Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary?

[john c]

I'm asking this as a thought exercise, because I understand the human factors involved in DA/SA operation. But with the trend towards the P320 and other pre-cocked strikers, aren't folks effectively carrying condition zero pistols? Have passive safeties and increased gun handling evolved to the point where this is safe?

In another thread I posed the question as to whether decocking a DA/SA pistol is strictly necessary. In the case of the Walther P99AS, the SA mode is identical to the PPQ. If a shooter were to not decock a P99AS, the safety level would be the same.

I understand the history of the DA/SA design, and the fact that basically every organization carried their pistols in Condition 3 until Cooper came up with the idea of carrying cocked and locked. My experience in the military reinforced the wisdom of this, when a guy shot himself in the ass with a half-cocked 1911. The perception was that revolvers were safe to carry ready to fire due to the double action and long heavy trigger. Thus, Walther adapts this to semi-auto pistols in the PPK to allow for a ready round in DA mode. (I don't for sure, but I'd bet that most organizations still carried condition 3, due to the least common denominator) It's my contention that the gun using public and organizations have adapted to the Glock, with finger-off-the-trigger discipline (not a thing in the '70s and before), so now Condition Zero is acceptable.

So, how does that apply to a Sig P226 or Beretta 92FS? Presumably, the pistols are drop safe in SA mode. If the hammers were to slip off the sears the firing pin safeties would prevent discharge. The standard triggers are 4.5-5 lbs with plenty of travel.

[Bucky]

While I’ve never advocated carrying a DA/SA in “condition 0”, I have frequently asked / compared the difference between a caring a P320 versus carrying a 92 with the hammer back. Neither make me comfortable.



So, how does that apply to a Sig P226 or Beretta 92FS? Presumably, the pistols are drop safe in SA mode. If the hammers were to slip off the sears the firing pin safeties would prevent discharge. The standard triggers are 4.5-5 lbs with plenty of travel.

I wouldn’t rely on a firing pin safety alone to stop a fully cocked hammer drop. Fortunately, this is not the first line of defense from a hammer slipping off the sear. The 92 has a half cock notch. My Langdon did a drop test video of his 92, and the half cock notch caught the hammer when it tripped. The Sig and HK gun’s have a part that blocks the hammer from reaching the firing pin when the trigger is not rearward. This is the same part that the hammer rests on when the guns are properly decocked.

[JRB]

Presently, large parts of the USAF Security Forces now carry their M9's chambered with the hammer back and the safety off. With the correct holster I would feel perfectly comfortable with this because of my familiarity and confidence in the M9 design. Without the correct holster, I'd advocate going hammer-down but keeping the rest.

Meanwhile in the Army, if someone saw a holstered M9 like that, with the safety off but the hammer down, you'd see grown ass men acting as if you were carelessly throwing around a live copperhead or rattlesnake. The officers and SNCO's I see flip out like that are typically the same ones that struggle with M9 quals and spout the never-ending anecdotes about what a piece of shit the M9 is and how terrible 9mm is and how it doesn't have any 'stopping power'.


Bottom line, there's no exceptions to the four safety rules. Everything else is subject to opinions, debate, personal comfort, prevailing organizational practices, supporting equipment, and 100% pure concentrated bullshit.

So long as there are no practices that require you to violate any of the four rules, I'd just do what's comfortable, pragmatic, and sustainable for you, your lifestyle, and your situational risk.

[JSGlock34]

Presently, large parts of the USAF Security Forces now carry their M9's chambered with the hammer back and the safety off.

Paging jetfire

[CraigS]

I agree w/ the OP's question. That's why our carry guns, my M&P9c and wife's G19 both have upgraded (in my mind) triggers. M&P has Apex's Duty/Carry kit which gives a heavier pre-travel and about 6# final pull. The G19 has a NY spring and a 3.5# connector for about a 5.5# pull. 12yrs or so ago I was plinking w/ my SIL. I was shooting my Beretta 92 and he was shooting a near new Glock 34. So we decide to swap guns. After my first shot w/ the G34 I turned to him and said 'Glock sure has great marketing department'. The trigger felt almost identical to my B92 in SA mode. I really have to wonder about all the striker guns. Glock can say it's a double action gun but IMHO that is marketing BS. As the strikers keep getting nicer triggers like 2nd Gen M&P I wonder even more. BTW all our 92s are decock only and are stored w/ hammer down and a round in the chamber.

[BehindBlueI's]

Not for me, thanks. If I want an SA gun I'll buy a gun designed to be carried SA. Of course I also won't carry a striker gun AIWB, so maybe I'm just a fraidy-cat.

[JTQ]

Presently, large parts of the USAF Security Forces now carry their M9's chambered with the hammer back and the safety off.
This would really surprise me, if true.

[USAF422]

USAF Security Forces do NOT carry the M9 with the hammer back/safety off. Its carried decocked safety off one in the camber. Interestingly enough, our new pistol the M18 is carried with one in the chamber and the safety off, the safety is only utilized during loading and unloading procedures.

[Moylan]

As the strikers keep getting nicer triggers like 2nd Gen M&P I wonder even more.

I finally moved away from carrying a 1911 earlier this year, and I had intended to by an M&P as my new carry gun. When I tried the trigger in the gun shop, I was really surprised at how light it was. It had more travel than my 1911 trigger, but I wouldn't think it was any heavier. I hadn't intended to buy the gun that day anyway: I was just kicking tires. So I went home and thought about it a bit, and decided that I'd never carry my 1911 cocked and unlocked. Why would I carry the M&P with such a light trigger? That's how I landed on the TDA as my new style of choice, and eventually went with a P07.

No doubt my worries are just a training issue, like shooting yourself when you're using a SERPA. :eek:

[Hambo]

Have passive safeties and increased gun handling evolved to the point where this is safe?

No.

[oldtexan]

......But with the trend towards the P320 and other pre-cocked strikers, aren't folks effectively carrying condition zero pistols? .............



I am no engineer, but in my layman's opinion, the answer to this question is yes.

Thanks for raising this interesting subject.

[JTQ]

A thread from a couple of years ago...

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27185-Semi-Auto-Triggers-market-trends-choices-and-consequences

[Bigghoss]

Personally, I'm not even crazy about carrying a striker-fired gun without any extra safety features. My Glocks all have Gadgets and my M&P's all have (or will have) a thumb safety. Maybe I'm just overly cautious but that's what makes me comfortable.

[Suvorov]

Meanwhile in the Army, if someone saw a holstered M9 like that, with the safety off but the hammer down, you'd see grown ass men acting as if you were carelessly throwing around a live copperhead or rattlesnake. The officers and SNCO's I see flip out like that are typically the same ones that struggle with M9 quals and spout the never-ending anecdotes about what a piece of shit the M9 is and how terrible 9mm is and how it doesn't have any 'stopping power'.

This is my exact experience as well.

As for the OPs original question, I do not have the familiarity with the M17/18 to know just how the trigger pull compares to a M9/M11 pull in SA mode. From a theoretical standpoint I would say it was doable but in practice I would never do it. The big advantage of the DA/SA design to me is the fact that you have to really intend on that first shot. Time will tell just how many AD/NDs the M17/18 will seen in military service but I'm not hopefull.

[JDB]

Meanwhile in the Army, if someone saw a holstered M9 like that, with the safety off but the hammer down, you'd see grown ass men acting as if you were carelessly throwing around a live copperhead or rattlesnake. The officers and SNCO's I see flip out like that are typically the same ones that struggle with M9 quals and spout the never-ending anecdotes about what a piece of shit the M9 is and how terrible 9mm is and how it doesn't have any 'stopping power'.



I've somehow gotten around this. It helps that the new TC 3-22.35 specifically addresses this, that commanders may authorize soldiers to carry with one in chamber, de-cocked and on fire. So in my NG BN at least, its okay.

[spinmove_]

Yes, decocking a TDA pistol ESPECIALLY before reholstering is indeed strictly necessary.

[Dagga Boy]

I have evolved to the point of “do what you want, but don’t cry if there are consequences you don’t want.” Choices have consequences and if you think carrying a cocked DA/SA pistol is a good idea, based on your square range training and can manage that without any issues when facing a real threat, likely for the first time in your life....cool. Hope things go well for you. If not....be a grown up and accept the consequences. I have been in thousands of high threat situations and multiple shootings including one with a DA/SA gun and I will not carry this way and train decocking to a sub conscious level, but I have been labeled a dinosaur with old fashion ideas that are often discounted based on what works on the range for shooting performance, because it is ALL about shooting being easy for most folks.

[JRV]

Yes, decocking a TDA pistol ESPECIALLY before reholstering is indeed strictly necessary.

I think the original question here is, given the proliferation of the P320 and P365, where the triggers have short, crisp breaks; there are no mid-trigger dongles; and there are no manual safeties, why is your statement about the necessity of decocking still dogma?

At least with a hammer gun, you can impede the hammer while inserting the pistol into kydex.

I'm not advocating, just asking why. Personally, I find the P320/365 system a total no-go for me - it's too much like holstering a Condition Zero 1911, albeit with a crappier trigger.

[psalms144.1]

I think the original question here is, given the proliferation of the P320 and P365, where the triggers have short, crisp breaks; there are no mid-trigger dongles; and there are no manual safeties, why is your statement about the necessity of decocking still dogma?

At least with a hammer gun, you can impede the hammer while inserting the pistol into kydex.

I'm not advocating, just asking why. Personally, I find the P320/365 system a total no-go for me - it's too much like holstering a Condition Zero 1911, albeit with a crappier trigger.Here's why: a DA/SA pistol is DESIGNED to be carried in DA in the holster. A SFA is designed to be carried with a round in the chamber in the holster. It's just that simple.

Just because we've reached the point where the entire community demands crutch triggers for "shootability" doesn't mean that common sense and PROPER WEAPONS HANDLING with older systems is moot.

Just my .02 worth...

[JRV]

Here's why: a DA/SA pistol is DESIGNED to be carried in DA in the holster. A SFA is designed to be carried with a round in the chamber in the holster. It's just that simple.

Just because we've reached the point where the entire community demands crutch triggers for "shootability" doesn't mean that common sense and PROPER WEAPONS HANDLING with older systems is moot.

Just my .02 worth...

Is "original design parameters" really reason enough to stand as the foundation for an argument?

If we accept the P320/365 (no-manual-safety models with fully cocked SFAs and no trigger safeties) are safe designs for carry (which appears to be the case for many), then a Condition Zero hammer gun with a five-pound SA trigger, external hammer, and half-cock notch is an ostensibly safer system for carry, even if that's outside the original design parameters.

I'm not saying that's a reasonable or safe position to argue... I think the original question posed here is just reaffirming my dislike for the Sig striker systems.

[Duke]

Wiping your ass isn’t “strictly necessary”.....

But no one with good sense is going to hang with you if you skip it.

I feel the same about decocking

[Rex G]

I'm asking this as a thought exercise, because I understand the human factors involved in DA/SA operation. But with the trend towards the P320 and other pre-cocked strikers, aren't folks effectively carrying condition zero pistols? Have passive safeties and increased gun handling evolved to the point where this is safe?

In another thread I posed the question as to whether decocking a DA/SA pistol is strictly necessary. In the case of the Walther P99AS, the SA mode is identical to the PPQ. If a shooter were to not decock a P99AS, the safety level would be the same.

I understand the history of the DA/SA design, and the fact that basically every organization carried their pistols in Condition 3 until Cooper came up with the idea of carrying cocked and locked. My experience in the military reinforced the wisdom of this, when a guy shot himself in the ass with a half-cocked 1911. The perception was that revolvers were safe to carry ready to fire due to the double action and long heavy trigger. Thus, Walther adapts this to semi-auto pistols in the PPK to allow for a ready round in DA mode. (I don't for sure, but I'd bet that most organizations still carried condition 3, due to the least common denominator) It's my contention that the gun using public and organizations have adapted to the Glock, with finger-off-the-trigger discipline (not a thing in the '70s and before), so now Condition Zero is acceptable.

So, how does that apply to a Sig P226 or Beretta 92FS? Presumably, the pistols are drop safe in SA mode. If the hammers were to slip off the sears the firing pin safeties would prevent discharge. The standard triggers are 4.5-5 lbs with plenty of travel.

“Fear not, the DA shot,” stated and posted by Ernest Langdon. Easily searched.

I could get into a thought exercise, on why I would not worry about the safety of a modern-safety-mechanism DA/SA weapon being left in a cocked state, assuming a truly competent shooter, and a top-tier holster with a covered trigger guard, or even a Condition-Zero 1911 with the same factors at play, but:

1. I have done so, before, and am tired of typing, and,

2. I would rather say such things person-to-person, so that tone and inflection are parts of the equation, and so I can demonstrate what I mean, in real time.

[farscott]

Is "original design parameters" really reason enough to stand as the foundation for an argument?

If we accept the P320/365 (no-manual-safety models with fully cocked SFAs and no trigger safeties) are safe designs for carry (which appears to be the case for many), then a Condition Zero hammer gun with a five-pound SA trigger, external hammer, and half-cock notch is an ostensibly safer system for carry, even if that's outside the original design parameters.

I'm not saying that's a reasonable or safe position to argue... I think the original question posed here is just reaffirming my dislike for the Sig striker systems.

Not trying to be snarky, but this question is one of common sense. Is the "benefit" of having a single-action trigger for the first and then subsequent shots worth the risk of ND by carrying a TDA gun cocked? Especially a ND that is more than likely to wound or kill the person who is carrying a TDA pistol for personal protection. In my mind, such a person is best served by not carrying a TDA pistol at all as the highest probability source of harm and shooter is the person carrying the pistol.

The design viewpoint is also valid as products are designed to used in specific manners. Beretta, for example, offers C, D, F, and G variants of the 92 and PX4 pistols. None of those variants are recommended to be carried with the hammer cocked with a live round in the chamber. SIG, Glock, HK, et al, expect that the striker-fired pistol is to be carried with a chambered round and no safety. SIG does not expect that to be the case with the P22x series of pistols. S&W does not suggest holstering a revolver with a cocked hammer even though you can get holsters with a thumb strap that can be interposed between the hammer nose and frame. Design intent drives safe usage. All are handguns, but all function a bit differently.

Can it be done? Sure. If one thinks it should be done, there is a problem. Using products in ways not intended by the manufacturer because it can be done with something similar is a great way to win a Darwin Award. That applies to all kinds of products, not just firearms.

[Dagga Boy]

I d like to advocate for AIWB Carry with a cocked DA gun.....just as a sort of cool real world test. I ll be the decocking control group.

[Rex G]

If a safety device exists, using it is a best practice. I will not discuss using less-than-best practices, when I cannot know/control who is listening/reading.

If a de-cocker exists, it is best practice to de-cock.

[corneileous]

If a safety device exists, using it is a best practice. I will not discuss using less-than-best practices, when I cannot know/control who is listening/reading.

If a de-cocker exists, it is best practice to de-cock.

What’s your opinion about a type-f Beretta- whether it’s a 92/96 or a Storm that has a safety switched off, as opposed to a type g that has no safety, just a decocker? What’s the difference between the two, one basically being ready to fire at all times, or one that can only be ready to fire when you want it to?

Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jeep]

My view is simple. After seeing far too many ND's in my life I believe in hardware solutions when dealing with poorly trained folks. They don't stop ND's, but they reduce them

For people who shoot 10,000 rounds+ per year, do whatever works for you--but like DB says don't come crying if it doesn't work when you need it.

For people who fire maybe 50-100 rounds a year, you need a manual safety (or Gadget) and you need to keep that safety on until you draw the weapon. (I simply can't understand keeping the M9 off safe when it is holstered under normal conditions. A little bit of practice will teach anyone how to swiftly push the safety to off during the draw). An m17/18 should have the safety on because it is too easy to ND the weapon. Only keeping it on safe when reloading is asking for NDs.

With a DA/SA gun, decock every single time before you holster the gun. (Heck, ordinarily decock when you move off target). If you can't hit the DA shot, practice a bit. And if they don't give you the training ammo to practice still decock.

If I see someone with a holstered, non-decocked, non-safetied gun (eg: the 1911), I'm going to get far away. That is an accident waiting to happen, and I don't really much care that his finger is his safety.

[Borderland]

It's hard for a dinosaur like me to get my head around a striker without a safety. The M17 has a safety which can be carried in C1 like a 1911. With the safety off the M17 is in condition C0. Nothing wrong with C1 as lots of people carry in that condition and it's safe if the safety is actually engaged. There's a human element to that however so it's just something else to keep track of. One of the reasons I don't carry anything with a safety. I hate the damned things.

The M9 was a good pistol. It had everything a military pistol needed. I had one for awhile until I discovered the P-220 and all the series 2 variants. I haven't had a carry pistol with a safety since.

The M17 will prove to be a disappointment for the military. I expect a lot of people will just carry them in C0 intentionally, or accidently. Seems to be the trend these days.

If you shoot yourself, or anyone else, accidently, you'll probably be discharged. Just a guess.

[Rex G]

What’s your opinion about a type-f Beretta- whether it’s a 92/96 or a Storm that has a safety switched off, as opposed to a type g that has no safety, just a decocker? What’s the difference between the two, one basically being ready to fire at all times, or one that can only be ready to fire when you want it to?

Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I am comfortable with either type. Whether I would opt to carry the 92F with the lever “up” or “down” would depend upon whether I am comfortable with my thumb “naturally” engaging that lever, or not. Notably, a lever can be inadvertatly or accidentally bumped into an undesired position, so engagement is necessary.

At least one LEO’s 92 skidded along pavement, and when he recovered it, he could not shoot, as the lever had been bumped/struck, and oriented itself in the “Safe” position, and the LEO had not trained himself to engage the lever, except to de-cock. I do not remember if the LEO was killed, but this incident served as a wake-up call. IIRC, this incident is at least partially responsible for the development of the 92G.

Another scenario is brushing against something, while carrying, which can change the position of a safety lever. I experienced this, more than once, with the left-side ambi safety lever on a 1911 pistol, carried lefty. (My “primary” is at 0300, but on occasion, there are reasons to carry lefty.)

I am more-habituated to the 1911 safety, which sweeps downward to disengage, but did train myself to use the S&W 3913, in the early/mid-nineties, by programming myself to align the lever toward the enemy/target, regardless. (Of course, lever-aligned-with-enemy idea worked against me when I started carrying an AR15 patrol rifle in 2002. Cognitive dissonance is a thing!)

If I planned to buy a Beretta 92, or a Px4, I would almost certainly opt for the G version. The huge volume of the grip has kept me away from either; my thumbs are so short, a 92 would be a handsgun, not a handgun.

[Sal Picante]

Wait a minute... I just realized that there are 2 different trigger pulls on a Beretta 92!?

:rolleyes:

Seriously, I think I understand what the OG is driving at, but, doctrine/process count for a lot here... I'm with Dagga Boy : I'll be in the decocking control group.

[corneileous]

I am comfortable with either type. Whether I would opt to carry the 92F with the lever “up” or “down” would depend upon whether I am comfortable with my thumb “naturally” engaging that lever, or not. Notably, a lever can be inadvertatly or accidentally bumped into an undesired position, so engagement is necessary.

At least one LEO’s 92 skidded along pavement, and when he recovered it, he could not shoot, as the lever had been bumped/struck, and oriented itself in the “Safe” position, and the LEO had not trained himself to engage the lever, except to de-cock. I do not remember if the LEO was killed, but this incident served as a wake-up call. IIRC, this incident is at least partially responsible for the development of the 92G.

Another scenario is brushing against something, while carrying, which can change the position of a safety lever. I experienced this, more than once, with the left-side ambi safety lever on a 1911 pistol, carried lefty. (My “primary” is at 0300, but on occasion, there are reasons to carry lefty.)

I am more-habituated to the 1911 safety, which sweeps downward to disengage, but did train myself to use the S&W 3913, in the early/mid-nineties, by programming myself to align the lever toward the enemy/target, regardless. (Of course, lever-aligned-with-enemy idea worked against me when I started carrying an AR15 patrol rifle in 2002. Cognitive dissonance is a thing!)

If I planned to buy a Beretta 92, or a Px4, I would almost certainly opt for the G version. The huge volume of the grip has kept me away from either; my thumbs are so short, a 92 would be a handsgun, not a handgun.

Long time ago, I used to just think that maybe it was just the Italians wanting to be different with their safety levers up for fire/down for safe whereas many of the other brands were exact opposite- up/safe, down/fire but is it safe to assume that maybe it’s just because of how they designed the decocker? I just recently thought about that while doing research on my possible new EDC pistol that I might get, the Springfield XD-e that works pretty much the same way except up is safe and down level is fire, and further down is decock. I’m assuming this is because of the ability to carry this cocked and locked, and you can’t do that with the beretta?

But yeah, I feel like it was a good move converting all my PX4’s to G’s. I still need much more practice but I feel a lot better about taking advantage of that first DA shot and riding the hammer in and out of the holster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bucky]

(I simply can't understand keeping the M9 off safe when it is holstered under normal conditions. A little bit of practice will teach anyone how to swiftly push the safety to off during the draw).

I have short thumbs, so I can not reach a 92FS safety without awkwardly manipulating the gun. If I try the swipe method that I presume you are referring too, I'll miss the safety 9 times out of 10 for lack of reach. (Yeah, I know.. that's what she said...) I will only carry a G Beretta for this reason.

Also, my most shot platform being a 1911 / 2011 / etc., it is contrary to my existing motor memory, even if my thumbs were long enough to disengage the safety with proper grip.

[JTQ]

Long time ago, I used to just think that maybe it was just the Italians wanting to be different with their safety levers up for fire/down for safe whereas many of the other brands were exact opposite- up/safe, down/fire but is it safe to assume that maybe it’s just because of how they designed the decocker?
We've discussed this before, the Beretta 92/PX4 style of safety/decocker is the most common design used with Traditional Double Action (TDA) pistols, and has been so since the Walther P38.

[Jeep]

I have short thumbs, so I can not reach a 92FS safety without awkwardly manipulating the gun. If I try the swipe method that I presume you are referring too, I'll miss the safety 9 times out of 10 for lack of reach. (Yeah, I know.. that's what she said...) I will only carry a G Beretta for this reason.

Also, my most shot platform being a 1911 / 2011 / etc., it is contrary to my existing motor memory, even if my thumbs were long enough to disengage the safety with proper grip.

Yes. If you can't reach the safety the 92G is for you--and of course many people simply prefer the 92G overall. I'm not sure of the method to disengage the safety you are talking about, though. One is to reach with you thumb to the left of the safety (for right handers) and then push the left side of the safety ridge with the inside of your thumb. That takes reasonably long thumbs--which I don't have. What I do is push with the middle of my thumb against and downwards on the flat spot that is above the ridge of the safety. That automatically causes my thumb to move down the safety and the safety starts rotating off. I'm not sure if that is clear or not, but I have found that many ex-mil folks have no idea of that method. If that is not what you've tried in the past, it is worthwhile trying because it really does work (at least for some people).

[Dagga Boy]

Wait a minute... I just realized that there are 2 different trigger pulls on a Beretta 92!?

:rolleyes:

Seriously, I think I understand what the OG is driving at, but, doctrine/process count for a lot here... I'm with Dagga Boy : I'll be in the decocking control group.

Well that’s two. We need some volunteers for the cocked AIWB group. I am having Ernest finish up a sort of Frankenstein 92G this weekend and I have a Keepers for it so I am ready to start fresh on this.

[Jeep]

Well that’s two. We need some volunteers for the cocked AIWB group. I am having Ernest finish up a sort of Frankenstein 92G this weekend and I have a Keepers for it so I am ready to start fresh on this.

AIWB with the new LTT trigger bar and a TJIAB so the reset is extraordinarily short and the trigger pull is about 3 lbs. That's how real men carry (though they might find themselves to be lacking in certainly manly parts after the trigger accidently catches on something)

[Hambo]

I d like to advocate for AIWB Carry with a cocked DA gun.....just as a sort of cool real world test. I ll be the decocking control group.

So you believe that self-neutering will stop them from reproducing. Ingenious. :cool:

[JRV]

Well that’s two. We need some volunteers for the cocked AIWB group. I am having Ernest finish up a sort of Frankenstein 92G this weekend and I have a Keepers for it so I am ready to start fresh on this.

Can the test group include everyone rocking a P320/365? People on the 'Gram are shoving the X5/X-Carry models into AIWB holsters on the regular.

I have been big running AIWB with kydex since 2010, but that's with either a Glock (NY1+dot), a DAO revolver, or a 1911 with all safeties engaged and functional. Those Sigs leave people with a margin for error thinner than a bareback ride on the village bicycle.

[jetfire]

USAF Security Forces do NOT carry the M9 with the hammer back/safety off. Its carried decocked safety off one in the camber. Interestingly enough, our new pistol the M18 is carried with one in the chamber and the safety off, the safety is only utilized during loading and unloading procedures.

I was about to say we definitely don't carry with the hammer cocked, but I think that was just a typo on JRB's part. He's right though that the sight of a pistol off safe gives the Army a case of the ass.

For everyone else: the standard carry position for the M9 per USAF policy is a round in the chamber, hammer forward/decocked and off-safe. Standard carry position for the M4 carbine for Security Forces is empty chamber, on safe with a full mag inserted.

422 is correct about the M18's carry position. It mirrors the M9, with the safety disengaged and a round in the chamber. Personally, I think that's dumb as fuck given that it's a striker fired pistol, and actually wrote a strongly worded email about it. Sadly, the weight of one CA NCO doesn't really matter when people's minds are already made up. I also pre-emptively hate the M18 on general principles because I'm a Pasta Supremecist.

[corneileous]

We've discussed this before, the Beretta 92/PX4 style of safety/decocker is the most common design used with Traditional Double Action (TDA) pistols, and has been so since the Walther P38.

We did, but the only thing that was established was that having the up-fire/down-safe of the levers was a more popular design then I had thought, but there was no explanation as to why they designed it that way. Just like when I mentioned the Springfield XD-E; real similar in operation, but they didn’t go with that same, popular “up-fire, down-safe configuration.

Doesn’t matter though, the decocking between it and my others is still pretty much identical in operation and since my storms no longer have a safety, the safety on the little Springfield probably won’t ever get used if I end up getting one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GardoneVT]

I'm asking this as a thought exercise..

Based on my personal reading of both Col. Cooper and Elmer Keith, it’s my conclusion the TDA pistol (as we know it now) was borne to solve a specific handling problem of earlier semi autos. In the 1950s , stunning as this is today autoloaders were considered niche weapons. People were just as dogmatic about firearms back then as they are now; a proper gun was considered to be a revolver in a large bore chambering, period. Among other reasons, one could just grab and fire the revolver. A single action pistol of the time (BHP or 1911) required racking the slide or thumbing back the hammer, thus needing two steps to bring to action.

The TDA was invented to solve this handling problem, and was by and large considered the mainstream solution. Col. Cooper felt different, and we all know how that history turned out.

What the means for modern gun handling is this- there’s no point in cocking a TDA pistol. Speaking strictly for myself , I experience no time delay from the holster shooting my M9, WC 92, S&W 645 or 1911 from the holster. Bypassing safety systems to carry a weapon against its design intent for no measurable gain represents a step backward in my view.

[psalms144.1]

Is "original design parameters" really reason enough to stand as the foundation for an argument?Yes

[JTQ]

We did, but the only thing that was established was that having the up-fire/down-safe of the levers was a more popular design then I had thought, but there was no explanation as to why they designed it that way. Just like when I mentioned the Springfield XD-E; real similar in operation, but they didn’t go with that same, popular “up-fire, down-safe configuration.
I don't know the real answer - we'd probably need to ask the historians at Walther - but today it probably has to do with where the lever is.

On the slide, like the P38 and Beretta 92FS and all other's like them, up is fire, down is safe.

On the frame, like the HK USP, up is safe, down is decock, in the middle is fire.

[jetfire]

I don't know the real answer - we'd probably need to ask the historians at Walther - but today it probably has to do with where the lever is.

On the slide, like the P38 and Beretta 92FS and all other's like them, up is fire, down is safe.

On the frame, like the HK USP, up is safe, down is decock, in the middle is fire.

It's a design element of how the safety/decocker on the P38 works. When you engage the decocking lever it physically moves the firing pin striker out from under the hammer during the decocking process. The easiest way to do that with a single lever throw is have the lever cam down and rotate the pin up and out of the way.

[corneileous]

I don't know the real answer - we'd probably need to ask the historians at Walther - but today it probably has to do with where the lever is.

On the slide, like the P38 and Beretta 92FS and all other's like them, up is fire, down is safe.

On the frame, like the HK USP, up is safe, down is decock, in the middle is fire.

You might be on to something because after taking another closer glance at the Springfield, the safety/decocker is on the frame, and not on the slide... and, it’s setup just like that HK USP....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RevolverRob]

"Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary"

Yes.

[jetfire]

"Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary"

Yes.

/thread over

[WobblyPossum]

The entire premise of this thread is backwards. Some very smart people with serious credentials, such as Ernest Langdon, have opined that fully-cocked striker fired pistols that lack a manual safety aren’t as safe as they’re advertised to be because they are the equivalent of a cocked 1911 or DA/SA pistol with the safety off. The OP seems to imply that a cocked DA/SA pistol with the safety off is safe BECAUSE it is the equivalent of a fully-cocked striker fired pistol without a safety. Common sense tells me which of those two ideas is more in line with a realistic understanding of how people and firearms interact.

Safety-less, fully-cocked striker fired pistols make me uncomfortable. When I purchased an M&P 2.0 to mess around with briefly, I made sure to buy one with a manual safety. I recently turned in my issued safety-less fully cocked striker fired pistol in order to use two personally owned Glocks. There were several reasons for this but one of them was that I’m more comfortable with the idea of a Glock without a manual safety because its striker is partially cocked and, in theory, doesn’t have the energy to discharge a round should the internal safeties fail before the striker is fully cocked.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

To be fair to OP, he wasnt actually asking "should I (or anyone else) carry a TDA in Condition 0?"

That was just a thought exercise to answer the real question of "should I (or anyone else) carry a precocked striker fired pistol in condition 0?"

So, leaving Glocks and other partially cocked strikers out of the discussion for simplicity's sake:

Why would a P320 X5 be safer to carry than a P226, both carried in condition 0?

I feel like saying "design parameters" is dodging the question, since those parameters may be dictated by Marketing and Sales just as much, if not more so, than Engineering and real world usage.

[spinmove_]

I think the original question here is, given the proliferation of the P320 and P365, where the triggers have short, crisp breaks; there are no mid-trigger dongles; and there are no manual safeties, why is your statement about the necessity of decocking still dogma?

At least with a hammer gun, you can impede the hammer while inserting the pistol into kydex.

I'm not advocating, just asking why. Personally, I find the P320/365 system a total no-go for me - it's too much like holstering a Condition Zero 1911, albeit with a crappier trigger.

It’s been a heckuva day at work so I haven’t had a chance to respond yet.

Short answer: because TDA pistols are designed to be decocked after chambering a round and additional layers of safety that don’t cost you much can have very positive benefits.

Long answer: Just because you CAN do a thing doesn’t necessarily mean you SHOULD. It kills me when people say that decocking is so hard to train and ingrain, but flipping a safety on a rifle is a no-brainer. They’re both just a lever or button that takes minimal effort to employ. The market has largely moved to SFA guns with no safety/decocker because it’s simpler. Not necessarily better. All of the people who find value in the SCD for Glocks should be a big hint as to why decocking is a good idea.

I don’t think decocking is necessarily dogmatic so much as it’s logically just a smarter way of handling things. Don’t like decocking? Don’t buy TDA guns. Don’t like thumb safeties? Don’t buy thumb safety guns. Want a better trigger in your inexpensively made SFA gun that’s lightweight and doesn’t have a safety? Buy a gun with a better base trigger.

Lots of people buy SFA so they don’t have to flip levers or push buttons, treat them like crap, never clean them or lube them, never do PM, and they can try to get as 1911 a trigger as they can wring out of it. That’s not a good way to do things as you’re pushing the system beyond what it was intended. You can’t have your cake and eat it too because EVERYTHING is a compromise.

People want that sweet sweet trigger so they buy a RIA 1911. But then they hate leanring how to use a thumb safety without putting in the work and they want something “more reliable”, so they buy a TDA gun. But then they hate using a different lever and that DA press is so hard to manage, so they buy a SFA gun. Then they figure out the SFA trigger kinda sucks and the dingus hurts after a while so then they buy a P320. Then SIG issues “voluntary upgrades” while people are getting shot with holstered guns because they got whacked in weird situations.

Find a good gun, learn it, put in the work, and stick with it. If that gun happens to be a TDA system, then learn the system. Which requires decocking it regularly. So just decock the thing when you are supposed to and move on.

[spinmove_]

Why would a P320 X5 be safer to carry than a P226, both carried in condition 0?


It wouldn’t. If anything TECHNICALLY the P226 in condition 0 would be safer because of how it’s designed. But again, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

IMHO the P320 needs to be redesigned in order to be more robust from a safety perspective. Decock your TDA pistols.

[JTQ]

I recently turned in my issued safety-less fully cocked striker fired pistol in order to use two personally owned Glocks. There were several reasons for this but one of them was that I’m more comfortable with the idea of a Glock without a manual safety because its striker is partially cocked and, in theory, doesn’t have the energy to discharge a round should the internal safeties fail before the striker is fully cocked.
From Tom Jones...

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27521-Do-recent-events-cause-you-to-reconsider-the-quot-safety-quot-of-your-EDC/page9

I think a lot of people are putting too much emphasis on partially tensioned vs. fully tensioned strikers. The Glock isn't safe because it has a partially tensioned striker (the partially tensioned striker has sufficient energy to detonate most primers) but rather due to the features of the "Safe Action"® system --

[UniSol]

It wouldn’t. If anything TECHNICALLY the P226 in condition 0 would be safer because of how it’s designed. But again, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

IMHO the P320 needs to be redesigned in order to be more robust from a safety perspective. Decock your TDA pistols.


This is how I feel about it.

I have wondered the same thing as the OP before.

Never once has it crossed my mind as beneficial to carry a TDA cocked; doesn't mean it's not an interesting question. It is. "Thought Exercise" means discussing the aspects of something for its own sake, not arguing its merits.

I am also in the camp that doesn't carry striker fired AIWB. If someone wants to look at that as an emotionally based decision, that's cool. I will even agree with you. I still won't do it. To me, carrying an M&P, XD, any striker fired weapon with a fully tensioned striker with no safety is no different than a TDA with the hammer cocked. The mechanism is different, but I don't see how it's any different from a practical standpoint.

[JRV]

IMHO the P320 needs to be redesigned in order to be more robust from a safety perspective.

Oddly enough, your opinion seems to coincide with the ever-growing number of lawsuits involving that particular model of pistol.

It's a damn shame the P250 died so the P320 could live.

[UniSol]

Oddly enough, your opinion seems to coincide with the ever-growing number of lawsuits involving that particular model of pistol.

It's a damn shame the P250 died so the P320 could live.

It is...I would love to see a P250 and SP2022 set up in the current P320C form, size, everything the same except TDA or DAO.

[Trigger]

So I’m going to throw some gasoline on this fire.

My example in the CZ P-07/09 with the Omega trigger system. The pistol ships with a deco key installed, and with a traditional safety lever that can be installed by removing the deco key and replacing with the ambi safety lever. The pistol has a firing pin block safety, activated by the trigger. Thus the firing pin is locked unless the trigger is fully held to the rear. The pistol also has a half-cock notch, designed to catch the hammer if it falls/is released and the trigger is not held fully to the rear. In fact, all the decocker does is release the hammer from the sear, letting the hammer fall to the half-cock notch.

With the safety installed, the pistol can safely be carried cocked and locked (a la a 1911). The pistol can also be manually decocked to the half cock position and carried TDA, double action first. Heck, the user can flip the safety on after manually decocking, but it don’t know why. Or the user can install the decocker and decock the pistol after firing, returning it to TDA mode.

Thus you can have your cake and eat it too.

Should you decock a TDA pistol with a decocker? Yes. Should you decock a TDA pistol with a safety installed? Yes, or flip the safety on.

[GJM]

Oddly enough, your opinion seems to coincide with the ever-growing number of lawsuits involving that particular model of pistol.

It's a damn shame the P250 died so the P320 could live.

Not following how a lawsuit, based on a pre upgrade 320, relates to the post upgrade 320 design. Have we seen a single verified instance of a post upgrade 320 firing when dropped, or firing when it shouldn’t have.

[JRV]

Not following how a lawsuit, based on a pre upgrade 320, relates to the post upgrade 320 design. Have we seen a single verified instance of a post upgrade 320 firing when dropped, or firing when it shouldn’t have.

Oh, no. That's not what my point was.

However, there have been a couple recent suits involving post-recall (let's call it what it should be called) models and NDs by cops. There's a thread somewhere on here about the most recent suit.

Now, it's most likely that the guys involved had holster obstructions or fingers on the trigger obstructing their triggers while reholstering (and unsafe manipulation will defeat safety measures on any firearm), but that still begs a question about the soundness of the design given the intended market...

If I, as a hypothetical company, make a duty/carry pistol that is the functional equivalent of a 1911 without a manual safety or exterior provision for blocking the hammer/striker while holstering, have I created a fundamentally unsafe design?

It's a design that requires perfect handling in perfect conditions specifically marketed to a large community of people with, generally, barely-adequate training and a proclivity for needing to holster in less-than-perfect conditions. I mean, I have seen guys ND with Glocks, M&Ps... hell, the chief of a small city department near where I worked NDed with a DAO Ruger Security Six during in-service. Put a 125gr JHP through a lady's BMW window about a half-mile from the range. The P320 has even less going for it in the way of safety measures than any if those firearms.

The P320 and P365 designs might be sound from an engineering standpoint, but the design is borderline negligent given the intended market.

[Bucky]

On the slide, like the P38 and Beretta 92FS and all other's like them, up is fire, down is safe.

All others? I’ve never owned one, but doesn’t a Makarov and the like have down to fire?

[Bucky]

From Tom Jones...

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27521-Do-recent-events-cause-you-to-reconsider-the-quot-safety-quot-of-your-EDC/page9


I think a lot of people are putting too much emphasis on partially tensioned vs. fully tensioned strikers. The Glock isn't safe because it has a partially tensioned striker (the partially tensioned striker has sufficient energy to detonate most primers) but rather due to the features of the "Safe Action"® system --



I would have to partially disagree. While the safe action is a very big part of it, and it’s likely the partially cocked striker has enough stored energy to fire (dependent on ammo and striker spring weight), I do think there’s another component, either real or perceived, that makes some feel slightly safer with a Glock versus a true SAO system. That is, the trigger pull requires moving against a heavier striker spring, versus a much lighter trigger return spring. Even with a same weight trigger pull, the Glock will take more resistance throughout the pull, whereas the SAO will only hits most of its weight near the end of the pull... essentially allowing for a “running start” of sorts.

Again, real or perceived?? In my mind it’s a step better. YMMV.

[JRV]

All others? I’ve never owned one, but doesn’t a Makarov and the like have down to fire?

Yes. Communism was a mistake.

[GJM]

Oh, no. That's not what my point was.

However, there have been a couple recent suits involving post-recall (let's call it what it should be called) models and NDs by cops. There's a thread somewhere on here about the most recent suit.

Now, it's most likely that the guys involved had holster obstructions or fingers on the trigger obstructing their triggers while reholstering (and unsafe manipulation will defeat safety measures on any firearm), but that still begs a question about the soundness of the design given the intended market...

If I, as a hypothetical company, make a duty/carry pistol that is the functional equivalent of a 1911 without a manual safety or exterior provision for blocking the hammer/striker while holstering, have I created a fundamentally unsafe design?

It's a design that requires perfect handling in perfect conditions specifically marketed to a large community of people with, generally, barely-adequate training and a proclivity for needing to holster in less-than-perfect conditions. I mean, I have seen guys ND with Glocks, M&Ps... hell, the chief of a small city department near where I worked NDed with a DAO Ruger Security Six during in-service. Put a 125gr JHP through a lady's BMW window about a half-mile from the range. The P320 has even less going for it in the way of safety measures than any if those firearms.

The P320 and P365 designs might be sound from an engineering standpoint, but the design is borderline negligent given the intended market.


If you put your finger on the trigger of a P320 or 365, when you shouldn’t, is it any more likely to go off than a stock Glock? If you have a holster obstruction with a P320 or 365, do you think it is any more likely to go off than a stock Glock?

Can you link to a lawsuit on a post upgrade P320? Can you link to any verified instance where a post upgrade P320 fired when it shouldn’t have? I have been looking for a lawsuit based on a safety defect with a post upgrade P320 and haven’t found one yet. Also haven’t seen a verified instance of an upgraded P320 firing when it shouldn’t. Not saying it hasn’t happened, just I haven’t seen such a thing.

[GardoneVT]

All others? I’ve never owned one, but doesn’t a Makarov and the like have down to fire?

Most function like the Beretta 92, but by no means all. My Star Megastar 45 is push up to fire, down to safe/decock.

[JRV]

I would have to partially disagree. While the safe action is a very big part of it, and it’s likely the partially cocked striker has enough stored energy to fire (dependent on ammo and striker spring weight), I do think there’s another component, either real or perceived, that makes some feel slightly safer with a Glock versus a true SAO system. That is, the trigger pull requires moving against a heavier striker spring, versus a much lighter trigger return spring. Even with a same weight trigger pull, the Glock will take more resistance throughout the pull, whereas the SAO will only hits most of its weight near the end of the pull... essentially allowing for a “running start” of sorts.

Again, real or perceived?? In my mind it’s a step better. YMMV.

Plus, the trigger dongle prevents the trigger from moving rearward unless the center of the trigger is depressed. It's barely a safety mechanism, but it's better than nothing.

[WobblyPossum]

From Tom Jones...

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27521-Do-recent-events-cause-you-to-reconsider-the-quot-safety-quot-of-your-EDC/page9

Huh. I learned something today. I had always thought the partially cocked striker lacked the energy to detonate a primer. Thanks. I think I’ll read that thread.

[JRV]

If you put your finger on the trigger of a P320 or 365, when you shouldn’t, is it any more likely to go off than a stock Glock? If you have a holster obstruction with a P320 or 365, do you think it is any more likely to go off than a stock Glock?

Can you link to a lawsuit on a post upgrade P320? Can you link to any verified instance where a post upgrade P320 fired when it shouldn’t have? I have been looking for a lawsuit based on a safety defect with a post upgrade P320 and haven’t found one yet. Also haven’t seen a verified instance of an upgraded P320 firing when it shouldn’t. Not saying it hasn’t happened, just I haven’t seen such a thing.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?38769-Yet-another-P320-suit

In theory, a Glock has two safety features that are not present on a P320. I don't think either is particularly effective, but still, they're at least present:

Trigger dongle: restricts trigger travel unless and until the center of the trigger is depressed. In theory, it prevents a lateral or partial snag from depressing the trigger.

Partially-cocked action: in a stock Glock, and especially in models with NY1/2 springs, there is substantial pretravel with resistance in the trigger stroke. In theory, this gives you the opportunity to sense some resistance when holstering and abort that action.

So, yes, I can imagine at least two instances where the P-series SFA is more vulnerable to an ND than with a Glock. The first is a partial obstruct that barely snags the trigger. The second is a situation wherein a finger or obstruction causes the holstering user to sense a couple pounds of resistance while holstering. In either case, the Glock is a, admittedly marginally, "safer" design.

I mean, take that for what it's worth. Just a dude's opinion on the internet. However, in a products liability context, if industry standard practices involving products marketed to a particular market include various safety features/redundancies, and you voluntarily omit those features from a design intended for that market, you better have a damn good reason for those omissions.

[Redhat]

Presently, large parts of the USAF Security Forces now carry their M9's chambered with the hammer back and the safety off. With the correct holster I would feel perfectly comfortable with this because of my familiarity and confidence in the M9 design. Without the correct holster, I'd advocate going hammer-down but keeping the rest.

Meanwhile in the Army, if someone saw a holstered M9 like that, with the safety off but the hammer down, you'd see grown ass men acting as if you were carelessly throwing around a live copperhead or rattlesnake. The officers and SNCO's I see flip out like that are typically the same ones that struggle with M9 quals and spout the never-ending anecdotes about what a piece of shit the M9 is and how terrible 9mm is and how it doesn't have any 'stopping power'.


Bottom line, there's no exceptions to the four safety rules. Everything else is subject to opinions, debate, personal comfort, prevailing organizational practices, supporting equipment, and 100% pure concentrated bullshit.

So long as there are no practices that require you to violate any of the four rules, I'd just do what's comfortable, pragmatic, and sustainable for you, your lifestyle, and your situational risk.

unless something changed since my retirement in 2011...this is incorrect. It's weapon decocked (hammer down) safety off...not hammer cocked

[Redhat]

422 is correct about the M18's carry position. It mirrors the M9, with the safety disengaged and a round in the chamber. Personally, I think that's dumb as fuck given that it's a striker fired pistol, and actually wrote a strongly worded email about it. Sadly, the weight of one CA NCO doesn't really matter when people's minds are already made up. I also pre-emptively hate the M18 on general principles because I'm a Pasta Supremecist.

That's pretty unbelievable to me...we can teach troops to operate the safety on the M4 but not their pistol...genius.

What's the trigger pull weight on the M18?

[DpdG]

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?38769-Yet-another-P320-suit


First off- in my opinion Sig screwed up badly with the P320 launch and especially in not calling for a full-scale recall immediately after initial discovery (internally, not public disclosure) of the drop safety issue.

Having said that the linked article concerns a pistol purchased in September 2016 (upgrade came out in the fall of 2017) and there is no mention of any “upgrade” work being done on the plaintiff’s pistol. Furthermore, the article does not mention the suit alleges any unintended discharge experienced by the plaintiff- only that Sig continued to sell the original design after discovering the flawed safety system. All mention in the article of UD/ND are from other incidents.

The only public info I’m aware of for post upgrade UD/ND are the SRO and SEPTA, both cases have not resulted in definitive failure analysis (human vs. mechanical failure). If it is mechanical on Sig’s part then I’m of the opinion that Sig should payout dearly in the many civil suits that follow.

[jetfire]

That's pretty unbelievable to me...we can teach troops to operate the safety on the M4 but not their pistol...genius.

What's the trigger pull weight on the M18?

I'm not sure, probably about 5.5 pounds though. Seems to be the standard sort of weight for these SFA guns.

[JRV]

The only public info I’m aware of for post upgrade UD/ND are the SRO and SEPTA, both cases have not resulted in definitive failure analysis (human vs. mechanical failure). If it is mechanical on Sig’s part then I’m of the opinion that Sig should payout dearly in the many civil suits that follow.

Outside of the thread I posted, the SEPTA suit was the one most recently swimming around in my brain.

The system Sig uses provides no redundancies for human failure in an environment (duty use) where human failure is an accepted and expected part of the market. That's where, I think, they might be hosed in the future.

Let's use a hypothetical. Forget, for a moment, that vehicles are required by law to have certain safety features (violation of a safety law meant to protect from a specific kind of harm establishes per se negligence in tort).

Imagine you sell the PERFECT patrol car... except it doesn't have a seat belt or airbags. Everyone else in the marketplace does, but you omit those features. You can even have an arguable reason (e.g. quicker egress from a patrol car in cases of vehicular assault/pursuits that culminate in a collision/vehicle fires).

Now, neither of those features are guaranteed to save your life in a head on collision. A perfect human driver, surrounded by perfect human drivers, in perfect conditions would never need those features.

However, you sell your car to cops in the real world, and lo and behold, some dude editing a report on his MDT while driving, or eating a burrito, wrecks his car. He gets mildly injured. Another guy gets injured in a similar manner.

Human error is involved in both cases. Arguably, those standard-but-not-mandated-in-this-universe features would have prevented the injuries.

Are you liable in a products liability tort action for omitting industry standard redundancies/safety features, despite human error causing the injuries?

That's the issue Sig is facing.





(Seriously, I'm asking. I could barely stay awake in torts and products liability wasn't on the bar exam.)

[DpdG]

I don’t have the answer to that one, but I’m not sure the analogy is accurate. Any non-manual safety pistol will fire if someone or something pulls the trigger to the rear. I don’t think trigger safeties, or lack thereof, have a significant effect on objects (including fingers) pulling triggers unintentionally. Longer/heavier DA pulls provide a greater margin of error, but SFA pistols generally all go bang with similar outside influence.

I cannot recall if it was San Diego PD or maybe one of the LA agencies, but one of them reportedly experienced a drastic increase in UD/NDs upon transition from B92 to M&P a few years ago. The failure analysis revealed it was a human/training issue that was covered up by the long DA trigger and nothing to do with the specific variant/brand of SFA. I suspect there is an element of this with agencies (including mine) going from legacy Sig to P320. Add in the well publicized issues with the P320 and there is a tendency to blame the pistol as it’s easier than blaming people or training programs. This is why competent failure analysis is so necessary.

[GJM]

The system Sig uses provides no redundancies for human failure in an environment (duty use) where human failure is an accepted and expected part of the market. That's where, I think, they might be hosed in the future.

Can you elaborate on this statement, and contrast the Sig with other striker pistols?

[spinmove_]

I would have to partially disagree. While the safe action is a very big part of it, and it’s likely the partially cocked striker has enough stored energy to fire (dependent on ammo and striker spring weight), I do think there’s another component, either real or perceived, that makes some feel slightly safer with a Glock versus a true SAO system. That is, the trigger pull requires moving against a heavier striker spring, versus a much lighter trigger return spring. Even with a same weight trigger pull, the Glock will take more resistance throughout the pull, whereas the SAO will only hits most of its weight near the end of the pull... essentially allowing for a “running start” of sorts.

Again, real or perceived?? In my mind it’s a step better. YMMV.

It’s been tested and proven that DISTANCE of trigger travel is more of an indicator of something wrong than trigger WEIGHT. A heavier trigger is merely more difficult to shoot well unless it’s ridiculously heavy.


Plus, the trigger dongle prevents the trigger from moving rearward unless the center of the trigger is depressed. It's barely a safety mechanism, but it's better than nothing.

The trigger dingus does sometimes help with that, yes, but it’s more of an inertial drop safety. Imagine your Glock is free falling to the ground grip plug first or rear sight first. If there was enough force behind the drop and it didn’t have that dingus, the trigger would travel rearward and fire.

[JRV]

Can you elaborate on this statement, and contrast the Sig with other striker pistols?

I... already did? Post #66.

Contrasted with the Glock, and virtually every other striker gun that has a trigger dongle (APX, VP9, XD (blech), PPQ, Canik, Steyr M9, P10) or a "decockable" action (P99). Hell, even the Hudson had a dongle.

I'm not a huge fan of the hinged M&P trigger, either for feel or as a means of addressing partial snags.

Sigs just have a plain trigger shoe and a fully-cocked striker with little-to-no pretravel. I cannot think of another prolific model on the market that combines those features, or fathom why a manufacturer would think those features are a "good idea" for a duty pistol.

[JTQ]

All others? I’ve never owned one, but doesn’t a Makarov and the like have down to fire?
Only because the Soviets took that whole "reverse engineering" thing literally. ;)

[DpdG]

I... already did? Post #66.

Contrasted with the Glock, and virtually every other striker gun that has a trigger dongle (APX, VP9, XD (blech), PPQ, Canik, Steyr M9, P10) or a "decockable" action (P99). Hell, even the Hudson had a dongle.

I'm not a huge fan of the hinged M&P trigger, either for feel or as a means of addressing partial snags.

Sigs just have a plain trigger shoe and a fully-cocked striker with little-to-no pretravel. I cannot think of another prolific model on the market that combines those features, or fathom why a manufacturer would think those features are a "good idea" for a duty pistol.

I don’t want to speak for George, but my point (and I suspect his) is the trigger safety, regardless of M&P style or dongle style, does little to nothing to mitigate human error. It’s primary (and nearly sole) function is part of the inertial drop safety system.

I look at all SFA pistols, minus the de-cockable P99 or variants having a manual safety, as having similar levels of human error mitigation. Whether that level is acceptable is a user/agency decision, not a manufacturer one.

[JRV]

I don’t want to speak for George, but my point (and I suspect his) is the trigger safety, regardless of M&P style or dongle style, does little to nothing to mitigate human error. It’s primary (and nearly sole) function is part of the inertial drop safety system.

I mean, that's a fair enough point, but I know of at least two instances (I used to manage an indoor range and ran competitions) where the dongle on a Glock prevented shooters from NDing when their leather holsters snagged on the sides of the trigger shoe. I definitely view it as less of a safety feature and more of insurance against equipment failures in somewhat-rare occurences.


I look at all SFA pistols, minus the de-cockable P99 or variants having a manual safety, as having similar levels of human error mitigation. Whether that level is acceptable is a user/agency decision, not a manufacturer one.

Products liability law disagrees with this, unfortunately. I'll industry standard product features and practices are admissible evidence for jury consideration, and manufacturers typically plan and design accordingly.

[john c]

Not for me, thanks. If I want an SA gun I'll buy a gun designed to be carried SA. Of course I also won't carry a striker gun AIWB, so maybe I'm just a fraidy-cat.

I don't disagree with this. But if your agency issued you a P320 or PPQ, what would your thoughts be? What actions would you take?

[john c]

No.

Then how will large agencies that have adopted the P320 deal with it? This is a serious question, because I'm old school, myself, and am wondering how the AD/ND issue will be addressed. Anecdotally, I think we have many fewer NDs at my agency than in years past. I attribute it to the adoption of the Glock. Our old P226s and S&W Gen3s basically invited a finger on the trigger when not intending to shoot.

[john c]

I have evolved to the point of “do what you want, but don’t cry if there are consequences you don’t want.” Choices have consequences and if you think carrying a cocked DA/SA pistol is a good idea, based on your square range training and can manage that without any issues when facing a real threat, likely for the first time in your life....cool. Hope things go well for you. If not....be a grown up and accept the consequences. I have been in thousands of high threat situations and multiple shootings including one with a DA/SA gun and I will not carry this way and train decocking to a sub conscious level, but I have been labeled a dinosaur with old fashion ideas that are often discounted based on what works on the range for shooting performance, because it is ALL about shooting being easy for most folks.

DB, I'm not advocating this, merely asking the question in reference to the P320 and similar pistols that are making inroads in the duty pistol market. Decocking or carrying on-safe aren't options for these users.

This conundrum popped into my head comparing the Walther P99 with the PPQ. In another thread a poster mentioned they'll never carry the P99 because they can't decock it one handed. If, in a situation where two handed decocking isn't possible, why not revert to PPQ mode and simply holster the gun (is the second hand were injured or otherwise tied up and couldn't be used to decock).

A big reason why my agency went to Gen4 G17s was that it was very difficult to train recruits to properly operate the P226. The whole "stop, decock, and holster" took too much training time.

[john c]

If I see someone with a holstered, non-decocked, non-safetied gun (eg: the 1911), I'm going to get far away. That is an accident waiting to happen, and I don't really much care that his finger is his safety.

I agree. But how does the P320 compare to a GI spec 1911? The trigger pulls are similar, though the P320 pull is a bit longer.

[john c]

Wait a minute... I just realized that there are 2 different trigger pulls on a Beretta 92!?

:rolleyes:

Seriously, I think I understand what the OG is driving at, but, doctrine/process count for a lot here... I'm with Dagga Boy : I'll be in the decocking control group.

Les, you're a serious shooter with a lot of credibility. What's the best/correct doctrine for using and carrying a P320? I'm using this as an example of a fully cocked pistol gaining wide issuance. The PPQ is not a true duty pistol.

[john c]

To be fair to OP, he wasnt actually asking "should I (or anyone else) carry a TDA in Condition 0?"

That was just a thought exercise to answer the real question of "should I (or anyone else) carry a precocked striker fired pistol in condition 0?"

So, leaving Glocks and other partially cocked strikers out of the discussion for simplicity's sake:

Why would a P320 X5 be safer to carry than a P226, both carried in condition 0?

I feel like saying "design parameters" is dodging the question, since those parameters may be dictated by Marketing and Sales just as much, if not more so, than Engineering and real world usage.

Yes, exactly. Thanks for putting my late night thoughts into a more coherent form.

[spinmove_]

DB, I'm not advocating this, merely asking the question in reference to the P320 and similar pistols that are making inroads in the duty pistol market. Decocking or carrying on-safe aren't options for these users.

This conundrum popped into my head comparing the Walther P99 with the PPQ. In another thread a poster mentioned they'll never carry the P99 because they can't decock it one handed. If, in a situation where two handed decocking isn't possible, why not revert to PPQ mode and simply holster the gun (is the second hand were injured or otherwise tied up and couldn't be used to decock).

A big reason why my agency went to Gen4 G17s was that it was very difficult to train recruits to properly operate the P226. The whole "stop, decock, and holster" took too much training time.

How?! How is “decock before holster” taking that long to train? How is it different than “safe rifle after dismounting”?

[JRV]

I agree. But how does the P320 compare to a GI spec 1911? The trigger pulls are similar, though the P320 pull is a bit longer.

A "good" P320 (allowing for variation/tolerance) is going to be about the same weight as a crappy 1911, and in my experience, has a smidge of weightless pretravel and kind of a "rolling" 1.5-2mm break where the trigger mechanism is releasing the striker. Not super "wally." No meaningful overtravel. Think of a stock Glock 34 with a (-) connector and all the pretravel taken out.

I've only shot five or six of them, so someone else may have a different impression.

The "X" variants are shorter and crisper.

[spinmove_]

Les, you're a serious shooter with a lot of credibility. What's the best/correct doctrine for using and carrying a P320? I'm using this as an example of a fully cocked pistol gaining wide issuance. The PPQ is not a true duty pistol.

Wait...why is the PPQ not a true duty pistol?

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't disagree with this. But if your agency issued you a P320 or PPQ, what would your thoughts be? What actions would you take?

Shrug and carry on, I suppose. We're currently issued the Glock 17M, so I'd treat it the same way.

[john c]

How?! How is “decock before holster” taking that long to train? How is it different than “safe rifle after dismounting”?

That's just what I was told by the range staff. We didn't train recruit officers with rifles at the time, so that wasn't an issue. Regardless, the G17 is working well for us.

[john c]

Wait...why is the PPQ not a true duty pistol?

I merely mentioned that because it hasn't gained widespread issuance. I don't know of any large agencies that have adopted it, though I'm open to being corrected. I just use the example of the P320 because it has seen widespread acceptance. I have a PPQ M1 and had a P320. I vastly prefer the PPQ, but it just hasn't taken off like the P320.

[john c]

After reading all the posts, I guess what I'm boiling this down to is why is the P320 "okay" for duty/SD/HD use, and we have an emotional freak out about the concept of carrying DA/SA pistol in condition 0? Mechanically, they seem the same to me.

As a disclaimer, I've never carried or seriously trained with anything other than a Glock.

[willie]

The SA part of SA/DA usually become lighter with use. Once trigger slack is taken up, in SA shooting hammer-sear engagement requires small distance of movement to trip the hammer. Best practice has dictated that it is unacceptable. My opinion is that condition zero offers no advantage over shooting the first shot double action. The method would fail to make use of built in safety features and might put the officer at disadvantage in a gun grab. Glocks lack the built in safety features, and this fact makes me a tad uncomfortable.

I see why you ask the question but say that people trained on this system would not carry distance zero. Me I would not shoot, plink, or be around someone who elected this method.

[GJM]

I... already did? Post #66.

Contrasted with the Glock, and virtually every other striker gun that has a trigger dongle (APX, VP9, XD (blech), PPQ, Canik, Steyr M9, P10) or a "decockable" action (P99). Hell, even the Hudson had a dongle.

I'm not a huge fan of the hinged M&P trigger, either for feel or as a means of addressing partial snags.

Sigs just have a plain trigger shoe and a fully-cocked striker with little-to-no pretravel. I cannot think of another prolific model on the market that combines those features, or fathom why a manufacturer would think those features are a "good idea" for a duty pistol.

So to summarize, you feel the P320 design is a deficient design because it does not have a tabbed trigger, it has “little to no pretravel,” and it is a “fully cocked striker?”

[JSGlock34]

I think the best commentary on this was made by Ernest Langdon on Mike Seeklander's Podcast. Skip to the 51:30 minute mark.

American Warrior Show (#142)
(https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mike-seeklander/american-warrior-show/e/54197508?autoplay=true)

[JRV]

So to summarize, you feel the P320 design is a deficient design because it does not have a tabbed trigger, it has “little to no pretravel,” and it is a “fully cocked striker?”

That's a fair representation of my concerns with respect to duty use and defensive carry of the P320. I will certainly concede that my criticism or wariness of the design has no import to the manual safety models.

Also, I do want to note that I was unaware of Mr. Langdon's sentiments as expressed in the podcast cited above. I won't appeal to authority or opinion of another person to reinforce my own, necessarily, but I do appreciate that I'm not exactly spouting irrational crazy-talk.

[DpdG]

So to summarize, you feel the P320 design is a deficient design because it does not have a tabbed trigger, it has “little to no pretravel,” and it is a “fully cocked striker?”

I guess this is the crux of the debate and perhaps where some polite disagreement will linger- in my own opinion, (ignoring the drop safety issue) there is no substantive difference between the P320 and other common SFA pistols in regards to human error mitigation. I perceive the P320 has similar trigger pre-travel as my G19x, and I don’t think the pretensioning of the striker has any bearing on human error. As I already stated, I view the trigger safety is functionally part of the drop safety system, not UD/ND prevention.

Again, I’m also in agreement with DB, Ernest, and others- basically all SFA pistols are good for shooting, not necessarily at threat management when compared to TDA or DAO/LEM style systems.

[YVK]

I think the original question here is, given the proliferation of the P320 and P365, where the triggers have short, crisp breaks....



I've glanced through the thread and didn't notice this addressed. I don't own a 320, but I do have a 365xl and a ton of Glocks, and I've owned or still own practically every major DA/SA gun. Comparing stock to stock, the strikers have had between 20% and 100+% heavier trigger pulls than SA pulls (depending on what SA gun was), and considerably longer pre-travel. While qualitatively those are similar pull-bang things, they are very different quantitatively.

[JRV]

I've glanced through the thread and didn't notice this addressed. I don't own a 320, but I do have a 365xl and a ton of Glocks, and I've owned or still own practically every major DA/SA gun. Comparing stock to stock, the strikers have had between 20% and 100+% heavier trigger pulls than SA pulls (depending on what SA gun was), and considerably longer pre-travel. While qualitatively those are similar pull-bang things, they are very different quantitatively.

I think spinmove had a post in the 70s on this about trigger distance being more of the relevant matter than weight. Based on experience, if you're considering 1911s, 2011s, Limited 2/3s, or TSOs as the archetypes of SA triggers, you're absolutely right. Those triggers are absolutely shorter than a SFA P320 trigger. I shot an Arex competition model (Zero1 Alpha, I think?) last month with a SA trigger that was almost suitable for damn smallbore matches.

It's been my consistent experience that 92s, PX4s, USPs, CZ75/P01/P07/P09s, and 3rd gen Smiths have waaaaay more trigger travel/slop in SA than P320s. The break point of a P320 is not that much further back than the trigger shoe's forwardmost position.

Maybe your experience has been different, but I would not want to jazz with a P320 in any sort of combative environment, especially if that environment called for me to reholster while going hands on or reholster while on the move.

[GJM]

I think spinmove had a post in the 70s on this about trigger distance being more of the relevant matter than weight. Based on experience, if you're considering 1911s, 2011s, Limited 2/3s, or TSOs as the archetypes of SA triggers, you're absolutely right. Those triggers are absolutely shorter than a SFA P320 trigger. I shot an Arex competition model (Zero1 Alpha, I think?) last month with a SA trigger that was almost suitable for damn smallbore matches.

It's been my consistent experience that 92s, PX4s, USPs, CZ75/P01/P07/P09s, and 3rd gen Smiths have waaaaay more trigger travel/slop in SA than P320s. The break point of a P320 is not that much further back than the trigger shoe's forwardmost position.

Maybe your experience has been different, but I would not want to jazz with a P320 in any sort of combative environment, especially if that environment called for me to reholster while going hands on or reholster while on the move.

I just pulled a 43X and 365 out of the safe. Both triggers break between 5 and 6 pounds, depending where on the trigger you measure. Both have similar amounts of pre travel. The 365 actually has more trigger travel from the wall to where it breaks than the 43X.

[YVK]

It is possible that trigger pull is more relevant than weight, although I am yet to see that FBI study that everyone is talking about with my own eyes.

That said, I don't think that it means that trigger weight is not relevant. My CZC P01 and SDP had 3.25 SA pulls, my Langdon 92 and PX4 are / were under 4, and WC BrigTac with action job at 4, all that way out of box and all carry/duty intended pistols. As I said, no experience with 320, but the 365XL is 7 lbs and long pretravel and all stock Glocks were closer to or above 6 than advertised 5.5. In my eyes, there is really no comparison.

[10mmfanboy]

It always turns into which action is the bestest safest action. I am pretty sure you can find positive and negatives in all the different actions. One person could say a da/sa is more safe because it has a longer heavier trigger pull. Another person could say a da/sa is less safe than a striker because they trigger checked the light sa trigger while running because they forgot to decock.

Guns are inherently dangerous no matter how they operate, and unfortunately they will probably still be going off unintentionally every now and again due to operator error.

I think the more important issue is, do a majority of consumers know exactly what they are buying? Are they aware of what options there are and how each one operates? My guess is most do not.

I wish I had so many different options with chainsaws. I want a double action stihl with a built in arm and leg sensor, so if it kicks back and the sensor trips it turns the chain into soft Kleenex. My friend would still have his leg if it existed. I don't see chainsaws being sold and marketed as safe anything. Every time I pick up a saw I'm all business and focused on what I am doing entirely, same thing when I am handling firearms.

[JRB]

USAF Security Forces do NOT carry the M9 with the hammer back/safety off. Its carried decocked safety off one in the camber. Interestingly enough, our new pistol the M18 is carried with one in the chamber and the safety off, the safety is only utilized during loading and unloading procedures.

I have seen the hammer-back practice with Secfor at least 6 times with my own eyes, both OCONUS and CONUS. I asked about it once and I was told it's their SOP. Observed holsters seem to be Safariland SLS's.

I don't have any other explanation, I'm just a dumb Soldier. But I know what I saw. 1-3 times I could see just being sloppy practices or a dumb NCO in the wrong places, but 6 times in very different locations led me to believe it was a widespread practice.


I was about to say we definitely don't carry with the hammer cocked, but I think that was just a typo on JRB's part. He's right though that the sight of a pistol off safe gives the Army a case of the ass.

For everyone else: the standard carry position for the M9 per USAF policy is a round in the chamber, hammer forward/decocked and off-safe. Standard carry position for the M4 carbine for Security Forces is empty chamber, on safe with a full mag inserted.

422 is correct about the M18's carry position. It mirrors the M9, with the safety disengaged and a round in the chamber. Personally, I think that's dumb as fuck given that it's a striker fired pistol, and actually wrote a strongly worded email about it. Sadly, the weight of one CA NCO doesn't really matter when people's minds are already made up. I also pre-emptively hate the M18 on general principles because I'm a Pasta Supremecist.

I wish I could just blame that on a typo and my sleep deprivation, but I can't. Hammer back. I'm glad to hear it isn't a widespread practice or prevailing guidance. If possible, could one of you AF guys post or PM me the AF reg or whatever else you guys use that calls for hammer-down carry? I wouldn't mind having that on tap if I see it again in real life. It was weird.

I will blame my comment about carrying an M9 with the hammer back on a plain old dumb ass thought that was clearly stupid when I thought about it again. I haven't ever carried a DA pistol hammer-back, and some quick testing here with an M9 in my own SLS, it's pretty fucking far from ideal.

[UniSol]

I have seen the hammer-back practice with Secfor at least 6 times with my own eyes, both OCONUS and CONUS. I asked about it once and I was told it's their SOP. Observed holsters seem to be Safariland SLS's.

I don't have any other explanation, I'm just a dumb Soldier. But I know what I saw. 1-3 times I could see just being sloppy practices or a dumb NCO in the wrong places, but 6 times in very different locations led me to believe it was a widespread practice.



I wish I could just blame that on a typo and my sleep deprivation, but I can't. Hammer back. I'm glad to hear it isn't a widespread practice or prevailing guidance. If possible, could one of you AF guys post or PM me the AF reg or whatever else you guys use that calls for hammer-down carry? I wouldn't mind having that on tap if I see it again in real life. It was weird.

I will blame my comment about carrying an M9 with the hammer back on a plain old dumb ass thought that was clearly stupid when I thought about it again. I haven't ever carried a DA pistol hammer-back, and some quick testing here with an M9 in my own SLS, it's pretty fucking far from ideal.

I think this is a good example to illustrate that there are more similarities than differences between a cocked striker (with enough stored energy in "cocked" position to detonate most primers) round chambered, no external safety present or engaged, and a TDA, round chambered hammer back, no external safety present or engaged. Is it an academic point, yes, no one in this thread has argued the merit of carrying a TDA in this manner. But I think it is a good question-some of the initial responses were vaguely hostile to the very notion of TDA, hammer back, no safety engaged........................................... ..............................I don't think it's a great idea either, but that's beside the point.....how then is a given striker fired gun any different? Many answers have suggested that the nature of the average striker fired trigger vs. the average TDA trigger in SA mode make the difference. Others say no. So the question is, why is one a NO-NO, and the other a common practice?

[farscott]

It is possible that trigger pull is more relevant than weight, although I am yet to see that FBI study that everyone is talking about with my own eyes.

That said, I don't think that it means that trigger weight is not relevant. My CZC P01 and SDP had 3.25 SA pulls, my Langdon 92 and PX4 are / were under 4, and WC BrigTac with action job at 4, all that way out of box and all carry/duty intended pistols. As I said, no experience with 320, but the 365XL is 7 lbs and long pretravel and all stock Glocks were closer to or above 6 than advertised 5.5. In my eyes, there is really no comparison.

From my reading of the study and TLG's site, trigger travel distance, not pull weight, is the factor that decreases the probability of a ND. Pull weight is easily overcome during autonomic squeezing of the fingers. The longer distance allows enough time for the brain, in certain circumstances, to "belay" the command to fire. It is my understanding that this what drove the LEM trigger development.

[GJM]

I think this is a good example to illustrate that there are more similarities than differences between a cocked striker (with enough stored energy in "cocked" position to detonate most primers) round chambered, no external safety present or engaged, and a TDA, round chambered hammer back, no external safety present or engaged. Is it an academic point, yes, no one in this thread has argued the merit of carrying a TDA in this manner. But I think it is a good question-some of the initial responses were vaguely hostile to the very notion of TDA, hammer back, no safety engaged........................................... ..............................I don't think it's a great idea either, but that's beside the point.....how then is a given striker fired gun any different? Many answers have suggested that the nature of the average striker fired trigger vs. the average TDA trigger in SA mode make the difference. Others say no. So the question is, why is one a NO-NO, and the other a common practice?

Turn the question around. The DA/SA pistol was designed to give you two trigger pulls — a longer and heavier pull that allows you to be aggressive with prepping on the draw while offering a heavier trigger in the holster and administratively, and a lighter/shorter trigger for shooting. What advantage are you trying to gain with being cocked — if it is “don’t know how to press DA,” the person should get a different design.

[UniSol]

Turn the question around. The DA/SA pistol was designed to give you two trigger pulls — a longer and heavier pull that allows you to be aggressive with prepping on the draw while offering a heavier trigger in the holster and administratively, and a lighter/shorter trigger for shooting. What advantage are you trying to gain with being cocked — if it is “don’t know how to press DA,” the person should get a different design.

I don't know-that's not the question I'm asking. I don't see any advantage and it's truly never crossed my mind to consider using a TDA that way from the holster. I like and use TDA, and use it as intended....like I said above, my question, or how I read the OP, is "what are the practical differences between SA mode TDA and a striker fired gun?" If they are more the same than different, why is one considered a bad idea, the other an SOP? If they are truly different, then, how??? To me it's a question for its own sake, not an argument for using TDA in this manner. That's what "thought exercise" means to me, I may be interpreting it differently than others. Idk. No big deal either way.

[spinmove_]

I think this is a good example to illustrate that there are more similarities than differences between a cocked striker (with enough stored energy in "cocked" position to detonate most primers) round chambered, no external safety present or engaged, and a TDA, round chambered hammer back, no external safety present or engaged. Is it an academic point, yes, no one in this thread has argued the merit of carrying a TDA in this manner. But I think it is a good question-some of the initial responses were vaguely hostile to the very notion of TDA, hammer back, no safety engaged........................................... ..............................I don't think it's a great idea either, but that's beside the point.....how then is a given striker fired gun any different? Many answers have suggested that the nature of the average striker fired trigger vs. the average TDA trigger in SA mode make the difference. Others say no. So the question is, why is one a NO-NO, and the other a common practice?

I would argue that it’s still academically not the same. Why? From the factory and fresh out of the box, a TDA trigger mechanism in SA weight is typically around 4-4.5 lbs. It will lighten at least a bit over time and if you get a trigger job done it’ll lighten even more. It’s not uncommon at all to see broken in and/or worked on TDA triggers in SA get down to the 3-3.9 lbs range. From the factory and fresh out of the box your average SFA gun is between 5.5-6.5lbs with significantly more travel and creep than a TDA trigger mechanism in SA.

The two systems are just fundamentally that different in function. Truly apples to oranges.

[YVK]

From my reading of the study and TLG's site, trigger travel distance, not pull weight, is the factor that decreases the probability of a ND. Pull weight is easily overcome during autonomic squeezing of the fingers. The longer distance allows enough time for the brain, in certain circumstances, to "belay" the command to fire. It is my understanding that this what drove the LEM trigger development.

Yup, I understand the concept, I've just never seen the study with my own eyes to understand its validity. Hence, multiple questions. Is trigger weight irrelevant at all, or to a lesser extent? What's the weighted importance of all factors? ND's are heterogeneous, what kind of ND's are we talking about, unintended trigger pulls, subconscious trigger checks, gear interference, etc? Years ago I did an experiment of holstering several [unloaded, of course] guns with jacket's drawstring purposely placed into a trigger guard. LEM didn't provide any better feedback than Glock.

Back to the discussion though, I am not aware of any DA/SA gun that has enough SA pretravel to make me at all comfortable not decocking the gun, especially that SA trigger weights are substantially lower than striker guns, in my experience.

[MDFA]

Presently, large parts of the USAF Security Forces now carry their M9's chambered with the hammer back and the safety off. With the correct holster I would feel perfectly comfortable with this because of my familiarity and confidence in the M9 design. Without the correct holster, I'd advocate going hammer-down but keeping the rest.

Meanwhile in the Army, if someone saw a holstered M9 like that, with the safety off but the hammer down, you'd see grown ass men acting as if you were carelessly throwing around a live copperhead or rattlesnake. The officers and SNCO's I see flip out like that are typically the same ones that struggle with M9 quals and spout the never-ending anecdotes about what a piece of shit the M9 is and how terrible 9mm is and how it doesn't have any 'stopping power'.


Bottom line, there's no exceptions to the four safety rules. Everything else is subject to opinions, debate, personal comfort, prevailing organizational practices, supporting equipment, and 100% pure concentrated bullshit.

So long as there are no practices that require you to violate any of the four rules, I'd just do what's comfortable, pragmatic, and sustainable for you, your lifestyle, and your situational risk.

That would be incorrect. The USAF carries the M9 with a round chambered with the hammer DOWN and the safety off. I carry one that way at my retirement job with the USAF.

[HCM]

Presently, large parts of the USAF Security Forces now carry their M9's chambered with the hammer back and the safety off. With the correct holster I would feel perfectly comfortable with this because of my familiarity and confidence in the M9 design. Without the correct holster, I'd advocate going hammer-down but keeping the rest.

Meanwhile in the Army, if someone saw a holstered M9 like that, with the safety off but the hammer down, you'd see grown ass men acting as if you were carelessly throwing around a live copperhead or rattlesnake. The officers and SNCO's I see flip out like that are typically the same ones that struggle with M9 quals and spout the never-ending anecdotes about what a piece of shit the M9 is and how terrible 9mm is and how it doesn't have any 'stopping power'.


Bottom line, there's no exceptions to the four safety rules. Everything else is subject to opinions, debate, personal comfort, prevailing organizational practices, supporting equipment, and 100% pure concentrated bullshit.

So long as there are no practices that require you to violate any of the four rules, I'd just do what's comfortable, pragmatic, and sustainable for you, your lifestyle, and your situational risk.

I don’t know what you saw or where you saw it but having spent some time around the USAF’s main small arms school house that is neither taught nor authorized.

[GJM]

This thread has ended up focused on safety, with a side detour on the 320 trigger design. Something to keep in mind, is the main reason to have a pistol is to be able to shoot other stuff, and the trigger is the main interface between the shooter and the target.

Manufacturers have worked hard at developing shootable triggers, and lighter and shorter is generally easier to hit with. Safety is a secondary consideration, until it rears it’s head, at which point it becomes really important.

If safety was the primary consideration, we would all have heavy LEM triggers, and that would be the end of the discussion, because striker, 1911 and DA/SA triggers either by design or operation, offer less user safety than a heavy LEM.

[RevolverRob]

Something to keep in mind, is the main reason to have a pistol is to be able to shoot other stuff, and the trigger is the main interface between the shooter and the target.

This is true that the main reason to have a pistol to be able to shoot stuff. But the reality is that stuff rarely needs to be shot, outside of range settings.


Safety is a secondary consideration, until it rears it’s head, at which point it becomes really important.

It's actually not. Given that handguns receive an order of magnitude more administrative handling than shooting handling, safety is a primary consideration. It's a false dichotomy to say that safe guns are also not shootable guns. You of all people know that you can shoot just about anything if you put in the work.


If safety was the primary consideration, we would all have heavy LEM triggers, and that would be the end of the discussion, because striker, 1911 and DA/SA triggers either by design or operation, offer less user safety than a heavy LEM.

Or DA revolvers or DAO semis. DA revolvers were the most common firearms in the U.S. from ~1900-1990, an unprecedented period of time for a single "platform" to be more or less in constant use and refinement. DAO Semis are still quite common in LE circles in the US, though they are now slowly being replaced by Glocks, in many respects. All of the major PDs experimented with DAO semis, some moved on quickly, others like LAPD and Chicago PD have tons of DAO guns still in service.

When we consider who carries and uses handguns most frequently it is law enforcement, not private citizens, not military. When we review what they are carrying, these days it's virtually all Glock. Some departments use 'Legacy' Sig, LEM HKs, or 1911s. I think it says a lot that not many PDs are switching to Walther PPQs, HK VP9s, Sig 320s, etc. Those that are, are finding those guns wanting in some respects and/or they are experiencing safety issues. Those guns are dominant in shooting sports, but not in the holsters of people who carry and handle guns a lot.

___

For me, personally, I've made it clear, I'm not a big striker-fired gun guy. If a trigger is light with medium-to-minimal take-up, I prefer additional safety mechanisms to be in place. If HK came out with a thumb safety for the VP9, I'd consider adding one, but it would be for playing in Production Class in USPSA. I'm not a Glock guy, though I do not consider them inherently unsafe, the various bits and pieces of the "Safe Action" design, do in fact, make it safer in general, in my experience. It also benefits from nearly 3-decades of common use and training at this point. Something that cannot be overlooked. In 3-decades the Sig 320 may well be a better choice due to extension handling and training programs developed by .MIL.

I'd say overall, if you practice good handling of the firearm, and use it as was intended, you'll generally be pretty safe. But we cannot rely on everyone to exercise safe gun handling (seriously, have y'all watched some of these Youtube videos?). As a result, it's worth considering if some platforms are safer than others and therefore would be better to use broadly.

[LSP552]

No platform will keep you safe from mistakes. Some have a “bit” more margin of error before the surprise. A chimpanzee can be taught to run any platform with enough time and bananas. Unfortunately, most LE agencies train to minimum standard,and training is usually the first thing cut when the budget slips.

The length of the pull is a greater safety factor than weight due to feedback. Half-ass trained people WILL put their finger on the trigger under stress, and when they don’t feel confident in the event they are involved with.

In general, I believe the TDA offers safety and a great shootable platform. Failing to decock tells me you have a poor training program that doesn’t understand how to incorporate decocking into dry fire and gun handling.

Glocks LE market share has much to do with timing, marketing, pricing and competitors’ mistakes. I’m not a Glock hater, have several and carried those for years when I got pissed at SIG in the 90s.

Being able to hit what you shoot at, and not hit what you don’t want to shoot at, have a lot of factors other than just trigger. We prioritize these factors based on personal calculus.

[spinmove_]

No platform will keep you safe from mistakes. Some have a “bit” more margin of error before the surprise. A chimpanzee can be taught to run any platform with enough time and bananas. Unfortunately, most LE agencies train to minimum standard,and training is usually the first thing cut when the budget slips.

The length of the pull is a greater safety factor than weight due to feedback. Half-ass trained people WILL put their finger on the trigger under stress, and when they don’t feel confident in the event they are involved with.

In general, I believe the TDA offers safety and a great shootable platform. Failing to decock tells me you have a poor training program that doesn’t understand how to incorporate decocking into dry fire and gun handling.

Glocks LE market share has much to do with timing, marketing, pricing and competitors’ mistakes. I’m not a Glock hater, have several and carried those for years when I got pissed at SIG in the 90s.

Being able to hit what you shoot at, and not hit what you don’t want to shoot at, have a lot of factors other than just trigger. We prioritize these factors based on personal calculus.

Piggybacking off of this, even well trained up people can make mistakes and fall victim to trigger checking or other safety issues. If those people are still human and once in 6 blue moons can make a mistake, what does that tell us about all the rest of us.

Additional layers of safety that are relatively easy to manage aren’t replacements for training so much as it gives a given user more time and opportunity to reverse and/or correct a potentially catastrophic mistake.

[JRV]

If safety was the primary consideration, we would all have heavy LEM triggers, and that would be the end of the discussion, because striker, 1911 and DA/SA triggers either by design or operation, offer less user safety than a heavy LEM.

That's a very artificial binary. There's a huge gap between DAO/LEM and "basically a crappy 1911 but with no safeties," including: a TDA action, a "longer" SFA, a really nice SFA with a manual safety, and true SA with manual safeties.

There's "all the safety," there's "acceptable levels of safety that permit decent threat management while protecting against some human error," and there's "screw it, have fun reholstering while you're in a fight/running/being distracted."

Some people go for "all the safety," and it seems that a much larger number of private and institutional pistol users fall into the middle "acceptable safety" category. And, based on this thread, it looks like some people and institutions like the last category. That's cool.

I'm not cool, so anything pointed at my junk or femoral is going to be DAO or feature an always-used safety or decocker.

[GJM]

That's a very artificial binary. There's a huge gap between DAO/LEM and "basically a crappy 1911 but with no safeties," including: a TDA action, a "longer" SFA, a really nice SFA with a manual safety, and true SA with manual safeties.

There's "all the safety," there's "acceptable levels of safety that permit decent threat management while protecting against some human error," and there's "screw it, have fun reholstering while you're in a fight/running/being distracted."

Some people go for "all the safety," and it seems that a much larger number of private and institutional pistol users fall into the middle "acceptable safety" category. And, based on this thread, it looks like some people and institutions like the last category. That's cool.

I'm not cool, so anything pointed at my junk or femoral is going to be DAO or feature an always-used safety or decocker.

While I forgot the smiley with my post, your response makes my point perfectly. There are obviously a range of designs, and a range of perceptions as to their relative safety. It generally doesn’t go well when someone else tries to impose their view on your choice and practice. People carrying something other than a heavy LEM are not reckless, and most people carrying a striker appendix are not being “cool kids.” Taking the position that Sig is negligent in the design of the 320, and anyone carrying a 320 is by association reckless, is imposing your personal opinion on others. Better to say what you like and leave it at that.

[JRV]

While I forgot the smiley with my post, your response makes my point perfectly. There are obviously a range of designs, and a range of perceptions as to their relative safety. It generally doesn’t go well when someone else tries to impose their view on your choice and practice. People carrying something other than a heavy LEM are not reckless, and most people carrying a striker appendix are not being “cool kids.” Taking the position that Sig is negligent in the design of the 320, and anyone carrying a 320 is by association reckless, is imposing your personal opinion on others. Better to say what you like and leave it at that.

You're absolutely right, my comment was judgmental and dickish. I took a discussion of design merits and acribed certain traits to people that might prefer that design. That's sort of a "no true Scotsman" move, which is not cool.

I don't think it's a safe design, but if the muzzle never gets pointed at me, family, or my property, I really don't have much of a say in the matter beyond that thought.

[Sal Picante]

Les, you're a serious shooter with a lot of credibility. What's the best/correct doctrine for using and carrying a P320? I'm using this as an example of a fully cocked pistol gaining wide issuance. The PPQ is not a true duty pistol.

You asked:



Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary?


I said, yes and mentioned that doctrine counts for a lot.



I'm asking this as a thought exercise, because I understand the human factors involved in DA/SA operation. But with the trend towards the P320 and other pre-cocked strikers, aren't folks effectively carrying condition zero pistols?


I don't disagree. Further, I think people are kinda crazy for it.

You asked about my views about carry and usage of a P320. Again, I think people are crazy for it...

I joked about the "2 trigger pulls on my 92" mainly because I'm not a trigger weirdo and think far too many people are chasing diminishing returns with questionable focus on safety. It isn't binary (as Tamara loves to say); Safety is a layered approach. That said, a 320 or a condition-0 firearm in a holster gives me the willies - it crosses some line/layer that I'm just not OK with.


Have passive safeties and increased gun handling evolved to the point where this is safe?

I don't necessarily know... Again, I can't comment for anyone else, but there is a reason I carry a hammer fired pistol (or completely intentioned striker pistol in the case of a Kahr) when it is pointing at my junk...

[GardoneVT]

Being CONUS AF Finance I was always far from the tip of the metaphorical spear, but I never heard of , saw, or read any publication or noticed AF members carrying M9s with the hammer back and safety off.

Ever.

[Squib308]

In my own mind experiments must separate inherent/mechanical “stability” of a pistol design from user related ND or failures. So let me set the 2nd one (user related) aside. A TDA in condition 0 is safe with a single exception: dropping in such a manner that the trigger may have enough momentum to discharge the pistol. Outside of this scenario, a sear failure would still not allow for discharge given there’s both a half/quarter cock notch AND a firing pin block.

As one who AIWB’s a beretta 92 and occasionally a series 70 1911, the latter still creeps me out a bit. While I understand it is mechanically safe, I can do a mind experiment sear failure that will allow the hammer to fall without being caught by the quarter cock notch. Now do the same experiment with a 92. It won’t fire. However the 1911 has a thumb and grip safeties preventing rearward trigger movement during a fall. The 92 and most TDAs have no such.

All this rambling I suppose my concern on the TDA being condition 0 is that it could discharge a la P320 with drop onto it’s rear.

[RevolverRob]

I joked about the "2 trigger pulls on my 92" mainly because I'm not a trigger weirdo and think far too many people are chasing diminishing returns with questionable focus on safety.

Les, maybe I misread you here, do you mean the diminishing returns on triggers like a 320 with less regard for safety, or things like LEM with more regard for safety?

I read it earlier as a comment on trying to add safety via the trigger, but it’s diminishing returns. But now after a beer and an hour of decompression I read it the other way.



I don't necessarily know... Again, I can't comment for anyone else, but there is a reason I carry a hammer fired pistol (or completely intentioned striker pistol in the case of a Kahr) when it is pointing at my junk...

You can comment for me, because this is precisely what I do. The only striker guns I actually own are Kahrs. Everything else has a hammer. The extra safety layers are what I deem necessary for myself. I won’t force anyone to do it “my” way, but I also won’t advise anyone to do something I, myself, won’t do.

[OlongJohnson]

It’s been tested and proven that DISTANCE of trigger travel is more of an indicator of something wrong than trigger WEIGHT. A heavier trigger is merely more difficult to shoot well unless it’s ridiculously heavy.


It is possible that trigger pull is more relevant than weight, although I am yet to see that FBI study that everyone is talking about with my own eyes.


<had the poor judgement to post something in this thread, so I don't feel bad about dragging him into it>

I am on the page where the thread title is answered with an emphatic, "Yes." To have that layer of safety available to you and not use it is exactly like failing to wear a safety belt; or maybe like removing your car's doors and failing to wear a safety belt while you drive the doorless car. Or failing to actually fasten the belt on your toddler as you place her in the properly-engineered car seat.

I really just posted to respond to the bolded text above.

The docs or links to them that I am aware of being available in public domain have been posted in other threads; probably one of the LEM threads or some such. As I understand it, the doctrine received from FBI sources that longer trigger pulls are more ND resistant (to paraphrase it) was based on opinions offered by a collection of people who were at the time considered SMEs with extensive experience. I am not aware of any scientific studies documenting it. As I recall, the several scientific studies that have been published all reported force applied to the trigger, nothing about travel. It's not clear from the reports I've read that the instrumented triggers were even "live" with a realistic trigger press. I believe it was HCM who posted in another thread that those are indeed the studies that were the basis of creating the LEM trigger, which was done to secure a specific contract.

As far as I know, there have been no studies that used instrumentation to measure trigger travel, trigger force vs. travel, or to compare the effects of a heavy but short versus a light and long trigger in consistent conditions/events, etc. There are a variety of reasonable hypotheses that could be constructed, and it would be extremely difficult and expensive to distinguish between them using non-repeatable, non-predictable bipedal meat sacks as your test subjects.

At the end of the day, it seems to be one of those areas where the information might be interesting to have theoretically, but in the real world, it's not clear what actions would or should be carried out differently if we had it. We seem to already have enough information to establish best practices, and to design hardware systems and train personnel in protocols that will yield good results if adhered to. Many thousands (millions?) of years of collective field experience by the entire firearms community, and thousands of incidents investigated in detail and reported on, has given us enough experience to constitute something like data. People like the SMEs we're fortunate to have on this board have studied available reports in detail and gleaned what lessons can be learned.

It's a fact that humans are imperfect and make mistakes. It's well understood that triggers that are extremely easy to shoot are likely to lead to a greater number of unintentional discharges. It's also well-supported that even hardware that takes foolproofness to such an extreme that its utility for its intended function is significantly impaired, even with well-trained and motivated users, will not overcome all possible error stacks in the field. Everything is a tradeoff. It's not clear that more trigger study data would change in-service outcomes in any meaningful way.

[El Cid]

Regarding the desire for a manual safety on light/short triggered guns... I'm not sure that’s a solid fix either. If a person can’t be trained to keep their finger off the trigger, how can we reasonably expect them to not disengage the manual safety early? I still sometimes get push back from shooters (LEO, military, and private citizens) about the safety on an AR not being used properly.

In my mind it all comes down to training and whether the shooter gets enough of it and embraces it. I’ve seen LEO’s thumb cock TDA guns during quals. Typically they lack confidence. Maybe that’s a training failure, maybe it’s just humans being humans.

I’ve said it before and I repeat it now. We at P-F are more interested, devoted, and proficient with small arms than most shooters out there in the world. We have shooters here who could carry a cocked and chambered pistol with no other safeties, who I’d trust to do so safely. I’ve also seen shooters who I’d prefer have a wooden gun that shoots rubber bands.

[GJM]

Regarding the desire for a manual safety on light/short triggered guns... I'm not sure that’s a solid fix either. If a person can’t be trained to keep their finger off the trigger, how can we reasonably expect them to not disengage the manual safety early? I still sometimes get push back from shooters (LEO, military, and private citizens) about the safety on an AR not being used properly.

In my mind it all comes down to training and whether the shooter gets enough of it and embraces it. I’ve seen LEO’s thumb cock TDA guns during quals. Typically they lack confidence. Maybe that’s a training failure, maybe it’s just humans being humans.

I’ve said it before and I repeat it now. We at P-F are more interested, devoted, and proficient with small arms than most shooters out there in the world. We have shooters here who could carry a cocked and chambered pistol with no other safeties, who I’d trust to do so safely. I’ve also seen shooters who I’d prefer have a wooden gun that shoots rubber bands.

Agreed on training. When these threads come up, which they do several times a year, I often point out the Front Sight stats on ND’s. Why Front Sight, because they train many shooters, and they publish ND info. Despite the likely high percentage of striker pistols through their school, their incidents are about equally divided between striker, 1911 and DA/SA pistols. More surprisingly, the incidents are about 1/3 drawing, 1/3 holstering, with the balance everything else imaginable. I believe operator skill and care trumps any mechanical design.

In my own experience, I do different things with a hammer LEM, for example, then I do with a striker. I don’t think twice about holstering a LEM with thumb on the hammer while moving, but I won’t do that with a Glock. I primarily dry fire from appendix and live fire from OWB. I suspect the net of my behaviors is to cancel out differences in design.


You're absolutely right, my comment was judgmental and dickish. I took a discussion of design merits and acribed certain traits to people that might prefer that design. That's sort of a "no true Scotsman" move, which is not cool.

No worries. I have learned many lessons the hard way, just trying to pass on my experience.

[JRB]

That would be incorrect. The USAF carries the M9 with a round chambered with the hammer DOWN and the safety off. I carry one that way at my retirement job with the USAF.


I don’t know what you saw or where you saw it but having spent some time around the USAF’s main small arms school house that is neither taught nor authorized.

As I mentioned in post #102 above, I saw the practice several times and it mistakenly led me to believe it was prevailing guidance and approved practice.

If either of you gents know a USAF reg or have anything else that shows a hammer-down policy for the USAF, I'd appreciate having it so I can correct the behavior if I see it again, and have the reg to cite to back it up.

[Drang]

As I mentioned in post #102 above, I saw the practice several times and it mistakenly led me to believe it was prevailing guidance and approved practice.

If either of you gents know a USAF reg or have anything else that shows a hammer-down policy for the USAF, I'd appreciate having it so I can correct the behavior if I see it again, and have the reg to cite to back it up.

jetfire.

[USAF422]

As I mentioned in post #102 above, I saw the practice several times and it mistakenly led me to believe it was prevailing guidance and approved practice.

If either of you gents know a USAF reg or have anything else that shows a hammer-down policy for the USAF, I'd appreciate having it so I can correct the behavior if I see it again, and have the reg to cite to back it up.

AFMAN 31-129 attachment 2, describes loading and unloading procedures for the M9, you will see that cocking the hammer is not included in said instructions, the other SF specific AFI are FOUO and have a lot of policy on how we do things, and thus not necessarily googleable and I am not on my gov computer but I'm happy to send you a copy of the real Security Forces specific AFIs gov email to email, as it appears you probably have one if the above does not suffice.

Those troops you have seen doing that are full of shit if they told you it was their SOP and they and their supervisors are being willful negligent and its only a matter of time before some dumb shit happens to them. Super surprised that their Flight Chief or Flight Commander has not already had their asses if they saw that dumb shit happening.. cause if I saw that shit, I would be for sure having some one way communication with that flight leadership.

[JRB]

AFMAN 31-129 attachment 2, describes loading and unloading procedures for the M9, you will see that cocking the hammer is not included in said instructions, the other SF specific AFI are FOUO and have a lot of policy on how we do things, and thus not necessarily googleable and I am not on my gov computer but I'm happy to send you a copy of the real Security Forces specific AFIs gov email to email, as it appears you probably have one if the above does not suffice.

Those troops you have seen doing that are full of shit if they told you it was their SOP and they and their supervisors are being willful negligent and its only a matter of time before some dumb shit happens to them. Super surprised that their Flight Chief or Flight Commander has not already had their asses if they saw that dumb shit happening.. cause if I saw that shit, I would be for sure having some one way communication with that flight leadership.

Yes, I'd have pressed the matter futher but in my DA civilian capacity or my green-suiter capacity I didn't have much leg to stand on vs USAF practices, and I didn't want to be just be dismissed as another Army guy getting a case of the butthurt over the way the AF does things.

I'm sure the AFMAN reference will do the trick, I'll read that and use that if I see this practice in the future. Thank you for that.

[oldtexan]

From my reading of the study and TLG's site, trigger travel distance, not pull weight, is the factor that decreases the probability of a ND. Pull weight is easily overcome during autonomic squeezing of the fingers. The longer distance allows enough time for the brain, in certain circumstances, to "belay" the command to fire. It is my understanding that this what drove the LEM trigger development.

Could you provide some info on the study, such as author(s), title, date, etc? I'll then search for a copy and if I can find one, I'll share it with the folks here.

[HCM]

Could you provide some info on the study, such as author(s), title, date, etc? I'll then search for a copy and if I can find one, I'll share it with the folks here.

It’s been posted before on this site if you care to search for it.

[oldtexan]

It’s been posted before on this site if you care to search for it.

I did search for it using the search function here, and using google, and found a few references here to "a study". I couldn't find any references that included author, title, date, etc or any other info that would help me find the actual study itself in a library or some other repository. I'm trying to find the actual study so that I can read it myself to aid me in drawing my own conclusions.

And I acknowledge that my skill at using the search function here may be poor.

Those are the reasons that I asked for more info on the study.

[farscott]

Deleted as it is confusing.

[jetfire]

AFMAN 31-129 attachment 2, describes loading and unloading procedures for the M9, you will see that cocking the hammer is not included in said instructions, the other SF specific AFI are FOUO and have a lot of policy on how we do things, and thus not necessarily googleable and I am not on my gov computer but I'm happy to send you a copy of the real Security Forces specific AFIs gov email to email, as it appears you probably have one if the above does not suffice.

Those troops you have seen doing that are full of shit if they told you it was their SOP and they and their supervisors are being willful negligent and its only a matter of time before some dumb shit happens to them. Super surprised that their Flight Chief or Flight Commander has not already had their asses if they saw that dumb shit happening.. cause if I saw that shit, I would be for sure having some one way communication with that flight leadership.

I would have addressed all the USAF specific stuff earlier, but it was my day off and I didn't feel like logging in to a computer to do it, and typing lengthy replies on my phone sucks. Anyway I'm just going to address the USAF specific stuff in this thread.

The previous posters who have referrenced the specific AFMAN are correct, the condition of carry for the M9 is safety off, hammer forward on a live round. The standard issue holster for USAF SF is the Safariland 6005 (SLS hood) which also prevents the hammer from moving to full cock while the gun is properly holster and the hood is up.

I have no doubt that JRB did see Defenders with their hammers cocked, and that those Defenders insisted it was SOP. I can also almost guarnatee they knew they were wrong and that they should have fixed, but unspoken rule 1 of being SF is never admit to anyone outside the AF/your chain of command that you're wrong. Lie and go fix it later where they can't see you. A likely scenario is these dudes were bored on post and fucking around with their guns, and simply forgot to fix it when they came off post.

Lastly: please don't call us SecFo or SecFor, we fucking hate that.

[YVK]

...As I understand it, the doctrine received from FBI sources that longer trigger pulls are more ND resistant (to paraphrase it) was based on opinions offered by a collection of people who were at the time considered SMEs with extensive experience...

That was my understanding as well. Now, given that the Bureau went with Glock and keeps going with Glock, the logical conclusion is that either the opinion of SMEs with extensive experience didn't matter as much, or the problem itself wasn't perceived as a pressing one, pun intended.

[USAF422]

Lastly: please don't call us SecFo or SecFor, we fucking hate that.


Amen, nothing worse... until I hear some of my new troops doing it

[john c]

After reading the thread, it appears the consensus is:

1) There is very little technical difference between carrying an un-decocked TDA pistol and a fully tensioned striker fired pistol. The main difference is that TDA trigger pulls wear in to lower pull weights over time. Plus, the length of the trigger pull may be shorter, which is a key factor is NDs. Thus, SFA pistols may be a little safer than TDA pistols on SA.

2) The main difference between carrying a TDA and fully tensioned SFA is that if there's a decocker, you should use it. Otherwise, you deserve what you get. This applies to AD/ND and holding ne'er-do-wells at gunpoint. Since P320s and similar pistols don't have decockers, obey the four rules and don't worry about it.

3) This topic comes up a few times per year, and the answers are the same every time.

[john c]

AFMAN 31-129 attachment 2, describes loading and unloading procedures for the M9, you will see that cocking the hammer is not included in said instructions,

In my experience as an enlisted soldier (many moons ago) who was issued an M9, I would be serious money that the Airmen in question were not cocking their decocked pistols after chambering a round, but rather neglecting to decock the pistols to begin with. Thus, leaving them cocked and holstering the pistols this way.

[UniSol]

In my experience as an enlisted soldier (many moons ago) who was issued an M9, I would be serious money that the Airmen in question were not cocking their decocked pistols after chambering a round, but rather neglecting to decock the pistols to begin with. Thus, leaving them cocked and holstering the pistols this way.

I just did a 2 week course with my unit, first week was all flat range drills with rifle and pistol...mix of Glock 19s and M9s....more than one instance of guys failing to decock as they were coming back off target....and they were told over and over. Quality of instruction was not the issue. I think many people do not grasp what is going on with the gun. Many are training resistant.

[USAF422]

In my experience as an enlisted soldier (many moons ago) who was issued an M9, I would be serious money that the Airmen in question were not cocking their decocked pistols after chambering a round, but rather neglecting to decock the pistols to begin with. Thus, leaving them cocked and holstering the pistols this way.

Nope, they were fucking with the guns, they way we load, with someone E4 or above “certified” watching you load your gun. Plus as Caleb mentioned, you cant properly holster the gun with the hammer back.

[David S.]

I did search for it using the search function here, and using google, and found a few references here to "a study". I couldn't find any references that included author, title, date, etc or any other info that would help me find the actual study itself in a library or some other repository. I'm trying to find the actual study so that I can read it myself to aid me in drawing my own conclusions.

And I acknowledge that my skill at using the search function here may be poor.

Those are the reasons that I asked for more info on the study.

Both Darryl Bolke and Ernest Langdon have commented extensively on trigger length vs weight on P-F and various blogs, YouTube and podcasts. I good place to start is DB-diatribe-on-triggers (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27191-DB-diatribe-on-triggers), Why I like the LEM as a street trigger, and a couple other posts.

I don't recall any reference to "scientific studies," per se, but their anecdotal evidence is enough to keep me shooting DA/SA's.

[FreedomFries]

Nope, they were fucking with the guns, they way we load, with someone E4 or above “certified” watching you load your gun. Plus as Caleb mentioned, you cant properly holster the gun with the hammer back.

I would agree with that assessment. Probably fidgeting with the retention and then fidgeting with the hammer next. I've definitely seen this type of thing or worse occur. Probably about a decade or more ago, I was an Army medic assigned to an ESFS. Someone watched you chamber a round, decock, safety off, then holster. Being that I was not Security Forces, I was given the option of carrying either safety on or off.

Interestingly, the SERPA holster was authorized and frequently used too. I somehow doubt that it's allowed now. If the holster was not a Safariland with SLS, maybe that would explain how it was able to be carried with a cocked hammer?

[jetfire]

Interestingly, the SERPA holster was authorized and frequently used too. I somehow doubt that it's allowed now. If the holster was not a Safariland with SLS, maybe that would explain how it was able to be carried with a cocked hammer?

The SERPA is not authorized for Security Forces at the Big AF level, yet it's still common in units via individual purchase or even unit purchase. The Official Rule is that a Combat Arms Instructor (someone like me) is supposed to certify you on any non-standard holster that you want to use for duty. That is rarely followed, and people just use them without consequences. In my career I have only certified one person on the SERPA. I have refused to certify at least 8 people.

[FreedomFries]

The SERPA is not authorized for Security Forces at the Big AF level, yet it's still common in units via individual purchase or even unit purchase. The Official Rule is that a Combat Arms Instructor (someone like me) is supposed to certify you on any non-standard holster that you want to use for duty. That is rarely followed, and people just use them without consequences. In my career I have only certified one person on the SERPA. I have refused to certify at least 8 people.

It seemed like everyone in the unit had a SERPA with a MOLLE adapter worn on the upper portion of the IBA. Back then SERPA was so cool. :cool:

[jetfire]

It seemed like everyone in the unit had a SERPA with a MOLLE adapter worn on the upper portion of the IBA. Back then SERPA was so cool. :cool:

People still think it's cool because we issue the Safariland with possibly the worst attachment system ever: the double strap drop leg. I have spent the last four years preaching the gospel of the dropped/offset belt mount for the SLS.

Also as I type this I'm wearing a Galco Combat Master, because someone made sure to get it put on his training log that I was authorized a "leather concealment holster."

[JRB]

I would have addressed all the USAF specific stuff earlier, but it was my day off and I didn't feel like logging in to a computer to do it, and typing lengthy replies on my phone sucks. Anyway I'm just going to address the USAF specific stuff in this thread.

The previous posters who have referrenced the specific AFMAN are correct, the condition of carry for the M9 is safety off, hammer forward on a live round. The standard issue holster for USAF SF is the Safariland 6005 (SLS hood) which also prevents the hammer from moving to full cock while the gun is properly holster and the hood is up.

I have no doubt that JRB did see Defenders with their hammers cocked, and that those Defenders insisted it was SOP. I can also almost guarnatee they knew they were wrong and that they should have fixed, but unspoken rule 1 of being SF is never admit to anyone outside the AF/your chain of command that you're wrong. Lie and go fix it later where they can't see you. A likely scenario is these dudes were bored on post and fucking around with their guns, and simply forgot to fix it when they came off post.

Lastly: please don't call us SecFo or SecFor, we fucking hate that.

So what you're telling me is there's still Army DNA in the USAF after all :) - that 'deny everything, fix it later when nobody's watching' is a time honored practice in virtually every part of the Army I've encountered.
I'm glad that you're getting a day off here and there, and thanks for taking the time to bring your perspective here. Seems like the more things change, the more troops will stay the same, regardless of uniform.


Amen, nothing worse... until I hear some of my new troops doing it

Duly noted - no slight was intended, and I hope none was taken. The Security Forces are frequently referred to by that abbreviation in other areas on Kirtland AFB, which is where I picked it up, I had assumed it was common slang. Seeing as how many of those same research types spoke ill of the people quite literally guarding the gate to where they slept, I should have assumed it was a derisive term.

Is 'Defenders' a more polite way to refer to you guys?


Nope, they were fucking with the guns, they way we load, with someone E4 or above “certified” watching you load your gun. Plus as Caleb mentioned, you cant properly holster the gun with the hammer back.

In my own recent fiddling with an M9 and 6005 SLS, I can holster the weapon with the hammer back and the hood barely latches in place which then prevents the hammer from moving, but once the hood is up and the hammer is down, the hammer cannot be pulled back as it's blocked by the hood.

Dry firing it from holstered position without a shot timer, I didn't notice any appreciable difference in speed from holstered to first shot whether it was safety-off hammer-down or hammer-back.

And yeah, that 2 strap drop leg sucks, but it can be adjusted to sit higher on one's hip and suck a lot less - though I rarely see folks doing that. I've lost count of the number of MP's and gate guards I've seen damn near wearing them as kneepads. If one is stuck with the 6005 2-strap drop leg, I like removing the top thigh strap entirely and shortening the drop-strap from the belt as much as possible, and basically getting the holster to sit at the top of the thigh but just low enough there that it isn't umcomofortable or awkward to sit down.

At Kirtland AFB, I saw plenty of SERPA's but SLS's seemed to be gradually replacing them, which I was really happy to see.
A friend of mine here who last deployed as a Cav Scout in 2011 (I don't hold that against him) brought his own MOLLE Serpa and was quite excited to mount it on his plate carrier, as was tre chic in those days.
But correcting or explaining that proved to be unneccessary, as our powers-that-be saw fit to reduce the number of M9's in circulation because too many staff officers were bitching about having been issued a brand new M4A1. and wanted M9's instead.... ugh.

[oldtexan]

Both Darryl Bolke and Ernest Langdon have commented extensively on trigger length vs weight on P-F and various blogs, YouTube and podcasts. I good place to start is DB-diatribe-on-triggers (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27191-DB-diatribe-on-triggers), Why I like the LEM as a street trigger, and a couple other posts.

I don't recall any reference to "scientific studies," per se, but their anecdotal evidence is enough to keep me shooting DA/SA's.

Thanks.

[jetfire]

Duly noted - no slight was intended, and I hope none was taken. The Security Forces are frequently referred to by that abbreviation in other areas on Kirtland AFB, which is where I picked it up, I had assumed it was common slang. Seeing as how many of those same research types spoke ill of the people quite literally guarding the gate to where they slept, I should have assumed it was a derisive term.

Is 'Defenders' a more polite way to refer to you guys?


No slight was taken, I was just offering a correction. Most people outside the Air Force have no idea that we hate that. "Defenders" is cool, "SF" is fine, or just "cops" since that's by and large how we refer to ourselves.

Except for me. I'm CATM and that means I'm better than the regular cops. ;-)

[RevolverRob]

Also as I type this I'm wearing a Galco Combat Master, because someone made sure to get it put on his training log that I was authorized a "leather concealment holster."

So you picked a Galco. Instead of a sweet ass Sparks 55BN?

[jetfire]

So you picked a Galco. Instead of a sweet ass Sparks 55BN?

I have friends at Galco and already had this when the deployment dropped.

[willie]

A hunting companion recently became a civilian cop after spending 10 years in the AF security branch where he was also a trainer. He has shared many accounts of teaching almost untrainable persons to shoot. Sometimes I wonder if a double action only revolver would be a better choice for the masses in our military. Be aware that I'm aware of its limitations. One other choice might be not issuing a side arm to persons unable to learn the drill. I have taught many men and women to shoot but in a few cases had recalcitrant and uncooperative students. Then I would cease teaching these. In every case they were men.

[JTQ]

Sometimes I wonder if a double action only revolver would be a better choice for the masses in our military.
That's what it was before the USAF adopted the Beretta.

[jetfire]

That's what it was before the USAF adopted the Beretta.

There are still a few of those old Model 15s kicking around in armories for a little while longer. The ones we had left got moved over to K9 to use for blank firing training to adapt the dogs to gunfire. When the M18 goes into full issue, they'll finally be retired in favor of blank adapted M18s.

Which is dumb, but then again I'm an M18 hater.

[JRB]

I have friends at Galco and already had this when the deployment dropped.

I brought my new JMCK Wing Claw 2.5 along, the M9A1 mold he uses works great with a regular M9. It is absolutely fantastic in OCP's.

But I haven't needed it yet, and not likely I'll need it at all for the whole rotation because they put other dudes on the PSD.
So when I jock up it's always full battle rattle.

[GJM]

Five years ago, or so, I got out of a ticket because a BLM guy had his P series Sig cocked in the holster.

[LSP552]

When I leave the house later today, it will be with a SIG TDA. All I can say to this thread is that is sure won’t be cocked when it goes in the holster.

[Sauer Koch]

My 226 went to Grayguns for the full action job, with P-PAK (hammer & sear Kit), and the SA pull is arguably as nice as a 1911. That being said, after shooting a 226 & 229 exclusively for a mere 3yrs, I can’t even imagine carrying that with the hammer back, even in kydex. It’s mind-boggling that people actually do this.

If the gun has no manual safety, you don’t carry it with the hammer back...seems simple enough!