Reply With QuoteThis is correct, but without the external hammer, the LEM internal hammer portion does not have the ability or enough momentum to strike the firing pin with any significant force.Originally Posted by GlockenSpiel
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is correct, but without the external hammer, the LEM internal hammer portion does not have the ability or enough momentum to strike the firing pin with any significant force.
Presumably, that gun has a normal, working firing pin block, which is why it won't fire when the fully-lowered hammer is impacted.
My point is, if you're carrying a DA beretta without the safety on, you're relying on the firing pin block. Why would you not then trust the firing pin block to do the same in a striker-fired gun?
Great question. As long as the firing pin block is mechanically sound, which the design certainly seems to be in a Glock, then I personally wouldn’t and don’t have an issue relying on it. Then again I’ve Gadgeted my carry Glocks and I don’t worry about it. But that’s just me.
Glock’s design is prove and sound. Unless you can show evidence of a particular sample of being broken or unsound, then there is no issue. Carry on and stop worrying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does it really matter what's keeping that Beretta from AD'ing if it never ADs?
I would say that we're talking about a separate category of undesirable behavior, Spontaneous Discharges vs. Accidental Discharges. Let's specify that ADs almost always have a human behavior cause, and SDs have purely mechanical causality.
Is the mechanical device keeping a Beretta 92 or Glock from an AD all that different from the mechanical device keeping a Ruger or S&W (et al) revolver from an AD?
Not really.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
The Beretta M9 and 92a1/96a1 rely on two different safety mechanisms with regards to the firing pin.
Firstly, the Beretta uses a 2-piece firing pin. With the safety latch in the downward ("safe") position, the rear half of the pin is rotated downwards, out of alignment with the front half of the firing pin. When the hammer is decocked, or a worst-case drop scenario happens, there is physically no way for the blunt force to cause the firing pin to strike the bullet's primer...this is of course assuming that all the mechanical parts are properly installed and using realistic testing scenarios (if you drop your loaded firearm off the Empire State building, anything is possible).
Secondly, the Beretta has a trigger safety. Unless, the trigger is pulled rearward, the front part of the firing pin will be "blocked" from any forward impulse (this is what people will traditionally refer to as the firing pin "block").
Then of course there is the DA/SA trigger pull which is safety feature in and of itself.
I'm not sure how the Beretta's firing pin "block" compares to whats used in other designs (like the Glock), but I'm fairly certain the rotating, 2-piece firing pin design is mostly unique to Beretta. So the Beretta definitely has different safety features from that of a typical SFA and even some DA/SA pistols.
Does that make it more safe for carry?
Well I think so, but that's subjective.
Couldn't you say the same about glock...?
Does it matter? Not really. Is it interesting to know the “why”? Yes. Is it ADing? Nope. Put a mechanically sound Glock to the same test. I’ll bet it passes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
