Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary?

[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!?



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.