View Full Version : Private Gunsmithing a duty/work weapon
I nearly sent a USP 40 that I've owned for many years (an oldie with lands and grooves rifling) to him for trigger work about a year ago, but didn't because an officer that I used to work with received his back from Bill Springfield with a very dangerous trigger condition. The pull was about one or one-and-a-half pounds at the most. My friend wouldn't even load the pistol, let alone fire it. I pulled the trigger about twenty times or so and was stunned that Mr. Springfield would let that thing go back to a customer in that condition. Back to HK it went.
What's scarier? A butched trigger job by BS or a law enforcement officer having said trigger job done by a private gunsmith. This wasn't a duty weapon was it?
2 wrongs there in my opinion
What's scarier? A butched trigger job by BS or a law enforcement officer having said trigger job done by a private gunsmith. This wasn't a duty weapon was it?
2 wrongs there in my opinion.
All said, I haven't had the nerve to use Bill's services and I'm glad I didn't.
Not an LE weapon. Thanks for your concern. There's a conclusion in another forum awaiting your jump to it.
NCPatrolAR
12-22-10, 19:23
Slight thread derail (which can be made into its on topic if it gets that far)
I dont have an issue with a private gunsmith knocking out a trigger job on a duty gun if he knows that he is doing. Not every agency has someone remotely close to a gunsmith working in their firearms program.
Slight thread derail (which can be made into its on topic if it gets that far)
I dont have an issue with a private gunsmith knocking out a trigger job on a duty gun if he knows that he is doing. Not every agency has someone remotely close to a gunsmith working in their firearms program.
That's fair, but in that situation wouldn't it be wiser to stick to factory work and/or reputable drop-in parts?
NCPatrolAR
12-22-10, 22:10
That's fair, but in that situation wouldn't it be wiser to stick to factory work and/or reputable drop-in parts?
If the smith knows what he is doing, I dont see the difference.
If the smith knows what he is doing, I dont see the difference.
If the agency doesn't have anyone remotely close to a gunsmith, then it follows that they also don't have a smith who knows what he's doing.
NCPatrolAR
12-22-10, 22:44
If the agency doesn't have anyone remotely close to a gunsmith, then it follows that they also don't have a smith who knows what he's doing.
What are you talking about? I dont follow exactly what you are saying.
CumbiaDude
12-22-10, 22:52
I think he means, if they don't have somebody competent to do the work themselves, who will judge the competency of another? It's hard for somebody who isn't skilled in something to see the mistakes made by another.
:)
NCPatrolAR
12-22-10, 23:07
A set of standards could be agreed upon by the people in the firearms program by speaking with other agencies that permit outside modifications, testing the work on various gunsmiths, etc.
IMO, there is no reason to modify the trigger on a USP.
Taking a class from someone like LAV would be a far better choice.
What are you talking about? I dont follow exactly what you are saying.
Think of it as a Venn diagram. The set of "smiths who know what they are doing" is a subset of people "remotely close to a gunsmith".
If you don't have anybody even close, you sure as heck don't have somebody with better qualifications.
NCPatrolAR
12-23-10, 00:13
If you don't have anybody even close, you sure as heck don't have somebody with better qualifications.
I must be retarded tonight because I dont know WTF you are talking about. :confused:
Are you talking about people within the agency doing their own smithing or guys going to an outside smith?
Are you talking about people within the agency doing their own smithing or guys going to an outside smith?
Doesn't make any difference. Anybody doing work on a duty weapon ought to meet some minimum qualifications.
You mentioned, "Not every agency has someone remotely close to a gunsmith working in their firearms program."
When you contract with somebody for LE gunsmithing work, they are working in your firearms program. So this hypothetical agency has nobody even remotely close to a gunsmith. That means that they ALSO don't have anybody with better qualifications.
If you don't have 3 apples, you also don't have 10 apples. That's all I'm saying :D
NCPatrolAR
12-23-10, 00:38
When you contract with somebody for LE gunsmithing work, they are working in your firearms program.
I can see how you might see it that way; but I dont. When I talk of people being in the firearms program in the agency I'm talking specificly of officers assigned to the range/firearms program; not some outside vendor.
What about dropping a DCAEK into your M & P at home?
Not a thing wrong with using a private smith if he knows what he is doing. Not all depts issue weapons. Houston for example only has an approved list. There is nobody there to work on them.
If the agency doesn't have anyone remotely close to a gunsmith, then it follows that they also don't have a smith who knows what he's doing.
Dude, he's talking about a third party 'smith. I wouldn't say that an LEA or individual LEOs going to a third party gunsmith makes that smith "working in your firearms program."
Back in the day, I carried pistols on duty that were worked on by Wayne Novak, Bill Laughridge, Larry Vickers, and Chuck Rogers--these esteemed pistolsmiths likely did a far better job than a generic "Colt certified" armorer at the range...
Not a thing wrong with using a private smith if he knows what he is doing. Not all depts issue weapons. Houston for example only has an approved list. There is nobody there to work on them.
Some of our range officers are put through the armorer's school for the particular model. Now does that necessarily make them a "smith"? Nope. I'm too scared to let some of them touch my duty gun. :eek:
Dude, he's talking about a third party 'smith. I wouldn't say that an LEA or individual LEOs going to a third party gunsmith makes that smith "working in your firearms program."
Well, they'd only be going to a private smith if the agency approves such a thing.
I'd assume that any such alterations would have to pass inspection of the agency's armorer. Now an armorer may not be the same thing as a gunsmith, but they'd be the one to verify and confirm the weapon is not a liability. Maybe I've been listening to Mas Ayoob too much lately, but I just can't imagine any LE department being cool with shade tree "hair triggers" on a duty weapon.
Well, they'd only be going to a private smith if the agency approves such a thing.
I'd assume that any such alterations would have to pass inspection of the agency's armorer. Now an armorer may not be the same thing as a gunsmith, but they'd be the one to verify and confirm the weapon is not a liability. Maybe I've been listening to Mas Ayoob too much lately, but I just can't imagine any LE department being cool with shade tree "hair triggers" on a duty weapon.
Which was my original concern, in my original statement, in the original thread my post (that was used to create this thread) was plucked from.
Our policy is that any duty carried weapon may only be worked on by a person with a CURRENT license from the weapons maunfacturer. Since they expire every three years, that means a bunch of traveling to schools every so often. The three I have to stay up on are HK, Sig and Glock.
Big issue is court in lawsuit ville. The three I've mentioned can and will support their training. Which means weapons kept in the condition of their design.
Changing trigger press pressure and hammer spring pressure are a change from design. Smoothness is a natural occurrence with use or polish that doesn't alter the design.
You can have a trained monkey use a trigger pull gauge and the NIJ duty pistol trigger guidelines. No smith, or armorer required. If it's too light/heavy it has to be fixed on the officers time and dime.
-Jenrick
In today's litigous environment...
At a minimum, duty weapons should be maintained according to factory specifications by manufacturer credentialed personnel. If departing from specifications, the vendor of whatever service is obtained should be willing to document work performance guarantees as well as product/service liability insurance coverage to the requirements of the customer/agency.
Agencies should carefully screen and vet providers of such modification/improvement services, and inspect work upon return. A list of vendors with standing approval to perform certain types of work usually works well.
Armorers should never be confused with gunsmiths. Interestingly though, in my experience one is more likely to find at least a professional education event of some sort and a certificate behind someone claiming to be an "armorer" than they seem to be with someone claiming to be a "gunsmith." When contemplating certain services, I've asked many of the latter where they had studied and/or how they are credentialed, and received only blank looks in return.
From an administrative stand point, those decisions, if left up to the individual officer, lead to a wide range of results and for insurance reasons and safety, are required to be by policy and procedure. Issue and carry weapons must be in approved condition.
All repair work and armorer cleans are by either the factory or departmental armorer.
Otherwise all sorts of strange things begin to show up on the range.
I've been the range officer for thirty years and in that number of years I've seen many "trained Monkey" trigger jobs. Way to much liability involved. By the officer and Department.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.