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?