CA M&P Shield Mods & MagGuts Spring Test

[ifilef]

This is a parts review thread, not a discussion on hypothetical liabilities. It's America, we do what we want acknowledging the pros and cons. No need to be officious towards one another. It's knowledge and tested data to share. The end user can do with it as they please.

It's relevant to the thread as an informed 'con', that some here may not be aware of.... I would not have posted had the earlier poster not commented on 'design flaw'. Fine, rid yourself of the purported 'design flaw' which conforms to law but be aware of the potential consequence of doing so.

Unsubscribed.

[ifilef]

Once again, THIS is "prominent" enough to pass for the roster.
92FS and Glock 26:




It does not have to be a friggin' shark fin with a laser on its head.

You are totally uninformed about the law. The 92FS LCI and Glock would not pass muster now. The guns were on Roster prior to the change requiring prominent LCI and were grandfathered in.

[Cokebottle]

You are totally uninformed about the law. The 92FS LCI and Glock would not pass muster now. The guns were on Roster prior to the change requiring prominent LCI and were grandfathered in.

And once a gun leaves the dealer, the roster is meaningless unless the gun is going to be shipped to another dealer.

There are no legal ramifications in removing the LCI or magazine disconnect.

[code_blue]

It's relevant to the thread as an informed 'con', that some here may not be aware of.... I would not have posted had the earlier poster not commented on 'design flaw'. Fine, rid yourself of the purported 'design flaw' which conforms to law but be aware of the potential consequence of doing so.

Unsubscribed.

It only conforms to the law in regards to the sale of pistols. There are no laws forbidding these modifications after ownership is established. . .

Wait, why am I even retorting when you've unsubscribed? Well, bye then and enjoy your holidays.

[saudadeii]

Great Post OP!!

[code_blue]

Lol, Saud. Good seeing ya!

[GlockN'Roll]

The LCI blocks the front sight when the weapon is loaded and makes it difficult to focus. It is a obvious design flaw.

I agree.

They could have used extractor as an LCI as others have done.

Readily visible without impeding or distracting from the sight picture.

I will go off roster if I add one to my permit...

[code_blue]

[saudadeii]

I agree.

They could have used extractor as an LCI as others have done.

Readily visible without impeding or distracting from the sight picture.

I will go off roster if I add one to my permit...

They might not meet the current certification protocol from "Title 11, Division 5, Chapter 5, Department of Justice Regulations for Laboratory Certification and Handgun Testing"

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter5.pdf

(d)(1) A functioning chamber load indicator must meet all of the following conditions:

(A) Explanatory text and/or graphics either incorporated within the chamber load indicator or adjacent to the chamber load indicator is/are permanently displayed by engraving, stamping, etching, molding, casting, or other means of permanent marking.

(B) Each letter of explanatory text must have a minimum height of 1/16 inch.

(C) The explanatory text and/or graphics shall be of a distinct visual contrast to that of the firearm.

(D) The “loaded” indication, that portion of the chamber load indicator that visually indicates there is a round in the chamber, shall be of a distinct color contrast to the firearm.

(E) Only when there is a round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication is visible on the firearm from a distance of at least twenty-four inches. When there is no round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication must not be visible.

(F) The text and/or graphics and the “loaded” indication together inform a reasonably foreseeable adult user of the pistol, that a round is in the chamber, without requiring the user to refer to a user’s manual or any other resource other than the pistol itself.

[Packy14]

I wonder if you're involved in a defensive shoot how the DA would portray all of your "unsafe" removal of factory "safety" features

[GlockN'Roll]

The PC does not, however, require that the CLI be on top of the slide.

My guess is the manufacturers didn't want to redesign the extractor so they just added the top version.

Sig could easily do this with their already obnoxiously large, new style extractors, but they opted for the top.

Lazy ill conceived engineering...

[Mr.Matt]

Great write up OP!
Lot of ideas for a great gun!

[Subotai]

I wonder if you're involved in a defensive shoot how the DA would portray all of your "unsafe" removal of factory "safety" features

Did the removal of safety features contribute to the violation of the law in a shooting?

[tonyxcom]

Or modify it, but just don't have an ND or other situation with it because your liability exposure may be greater if the modification becomes known in a civil or criminal prosecution. A potential issue of GROSS negligence, not merely simple negligence, may be raised by a sharp plaintiff's attorney or prosecutor.

Without case law this is FUD.

I'll wait.....

After doing some action pistol shooting I am over night sights and those thick front sights. I use 10-8 rears on my carry guns with Warren Tactical fiber optic fronts. I don't like the 10-8 FO fronts because the "red-dot" is too far from the top of the front post. But the prefer the 10-8 rears over the Warren rears because of the serrations and the rounding of "softness" of all the edges.

I have actually switched to carrying my G19/XC1 IWB in a Raven Phantom holster instead of my Shield.

[tonyxcom]

I think the slight protrusions on extractors no longer meet the requirements of the LCI during "safe" testing after a revision to the test. Obviously guns prior to this revision were grandfathered.

It is clearly easier to add a protrusion to an external ejector so there isn't any reason they would add it to the top if they didn't have to.