Best duty gun.

[Whatisthis?]

Please. Allow me to reword. Foot pounds of energy deliverd on target. She wants more of that.

I wouldn't worry about foot-pounds of energy if you stick with a good caliber and a good brand of ammo. 9mm and .40 will act similar with most barriers, so you're getting more recoil and less capacity to have very marginally better ballistics. Idk, I've been hearing more and more people say they like the .40 for carry/HD more, but I still would personally prefer more rounds on target faster, higher capacities, and cheaper training costs. Nothing wrong with the .40 at all, I just think the 9 does most of the same stuff and has other advantages.

[P5Ret]

I can understand the higher risk of an unintentional or negligent discharge due to a lightened trigger. But do you guys have any actual court cases where a prosecutor tried making it look like a bad shoot because of modifications done to the gun? I'm constantly hearing people talk about how gun owners shouldn't do certain things (use certain types of guns, ammo, modifications, accessories, etc.) because a prosecutor would attempt to use if against them, but I rarely hear of actual cases being cited. If the risk was that high, we should be hearing of cases like that a lot...

It's not a prosecutor that I would have a concern with. It's going to be the civil attorney. Who will no doubt pay to have the gun inspected to ensure it is within factory specifications, and or any mods are factory approved. If it isn't why run the risk of giving him something to focus upon and push at a jury of people who probably know about as much about guns as most of us do repairing a nuclear reactor. With all the instructor courses I have been through that include a section on civil liability, have made me a bit paranoid, and then again I've had the displeasure of dealing with civil attorney's in the past too.

[rugershooter]

It's not a prosecutor that I would have a concern with. It's going to be the civil attorney. Who will no doubt pay to have the gun inspected to ensure it is within factory specifications, and or any mods are factory approved. If it isn't why run the risk of giving him something to focus upon and push at a jury of people who probably know about as much about guns as most of us do repairing a nuclear reactor. With all the instructor courses I have been through that include a section on civil liability, have made me a bit paranoid, and then again I've had the displeasure of dealing with civil attorney's in the past too.

I can understand the concern, especially in California. But again, people don't cite actual cases of this happening. If the risk was as high as many people try to make it seem like, then I would think that we would be hearing about these cases all the time. Another problem with that line of thinking is that it's only applied to handguns. Go on almost any gun forum and you'll see post after post after post of people who have custom ARs, AKs, shotguns, any many other long arms they have for self defense. I've never heard of anybody saying not to use a home-built AR, or one that was manufactured from an 80% receiver. If there's a certain amount of liability in using a custom/modified gun, then we would most certainly see the effects of that liability with "assault rifles" like ARs and AKs.
Personally, I think it's pure FUD. It doesn't seem to be a common occurrence, and the risk is almost non-existent ( I won't say it doesn't exist because anything can happen in the world of civil law). People spread the fear without providing actual reasons to prove that it's actually a real-world problem. Given the lack of proof given by people who make the claim of liability, I'd say make whatever modifications you want that are legal. Since there hasn't been any proof, the risk seems very minimal. So why not give yourself the advantage by having a gun that you can use more effectively with the mods than without them?

[socom2shooter]

I agree on the glock, but you CANNOT modify in any way a duty or self defense gun due to the fact that if its ever used for duty/self deffence, it will be much harder to win in court. Believe me they will literally say you modified the gun to kill someone. Leo's have lost there jobs for modifying connectors, just get night sights and call it a day. Dont need all that other stuff anyway.

[P5Ret]

I can understand the concern, especially in California. But again, people don't cite actual cases of this happening. If the risk was as high as many people try to make it seem like, then I would think that we would be hearing about these cases all the time. Another problem with that line of thinking is that it's only applied to handguns. Go on almost any gun forum and you'll see post after post after post of people who have custom ARs, AKs, shotguns, any many other long arms they have for self defense. I've never heard of anybody saying not to use a home-built AR, or one that was manufactured from an 80% receiver. If there's a certain amount of liability in using a custom/modified gun, then we would most certainly see the effects of that liability with "assault rifles" like ARs and AKs.
Personally, I think it's pure FUD. It doesn't seem to be a common occurrence, and the risk is almost non-existent ( I won't say it doesn't exist because anything can happen in the world of civil law). People spread the fear without providing actual reasons to prove that it's actually a real-world problem. Given the lack of proof given by people who make the claim of liability, I'd say make whatever modifications you want that are legal. Since there hasn't been any proof, the risk seems very minimal. So why not give yourself the advantage by having a gun that you can use more effectively with the mods than without them?

I'd say your half right, simply because we really don't see all that many self/home defense shootings. The numbers are too small to make a accurate statement one way or the other as to it actually happening. Have attorney's looked at the issue and advised security firms, law enforcement agencies not to modify duty weapons on the possibility of creating greater liability? Yes, does that mean the same applies to everyone? NO, but for a duty weapon, I don't think there should be non factory mods done internally.

[RangemasterP226]

I've trained hundreds of young men and dozens of young women to shoot at the police academy.

1. Go 9mm
2. Go Glock 19
3. Don't modify a thing, completely unnecessary.

[ConstitutionallyConscious]

I wouldn't worry about foot-pounds of energy if you stick with a good caliber and a good brand of ammo. 9mm and .40 will act similar with most barriers, so you're getting more recoil and less capacity to have very marginally better ballistics. Idk, I've been hearing more and more people say they like the .40 for carry/HD more, but I still would personally prefer more rounds on target faster, higher capacities, and cheaper training costs. Nothing wrong with the .40 at all, I just think the 9 does most of the same stuff and has other advantages.

Idk if your in California or not but we cant have standard capacity mags it's pretty much 10 rds no matter what caliber you choose in a full size handgun.

[ConstitutionallyConscious]

I agree on the glock, but you CANNOT modify in any way a duty or self defense gun due to the fact that if its ever used for duty/self deffence, it will be much harder to win in court. Believe me they will literally say you modified the gun to kill someone. Leo's have lost there jobs for modifying connectors, just get night sights and call it a day. Dont need all that other stuff anyway.

My only true disagreement is that the laser could be a necessity. No matter how good a shot you think you are on paper. Once the adrenaline starts to flow you forget everything you know. My wife told me this story she herd during training where a shooting award winner got in a shoot out on duty. He did two mag dumps less than 20ft away and missed every shot.I'm not sure how myself or my wife would react but i'd rather have the advantages of a laser after hearing that one.

[rugershooter]

I agree on the glock, but you CANNOT modify in any way a duty or self defense gun due to the fact that if its ever used for duty/self deffence, it will be much harder to win in court. Believe me they will literally say you modified the gun to kill someone. Leo's have lost there jobs for modifying connectors, just get night sights and call it a day. Dont need all that other stuff anyway.

Why exactly should we believe you? How many court cases related to that can you cite?

I'd say your half right, simply because we really don't see all that many self/home defense shootings. The numbers are too small to make a accurate statement one way or the other as to it actually happening. Have attorney's looked at the issue and advised security firms, law enforcement agencies not to modify duty weapons on the possibility of creating greater liability? Yes, does that mean the same applies to everyone? NO, but for a duty weapon, I don't think there should be non factory mods done internally.

True. I don't think that there's absolutely no risk. However. I think the risk is extremely overstated...as in the other post I quoted. "Believe me, they will literally say you modified the gun to kill someone". Really? That kind of blanket statement made with absolute certainty and given without and proof to back it up is simply asinine. Yes, there's a risk. After all, this is California. Everything gun related in this state is risky. But I just don't see the proof that it's anything more than a negligible risk. A lawyer can twist anything however they want. They can make people look look like cop wannabe if they use hollow point ammo, Rambo types if they use ARs or AKs. They can say that you're a military wannabe if you use FMJ ammo since that's what the military uses and it's more deadly because it penetrates more. They can say that you're a premeditated killer if you use JHPs because they're designed to cause as much damage as possible. They can say damn near anything they want and do it in such a way that most people on a jury would believe them. Based on my observations, most people are composed of people who are just plain stupid, so a lawyer who is good with words can make them believe anything. If people choose not to mod their guns because they believe it creates more liability, that's perfectly fine. But people really need to stop spreading things like that without giving some proof to back it up.

[bandogg]

Look at FNS 40 . I was surprised by how comfy it was. Also been reading all day about the TP9 SA . Seems to be very well made firearm . Stay away from Glock . First thing people want to do is start to mod them to make the comfy level higher. Just buy a firearm that feels great out the box .

[BigL]

Smith & Wesson 686 .357. XD'sare nice too if you want a lighter pistol. I owned a XD 40 and it shot well and had a good trigger. I'm a Glock fan boy and I know Glocks aren't perfect and aren't made for everyone. But I wouldn't blame you if you steered her toward one.

[CBR_rider]

See what handguns are allowed by company policy, look through those to see what are issued to LE/military agencies, then have your wife try those out to see what she likes. And don't put all kinds of extra doodads on it that would void the warranty or make the handgun less reliable.

[Sunday]

S@W M@P, Glock types, Hi power nope. Customer service is most important when considering something beyond a range toy.

[ConstitutionallyConscious]

Update. She settled on a HK USP compact. With a safariland ALS SLS LOW RIDE LEVEL 3 RETENTION. with the ability to upgrade to a level 4 retention if need be later on. All this happend last December. Just though I owed an update. Or mabe im bored and wanted to write something here on calguns.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[ConstitutionallyConscious]

Also I got her the 147 grain HST +p for her duty rounds.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk