Graybeard Outdoors banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Bought a Seecamp LWS 32 pocket pistol. This is a great personal protection handgun, but I found it has one flaw. The slide can not be racked with the magazine installed. So to clear the chamber you need to unload the magazine, insert it into the pistol and slide the rack. Huh! So I took it apart and found the piece responsible for such action. I went into the machine shop and whipped up a new part that allows chamber clearing with the mag removed. Pictures and a pictorial are here

http://public.fotki.com/Rbertalotto/seecamp_modifications/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Looks like you have a lot of talent. But beware when you mess with the safety system a a gun used for "concealed carry" you may have liability problems in a Civil Lawsuit from a lawful defence of your life.

Lawyers love to hit on this item......

Tank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Disabling Seecamp safety?

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. What are you really gaining for this?

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.

The gun is designed as it is because Seecamp wanted an easy way to render a DAO gun absolutey safe... remove the magazine and the gun cannot be fired. The firing mechanism still tries to work, but the slide/hammer is retarded from full movement. Anything that would restore full movement to the slide/hammer without the presence of the magazine eliminates this.

Your fix seems like a solution to a non-existent problem. Yes... it can be a hassle to unload a Seecamp. 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. You can also just cycle the slide seven times and empty all of the rounds via the chamber/ejection port.

This pistol was not designed for ease of unloading. 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). 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.

This is one 'improvement' I definitely will not even consider applying to my LWS 32. In fact, I consider it dangerous. 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Huh?

The only safety a handgun needs is an owner that treats his gun safely......Period! Your arguement is an extremely slippery slope to more gun control than we need.

"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. "

This is insane! In my line of work I sometime have to enter buildings where I need to clear the action to show the gun is unloaded. It's rediculus to stand there clearing a mag so I can reinsert it and then clear the chamber. Sorry, I don't agree with your logic.
Sure, if the gun accidently went off and shot someone and I was found to have disabled the mag safety, they would hang me by my thumbs. But if I accidently shot someone, reguardless of whether the firearm had some "feel good" safety, then I should be hung by my thumbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
I gotta agree with RoyB on this one. Mag release safties are a usually a joke. The only thing they are good for is getting you killed when you need your gun the most. If there were really a liability problem with mag safties then all the manufacturers would build them in. Any gun I will use for self defense will NOT have a mag safety. Just my preference and opinion. KN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yup!

I'm sorry to keep this thread going, but it really burns me up when supposed "pro Gun" folks start spewing the nonsense that firearm safety can be litigated and/or designed into a firearm. This is nothing more than false security. A firearm is made safe by the handler........period!

And as KN stated, in a self defense handgun, most experts will tell you that a mag safety just may cost you your life in many situations.

Being able to easily, and readily clear the chamber after dropping the mag, like 99.99999% of the semi automatics out there makes the Seecamp much more farmiliar and therefore safer.........That's my story and I'm sticking to it..............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
From a legal standpoint, thwarting a firearm's safety device is not very wise. If it becomes the subject for discussion in a court of law, it will definately not yield positive results for the gun owner. 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.

RoyB: Our exchange on this subject seems to have been lost with the server change at GB. I feel that you misinterpreted the meaning of what I said then. Let me say this.... 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. If it doesn't fit the indivudual need, he should think about another firearm for that particular purpose.

I agree that no safety device is a substitute for safe handling.....but, safeties are, as they should be, used when applicable.

IMHO, Seecamp made an unwise choice when deciding on the magazine safety. 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.

hogship
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
I bought a NAA Guardian. All the good points of the Seecamp without the mag safety. At the time, it was purely a matter of economics (got the NAA for $230), but with all this talk about the gymnastics build into clearing a Seecamp, just makes me glad I went with the NAA. I like the fact that the NAA has no ejector. When you are clearing the weapon, you just remove the mag and rack the slide. Because there is no ejector, the round from the chamber simply falls down the empty mag well right into the hand your are holding the gun with. Quick to load, quick to unload. I like it.

Roll Tide
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
No need to empty a magazine to empty the chamber. The Seecamp functions like other autos except you pause before completely removing the magazine to retract the slide. Easy and simple.

Been loading and unloading a Seecamp since 1989 and never had to empty a magazine to unload the chamber.

Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
One of the things I like best about my Beretta Tomcat is the tip up barrel. So very easy to clear the gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
You said it, Greg.
You can even unload a Beretta Tomcat with one hand by turning it upside down and opening the barrel into your palm.

:)
Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
you are an idiot sir. do you believe that a g,i. - in the field should have to go through this procedure to clear his weapon? or- the primary question- regarding you question "what have you gained by removing the safety" obviously you never use a pistol for anything but target practice. what are you-(or someone else) going to do if you are in a life and death situation and you loose, or damage your magazine????? DIE. that is what you, or anyone else that thinks like you are going to do, with a weapon with a magazine safety. if you are correct-then why doesn't gun makers like Sig Sauer put a magazine safety on any of their weapons? or Smith & Wesson, or MOST of the other gum makers in the world. no one can make a fool proof weapon- i repeat- "no one can make a fool proof weapon" it is best to simply keep fools away from firearms- PERIOD!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
no one can manufacture a fool proof firearm. what is someone to do in a life and death situation if they loose or damage their magazine? better to simply keep fools away from firearms, PERIOD!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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. What are you really gaining for this?

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.

The gun is designed as it is because Seecamp wanted an easy way to render a DAO gun absolutey safe... remove the magazine and the gun cannot be fired. The firing mechanism still tries to work, but the slide/hammer is retarded from full movement. Anything that would restore full movement to the slide/hammer without the presence of the magazine eliminates this.

Your fix seems like a solution to a non-existent problem. Yes... it can be a hassle to unload a Seecamp. 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. You can also just cycle the slide seven times and empty all of the rounds via the chamber/ejection port.

This pistol was not designed for ease of unloading. 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). 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.

This is one 'improvement' I definitely will not even consider applying to my LWS 32. In fact, I consider it dangerous. 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.
people like you are the necessity why words like "idiot" and "imbecile" were invented. the seecamp pistol was originally invented for law enforcement personnel as a back-up weapon.larry seecamp with all of his genius- was prone to try and protect "everyone" in the circle of firearm enthusiast.but a firearm is a deadly and unsafe invention in the first place.no-one can invent a "fool proof" deadly weapon.this is a fact! fools and idiots should stay away from them.it is impossible to protect a fool or an idiot from a dangerous device.let me describe a novel situation-- you are a "professional" a "LEO" LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. your primary weapon just jammed. you pull out your back-up weapon-(a seecamp) while walking at night with only your seecamp you loose your footing, stumble, and drop your back-up weapon. when you reach down to pick it up-the magazine has dropped out of it. you are unable to locate the only magazine that you have with you. now you are really up **** creek! this is why firearms like the colt 1911 pistol were not designed with magazine safeties!! you would probably not be able to defend your self with your seecamp without the magazine.or, what is your only magazine was damaged? there is a great difference between a duty weapon,or a back-up weapon- and a firearm designed as a training weapon for a first timer, that is not familiar with firearms. in such a case designing a training weapon with a magazine safety would be a great idea.but the line must be drawn when it comes to a duty or a soldiers weapon. magazine disconnectors were never designed to be installed on such weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,567 Posts
people like you
People like the OP, who hasn't been seen in these parts for well over a decade, and thus are not only unlikely to even see this post but equally unlikely to be able to respond?

Oh and well done resurrecting an over 15-year old post so you could insult said (former) member and rant a bit. Well done indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
944 Posts
The bottom line on this thread is post #10 by Lancel.
There is absolutely no reason to first remove the cartridges from the mag in order to empty the chamber on any Seacamp pocket pistol.

Just depress the mag release and then lower the magazine about 1/4 inch.
Now the slide can be cycled (pulled back & released), any cartridge in the chamber will eject.
You can then push the magazine back into the gun or pull it all the way out of the gun, your choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
944 Posts
Other Seacamp stuff.


The pistol is tiny, smaller than a Berreta Tomcat or Ruger LCP by far.

That is the attraction: the worlds smallest auto pistol.
Seecamp in front of S&W J frame 2" barrel




Warning: Never pull the trigger on a Seacamp if the magazine in not fully seated (even doing this once will ruin the drawbar spring ($6 for a new one / but it is easy to replace). Every Seacamp sold has a warning card about this in the box, and it comes with one replacement spring.


The cheapest ammo by far that cycles in the Seacamp .32ACP is PMC Bronze 60 grain JHP, a box of 50 for $20. e.g. Outdoor Limited online.
anything larger than 60gr will be too long to fit into the magazine, so ammo choice is very limited.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,205 Posts
if the shooting is justified you will not go to jail. There is NO LAW against removing a safety from your gun. Show me ONE case where someone went to jail because of it.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top