Decocker Safety

[SigShooter]

Just a thought:

In the days of lawyer-approved guns and a fair share of product safety recalls, would a company design a decocking mechanism that does not work as described in the owner's manual? 

Personally, I believe in decockers, but only in properly functioning firearms. If the gun looks like it needs a new spring or part, I wouldn't trust it.

[Dharmaeye]

Have a P97 with decocker safety - spring loaded. Yes it has a violent hammer decock so I put my thumb on it to slow it down. Has more to the violent action that bothers me. Having examined the action I know it is safe to do so as the gun is build like a brick. Eats everything. Perfect reliability and a very effective, unbreakable as a pistol wipper.

[ratcatcher55]

I have to agree with Kilroy. The only approved way of safeing a M-11 (Sig 228) was to decock. Lowering the hammer did not engage one of the safeties. Jeff Cooper was wrong on that according to the folks at Sig.

 I believe that there is more involved to changing a DA/SA Sig to a DAK trigger than just removing the decocker.  It does make a simpler pistol and with less moving parts it should be more reliable. Should

I started with Sigs so decocking was no big deal.  Now I would not buy a pistol with a manual decocker.

Was it ever the correct to lower a hammer on a 1911 with a round in the chamber?

[Timothy]

Was it ever the correct to lower a hammer on a 1911 with a round in the chamber?

Absolutely never on a pre series 80 mechanism and I would never do it on any 1911 of any vintage.  Really dangerous to carry a 1911 in that condition IMO.  Others may disagree.

[TAB]

Absolutely never on a pre series 80 mechanism and I would never do it on any 1911 of any vintage.  Really dangerous to carry a 1911 in that condition IMO.  Others may disagree.

Actually it was.  it was designed so it could be carried that way.

[Sponsor]

[Timothy]

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/tech/ad_tb.htm

"My brother recently acquired a Colt Commander.  He had put a Federal hollowpoint in the chamber and lowered the hammer (condition #2). He was holstering the pistol with the hammer down. This was a holster with a thumb break. As he attempted to adjust the pistol in order to snap the thumb break closed, the pistol discharged. The round traveled into his upper right butt cheek and out the bottom, about 6 inches below his butt cheek. The round didn't expand and fell to the floor under the weight of gravity alone. He is fine now but the AD [accidental discharge] perplexed us a lot until we figured that the hammer was resting on the firing pin, and the soft primer Federal hollowpoint round and the hard "snap" of the new holster hit the hammer hard enough to touch off a round. Fixing the issue is to simply not chamber a round, period."

Form your own opinion.....

TAB, prove your statement.....

[MikeBjerum]

A 1911 is just like a single action revolver with the hammer down - EMPTY CHAMBER ONLY !!!

[PegLeg45]

A 1911 is just like a single action revolver with the hammer down - EMPTY CHAMBER ONLY !!!

Exactly...once the hammer is down, none of the safeties are functional (unless a firing pin block exists on some models).
All the safety mechanisms for the 1911 were designed to work with the hammer cocked.
The manual safety and the grip safety block the rearward travel of the sear and trigger, respectively, thus preventing the hammer from falling if cocked.
Once the hammer is down on a loaded chamber, on Series 70's and earlier and clones, the hammer then rests on the firing pin and inertia along with firing spring pressure are all that prevents primer strikes.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBU5q5Cey0

[TAB]

There was a long thread about hammer down on a 1911 on THR,  while yes you can do it, and it is relativly safe, its not very smart.

I'd also like to point out, that a 1911 is very safe with out the safety engaged. 2 things must happen for it to go bang, which is not the case for most "new"  semi autos.  those it only takes 1 thing.  Now I don't recomend carrying like that, but it still does not change the fact that it is safer then say a glock.

[Timothy]

Actually it was.  it was designed so it could be carried that way.

Please provide proof of this statement.  All I'm hearing are crickets.....Nothing! 

Substantiate the statement or don't make comments that would lead someone into carrying a pistol in a unsafe manner.  It's not about ego, it's about safety!