[RM]

I have heard many people say that they removed the mag disconnect from their BHP- they don't like it. What is the intended purpose of the mag disconnect? And why have I heard that it might be dangerous for inexperieced shooters to shoot the BHP without it? Thanks.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. I've heard some say that the trigger return was no so quick after removal of the magazine disconnect or that the magazine didn't stay firmly in one place. I have not experienced either of these problems.

The purpose of the magazine disconnect was to render the handgun inoperable with the magazine removed. I suspect that since most of the orders for this gun originally came from military sources, it was considered "good" to be able to deactivate handguns by simply removing their feed device.

In terms of safety, the BHP without the mag "safety" is no less safe than a 1911, SIG-Sauer, Glock, HK, Taurus, or CZ handgun.

I routinely remove them from any BHP that comes into my ownership and have never failed to see a better trigger pull upon the disconnect's removal.

Best.

 

[sousana]

ONE LOUD WARNING, should you have to use deadly force with this weapon and it ends up going to court, either Civil or Criminal, you will have to explain why YOU DISCONNECTED A FACTORY SAFETY DEVICE. I would recommend you finding a VERY GOOD attorney and keep his card handy should you decide to disconnect the safety.

John

 

[Wit]

I've heard this kind of myth for a long time, similarly to using handload rounds for self defense. I know it's been asked here before, and I'd like to ask again that has anybody heard or known of any court cases that fall into these categories, and what was the outcome?

I understand the good intentions that we should keep things as it were, especially the safety issue. But, I still don't see any points here why tailoring my equipment to suit my needs within the limit of the laws should get me in trouble. If there is any criminal lawyers here, could you share your opinion, please. Thks.

 

[LAK]

Toss it! One less collection of moving parts. If you want, keep the parts and you can always have them re-installed.

Unless you are concerned about charges of a negligent discharge, or a civil suit for an accidental shooting, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Powderman]

I'm not a lawyer, just a dumb cop. But I will say this--I have heard it too many times, from everyone from fellow officers, to gunwriters, to citizens---do NOT, EVER, intentionally disable any safety device on ANY firearm that you intend to use in self defense. As an example:

Suppose you go ahead and remove that pesky magazine disconnect from your Hi-Power. You now have a sweet trigger pull, and the mags drop free!

You decide to show off your handgun to your friends. One of them decides to pull the trigger. The gun was not cleared correctly, and a round remains in the chamber. The weapon discharges, striking and killing a bystander. What happens then? Quite possibly, a charge of negligent homicide for the hapless friend, and a hell of a large lawsuit for you. Why? It's called proximate cause. If you had not removed the magazine safety, the gun would not have discharged without the magazine, and the person would not be dead. In some jurisdictions, you might even be charged as an accessory, because you removed the safety device. THINK ABOUT IT LONG AND HARD, FOLKS.

 

[LAK]

The only reliable safety, as always, is the one between your ears

 

[gryphon]

Powderman,

Although I know that is something that could happen, I know me and I NEVER, EVER hand anyone any firearm without clearing it first and I leave the action open, or have the cylinder open.

People who do not clear their weapons before handing them to someone is the same to me as a person that drives while drunk. Those people deserve everything they get.

Technically, double action only pistols have no "safety" other than the fact that if you don't pull the trigger it won't go boom. The Hi Power still has the manual safety as well as other internal safeties.

 

[MuzzleBlast]

Does anyone know of a case where this actually came up? I suspect this may be related to the "don't use reloads for self-defense" myth.

 

[hhsmiley]

I've never actually heard of a case where somebody was sued, imprisoned, etc. as a result of a shooting with a safety like this removed. It seems like even if you did remove the safety, if the situation really was justified, the removal would be totally inconsequntial. Plus, unless the prosecutor is really knowledgeable on gun design I don't see how they'd even neccessarily know (or know to ask whether)a safety feature had been removed.

[This message has been edited by hhsmiley (edited 09-10-2001).]

 

[sousana]

hhsmiley: As usual, most people forget that after a shooting, their are usually TWO court cases the shooter faces.

1. Criminal, in which it is determined the shooting was justified and therefore no charges will be filed.

2. Civil, in which case the family of the deceased will sue you and the rules of evidence are less strict and therefore not so balanced in YOUR favor.

In this day and age of litigation and random shootings, I.E California and the general publics views towards gun owners, do you really want to risk the plaintiff's attorney's telling and showing the jury how you disconnected a safety the factory and the gun designer deamed a necessity?