Removal of the mag safty SR9

[edteach]

I just removed the mag "safety" from my SR9. It took about 90 seconds and I did it while watching the news. I will be keeping it in the Ruger box for the gun in case the gun has to go back to Ruger. This safety does not interact with any other part of the gun except keeping the striker from going all the way forward unless the mag is in. I have a couple of guns that do this and although I do not absolutely hate it, I do not like it. There are times at the range I shoot one round without a mag for whatever reason. And I could see some remote situation where it could be a deterrent. Anyone else remove the mag safety?

 

[Scott]

It sure is easy to remove, and to replace - do a search on this forum about the potential legal ramifications of removing a "safety device" on any gun. There's great discussion on both sides of whether you should or not from a legal, and "tactical" point of view. Research and decide what your own comfort level is. Some say it makes the trigger pull smoother, some say that's not possible. It sure doesn't hurt the gun any to have it removed.

 

[edteach]

Personally I think that the issue of it being a legal problem is rhetoric. How could it be a problem if you used it to defend yourself when the safety would be inert when the mag was in place? If you used the gun in defense and intended to use it, the removal of a safety to mag placement is not an issue that I can see. I have heard this kind of thing for years, do not buy a gun that says killer this or thunder that or bad guy destroyer because you can get sued if you need it. You can get sued if a person breaking and entering gets into your home and slips on the tile with you not there. Heck they can sue you if a girl scout slips on the concrete knocking on your door delivering coconut clusters you ordered. I have always felt that I must be prepared to be sued civilly and criminally charged if I use a gun in SD. But I have always felt that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by6, anyways, thanks for the post I understand your points and its always good to be aware of possibilities.

 

[DGW1949]

I just removed the mag "safety" from my SR9. It took about 90 seconds and I did it while watching the news. I will be keeping it in the Ruger box for the gun in case the gun has to go back to Ruger. This safety does not interact with any other part of the gun except keeping the striker from going all the way forward unless the mag is in. I have a couple of guns that do this and although I do not absolutely hate it, I do not like it. There are times at the range I shoot one round without a mag for whatever reason. And I could see some remote situation where it could be a deterrent. Anyone else remove the mag safety?

From an SR9?....nope. I once carried a pair of BHP's though, due to the logistics of a job I was on. Both of them got their mags safeties removed pronto.
I have no intention of arguing the liability aspects of disabling a safety but I will say this much..... One of the advantages that a semi-auto has over a revolver is one's ability to recharge his weapon while keepimg it ready to fire via a round in the chamber. I see no valid reason for a fighting-gun not to have that capability, especialy if it's one that I have to bet MY life on.

DGW

 

[pkbjamn]

This is my first post in this forum.

I could not agree more with the words of "edteach" about the magazine safety removal and his perspective about this issue. I'm looking forward to more rational, respectful, straight talking individuals on this forum as I explore the site.



I see that all the newbies are bearcats?!! That's funny. What is our endgame . . . Red Label ?? :D

 

[FergusonTO35]

I see that all the newbies are bearcats?!! That's funny. What is our endgame . . . Red Label ?? :D

AC-556 'cause you're really pouring on the rounds at that point!! 8)

 

[khutch]

Personally I think that the issue of it being a legal problem is rhetoric.

Not entirely. If someone is accidentally shot with your gun under circumstances where the magazine disconnect would have prevented the accident you had better believe that you will be found at fault for having removed the disconnect. If you intentionally shoot someone then your legal fate depends entirely on whether or not the shooting was justifiable. A prosecutor may try to make an issue out of the missing safety device but if the shooting was intentional and your lawyer is any good he ought to be able to make at least one juror see that its absence was of no consequence. All it takes is one juror to acquit you.

Ken

 

[vacextar]

Some say it makes the trigger pull smoother, some say that's not possible. It sure doesn't hurt the gun any to have it removed.

Depends on the gun on that one. On the SR's, it doesn't have any contact with the trigger, so the trigger is not affected. On a Browning Hi-Power or any of the Hi-Power clones, it makes a HUGE difference in the trigger as it is directly linked to the trigger, and if you don't have a mag in, it will not let you pull the trigger. Before I removed it on my Hi-power, it felt like the trigger was doing double-duty.......half of the pull was to make the gun go bang and the other half was being used as a gravel grinder.

 

[sargents1]

Personally I think that the issue of it being a legal problem is rhetoric. How could it be a problem if you used it to defend yourself when the safety would be inert when the mag was in place? If you used the gun in defense and intended to use it, the removal of a safety to mag placement is not an issue that I can see. I have heard this kind of thing for years, do not buy a gun that says killer this or thunder that or bad guy destroyer because you can get sued if you need it. You can get sued if a person breaking and entering gets into your home and slips on the tile with you not there. Heck they can sue you if a girl scout slips on the concrete knocking on your door delivering coconut clusters you ordered. I have always felt that I must be prepared to be sued civilly and criminally charged if I use a gun in SD. But I have always felt that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by6, anyways, thanks for the post I understand your points and its always good to be aware of possibilities.

Personally, I would not use a gun for self defense if it had been modified. Lawyers have amazing tricks to twist words and actions to make you look bad. Best not to give them any extra tools to use against you.

My feelings on Mag Safeties can be summed up as "mehhh...shrug". I can see the argument for and against and neither really shines.

But if it is my gun and I am going to use it for self defense its going to be an un-modified gun loaded with factory ammo.

that's my 0.02$

 

[Snake45]

There are times at the range I shoot one round without a mag for whatever reason.

Just out of curiosity, could you give us one or more of these reasons? I've been shooting autopistols for about 40 years now and I figured out a LONG time ago that if I wanted to shoot one round, it was easier, faster, easier on the gun, and safer to load that one round into a mag and then load it that way. But perhaps you've come up with some angle I haven't thought of. :?

And I could see some remote situation where it could be a deterrent.

Again, I'm trying to stay with you here and coming up empty (no pun intended). Deterrent to what? :? :? :? :?

 

[208packinheat]

Why is it there? IMHO to keep the tenderfoot gun user from removing the magazine and thinking it is unloaded, and pulling the trigger...BANG! Happens all the time, most do not understand the gun that is in their hands. Ruger just trying to protect us from ourselves!

I think the argument that this safety feature is some how a basis for legal action on a gun used in a self defense action is well...talk. If the gun is used, then it worked as needed. Period. Now, if you left the gun sittin' round, with magazine removed, and thinking it is in a cold condition, and your Grandkid picks it up and pulls the trigger, and it goes bang, you got a problem. Actually more than one! :?

Edteach, did not mean to run over your point, What you said! :oops:

 

[Snake45]

Personally I think that the issue of it being a legal problem is rhetoric. How could it be a problem if you used it to defend yourself when the safety would be inert when the mag was in place? If you used the gun in defense and intended to use it, the removal of a safety to mag placement is not an issue that I can see. I have heard this kind of thing for years, do not buy a gun that says killer this or thunder that or bad guy destroyer because you can get sued if you need it. You can get sued if a person breaking and entering gets into your home and slips on the tile with you not there. Heck they can sue you if a girl scout slips on the concrete knocking on your door delivering coconut clusters you ordered. I have always felt that I must be prepared to be sued civilly and criminally charged if I use a gun in SD. But I have always felt that I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by6, anyways, thanks for the post I understand your points and its always good to be aware of possibilities.

Personally, I would not use a gun for self defense if it had been modified. Lawyers have amazing tricks to twist words and actions to make you look bad. Best not to give them any extra tools to use against you.

My feelings on Mag Safeties can be summed up as "mehhh...shrug". I can see the argument for and against and neither really shines.

But if it is my gun and I am going to use it for self defense its going to be an un-modified gun loaded with factory ammo.

that's my 0.02$

Agree completely, but I'm tired of arguing about it (and about the issue of using handloads for SD, too). Some people are just bound and determined to do what they want to do and no amount of appeal to logic or common sense will sway them. I have better ways to spend my time than to go through it all again and again.

Fortunately for them, statistics are such that these people can PROBABLY get away with their reckless behavior and it won't bite them in the ass. Personally, I like to remove as many bad variables from my life as possible.

 

[Yawn]

Personally, I would not use a gun for self defense if it had been modified. Lawyers have amazing tricks to twist words and actions to make you look bad. Best not to give them any extra tools to use against you.

My feelings on Mag Safeties can be summed up as "mehhh...shrug". I can see the argument for and against and neither really shines.

But if it is my gun and I am going to use it for self defense its going to be an un-modified gun loaded with factory ammo.

that's my 0.02$

Couldn't agree more. has anyonne ever read or heard of the grind a LEO goes through if they discharge their weapon. Can you imagine what they scrutinize if it is a civilian? Your each free to do as you wish, great part about America... but this is one area that I think the battleship will get sunk.