehead...."
> 
> Jeff


It's legit. There have been cases where that argument has been used. And while a modified gun makes sense to gun owners, most juries are made up of non-gun owners who do not see the benefits of modified guns.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

I've heard there have been cases where a "modified" gun, reloads, etc. have been brought up, but no one has ever cited an actual case. I am beginning to think it is "urban legend". I would still like to see ONE actual case cited where any of these "things" have been influential against the shooter in the finding of a case. :watching: IMHO........a weapon's (guns in this case) primary function is lethality! I'm kinda' like JeffWard in my beliefs. Somebody cite a case and I'll never mention it again. :smt033


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Mas Ayoob has talked about several cases where modified guns were an issue in his columns and in his _Ayoob Files_ book. I don't have my copy of the book handy here in Afghanistan, unfortunately. While I certainly don't take Massad's word as gospel, I think he has a point, at least in some locales, about modifying guns in some ways.

There was at least one case where a modified Smith 66 revolver became at least a minor issue, and one where the removal of a magazine safety in a P35 (which wasn't even involved in the shooting) was discussed. I don't believe either shooter was convicted in the end. It just made the defense a little more difficult, being basically another issue the defense has to address and put to bed.

I don't think mods would become a big issue in a very clear-cut case of self-defense. But in a shooting where there is some gray area, the issue of a modified gun might be used to try to sway a jury (of non-shooters) into thinking poorly of the defender.

I think *Todd* is right that gun mods will hurt you more in a civil suit than in a criminal prosecution, simply because of the differing standards of evidence.

That said, I carried a custom Commander for years and had no qualms about it.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

Somehow I don't think tritium sights, a trigger job, a low sweep safety, and some sweet custom grips on your 1911 will hurt you in court...

Full-Auto Glock??? Yer screwed.


----------



## NAS T MAG (Dec 9, 2007)

My Glocks have Trijicon sights and internal Lasermax. The Taurus Ultralite has a Crimson Trace grip.

I just can't leave cars and guns stock!


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> Somehow I don't think tritium sights, a trigger job, a low sweep safety, and some sweet custom grips on your 1911 will hurt you in court...


Don't be so sure. Yes, those things can be defended as making your gun safer (especially for bystanders), but Ayoob's point is that your defense is _easier_ if the prosecution can't attack you from that angle, or worse yet try to paint you as a "gunfighter" wanna-be.

According to Ayoob, the trigger job - if it lightens the trigger considerably less than factory specs - is especially prone to attack on the civil side. If the plaintiff's attorney can make the shooting look like an accident rather than an intentional act, your pockets (and your insurer's, if applicable) can be rapidly emptied.



> Full-Auto Glock??? Yer screwed.


Personally, I'd stay away from anything full auto for defense, just because of the image it portrays to non-shooters. That said, Ayoob was involved in I think two cases where the shooter used a legal machinegun (one Ruger AC556 and one HK53). Both guys came out okay as far as I know, but I don't recall all the details.

I think a lot of opinion on this issue is related to geography. A Texan or Arizonan usually scoffs at the idea of being prosecuted or sued for a righteous shooting. People in the northeast and parts of the upper midwest seem more circumspect, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Mas Ayoob has talked about several cases .............. quote]
> 
> Mike, when you get back look it up in his book please. All I've ever heard is somebody's "opinion", not actual cases cited where it made a difference. Guns used in shootings are probably scrutinized very carefully but I'm still waiting for a cite where a judge or jury was influenced enough by a modification of a gun that it was the deciding factor in finding the shooter guilty of wrongdoing. I'd just like to see something other than "internet babble". You'd think after all these year of people saying, "...if you use reloads, you'll lose the court battle", or "...if you lighten the trigger pull from 9 lbs. to 5 lbs......etc." somebody would have been able to produce actual documentation that this situation has taken place in court. Still waiting.............:watching:
> 
> Let me add that I have no plans to modify any of my pistols other than sights or maybe grips 'cause right now they all work just like I want them to.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mine fit my hand as delivered or I don't keep them. I will change sights to aid old eyes.

:smt1099


----------



## Charlie (May 13, 2006)

TOF said:


> Mine fit my hand as delivered or I don't keep them. I will change sights to aid old eyes.
> 
> :smt1099


I went from stock rubber grips on one of my 1911's to checkered wood grips and am considering one of those Ashley Express "Big Dot" front sights with the shallow V rear just 'cause my eyes are not seeing the way they used to. :smt076


----------



## Liko81 (Nov 21, 2007)

My Ruger P95 is stock in its internal workings. I added a Hand-All grip and use Bright Sights on the 3-dot (orange back, green front, works pretty well). I may look at a recoil cushion in the slide, but on the whole it feels and fires excellently; it feels like an extension of my hand.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Charlie said:


> Mike, when you get back look it up in his book please. All I've ever heard is somebody's "opinion", not actual cases cited where it made a difference.


I don't think Mas has ever said that someone was convicted (or even lost a civil suit) based _solely_ on gun modifications. But he bases his opinion on cases where the issue at least came up. I note that Florida attorneys Roy Black and Mark Seiden, both of whom have handled many shooting cases for both cops and armed citizens, concur with Mas on (some) gun modifications.

To reiterate, Mas is not saying that if you modify your gun you will go to jail or lose a civil suit. He is saying that _some_ gun modifications can give opposing counsel an opportunity to claim you fired accidentally (like with a lightened trigger) or to paint you as a reckless mall ninja looking for a chance to shoot someone. I don't find either of these things hard to believe at all, at least in some parts of the country.

I will have to wait until I get home to look through the Ayoob book for the case cites. If I recall correctly, the cases didn't hinge on the gun modifications, but the mods were introduced as evidence of the mindset of the shooter. The one involving the revolver was a defensive shooting, while the one where the P35 was "owned but not involved" was an ND.



> You'd think after all these year of people saying, "...if you use reloads, you'll lose the court battle",


Well, reloads certainly didn't help in the case of _Lynn Bias_, but that wasn't a defensive shooting. Still, the forensic case against the shooter can easily be extrapolated into a defensive shooting.

Is Massad overly cautious in his recommendations? Sometimes I think so, and I think what really hurts him are things like _Combat Handguns_ magazine, where his advice is twisted into headlines like "Ten Modifications That Will HANG YOU In Court!!!" Mas never said that. He just said to be smart about modifying your gun. He carries custom guns all the time.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

G17 with night sights (Meps, for the reasons Mike addressed). Added a Glock extended slide release, because although I train to release by the hand-over-slide method, I had 20+ years of training/practice before that to hit the slide release.  Deep habits are hard to break, and you never know when they're going to come back to visit; especially under stress.

Oh yeah, I've also shortened the G17's frame for better concealment; it now uses G19 mags. Is that considered a major mod? :mrgreen:


For those concerned about modifications being hard to defend in court, you might consider only using mods that the local police use, like night sights. If the cops think a certain mod is a good idea, then it's probably fairly easy to convince a jury likewise. Same for ammo.


----------



## falshman70 (Jul 13, 2006)

I've put night sights on all my handguns and did change out two springs on my P2000 (LEM trigger) which lightened the pull considerably. I don't carry that gun much, but I may think about undoing the change.


----------



## P97 (May 8, 2006)

I have a Ruger P90 and P97 that I have had a competent Gunsmith do complete action jobs on and they are well within the limits of the triggers of some of the more expensive guns. I carry one or the other and if they are ever questioned, a 4# trigger pull is the same, whether on a Ruger, Glock, Sig, or etc.


----------

