Half-cock @ start for TDA guns

[ECK]

This topic has been on my mind lately given that we’re in a comment period where the USPSA BoD is soliciting comment on a bunch of rulebook and equipment changes. This might be a good time to write my AD.

What are the hive’s thoughts on proposing the rules be changed to allow TDA guns that are not equipped with a decocker to lower the hammer to half-cock at Make Ready? Specifically this would modify the Special Conditions in App D4 and D7, and not make it a bump to Open if somebody does it (deliberately or inadvertently). Put them on par with decocker guns that put the hammer at half-cock.

The word I got from behind the curtain was it has been proposed (twice) but was not included in the list of proposed rule/equipment changes bc some felt that it would create a more advantageous DA trigger pull (not by anybody in NROI).

I cannot determine a noticeable difference in DA trigger pull between hammer fully down and at the half-cock with my el cheapo analogue pull gauge. My contention is the decocker guns can already do it, but the main reason I would be in favor of using the half-cock for all TDAs is for safety reasons, and half-cock may reduce (not eliminate) the chance of a non-firing pin blocked gun going off if it is dropped just right on the hammer.

Thoughts?

[Archer1440]

Alternatively, prohibit any modifications that defeat factory dropsafe parameters? (Ducking for cover)

[Bucky]

This topic has been on my mind lately given that we’re in a comment period where the USPSA BoD is soliciting comment on a bunch of rulebook and equipment changes. This might be a good time to write my AD.

What are the hive’s thoughts on proposing the rules be changed to allow TDA guns that are not equipped with a decocker to lower the hammer to half-cock at Make Ready?

Thoughts?

Agree 100%. I seem to recall at one time CZ said that was the recommended method of carrying the CZ pistol. Considering that’s how their decocker models work, it would make sense.

Considering what they allow for striker fired guns, there is certainly no advantage.

[Bucky]

Alternatively, prohibit any modifications that defeat factory dropsafe parameters? (Ducking for cover)

What if the guns come from that factory non drop safe (cough pee cough three cough twenty)?

[Archer1440]

What if the guns come from that factory non drop safe (cough pee cough three cough twenty)?

That was on them. I was talking about changing things to defeat an otherwise "safe from the factory" item (like, for example, extended FP's on Shadows).

[Bucky]

That was on them. I was talking about changing things to defeat an otherwise "safe from the factory" item (like, for example, extended FP's on Shadows).

Probably worthy of discussion, but impossible to enforce.

[Archer1440]

Probably worthy of discussion, but impossible to enforce.

Certainly difficult if not impossible, I agree with you.

[Jim Watson]

I did this with a CZ75 until IDPA got huffy about it.
It gives a long but very light take-up, then starts to actually move the hammer.

[cheby]

That was on them. I was talking about changing things to defeat an otherwise "safe from the factory" item (like, for example, extended FP's on Shadows).

Even with the stock FP, Shadow 2 is not drop safe. It just requires higher impact. The design remains the same- hammer needs to hit the FP. The hammer is in direct contact with the FP when the hammer is all the way down regardless of the length of the FP.. People replace their FPs to reduce the probability of the light strikes with light main springs.
Half-cock start would solve this problem but I don’t expect it from USPSA. They would argue that it would be impossible to in force or similar.

[ECK]

I checked my CZ owner’s manual (yeah, I actually opened it…).

CZ refers to the half-cock as the safety-notch, and recommends the hammer be lowered to that point.

Has anybody tested their DA pull weight on a gauge to see if there is a difference between hammer fully down and half-cock?

[Archer1440]

Even with the stock FP, Shadow 2 is not drop safe. It just requires higher impact. The design remains the same- hammer needs to hit the FP. The hammer is in direct contact with the FP when the hammer is all the way down regardless of the length of the FP.. People replace their FPs to reduce the probability of the light strikes with light main springs.
Half-cock start would solve this problem but I don’t expect it from USPSA. They would argue that it would be impossible to in force or similar.

Well, to be fair, given enough altitude, very little is completely drop safe ;)

[ECK]

Alternatively, prohibit any modifications that defeat factory dropsafe parameters? (Ducking for cover)

Ton of guns in Open and Limited do not have a firing pin block feature (i.e. STI 2011’s). Furthermore, a lot of people disable their 2011’s grip safety and solely rely on the thumb safety.

[ECK]

Half-cock start would solve this problem but I don’t expect it from USPSA. They would argue that it would be impossible to in force or similar.

Write your AD or the entire Board (Board@uspsa.org). If enough members ask for it, they may have to consider it. According to the latest NROI podcast, they stated that while they are aware of what’s being said on social media, they are relying on the member survey and direct communication (i.e. email) with the BOD as their official source for input.

Enforcement is a non-issue. It would basically change the Special Condition in App D4 and D7 to allow DA guns to go to half-cock instead of penalizing them with a bumped to Open. No penalty for somebody that lowers their hammer fully down.

[YVK]

As I just mentioned in another thread, normal quote function is not working for me again. The tag seems to work, @ECK (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=21463).




Has anybody tested their DA pull weight on a gauge to see if there is a difference between hammer fully down and half-cock?

Yes, there is a difference. I cannot tell you by how much because I don't have a gauge. I use NRA drop weight set and to quantify the difference with it, I'd need to play with different weights. I was never curious enough but I know that X number of weights that doesn't even move the hammer in fully down position pulls the trigger in half-cock.

[JCN]

ECK like YVK there is a very noticeable difference in half cock weight and length.

It is much easier to get on target faster. But then again, still a compromise over a short striker.

[ECK]

Interesting, using my pull gauge (granted, analogue and not the highest end) I could discern no difference in weight. 6 lbs DA w/ hammer fully down was still 6 lbs at half cock on both my Shadow 2s.

What about a decocker gun like a SP-01 Tactical? Any big diff there between half and full cock?

[JCN]

Interesting, using my pull gauge (granted, analogue and not the highest end) I could discern no difference in weight. 6 lbs DA w/ hammer fully down was still 6 lbs at half cock on both my Shadow 2s.

What about a decocker gun like a SP-01 Tactical? Any big diff there between half and full cock?

The biggest difference is going to be in mechanical advantage where the half cock sets the trigger closer to the hand where there’s more leverage. And also the length of travel is shorter.

[JCN]

ECK

Full hammer down

99499

Half notch

99500

I have a RRK in.

[Mas]

I checked my CZ owner’s manual (yeah, I actually opened it…).

CZ refers to the half-cock as the safety-notch, and recommends the hammer be lowered to that point.

Has anybody tested their DA pull weight on a gauge to see if there is a difference between hammer fully down and half-cock?

It wouldn't hurt to have that very owner's manual right there in your range bag to show to any SRO or MD who questions where you set your hammer.

[ECK]

It wouldn't hurt to have that very owner's manual right there in your range bag to show to any SRO or MD who questions where you set your hammer.

Unfortunately the rulebook is very specific about this in the Special Conditions in App D4 and D7. One of the 2022/2023 RB proposed changes was to clarify when only lowering your DASA gun to half-cock (if not equipped with a decocker) would get you bumped to Open.

[Mas]

Unfortunately the rulebook is very specific about this in the Special Conditions in App D4 and D7. One of the 2022/2023 RB proposed changes was to clarify when only lowering your DASA gun to half-cock (if not equipped with a decocker) would get you bumped to Open.

OMG...does anyone know if this has been brought to the attention to the organization's HQ, along with the owner's manual?

[ECK]

OMG...does anyone know if this has been brought to the attention to the organization's HQ, along with the owner's manual?

Yes, it has.

Which is why I started this thread. If you feel like DA/SA guns should be allowed to be placed into the half-cock position at Make Ready, email your AD or the entire Board (Board@uspsa.org).

[JCN]

Yes, it has.

Which is why I started this thread. If you feel like DA/SA guns should be allowed to be placed into the half-cock position at Make Ready, email your AD or the entire Board (Board@uspsa.org).

Especially since it would have absolutely prevented the New York USPSA RO death when the Shadow 2 was dropped on its hammer, would make a compelling argument for safety over any niggling competitive concerns.

[YVK]

Yes, it has.

Which is why I started this thread. If you feel like DA/SA guns should be allowed to be placed into the half-cock position at Make Ready, email your AD or the entire Board (Board@uspsa.org).

I wonder if organizing a petition with multiple signatories would make a bigger impact than isolated letters coming in at random times.


I also wonder if this new LOCO division would mandate a full decock on DA/SA guns since they supposedly would allow all and any action. I mean, I wouldn't have to decock a Shadow 2 at all provided I engage the thumb safety; why would the care then if I decocked fully or half way.

[Bucky]

I wonder if organizing a petition with multiple signatories would make a bigger impact than isolated letters coming in at random times.


Alternatively, what if one of these manufacturers issued a statement declaring that carrying a fully decocked gun is not a safe or recommended carry mode? USPSA might be obligated to revisit the rule.

[CraigS]

On a Beretta M9A1 (decock only version) and a 92X Defensive (no decocker), half cock or fully decocked makes absolutely no difference in the DA pull weight w/ my Lyman gauge. The trigger starts at the same position in both, but w/ half cock, there is maybe 1/4 inch of very light pretravel (trigger return spring only) before the trigger engages the hammer and starts to move it.

[Akimbo_sammiches]

My thoughts are in agreement with the OP for safety reasons. Especially if the gun was designed to use half cock as a carry method.

However would it then become possible for an aftermarket hammer to be designed and implemented for a half-cock notch to hold the hammer back [I]just a little bit[I][I] closer to full cock? How would the rules be written to protect against this yet still allow current race hammers?

[YVK]

My thoughts are in agreement with the OP for safety reasons. Especially if the gun was designed to use half cock as a carry method.

However would it then become possible for an aftermarket hammer to be designed and implemented for a half-cock notch to hold the hammer back [I]just a little bit[I][I] closer to full cock? How would the rules be written to protect against this yet still allow current race hammers?

Concerns for aftermarket hammers is actually the reason why people argued against changing to half cock decocking. It would've been only a matter of time when hammers were developed to keep the half cock way closer to a fully cocked position. Gamers gonna game, and USPSA went on the record with their no expectations of ROs being able to recognize aftermarket parts and enforce the rules. How IPSC is able to do that is a mystery.

Anyway, I wrote an email to the board.

[Slavex]

hahaha IPSC has the same issue with knowing what is OEM and what is AM and has since Production was first introduced. The latest stupidity just before the WS over grips was a clear reminder of just how out of touch the brass are with those who actually shoot.

[YVK]

hahaha IPSC has the same issue with knowing what is OEM and what is AM and has since Production was first introduced. The latest stupidity just before the WS over grips was a clear reminder of just how out of touch the brass are with those who actually shoot.

I saw that; they walked that back at the last moment, right?

[Slavex]

I saw that; they walked that back at the last moment, right?

kinda sorta, basically anyone who sent in pics of the their grips got them approved, except for one guy, my buddy Sam. He got there and he'd modified his Eemmantech grip a bit and they wouldn't let him use it. He had to borrow a Henning grip for the left side from me. So dumb

[psalms144.1]

I have no dog in this fight - my competition days are WAY behind me. However, it strikes me as just shy of criminally negligent for any organization to insist that a firearm be carried in a manner that is specifically identified by the manufacturer as unsafe.

[bofe954]

How about they just require a decocker to shoot DA/SA, then we don't need to have competitors lowering hammers on live rounds anymore either...

[Bucky]

How about they just require a decocker to shoot DA/SA, then we don't need to have competitors lowering hammers on live rounds anymore either...

Sure, let’s disqualify what may be 33% or more of the currently used pistols for production and carry optics. ;)

[bofe954]

Sure, let’s disqualify what may be 33% or more of the currently used pistols for production and carry optics. ;)

Is it just CZ? The tanfo's have a firing pin block. I know Beretta used to, not sure about the performance. I'm sure a decocker requirement would also result in guns that barely decocked.

Probably better to require a firing pin safety. The CZ 75B has one.

Seems absurd to me sometimes. CZ makes guns with no decocker and no firing pin safety specifically for a competition, competitors buy it, then complain that the rules need to change because their gun is unsafe. Maybe the gun should get fixed.

[Slavex]

Is it just CZ? The tanfo's have a firing pin block. I know Beretta used to, not sure about the performance. I'm sure a decocker requirement would also result in guns that barely decocked.

Probably better to require a firing pin safety. The CZ 75B has one.

Seems absurd to me sometimes. CZ makes guns with no decocker and no firing pin safety specifically for a competition, competitors buy it, then complain that the rules need to change because their gun is unsafe. Maybe the gun should get fixed.


Uh, the guns meet the rules currently, firing pin blocks aren't required, nor are decockers. The complaining here is about those guns and making a rule change to disallow them. Which would be stupid, as they represent more than half of the guns used in those divisions.

[Clusterfrack]

How about they just require a decocker to shoot DA/SA, then we don't need to have competitors lowering hammers on live rounds anymore either...

This is a non-problem. Lowering the hammer manually on a TDA gun is one of the easiest and safest things we do in the sport.

[Bucky]

Probably better to require a firing pin safety. The CZ 75B has one..

If this is a safety requirement, then logically it need be applied across all divisions, in which case you’d essentially disqualify 95%+ of the firearms used in USPSA competition.

BTW, my carry pistol (EDC X9) does not have a firing pin safety and will pass common drop tests.

[Clusterfrack]

I don't understand why this is still an issue. A person died because the BOD can't delete one freaking sentence (in red below) from the rulebook that makes zero difference competitively (see blue text below).

APPENDIX D7 –Carry Optics Division
Special conditions:

1.Only Double Action, Double Action/Single Action, and Safe Action/Striker Fired handguns are allowed, and must be on the approved list. When in the ready conditions as specified under 8.1, a gun with an external hammer must be hammer down. A hammer is considered to be in the "hammer down" position when the hammer is placed there by pulling the trigger while manually lowering the hammer (manually decocking) or by activating the decocking lever if present. Manually decocking to the half-cocked position is not allowed and will result in the competitor being moved to Open division.

2.Handguns with external hammers must be fully decocked at the start signal. If a decocking lever is installed and used, the term fully decocked is the position where the hammer rests once the decocking lever has been used. Altering a factory installed decocker to bring the hammer to rest at less than a half-cocked position is not allowed. Manually decocked hammers must be fully down

[ECK]

I’m glad to see this still being discussed. As mentioned in the OP, if you feel that DA/SA guns should be allowed to be lowered to the half-cock (aka safety-notch as some OFMs call it) then please email your Area Director or the entire Board (board@uspsa.org) to voice your opinion on this matter.

[Clusterfrack]

I’m glad to see this still being discussed. As mentioned in the OP, if you feel that DA/SA guns should be allowed to be lowered to the half-cock (aka safety-notch as some OFMs call it) then please email your Area Director or the entire Board (board@uspsa.org) to voice your opinion on this matter.

Done. I hope everyone who agrees will email them as well.

[Slavex]

where is the copy of the police report or coroners report on this cause of death? I keep hearing about it, but have yet to see anything actually official.

[YVK]

Sooo, somewhat unexpectedly, one of area directors replied to my email with a statement that CZ's manual says to decock all the way. What followed was a brief exchange of screenshots from different manuals. The CZ manual actually says decock to any position. Tanfo's says all the way. 92x Performance, don't even ask. The last email in exchange was my appeal to consider whay was the safest.
I don't think this is going anywhere.

[ECK]

Sooo, somewhat unexpectedly, one of area directors replied to my email with a statement that CZ's manual says to decock all the way. What followed was a brief exchange of screenshots from different manuals. The CZ manual actually says decock to any position. Tanfo's says all the way. 92x Performance, don't even ask. The last email in exchange was my appeal to consider whay was the safest.
I don't think this is going anywhere.

Merde. Thanks for the update.

FWIW, my CZ Shadow 2 manual says to use the safety-notch (aka half-cock).

[YVK]

FWIW, my CZ Shadow 2 manual says to use the safety-notch (aka half-cock).


Both options are available in a manual I found online

100499

[Clusterfrack]

I got the same email from A8. I’ll follow up with an appeal to reconsider.