the apparent evil of choice... again?

Well, it would seem as though Mostly Genius took a little exception to my previous post concerning modifying and accessorizing firearms. That, in and of itself, I do not mind, and in fact I encourage it – after all, everyone is free to disagree or agree as they see fit, and everyone is also free to modify or not modify as they see fit. However, what irked me initially, and what, unfortunately, continues to irk me in reference to Mostly Genius’ post, is the condescending, holier-than-thou attitude of those who choose, for whatever reason, to leave their firearm stock. So, with no further ado, on to the show!

The general rule regarding firearm modifications is: “Don’t” This is because every modification and gadget has a liability associated with it. Generally if you change something the gun does not work as well as it did before. Yes, there are exceptions and yes there are things that guns really need to have that don’t come stock. I am sure that I am going to get some comments about performance optimization from the competition shooters, so let me temper that a little bit: I am a defensive shooter. I have shot competition occasionally, but when I do, I shoot it with my regular equipment.

So I am not sure where Mostly Genius received his firearm-related education (honestly, I do not), but I cannot recall any of my various military or civilian firearm instructors or trainers ever telling us to never modify our firearms. I mean, they were not exactly encouraging us to start attacking our guns with Dremels, but neither were they proclaiming our firearms to be sacrosanct temples that should never be violated, ever, on pain of death. Dunno.
As for the question of liability, here is a little hint: Those of us who do dare to modify our firearms are already aware of the potential problems associated with the proposed modifications, and are comfortable with those potential problems (if they even exist). Insinuating otherwise is rather insulting, to put it mildly.
It seems strange to me, though, that “generally” modifications make firearms “not work as well” as they did before. Of the five modifications I performed on my home-defense shotgun, none of them seem to have any form of detrimental impact on the firearm’s operations, accuracy, or efficacy… Mostly Genius goes on to say that there are exceptions, but with five modifications on one firearm, one would think that I would have found one of those “generally evil” modifications…
For clarification, the five modifications I added were a fiber-optic front sight, a side-saddle shell holder, a railed fore-end/pump, a flashlight mount and flashlight, and a Knoxx stock. The sight weighs almost nothing, clamps directly onto the barrel, and gives the shotgun’s user a much better indication of where the barrel is pointed, especially in low-light situations. The shell holder effectively doubles the shotgun’s onboard ammunition count, and I cannot ever recall anyone involved in a defensive shooting ever complaining about carrying too much ammunition (but the other way around…). The railed fore-end was a requirement for the flashlight mount, but in and of itself, it was almost a null-game – the mass is no different from the original piece, and while it is railed, the plastic is beveled well enough that the rails actually increase grip without causing discomfort. The flashlight is an absolute must for home-defense firearms, as it allows for positive identification of a target (something we are all responsible to do) when turning on a room’s lights may not be possible/adviseable. And while the Knoxx stock weighs more than the original, it offers a threefold bonus – first, the collapsible stock makes the firearm usable by my 6′2″ frame, and my 5′6″ wife; second, the pistol grip gives us both better control over the firearm, and thus better accuracy; and last, the recoil-reduction makes the firearm much easier to control, and makes it that much more likely my wife will use it without flinching.
So, please, educate me: how, exactly is my shotgun not working “as well as it did before”? Speaking as the owner and operator of the firearm in question, I can personally attest that it is, in fact, working better than it did out of the box, both as a recreational-shooting shotgun, and as something I can rely on in the middle of the night. Yes, it does weigh a little more than it did (I did not weigh it before, and I have not weighed it after, so I cannot give specifics), but I firmly believe that the added weight has contributed more than its share of added functionality to the firearm.
If you are comfortable relying on your bare-bones-stock firearms for defensive uses, knock yourself out, and more power to you. But coming out with a blanket statement that “generally” modifications make a firearm run worse? Reality tends to disagree.

What does this gadget do for me? That is the one question that people seem to have so much trouble parsing. As an example: a barrel shroud will keep you from burning yourself on your shotgun barrel, but the manufacturer didn’t see the need to put one on. Maybe that is because burning yourself on the barrel of your shotgun is not a problem: there are no operator controls on the barrel (so there isn’t any reason to be handling it) and you have to be doing heck of a lot of shotgun shooting in a very short period of time to make this an issue.

Ok, nothing personal, but that has to be one of the most stupid arguments against modifying a firearm I have ever seen: “It did not come with X from the factory, so there is obviously no need to put it on yourself.” So I guess there is no reason to install Crimson Trace laser grips on a 1911 (or any pistol) that did not come with them from the factory, despite their being indications and testimonies that lasers help with target aquisition and accuracy when under high-stress situations? Likewise, I guess there was no point in me installing the side-saddle on my shotgun… I mean, if I run out of shells in a home-defense situation, the bad guys are obviously going to understand that I had to work with what the factory gave me, and they would certainly give me a chance to get to my ammunition stash and reload.
*headdesk*
Even if we just want to narrow the topic of conversation to the infamous barrel shroud, from personal experience, the barrel of my 870 becomes uncomfortable to touch within one to two full tubes (six to 12 rounds) shot in relatvely short order (2-10 seconds between rounds, plus reload time). That amount of shooting is not uncommon for me when I take the 870 to the range. Now, there may not be be reason to handle the barrel of a firearm, but when one is at the range, and moving around equipment, or letting people have a turn on your firearms, or packing up to go home, grabbing the firearm by its barrel is not terribly uncommon on shotguns. Even if it were uncommon, barrel shrouds add a scant 8 ounces of weight to a firearm you are not exactly going to be humping to Timbuktu, and, in no way affect the actual operations of the firearm.
So if a barrel shroud makes the operator more comfortable with his firearm (by alleviating some nagging doubt that he might burn himself, foolish though that doubt might or might not be), and thus probably more accurate and effective with the firearm, and if the operator is agreeable to adding an extra 8 ounces to his shotgun, who is really in any place to disagree with him, or tell him he should not? If it costs $30-odd and a little extra effort to get a gunny comfortable with his equipment, I would think that all other gunnies would be all for it.
Speaking personally, I have not installed a barrel shroud, simply because I am not that worried about potentially burning myself, and thus I cannot rationalize the $30 expenditure. But the lack of my having one does not mean I think no one should have one… and I might get one eventually, just to piss certain politicians off.
In any case, manufacturers are not the end-all, be-all of firearms. Hell, even the best of firearms can sometimes be improved by a basic “fluff and buff“, and removing burrs, smoothing out roughness, polishing surfaces, and other such things certainly count as “modifications”… and something that the factory obviously left out. Gun manufacturers build their firearms to a certain demographical/ergonomical range, and if you are outside of that range, or are not satisfied with the QC/QA at the manufacturer’s factory… well, tough noogies, I guess, huh?
You will have to excuse me for not hanging out at the “one size fits all” kool-aid fountain. If options exist for customizing any equipment (not just firearms) to our particular, individual needs and desires, it would be negligent of us to ignore those options.

Am I going to use whatever added capability I am gaining? I could put a bipod on my rifle, but it isn’t going to make my rifle any better for my intended role of self defense. It might make it easier to be accurate from the prone on the range or in the field, but it’s not going to help me to shoot the bad guy that is in my house – in fact the added weight and bulk on the front of the gun is going to make it more difficult to operate.

Right. And since bipods are obviously useless in home-defense situations, all modifications are likewise useless.
Would you like a clay golem to go with your strawman, there?

You can justify anything. To yourself. If you want to trick out your gun with every cool gadget under the sun, more power to you, just don’t expect me to buy into your reasoning for why something is a must-have. I have seen a lot of guns with a lot of gadgets over the years and I have seen very few trick guns that both work reliably AND that the owner can operate. In generally I find most accessories and customizations to be technical solutions to training problems. Personally I assign far more cool points to those that can quickly and efficiently hit the target than those that have latest and greatest gizmo.

Fine – I do not exactly recall asking for or expecting your approval or support. What I do expect is your consideration for people doing as they damned well please with their own firearms. Yeah, there are a whole lot of silly-assed modifications and additions to firearms out there, but if people feel more comfortable with their firearms after slapping them on, then who are we to argue? So it is a placebo effect – so what? If they are sanguine with whatever costs (if any) required to achieve that placebo effect, and if the effect more than balances out the cost, then more power to them.
Your “buying into their reasoning” is rather immaterial if an individual shoots better with a firearm modified a certain way because he thinks he will shoot better with the firearm modified in that certain way.
Do I think nifty gidgets and doo-dads are any replacement for honest-to-God training? Of course not. Do I think that nifty accessories make up for training deficiencies? Of course not. But neither do I think I should have to conform to whatever the firearm manufacturing industry thinks is a “good” design, simply because FIREARMS SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED!!!111!!
For that matter, I know of no training program that will make my wife’s arms longer, or me more comfortable with a firearm that puts the breech right under my nose. I know of no training program that will improve my low/no-light vision. I know of no training program that will allow me to effectively engage and shoot 7+ targets (an improbable possibility, but so are home-invasions, when you get right down to it) with 6 rounds (especially when I intentionally use rounds designed to reduce overpenetration). Do you?
So believe as you like, and advise as you like, but presenting those beliefs and advice as “THE ONLY WAY… BECAUSE!” is just a little narrow-minded.

Observe the pros. If there is a consensus between what the top people in the field are using then that is probably a good choice. This is not an appeal to authority, but rather an attempt to skip reinventing the wheel, and rediscovering a bunch of stuff that is detrimental for your intended application.

Now there is a funny, given your dislike of shotguns for home defense, and given the number of “top people in the field” who approve of them.
Moving on, I find myself wondering if you have ever paid attention to firearms used at things like 3-gun matches or the like… those are not exactly the most bare-bones of firearms.
And, all that said, the simple fact is this: What works for them may not necessarily work for all people. While he is a target shooter, and that aspect of shooting is apparently outside the scope of this discussion, Mr. C uses some crazy-assed “taco” grip on his guns when taking out steel plates – and it works. Me, I could never figure out how to do that, and would probably hurt myself trying. Learning from the experts is definitely adviseable, and we would be fools not to… but taking their choices and decisions as our own, simply because they chose them… well, that is just about as bad as using some gadget simply because it looks cool.
… Whew.
The simple reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect firearm for all people. In fact, for any given individual, there is a good chance there is no such thing as a perfect firearm for just that person, unless they fall into a manufacturer’s idea of an “average” person. Given that admittedly annoying reality, who is in any place to tell that individual that he or she should not modify their firearm such that it is not more comfortable/usable/user-friendly/etc. for their own purposes? My satisfaction and efficacy with my firearms is not dependent upon your approval, and if I end up shooting better thanks to how I feel with/about the firearm (possibly thanks, in turn, to things I have attached to the firearm), then the argument really is moot.
But disdaining all modifications and accessories for all firearms used by all people, just because you think firearms should never be modified? Yeah, that is just plain silly, more than a little haughty, and, ironically, the same “logic” used by those who would strip us of those firearms (after all, “Who needs modifications when the factory gives us all we need?” sounds a lot like “Who needs firearms when the government gives us all the protection we need?”).
Come on, Mostly Genius. You can do better than this – I have seen it before. But laying logical fallacies all over the place, coated with a healthy dose of saccharin condescension, is not going to prove a bloody thing.