Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary?

[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....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....ther-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....ther-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.