![]() ![]() Your tasks as a Firewatch member are relatively simple, and the mechanics here match that, but the presentation often supersedes the complexity. As the days go on, Henry and Delilah begin to talk more and more, they develop a bond, either out of their shared solitary confinement or some other need for human response. Yours and Henry’s only human contact is through radio communications with his coordinator, Delilah. If a safety device was a necessity for their design, there are other ways to accomplish the job without disabling the pistol during a magazine change.Your lookout is your base of operations and home away from home, acting as a constant landmark in the woods.Īfter you learn of Henry’s past through a short series of text vignettes, you’re placed in his shoes as you take on the duties of a volunteer member of the Wyoming Firewatch. IMHO, Seecamp made an unwise choice when deciding on the magazine safety. I agree that no safety device is a substitute for safe handling.but, safeties are, as they should be, used when applicable. If it doesn't fit the indivudual need, he should think about another firearm for that particular purpose. I feel Seecamp would have been better off to forget about the magazine safety alltogether, but since they did see fit to incorporate it into the design, the buyer should be familiar with it's use, as applied to their own particular circumstance. I feel that you misinterpreted the meaning of what I said then. RoyB: Our exchange on this subject seems to have been lost with the server change at GB. However, it is the right of the gun owner to do whatever he feels suits his needs.He must understand, however, that there is a legal risk involved by defeating the safety. If it becomes the subject for discussion in a court of law, it will definately not yield positive results for the gun owner. If you ever sell your Seecamp and a future owner or user shoots himself or someone else accidentally with it you are in a world of hurt from a legal liability standpoint.įrom a legal standpoint, thwarting a firearm's safety device is not very wise. This is one 'improvement' I definitely will not even consider applying to my LWS 32. Your modification in no way adds to the gun's primary role as a compact and reliable self-defense pistol, and seriously detracts from its safety. The design criteria included small size, ease of operation, no active (manually engaging/disengaging) safeties, and a foolproof and reliable means of quickly rendering the gun inoperable (removing the magazine). This pistol was not designed for ease of unloading. You can also just cycle the slide seven times and empty all of the rounds via the chamber/ejection port. The quick way around this is to have a spare empty magazine at home that you can insert into the gun to clear the chamber. Your fix seems like a solution to a non-existent problem. Anything that would restore full movement to the slide/hammer without the presence of the magazine eliminates this. The firing mechanism still tries to work, but the slide/hammer is retarded from full movement. remove the magazine and the gun cannot be fired. ![]() The gun is designed as it is because Seecamp wanted an easy way to render a DAO gun absolutey safe. The proper way to 'clear' a Seecamp is to withdraw the magazine, remove the cartridges from it, re-insert it into the pistol, and then cycle the slide to remove the round. ![]() If your modification allows the firing mechanism to be activated without the magazine being inserted into the gun, then you have just disabled the primary safety for this handgun. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |