Verndog
Blackhawk
Many question on this lately, and possibly this can help settle the score. My initial guess, seems about 50/50 on those that do and those that don't. Now you can vote without telling the world yours is out. 8)
Poll: Have you removed your mag. disconnect in your SRxx??
- Thread starter Verndog
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
robilmichael
Bearcat
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 43
I removed mine because at my range, before we bag our pistols, we always drop the mag, rock the slide a few times to verify that it is empty, and then dry fire. Our group allows drawing and firing from a holster and other action moves once you have gone through several courses and have passed a stringent test on safety and competency with the pistol.
Verndog
Blackhawk
Yawn said:
Ya, the 50/50 is just WAG from observation of opinion and many people keep quiet on the subject to not issue a flag. That said after 17 votes it's within 1 vote of 50/50. :wink:
Hrdnox
Bearcat
Hello from a new member and new SR9c owner. I've learned a lot lurking here and appreciate all the information everyone has shared. Thanks to the info here, I knew my new gun inside and out before I ever touched it. Learned to avoid a lot of common mistakes I'm sure I would have made without being able to tap into your experiences.
That said, when I picked mine up yesterday afternoon, the first thing I did when I got home was to disassemble it for a complete cleaning. Gosh, Ruger sure loves to pack them full, don't they. I think I could have greased the rear end in my car with all the grease I washed out of there, especially the firing pin channel. I thought I'd never get it dry. To get back on topic, the mag disconnect safety went straight to my parts bag and will stay there until I decide to sell the gun. If it causes me any legal grief, I'll deal with it then, but it certainly doesn't belong in my personal gun, period. All of my guns that came with the feature have had it removed and I absolutely refuse to buy one that can't. Personal preference and I certainly respect the opinion of folks who won't remove thiers, but I don't need it. If I give up my gun to a BG, I figure I have much more pressing problems than some DA trying to make me out to be the BG, but, until I do, I want to know it's gonna shoot when I pull the trigger. I don't intend to lose my mag in the heat of battle, but if there's still a round in the chamber, I want to retain the option of using it. I've read just about all the comments here concerning this and see merits on both sides, so I'd have to conclude that there is no right answer, other than what gives you the most piece of mind.
Anyways, nice to meet you folks and I hope to become a valued contributor here, too.
That said, when I picked mine up yesterday afternoon, the first thing I did when I got home was to disassemble it for a complete cleaning. Gosh, Ruger sure loves to pack them full, don't they. I think I could have greased the rear end in my car with all the grease I washed out of there, especially the firing pin channel. I thought I'd never get it dry. To get back on topic, the mag disconnect safety went straight to my parts bag and will stay there until I decide to sell the gun. If it causes me any legal grief, I'll deal with it then, but it certainly doesn't belong in my personal gun, period. All of my guns that came with the feature have had it removed and I absolutely refuse to buy one that can't. Personal preference and I certainly respect the opinion of folks who won't remove thiers, but I don't need it. If I give up my gun to a BG, I figure I have much more pressing problems than some DA trying to make me out to be the BG, but, until I do, I want to know it's gonna shoot when I pull the trigger. I don't intend to lose my mag in the heat of battle, but if there's still a round in the chamber, I want to retain the option of using it. I've read just about all the comments here concerning this and see merits on both sides, so I'd have to conclude that there is no right answer, other than what gives you the most piece of mind.
Anyways, nice to meet you folks and I hope to become a valued contributor here, too.
Verndog
Blackhawk
Hrdnox said:Anyways, nice to meet you folks and I hope to become a valued contributor here, too.
Well, you already contributed nicely with your first point. Very good common sense approach. Welcome to the forum and welcome to the SR owners club!
GhosT
Blackhawk
Just my 2 cents....
If you ever have to use a gun for self defense....
Multiple decades of cases where...any safety feature bypassed...... either ...
Ended up the owner in jail, or turned poor from a civil lawsuit!
JMHO...of course.
If you ever have to use a gun for self defense....
Multiple decades of cases where...any safety feature bypassed...... either ...
Ended up the owner in jail, or turned poor from a civil lawsuit!
JMHO...of course.
A
Anonymous
GhosT said:
Well first off, the mag disconnect is not a safety feature. It is nothing more than a nuisance. It does nothing to make the gun safer.
Secondly, if in a defensive situation where it's him or me... I'm going to make sure it's he who doesn't walk away.
It's just like carrying in places where one isn't allowed to. I will do it because if I need the gun I'm glad I have it and don't care about legal consequences as long as I'm alive. If I don't need it, nobody knows I have it.
Verndog
Blackhawk
Well the Yes's are pulling out to strong a lead
42 votes 26 say YES remove and 16 say NO leave in.
Gotta say I'm surprised a slight bit, although I guessed 50/50 I figured the No's would get it if any. In a way I'm glad to see the Yes's get it. And if someone does someday get that used against them, possibly the poll can show this is common practice and not some extreem reckless gun freak kinda activity some may try to portray. Better yet, maybe Ruger is watching and thinking this feature thru again.
Keep the votes coming!
42 votes 26 say YES remove and 16 say NO leave in.
Gotta say I'm surprised a slight bit, although I guessed 50/50 I figured the No's would get it if any. In a way I'm glad to see the Yes's get it. And if someone does someday get that used against them, possibly the poll can show this is common practice and not some extreem reckless gun freak kinda activity some may try to portray. Better yet, maybe Ruger is watching and thinking this feature thru again.
Keep the votes coming!
might the results be somewhat skewed, with those that own an SR9 automatically are more ok with removing the MD, vs those that are strongly opposed wouldn't own the gun in the first place? This is a rehash of old news, presented in a more useful format! Thanks for posting the poll
GDSimms
Bearcat
I googled "how to remove mag disconnect on SR9c" and ended up here. Got info on how to remove, an easy fix and joined the forum. Good info hear and I am still reading. Thanks
jhearne
Buckeye
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,365
I voted A, but I mainly removed it for purposes to do my videos and how-to's. The "legal" and mechanical risks really aren't that big a deal for me.
Josh
Josh
I removed mine on both the SR9 and SR9C. I voted B, but it was really a combination of A and B. A side benefit was a somewhat improved trigger pull. My SR9 worked great right out of the box, but the trigger was pretty tough and scratchy. I returned it for the recall and it came back with a much improved trigger. Removing the mag safety helped a little more. Both now have nice triggers, but the SR9C is the better of the two.
I don't consider any safety to be a sure thing; for example the loaded chamber indicator. Knowledgeable owners have enough common sense to always check the chamber to make sure the gun is loaded/unloaded. Common sense wins out over state imposed safety devices.
I don't consider any safety to be a sure thing; for example the loaded chamber indicator. Knowledgeable owners have enough common sense to always check the chamber to make sure the gun is loaded/unloaded. Common sense wins out over state imposed safety devices.
208packinheat
Single-Sixer
mn_doggie +++1 I personally think it is urban legend. Please explain to me how the use of a gun, that worked as required in a self defense way could be faulted for the removal of a safety feature. You pull the trigger when you want a bang and you get a bang, all is good...I think legal reason is bunk in this case. Now if you (or someone else) pulls the trigger and should not have, and it goes bang, and someone is hurt, then you might have a case.
Spetch99 wrote:
Well first off, the mag disconnect is not a safety feature. It is nothing more than a nuisance. It does nothing to make the gun safer.
I differ on that point. Mind you I have removed mine, BUT...
The MD was to protect Ruger from liability from some half wit who removes the magazine, and DOES NOT ENSURE that the chamber is empty, and they pulls the trigger, and low and behold, there was a round left in the gun. How many time have you heard of this?? Too many. The other reason for the MD, which has some merit, is that if your attacker goes after your gun, and you can drop (or even think to do so, which I think is a stretch for the common guy) the magazine, then the gun is unusable again' you. Maybe...but, Ruger does not think that way, it is all about liabilities to the manufacturer.
With the magazine in...IT IS NOT A SAFETY..gun shoots when trigger pulled. With the magazine out, IT IS A SAFETY...gun will not shoot when trigger pulled.
My non expert 2 cents
Spetch99 wrote:
Well first off, the mag disconnect is not a safety feature. It is nothing more than a nuisance. It does nothing to make the gun safer.
I differ on that point. Mind you I have removed mine, BUT...
The MD was to protect Ruger from liability from some half wit who removes the magazine, and DOES NOT ENSURE that the chamber is empty, and they pulls the trigger, and low and behold, there was a round left in the gun. How many time have you heard of this?? Too many. The other reason for the MD, which has some merit, is that if your attacker goes after your gun, and you can drop (or even think to do so, which I think is a stretch for the common guy) the magazine, then the gun is unusable again' you. Maybe...but, Ruger does not think that way, it is all about liabilities to the manufacturer.
With the magazine in...IT IS NOT A SAFETY..gun shoots when trigger pulled. With the magazine out, IT IS A SAFETY...gun will not shoot when trigger pulled.
My non expert 2 cents
208packinheat said:
Your honor, the defendant, shot the victim 2 times in the chest critically wounding him in a way which would later cause death. The state will show in these proceedings that the defendant has a track record of negligent and wreckless behavior, bent toward violence.
We will show the defendants excessive handgun collection. We will show that each handgun in that collection has specific safety features (or state approved safety features depending on where you live) that have been altered or removed, specifically the magazine disconnect.
OR (If you only have one or two guns)
We will show that the defendant had previously altered safety features (or state approved safety features depending on where you live) on the handgun used in the attack, specifically the Magazine Disconnect safety feature.
Anyway, then they will say:
(Blah blah blah, other ways that you are akin to Hitler, Blah blah blah).
Point is, in a self-defense situation, the last thing you would do is give a bad guy a few more rounds to chamber against you... so why would you do it with a DA; who might just think that a criminal shooting you is far better than you shooting a criminal? Look at how LEO's get grilled when they simply LEGALLY DISCHARGE THEIR WEAPON, let alone shoot someone. I don't think anyone is saying that you will be prosectued for defending yourself with your gun if the MD is removed, where otherwise you would not be prosecuted if the MD is not removed. I think what people are saying is that their trust for public officials to make common sense judgements about a situation are waning at best, and the last thing they would want to do is give a public official who might be trying to get re-elected a few more rounds of ammo against them. Sure, it is a little worst case scenario, but isn't owning a gun for protection at keast a little worst case scenario as well. People can do what they want, but that is how the propper use of a gun can be used against you with the MD removed, per your request.
Here is a portion of a great post by MikeJ in from another thread:
Here is a quote from Mas Ayoob in the thread I linked back on page one, "If the charge is manslaughter or reckless endangerment, or the lawsuit revolves around negligence, the accusing side is absolutely allowed to establish "continuing patterns of negligent or reckless behavior," and removing safety devices from lethal weapons lands square in that ballpark.
One may argue, as one poster did, that one removed the device because he thought it constituted faulty design. But this leaves whomever makes that argument open to the rejoinder, "Mr. Defendant, if you're such a gun expert that you know more about gun design than the engineers who designed the pistol in question, and know more about it than the gun factory that made it -- WHY DID YOU BUY A GUN YOU THOUGHT HAD A DEFECTIVE DESIGN IN THE FIRST PLACE?" That's gonna be a tough one to answer"
I'd say this is a bad idea. IIRC there was a big court case fought back in the '70's or 80's over a LEO shooting a criminal. The case hinged on the fact that some witnesses claimed the policeman had cocked his revolver before he shot. They were essentially saying that the policeman did not intend to shoot but the gun went off because of the lighter SA trigger. After this case was when Law Enforcement Agencies went to DAO revolvers. If they tried a case like that on law enforcement I'd shudder to think what they could cook up against a private citizen.
Here is a quote from Mas Ayoob in the thread I linked back on page one, "If the charge is manslaughter or reckless endangerment, or the lawsuit revolves around negligence, the accusing side is absolutely allowed to establish "continuing patterns of negligent or reckless behavior," and removing safety devices from lethal weapons lands square in that ballpark.
One may argue, as one poster did, that one removed the device because he thought it constituted faulty design. But this leaves whomever makes that argument open to the rejoinder, "Mr. Defendant, if you're such a gun expert that you know more about gun design than the engineers who designed the pistol in question, and know more about it than the gun factory that made it -- WHY DID YOU BUY A GUN YOU THOUGHT HAD A DEFECTIVE DESIGN IN THE FIRST PLACE?" That's gonna be a tough one to answer"
I'd say this is a bad idea. IIRC there was a big court case fought back in the '70's or 80's over a LEO shooting a criminal. The case hinged on the fact that some witnesses claimed the policeman had cocked his revolver before he shot. They were essentially saying that the policeman did not intend to shoot but the gun went off because of the lighter SA trigger. After this case was when Law Enforcement Agencies went to DAO revolvers. If they tried a case like that on law enforcement I'd shudder to think what they could cook up against a private citizen.
Verndog
Blackhawk
Looks like the YES remove have a solid lead at 47 YES remove to 37 NO leave in.
I was first vote and voted No have not found a good enough reason yet. That may have changed. I went to remove my SR9c from soft kangaroo shoulder holster a while ago and found the mag was ajar (still in but released)! I think I grabbed it out too low and squeezed it too hard, but not sure since I didn't feel it. This may well have changed my opinion as now I do have reason.
I wonder how many NO's will change after some time carrying and finding an occational (or even 1) accidental release???
I was first vote and voted No have not found a good enough reason yet. That may have changed. I went to remove my SR9c from soft kangaroo shoulder holster a while ago and found the mag was ajar (still in but released)! I think I grabbed it out too low and squeezed it too hard, but not sure since I didn't feel it. This may well have changed my opinion as now I do have reason.
I wonder how many NO's will change after some time carrying and finding an occational (or even 1) accidental release???
