Does Anyone NOT Customize Their OEM Guns?

[BigHayden 77]

I'm with j0n on this one. Mas Ayoob will tell you that an overzealous prosecutor can look for anything that makes it appear that you were making the gun a super-duper-orphan-killing-death-machine, but then will also tell you that if you can articulate why you made the changes you made, then you'll be OK.

 

For example, I swapped out the factory grip safety on my Kimber for an Ed Brown piece. That's modifying a safety, on its face, and could be used against me. But I can articulate that I changed out that particular safety for a superior piece that offers the same safety level with increased reliability regarding its disengagement because of the "memory bump", making the gun safer for me to operate.

 

I believe it is more important to have a solid case for pulling the trigger than having a court-proof gun. Keeping in mind that I have no experience on this subject, it sounds to me like the gun can/will come into play if you don't have a good shoot to begin with.

[diamondd817 828]

If you want to roll the dice with a modified gun, just make sure the shooting is not questionable.

 

I have modified guns. They just will never be used for a SD/HD situation. That's what my factory Gus are for. But that's just my opinion.

[Zell959 40]

If you want to roll the dice with a modified gun, just make sure the shooting is not questionable.

 

1) To me, the phrase "rolling the dice" suggests that it is universally agreed & understood that modifying a gun you use in self defense carries significant risk of crinimal consequences, when the reality is that such a notion is little more than a thought experiment regularly circulated by gun writers & gun forums.

 

2) Saying one should make sure the "shooting is not questionable" if they use a modified gun seems pointless to me. It is obviously a terrible idea to shoot someone under questionable circumstances REGARDLESS of how stock the gun used is or is not. If I'm holding a stock glock 19, do I really have less to worry about when deciding to shoot someone than if I had sent it off for trigger work? Of course not.

[diamondd817 828]

 

 

1) To me, the phrase "rolling the dice" suggests that it is universally agreed & understood that modifying a gun you use in self defense carries significant risk of crinimal consequences, when the reality is that such a notion is little more than a theoretical point of discussion batted around on gun forums.

 

2) Saying one should make sure the "shooting is not questionable" if they use a modified gun seems pointless to me. It is obviously a terrible idea to shoot someone under questionable circumstances REGARDLESS of how stock the gun used is or is not. If I'm holding a stock glock 19, do I really have less to worry about when deciding to shoot someone than if I had sent it off for trigger work? Of course not.

 

When a jury is involved it will make a difference.

 

It's your decision. I personally will not use a modified gun for self defense.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I've heard this a lot, and I have yet to see anything backing it up.

 

To answer the OP, I have tinkered with pretty much everything, and even my two go-to HD/carry guns have work done.

 

yup you hit it on the head..

more silly fear mongering...

 

if I shoot someone it is because I believe I am in grave danger.. if I shoot someone then I MEANT to shoot someone.. nothing I do to the gun changes that..

 

stock gun.. - home invasion I shoot one of the attackers dead..

clean shoot

 

gun with night sights.. laser.. light trigger.. - home invasion I shoot one of the attackers dead..

now all of the sudden it is not a clean shoot?

 

keep telling people made up nonsense.. it is really good for the shooting community.. make them even more fearful than they already are...

why do people say things with absolutely NO facts to back it up...

I bet if you even looked there ARE at least a handful of cases where the weapon was questioned.. but if you dig deeper it is likely a situation where it was a group of factors not a single one..

 

also use logic.. guns have different trigger pulls..

 

how is a gun with "X"lb trigger pull ANY different than a gun with "Y"lb trigger pull modified to "X"lb trigger pull..

last time I checked you were allowed to legally defend yourself in your home with a firearm you legally own.. that is the LAW.. no where does it talk about specifics about the gun..

[vladtepes 1,060]

When a jury is involved it will make a difference.

 

It's your decision. I personally will not use a modified gun for self defense.

 

right you have shown that with your endless convictions based solely on the gun that was used.. right..

[vladtepes 1,060]

I believe it is more important to have a solid case for pulling the trigger than having a court-proof gun. Keeping in mind that I have no experience on this subject, it sounds to me like the gun can/will come into play if you don't have a good shoot to begin with.

 

YOU sir hit it on the head..

"I shot this individual because he represented an immediate unavoidable threat to my safety and the safety of my family.. the end"

the LAW does not dictate the gun that must be used.. and the LAW is the legal standard..

[Zell959 40]

When a jury is involved it will make a difference.

I don't believe there is adequate evidence to support that statement as broad universal fact. At best, it is something that might make a difference in a handful of hypothetical & very specific scenarios. I don't dispute your right to reach your own conclusion, but you're going a bit further than that when you dress a personal opinion up as emprical fact [without supporting evidence].

[diamondd817 828]

 

 

right you have shown that with your endless convictions based solely on the gun that was used.. right..

 

Ask your firearm lawyer for his opinion and get back to us. I asked mine. I will not open myself up to any uncertainties.

 

But you probably don't need to ask, because you know everything councillor.

 

Good Luck to you guys.

[Zell959 40]

Ask your firearm lawyer for his opinion and get back to us. I asked mine.

 

Wait, you posted "But that's just my opinion" earlier. To clarify, is this your opinion or specific legal advice you were given by an attorney? If the latter, why not share more detail on your attorney's thoughts?

[vladtepes 1,060]

Ask your firearm lawyer for his opinion and get back to us. I asked mine. I will not open myself up to any uncertainties.

 

But you probably don't need to ask, because you know everything councillor.

 

Good Luck to you guys.

 

OOOHHH you asked a lawyer right they have all the answers.. why research a topic when you have asked a single all knowing individual..

I will tell you this.. lawyers will ALWAYS advice based on the worst possible scenario...

there was a certain lawyer advising individuals not to transport loaded mags.. because it might be an issue.. does that mean it was ever an issue? NO does that mean it will ever be an issue? NO WILL it ever be an issue? NO but lawyers offering advice give advice to protect themselves.. if he tells you go ahead.. use that AR15.. and it comes into question.. then HE has to own up to giving you bad legal advice.. if you want to run your life based on the legal advice of a lawyer.. this is America.. go for it.. but while you are at it.. ask him if you should ever go 1mph over the speed limit.. i bet his LEGAL advice is to drive slightly under.. the point being his answer will ALWAYS be in HIS best interest.. which in SOME cases will be your best interest.. but in other cases.. not so much..

 

I choose to read the law.. if I understand it I proceed if I do not understand it I inquire.. and I research..

the LAW does not mention the type of weapon I must use in a life or death situation.. therefore it is moot..

a prosecutor can try all they want to paint a bad picture.. but at the end of the day if I operated within the law.. his efforts are wasted..

[vladtepes 1,060]

Wait, you posted "But that's just my opinion" earlier. To clarify, is this your opinion or specific legal advice you were given by an attorney? If the latter, why not share more detail on your attorney's thoughts?

 

because it honestly doesn't even matter unless there is a LAW to back it up..

the only difference between a lawyers OPINION and j0ns opinion is that the lawyers costs a lot more.... and the lawyer is the one that has to show up to defend you if you screw up..

[Jon 264]

Given what most cops know about guns in general, what makes you think that a Forensics team is going to sit down with the gun you used in a shooting, and compare it to a new model of the same gun, and come up with any conclusion about how different it is? The Apex kit on my M&P consists of springs and machined metal with no stampings on them. You would have to completely detail strip the weapon and compare each part to see what was changed. Frankly, if they do anything more than test-fire the gun to check the rifling marks on the bullet, I would be shocked.

[diamondd817 828]

Noted. And again, good luck to you.

[e80hydro 120]

I didn't like the way the stock grip felt on my Bushmaster, didn't want to spend 20 bucks on another one, so I took a bicycle inner tube, cut several loops and wrapped the grip with them. Thats about it.

[silverado427 10,775]

I'm working on a berg , and dressing it up like a prom queen... lol

[bbk 188]

I don't like to mess with my guns for the most part. My reason is because I tend to buy quality (according to the track record in a context that is suitable for what I'm looking for when gauging a firearm), and if the original manufacturer didn't see a reason to swap it out, who am I to judge until I know better?

 

I see this question different from "enhancing a firearm," which, for example, would be adding something to the firearm, but not swapping out or OEM parts becoming redundant/useless because of additions. For example, I add some sort of optical sight to a rifle to enhance it, but I retain my ability to use the original iron sights.