Brillianter.com

Many if not most factory 1911s have too-strong recoil springs, for reasons I cannot begin to explain. They will function just fine if returned to the as-designed 14.5 pound recoil spring, and that might be just enough to return it to viable status for some with weak upper body strength.

And, a properly tuned 1911 can function just fine with an even lighter recoil spring (as low as 10 pounds) with standard self-defense ammunition. For someone seeking to address a special disability, spending more is pretty much the norm. Making sure the gun is in tune by a competent gunsmith is not unreasonable.

"A lighter recoil spring will make the gun easier to rack, but the gun won’t function as reliably" is simply false as a blanket statement.

I was reading about firearms for physically handicapped folks. I am a good example of those folks. I have no strength in my right hand. I can cannot raise it off my lap. My left hand has quite a lot of strength. When I took my gun class I shot with my left hand, using a 22 pistol. I had to lay the gun down before starting to shoot to move the slide and to release the safety. My aim was excellent, once I overcame all those problems. So, in a pinch I could not load a pistol and shoot in self defense. I have tried small j frame revolvers. It is hard for me to pull the trigger and hit the target accurately. The S&W 38's I have tried require more pull on the trigger than I can muster. I shot a Glock 19 this past week and hit the target extremely well. I want to buy a gun for self defense, but I am at a loss as to which gun to buy. I favor the pistol for accuracy, but can't load the thing, and what if it jammed on me. What's a gal to do? Oh, and I shoot from a mobility scooter.

Pax:
I write this blog for feedback, so there is no offense taken. I hear good things about Gila and Marty, so I know that you have a foundation for what you speak of.

...the common is often common for very good reasons!

Bingo. Exactly. Before someone makes a special case, they need to: try, adapt, or modify the standard. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel, but they rarely manage to do so with out it coming out square.

MG ~

Not at all disagreeing with what you said, was just musing on your final point. Thanks for the food for thought.

And to be even more clear, I'd definitely agree with you re the proper starting place not being "gun plus gadget" or even "gun AS gadget" (have you seen the Palm Pistol? Definitely a case of gun-as-gadget!). Of course there are people out there for whom the gadgets are both necessary and appropriate. But unfortunately, many people want to rush to the extreme solution before they even explore the common ones -- not realizing that the common is often common for very good reasons!

Pax:
Without a better defined problem (physical disability covers a wide range of limitations) there is no way to provide a specific answer until we discussing a specific question.

What I am going to say is that the starting point shouldn't be "some gun plus some gadget." In the quest to be unique snowflakes people quickly jump to the conclusion that they need some totally non-standard gizmo before determining why they can't do it the normal way.

Ultimately if you stack up enough problems you are going to need somebody put a gun into condition one for you, and you are going to have to hope that it is enough. If you stack on a few more problems even that will stop being feasible.

So my preference, when dealing with folks with marginal physical abilities, is to get them into a semi-auto if they are even vaguely capable of being taught to run a slide (which most are). It’s safer and more certain.

If they are able to run a slide then there is no reason not to run a semi-auto. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

One addendum: your entire blog entry assumes there is a perfectly-appropriate gun for a given individual that will work for them without modifications. That's not always the case. Sometimes the best you can do is to pick between less-than-optimum choices.

MG ~

The classic traditional advice to the disabled is, "Get a revolver." It's not necessarily bad advice, but it's rarely really good advice either. Of course every situation is different, so keep that in mind below.

Generally speaking, it is easier to teach someone a few strength-enhancing techniques for running a semi-auto slide than it is to teach someone how to pull a DA trigger to achieve accurate hits when they simply don't have the hand strength to do so. That's the reality. I've met dozens of people who thought they "couldn't" run a semi-auto slide until shown how, and thereafter never had problems; but I've met just as many who had no ability to hit the target in DA mode because their hand strength simply wasn't able to accomplish it -- even after training.

Sure, there are ways around that. You can let them run the trigger with both trigger fingers, left and right working together, but where's that leave them if they need to use that gun one-handed?

The other solution, the "obvious" one, is to allow them to run the revolver in SA mode. But as a firearms trainer who works with new folks all the time, it really gives me the creeping willies to allow someone with shaky hands and poor fine motor control to cock the hammer manually -- not least because that same shaky-handed person with poor fine motor control is going to have a helluva time safely lowering that hammer if it turns out it isn't appropriate to shoot for whatever reason.

So my preference, when dealing with folks with marginal physical abilities, is to get them into a semi-auto if they are even vaguely capable of being taught to run a slide (which most are). It's safer and more certain.