Mark Seiden, now retired, was one of the very best lawyers I ever worked with in 46 years as an expert witness for the courts. A few years ago, he sat for an interview with Gila Hayes of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (armedcitizensnetwork.org). In the interview he speaks, from experience, about what are and are not acceptable modifications for defensive firearms.You’ll find that wisdom dispensed here.
An interesting interview. What fascinates me is how politically-corrupt prosecutors will stretch for anything that will allow them a conviction in those politically-charged cases.
I now carry a box-stock Sig C3, but one of my former 1911’s was a Springfield. It was the only one that I ever had a problem with; it left the factory with the feed ramp (in the frame) so badly polished that it looked like it hadn’t been touched. I called their (excellent) customer service, and they sent me a shipping label. That pistol had been fitted with a memory-bump grip safety, and since I have tiny hands I asked if they could change it to a smooth one, since they were going to have the pistol torn down for the ramp polishing. I offered to pay for the part and installation, and they said they’d send me a bill.
Got the pistol back with a mirror-smooth feed ramp and a regular grip safety, but no bill. I called them, and they told me not to worry about it, they changed it at no charge because the feed ramp issues was clearly on them. Super customer service.
I now wonder if changing from a memory/speed-bump grip safety to a regular smooth one could be brought up by a prosecutor for some bizarre reason. The other thing I regularly change are the grips on my 1911’s to better fit my (small) hands; I wonder if that’s something they could bring up.
I always carry factory-loaded 230-grain hollow-points, but my understanding is that as long as it’s factory ammo similar to what a police department would use that they have figured out it’s a losing cause to point to the ammo as “extra-deadly”, since it’s well known (or should be) that its intent is to limit over-penetration and to stop the threat with as few shots as possible. I’m hoping that is still true even in jurisdictions with criminally-corrupt prosecutors.
Obviously it looks like a good idea not to use a kind of self defense round that a manufacturer has discontinued, especially if because of inconsistent hollow point jacket performance. Better to use those rounds for doing target practice, if at all, eh? DIY dumdums definitely appear too questionable.