PDA

View Full Version : Reason(s) to remove Firing Pin Safety??


Jen
September 08, 2010, 17:17
I know.. why would you want to remove the firing pin safety.. really.. why? And while you're at it, why would you also mill the firing pin down on one side AND mill a hole in the Extractor?

I need to post pictures, but this is what I found inside a used glock that was picked up over the weekend. Is there some reason for doing this??

perryturner
September 08, 2010, 21:11
T.R. Graham may have seen it before. Ask him this weekend.

Jen
September 09, 2010, 13:34
I know he's seen it.. cause I showed it to him :p

Just wondering what reason, if any, someone would both disable the firing pin safety (removed entirely) and mill half the firing pin off (side behind striking point).

nwobhm
September 09, 2010, 20:18
Would any of those modifications aid in regards to a G18 conversion? Or a misguided attempt at one?

mutter
September 09, 2010, 20:26
Not sure what you're talking about.

But, maybe someone tried to actually add a real safety to their tactical tupperware.

Maybe bubba thought he had a weak spring and was trying to overcome a perceived inertia problem.

IDK Jat

gunplumber
September 10, 2010, 09:45
Originally posted by mutter
tried to actually add a real safety

like the one on my airweight .38?

I'm thinking NFA

tac-40
September 10, 2010, 19:06
Well, I went through my armorers books and the G18 parts are exactly the same as all the other Glocks. The only other addition is the selector on the side of the slide that trips the cruciform releasing the firing pin (striker). The firing pin stop functions normally and prevents an out of battery firing of the cartridge much like the safety sear on the FAL.

The Glock firing pin has a notch milled in it to fit the larger notch in the firing pin stop. When the stop is pressed up the two notches align and the firing ping can go forward and hit the primer. When the notches do notline up the firing pin retains the firing pin stop. I have seen dinged up firing pins and firing pin stops caused by dry firing with the slide slightly out of battery. This causes the firing pin to hit the firing pin stop and most certainly causes damage to both. Quite possible your mods were done to correct this problem instead of getting the correct replacement parts. Not sure what the hole is for.

nwobhm
September 10, 2010, 23:48
Originally posted by gunplumber


I'm thinking NFA

Trying to convert to G18... Correct?

gunplumber
September 11, 2010, 08:21
that was my thought - although not necessarily the "glock" way as on the G 18. The hole in the extractor is what I find most odd. pics? What does a simunitions slide look like?

trh53
September 11, 2010, 11:28
Originally posted by nwobhm


Trying to convert to G18... Correct?
I suspect so,but I can't figure out the hole in the extractor either.

nwobhm
September 11, 2010, 12:17
Originally posted by gunplumber
that was my thought - although not necessarily the "glock" way as on the G 18. The hole in the extractor is what I find most odd. pics? What does a simunitions slide look like?


http://www.simunition.com/conversion_kits/images/pistols/pistols_28.jpg

Heat
September 13, 2010, 19:44
Originally posted by nwobhm



http://www.simunition.com/conversion_kits/images/pistols/pistols_28.jpg

Is that 'Aqua Velva' green?

Jen
September 14, 2010, 16:15
Few bad pics.. sorry, only had my cell phone handy

Jen
September 14, 2010, 16:24
Another View

Standard Firing Pin and Extractor pictured for reference.

Sailor553
September 14, 2010, 20:09
Would such a "modification" "alter" the markings on spent brass?

I am thinking that Glock might have orginally been sold in a State that requires spent brass and bullets for their LEO data base. How does the barrel look?

Jen
September 14, 2010, 21:09
No apparent modifications to the barrel, breach, or the portion of the firing pin that hits the primer.

What I can tell is that they were trying to bypass the firing pin safety, not sure of the WHY they would try to do that.

Oh, they also had the extractor depressor plunger installed backwards, I think that was more of a didn't know wth they were doing than anything else.

yarro
September 15, 2010, 12:37
Since it seem obvious that the person messing with the inards had no clue what he was doing, they may have believed that the firing pin safety was affecting trigger pull or reliability so they attempted to disable it. They may have been trying to lighten the other parts for lock time or some preceived functional upgrade like giving someplace on the firing pin for fouling to accumulate. I suspect that it was someone shooting IDPA with the gun or a mall ninja tricking out his "gat".

Never under estimate the powers of stupidity. I have seen some really screwed up guns that someone made inexplicable changed to rendering them unreliable, unsafe, or expensive paperweights.

-yarro

gunplumber
September 15, 2010, 13:41
Originally posted by yarro
Since it seem obvious that the person messing with the inards had no clue what he was doing...

I think it is premature to assume he had no idea what he was doing. The neatness of the work suggests me he was deliberately doing something. The wisdom of the endeavor is based on knowing what the object was.

1stSSPZ
September 15, 2010, 19:27
With Mark on this one. I have Vanek match triggers in both my G-34 and G-35 and one of the more important mods he does is modify the firing pin safety plunger to reduce drag, thus making the trigger much smoother.

Jen
September 16, 2010, 13:21
Oh.. he lightened the hell out of it, cut slots in the slide to drop weight, along with an area at the top / rear just in front of the rear sight is milled out.

There was NO firing pin safety, so I can't tell you if it was or wasn't modified - it was never put back in.

yarro
September 23, 2010, 18:20
If he knew what he was doing, then he could have just fabricated one part that can be replaced in 20 seconds to give himself auto only like everyone else does leaving no modified parts when removed. If he knew what he was doing, he would have removed or replaced all mod'ed parts. Those modifications are incriminating even without the other part since the ATFE views readily convertable as an MG even if doesn't function as one now. He still might be able to convince a jury that he was lightening the gun, but my guess is the ATFE would convert it to full-auto in short order with hand tools if it just requires a cylinder and mod to the disconnector. The irony is that the ATFE has taken guns back to there lab and made them work full auto when the offended had not succeeded in getting it to work himself. Since he did not remove all the modified parts, then if those indeed make it easier to convert to full-auto then the possessor may be in violation of the law. I would remove all the moded internal parts and destroy them if you believe that they were used to facilitate an illegal conversion. Or your other option is to surrender the gun to ATFE and finger the prior owner(only after consulting a specialist attorney and having them facilitate so you don't get screwed in the process). Remember the AFTE takes the stance of once an MG always an MG unless it is demilled to ATFE specs first.

-yarro