Trial lawyers is the short answer. I would say that if you shoot some BG on the street it will cost you everything you have. Yup even if you are right. The court system is set up to where you are guilty, and you have to prove your not. About $100,000 should take care of that. Wait your not done, his family sues, and takes you to civil court. There goes the rest. You say, but I was right. Don't worry it's just a money thing.

Why would it make a difference to a trial lawyer if my gun was ported? I'm just trying to understand here.

Thanks

Yes, I think maybe you think "porting" is something else... That wouldn't matter (civil issues)...

The reason they recommend it is for a few reasons..

1, if you fire the gun in a position close to your body, U can get burned by the debris that comes out of the port. It could also go in your eye. 2, you can be blinded at night after the first shot, depending on the circumstances. They are bright little suckers, going right into your field of view. And 3, they make the gun about 2x as loud.

I've had a ported 1911 for many years. It was typically the loudest gun on the range, unless someone was shooting a high powered revolver. I would not have wanted to use it in self defense w/o hearing protection.

All the negatives really come into play for the shooter, so civil liability isn't an issue.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Yes, I think maybe you think "porting" is something else... That wouldn't matter (civil issues)...

The reason they recommend it is for a few reasons..

1, if you fire the gun in a position close to your body, U can get burned by the debris that comes out of the port. It could also go in your eye. 2, you can be blinded at night after the first shot, depending on the circumstances. They are bright little suckers, going right into your field of view. And 3, they make the gun about 2x as loud.

I've had a ported 1911 for many years. It was typically the loudest gun on the range, unless someone was shooting a high powered revolver. I would not have wanted to use it in self defense w/o hearing protection.

All the negatives really come into play for the shooter, so civil liability isn't an issue.

I read a story yesterday (can’t remember where, I’ve been surfing too much) that said porting does not affect the night vision as much as they thought. A study was done on it. If I come across it again I’ll post it.

Points 1 & 3 make since though.

Thanks

Well, the night vision thing somewhat depends on the ammo. Some ammo is brighter than others. But, I promise you - no matter what the study says... It can sometimes blind ya for a second or two (or maybe more)

Just borrow a ported gun. Try shooting it from the retention position. You'll have your answer pretty quick.

Make sure you wear wrap-around shooting glasses when you try this.

The lawyer thing again. Porting is a modified gun. Lawyer is going to ask you why it wasn't good enough stock. He will proceed to make it out as a killers tricked out gun and you a killer. Looking for something to kill. He will twist it around till the jury votes to hang you.
The family will say he was a pillar of the town, and was just asking directions when you mowed him down. Poor baby. I hope you never have to face this, but it does happen.

No, you can buy stock ported guns.

That is ture Ship and I know that, but if you buy a stock gun and do it, you got a modified gun in everybodys book. The word modified will play big infront of a jury. You can count on that. Good Luck.

Personally, I believe that is a modification that would not matter in ct. EVeryone is so paranoid about mods when it comes to ct, and that topic has been discussed to infinity on all the gun forums. Ayoob always gets brought into it as well. But, no one ever seems to be able to provide proof of a ct case where it actually became an issue.

I can POSSIBLY see a lighter trigger being brought into it, depending on the circumstances. But porting to me is on the same level as a modification such as adding night sights.

That being said, I think porting is over rated, and I went thru my spell w/ that already - same w/ lasers. I've done that in the 1990s and mostly got it out of my system. But, if I want a ported gun or not - the liability issue is the last thing on my mind when trying to decide whether or not to do it.

Then again, everyone has their own opinion. And, I'm not faulting you for yours

Originally Posted by Mike Barham at Galco

Just borrow a ported gun. Try shooting it from the retention position. You'll have your answer pretty quick.

Make sure you wear wrap-around shooting glasses when you try this.

+1

That's my opinion not M. Ayoob. I could care less what he thinks. Our rights have been surpressed for a long time in this country. Yes we are slowly getting them back. There's one thing that we are up against still, and that is a liberal court system. You can't argure that if you read the news on the net. The news papers all back the Brady ilk. So does a lot of these judges.
Shoot some BG with ported barrel and some reloads. You'll get life and one day probley, or be living under a bridge. IMHO...Baldy

I love ports. Makes it easier to get in and out of your boat! No offense, Baldy, but nobody has ever come up with any hard copy about some of this stuff (modifications) EVER really impacting a trial. You may be 100% right...........but we're still waiting to see something in writin'.







1

Well, I hate to be an Ayoob advocate here, but I am an LFI grad and Mas is probably the foremost authority on guns in court.

Mas has NEVER said not to modify your gun. He carries custom guns all the time. When I took his course he had a P226 backed by a totally tricked out S&W .357 snubby. Mas has favorably mentioned Mag-na-Port many times. He didn't say a word when I took his class using a custom Commander, by the way.

Mas does caution against very light triggers and deactivating safeties. Contrary to some internet opinion, he has case cites to back up his opinions on these things, including the Alvarez case in Miami and another in Florida shooting involving a Hi-Power where the magazine safety had been removed.

I haven't seen any cites for his position on handloads.

Getting back to the porting, I think the courtroom argument isn't particularly valid. Carried to its extreme, that argument wouldn't even allow you to change the grips on your revolver. I do think the practical arguments against porting are pretty strong. None of my guns are ported, and I wouldn't even consider it on a defense gun.

But on a play gun for the range or IPSC shooting? Sure, have at it.

I have a Desert Eagle .44 Mag that I owned for many years before I sent the barrel into Magna-Port to have a double port done. I think it cost $125.00, I couldn't be happier with the job they did. I can easily shoot double&triple taps on this gun now. NO Way can you do that on a standard non-ported 44 mag! I think having smaller caliber guns ported is a waste of money, but hey, it's your money so waste away! I sold a Ported Glock 23 (compensated) to a lady customer, after a home invasion around here, her law enforcement son "ordered" her to buy it. I'm sure she'll be able to get off that all-important second or even third accurate shot before some criminal takes advantage of her. I have noticed that people seem to concentrate on the advantage of less recoil felt with porting. I think the best reason to consider porting is the sudden ability to get off at least one more very accurate shot that if you weren't a very good shooter, you may never get to take.

Originally Posted by billdeserthills

I have a Desert Eagle .44 Mag that I owned for many years before I sent the barrel into Magna-Port to have a double port done. I think it cost $125.00, I couldn't be happier with the job they did. I can easily shoot double&triple taps on this gun now. NO Way can you do that on a standard non-ported 44 mag! I think having smaller caliber guns ported is a waste of money, but hey, it's your money so waste away! I sold a Ported Glock 23 (compensated) to a lady customer, after a home invasion around here, her law enforcement son "ordered" her to buy it. I'm sure she'll be able to get off that all-important second or even third accurate shot before some criminal takes advantage of her. I have noticed that people seem to concentrate on the advantage of less recoil felt with porting. I think the best reason to consider porting is the sudden ability to get off at least one more very accurate shot that if you weren't a very good shooter, you may never get to take.

It's one thing to have a ported "fun gun" like a DE. However, a ported defense gun can be a liability, once again, if the defender must fire from the retention position. This seldom comes up in square range shooting, since that is usually done with 7 yards -- rather than 7 inches -- as the minimum range.

Particularly for women, who are even more likely to face a close-range physical assault, porting is a poor idea. A women is very likely to have to fire at face-to-face distance with the pistol held in the retention position*, maybe while in a clinch or rolling around on the ground. This means a spray of hot gas is going to shoot out of the ports and potentially into her face, possibly reducing her eyesight for the duration of the fight. A blind defender does not have the advantage.

Again, stuff like this never comes up when shooting on the relaxed square range, shooting casually at non-threatening two-dimensional targets. In real life and in force-on-force training, though, stuff like this happens.

* Retention position: pistol held approximately against the strongside pectoral muscle, or just under it. Used so that the pistol is hard to seize from a defender. If you insist on using a ported pistol, rotate the ports well away from the body. This decreases the effectiveness of the position, from both the retention and shooting standpoints, however.

Well, as far as the whole court argument goes, I think that you have to look at the laws in the state in which you reside. I live in Mississippi. As you may expect, we have some pretty gun-nut friendly laws down here. Several years ago, our legislature enacted a Castle Law. If you perceive a threat to your person or your property, you can use deadly force. You won't even be charged. If you aren't charged, the modifications to the particular gun you used doesn't even come into play.

I do agree though that porting and light triggers are not suitable for CCW and defense guns but night sights are a must.

I carry a Sig P245. It is a SA/DA with night sights. It doesn't have a safety due to it's action. It's a draw and shoot type of pistol and I carry it for that exact reason.

I recently picked up a 5" 1911 with a shoulder rig. Don't know how much I will use it for CCW though. As of now, I haven't gotten comfortable with carrying a Cocked and Locked pistol yet.

I just purchased a Baby Eagle .45 that I will also carry from time to time. It is also a SA/DA with the addition of a slide mounted firing pin lock safety.

When considering a carry weapon, you have to think about what may be happening that causes you to draw the pistol in the first place. It's my opinion that you want something that can be fired quickly but also not fired accidently. Because accidents will definately get you sued.

dladd

I think there have been a lot of good points...but I have to agree that porting is more for the range than a defensive position. I have several guns that are magna ported one bein a DE 50 a Benelli M2 and a Springfield TLE/RL. Now my shotty and 1911 are both used in 3 gun shooting just to reduce muzzle jump for follow up shots. and for the most part it does help but to a novice gun enthusiast they may not even notice the difference. i had my DE ported bc it was a beast of a gun that all my friends liked to shoot but hated the recoil. My girl loves that guns...says its cute! of all things to call a gun. now the muzzle blast on it at night is about 2-3ft and even before the porting you could still see it out the top and it only got worse after the port job. i would hate to use a gun like that in selfdefense. not so much that it is louder and will momently obstructe your vision but the fact that the damn thing weighs 5lbs and can only hold 8 rounds. so yeah itd say its more for the range. and as far as the courts go who are they to say what i can and cant do to my gun(within certain limits)? some asshole breaks into my house...threatens my families lives...I may be gracious and give him a warning rubber buck shot round to the ribs but he takes one step further and ill win his heart and mind! two to the chest and one to the head.

Well I can think of a few reasons off the cuff. First off, porting increases the number of ways that lint and other debris can get into the barrel and cause problems. Also, a CCW needs to be effective at night, and compensating ports give a flash right along your line of sight, destroying you night vision. CCWs have smaller barrels, and porting reduces the effective length under which the bullet accelerates, further reducing an already relatively low muzzle energy. Lastly, porting directs muzzle flash upward. If pointing the gun upward that direction generally becomes towards the shooter. Coupled with a smaller weapon, that puts the shooter at risk from flash burns from his own weapon.