Want downward sweep decocker type safety


PDA






wbond
January 24, 2006, 12:35 AM
I want to carry with saftety on, decocked, and have the fast ergonomic downward thumb saftety sweep. Only the Makarovs do this. This is the best feature of the Maks, in my opinion.

Why don't Bersa and others copy the Mak style of safety?

Additionally, I prefer the safety mounted on the frame rather than slide because that would get it lower and easier to reach.

The CZ-83 safety is ergonomically ideal for me. However, I wish it could be on safe when decocked.

Why hasn't any gun maker made an auto with a downward sweep, decocker safety mounted on the gun frame? Is there a handgun like this?

Surely I can't be the only one who'd like this?

If you agree with me, then maybe we should email this sentiment to the makers of the autos. For that matter, why couldn't they do this on revolvers? Is that sacrolige?

I did email this idea to Bersa and CZ.

If you enjoyed reading about "Want downward sweep decocker type safety" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Old Dog
January 24, 2006, 12:41 AM
Why hasn't any gun maker made an auto with a downward sweep, decocker safety mounted on the gun frame?
There are several manufactured.

ALL Taurus PT-908, 911, 940, 945, PT-92 and PT-99 pistols have frame-mounted, decocking down-to-fire safeties. (Well, except for pre-1991 manufactured PT-92s and 99s.)

rocky
January 24, 2006, 12:44 AM
If I read correctly, you are talking similar to a 1911 ? HK USP, Taurus Pt series and PT 99, Skyy and Hi powers?. I'm sure there may be a few others too.

wbond
January 24, 2006, 01:33 AM
Thanks Old Dog. I've never seen one before. I'll check those out.

There are several manufactured.

ALL Taurus PT-908, 911, 940, 945, PT-92 and PT-99 pistols have frame-mounted, decocking down-to-fire safeties. (Well, except for pre-1991 manufactured PT-92s and 99s.)

wbond
January 24, 2006, 01:36 AM
If I read correctly, you are talking similar to a 1911 ? HK USP, Taurus Pt series and PT 99, Skyy and Hi powers?. I'm sure there may be a few others too.
I love my CZ83s, but I don't like that I can't put the safety on when the hammer is not cocked.

Regarding the ones you mentioned: Are they decockers? i.e. - Could I have the safety on when hammer not cocked? If so, great!

psyopspec
January 24, 2006, 02:31 AM
Regarding the ones you mentioned: Are they decockers? i.e. - Could I have the safety on when hammer not cocked? If so, great!

I know this is true of the USP and USP Compact platforms, but I can't speak for the others mentioned.

otomik
January 24, 2006, 09:31 AM
The newer Beretta Cheetahs, models 84, 85, etc. they have ambidextrous frame mounted safety/decockers similar to the newer Taurus model PT92-series. Actually I wonder why they don't make more like it, a Beretta model 92 series with such a frame mounted safety would be a winner too.

Technosavant
January 24, 2006, 09:47 AM
Para-Ordnance LDA would be another good choice. Thin like a 1911, DAO, and that lovely 1911 safety...

smince
January 24, 2006, 10:18 AM
Actually I wonder why they don't make more like it, a Beretta model 92 series with such a frame mounted safety would be a winner too.

That is the way they were originally made (well, without the decocker, anyway), but the "powers that be"(read: bureaucrats) have declared the slide-mounted safety/decocker to be the prefered method of operation.

MCgunner
January 24, 2006, 10:25 AM
I love my CZ83s, but I don't like that I can't put the safety on when the hammer is not cocked.

Regarding the ones you mentioned: Are they decockers? i.e. - Could I have the safety on when hammer not cocked? If so, great!

I prefer decocker only that returns to the fire position with the hammer down. That way, I don't have to mess with no safety on the draw, just pull and bang. Plenty safe to carry "condition two" and since my revolvers don't have no stinkin' safeties, it helps in cross training. Heck, there's aweful lots of guys that carry a single action condition one and do it safely. I just don't want there to be any way in heck a safety could impede my first shot. I like my Ruger P90DC. I bought my P85 used, so good a price I didn't worry about the safety system, but it's not the decocker only. Bummer.

The Sigs are decocker guns and the decocker is down by the thumb where it's more convenient and easier to use.

The down movement frame mounted safety on the Tauri was the big selling point back when. I don't hear much about it now days. Maybe the DAO craze has made it slightly less a sales point?

JDGray
January 24, 2006, 12:44 PM
The DA pull in most DA/SA guns is safe enough to carry. CZ states in the owners manual," the safty only moves in the cocked position ",for a 1911 style carry. Why do you want two disadvantages when a live or death situation happens? :confused:

Winzeler
January 24, 2006, 01:38 PM
Wbond, you have perfectly described the HK USP. Mine spends almost its entire life decocked with the safety on. The safety is on in the up position, and off in the down. Decocking is done by pulling the safety all the way down past the fire position. All that and the safety is mounted on the frame behind the location of the slide release.

benEzra
January 24, 2006, 01:51 PM
Why don't Bersa and others copy the Mak style of safety?
Because the Bersa .380 is a very close copy of the Walther PPK.

mole
January 24, 2006, 04:44 PM
I noticed in another thread that you are showing interest in the 9mm round. The Taurus pt-92 is a 9mm DA/SA with a frame mounted safety. From the "fire" position, press it down to decock and when you release it returns to the "fire" position. Pressing up from the fire position puts locks it in "safe". You can carry it with the hammer cocked and the safety on. I see that you like nickel plated. It is available in stainless steel with a 17 round magazine and light rail. It is a rather large pistol though, so another choice would be better for concealed carry. I like mine a lot.

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=92SS-17&category=Pistol

mole

wbond
February 6, 2006, 09:17 PM
If I read correctly, you are talking similar to a 1911 ? HK USP, Taurus Pt series and PT 99, Skyy and Hi powers?. I'm sure there may be a few others too.
By High Power, you mean Browning?

What is a Skyy?

wbond
February 6, 2006, 09:23 PM
That is the way they were originally made (well, without the decocker, anyway), but the "powers that be"(read: bureaucrats) have declared the slide-mounted safety/decocker to be the prefered method of operation.
That must be cheaper then. Why else?

wbond
February 6, 2006, 09:43 PM
I want the decocker to also be a safety that doesn't allow it to fire until the safety turned off.

I've read from someone that they just want it to be a decocker, but not a safety. I want it to be a safety and decocker all frame mounted and sweep down to fire. Why?

Well, first of all, I'd feel a lot safer carrying the gun if I knew it was on safe. I don't want to have to worry or think about accidental discharge.

Second, and this is a bigger one. It is a statistical fact that a high percentage of the people shot with handguns were shot with their own handgun by an assailant who disarmed them and then shot them with their own gun. I don't remember the exact statistics, but there were compelling.

There are also cases of an assailant disarming someone and then the assailant not knowing where or how the safety works and they can't find it quick enough to use it. If someone ever does get my gun, the safety will be my LAST chance, if they don't know how to work it.

I consider these things more important than worrying about the safety slowing my first shot. I personally feel that when all things are considered, I want a safety that engages whether gun cocked or not. I'd also like it to do double duty as a decocker.

Technosavant
February 6, 2006, 09:57 PM
Second, and this is a bigger one. It is a statistical fact that a high percentage of the people shot with handguns were shot with their own handgun by an assailant who disarmed them and then shot them with their own gun. I don't remember the exact statistics, but there were compelling.


There are better places to get one's "facts" than from Sarah Brady's Bunch (that sure sounds like their drivel). If you fear your gun getting taken away from you, then maybe carry isn't for you. You only draw if you are already justified in using it and determined to do so. If you fear somebody grabbing it before you know the fight is on, you need to 1) work on your situational awareness, and 2) conceal it better.

If I have drawn on somebody, taking the gun away is a VERY foolish move. If you are truly worried about that happening, then when it happens, just take your gun back- apparently it isn't that hard.

I am not trying to be hard on you, just trying to get you to think critically about the truth of the matter here.

wbond
February 6, 2006, 10:11 PM
To Technosavant:

I could go look it up and then quote back actual cases, but why should I spend my time doing that? I didn't read it in some anti-gun rag or get it from Sarah Brady either because I don't read that junk.

I got it in a handgun magazine or book sometime in the past. I don't remember where. Honestly, do I have to spend my time looking it up just to prove that I'm not full of crap?

I was just explaining my reasons why I want a safety. Can't I have an opinion? I feel you've attacked me personally. I don't want to be angry or attack you back. I do however want to defend myself below.

==========================================

Why do you suppose the gun manufacturers are forever trying to perfect those police gun systems where the gun won't fire in someone else's hand? I mean those systems where the cop wears a ring that gives off some electronic signal that tells the gun it's OK to be fired. Why do you suppose they keep trying to pefect that system?

Obviously the cops and gun makers both know it's always possible that someone might get the cop's gun away from them. Now tell me that Sara Brady put the cops and gun makers up to that. Sheesh.

Obviously it can happen. I remember reading somewhere about a cop who lost his main gun to an attacker, but the attacker couldn't fire it because he wasn't familiar with the safety. The cop then used his backup gun to plug the bad guy.

A home owner in my local area was the victom of an unarmed, strong arm type home intruder. The home owner pulled out his revolver and was disarmed by the attacker. This was in our local paper about a year ago. I don't remember what happened after that, but it wasn't good. The intruder seriously hurt the home owner. That's all I remember of that. The valid point here is the home owner lost his gun. It does happen and can happen to anyone.

I want a safety. That's one of several good reasons for wanting one. Aren't I entitled to have an opinion? You don't have to share my opinion and you don't have to have a safety on your gun either, but I certainly have the right to my opinion and to a gun safety, if I want one.

Bringing up Sara Brady was a low blow and completely uncalled for. However, since you brought her up, let me point out that responsible gun owners are a good thing, but hotheads with guns are bad and play right into Sarah Brady's hands. Which one are you acting like? You got that upset just because I explained why I wanted a safety on my gun?

Take a moment to calm down and ask yourself why can't wbond express his opinion about why he wants a safety without getting attacked for it. Please feel free to disagree with me, but don't make it a personal attack.

Now let's just calm down and get back to the technical features discussion. Please.

I do appreciate that this all started with you trying to give me helpful advice. Thanks. Let's please get back to that spirit even if we don't agree.

antsi
February 6, 2006, 10:52 PM
Well, first of all, I'd feel a lot safer carrying the gun if I knew it was on safe. I don't want to have to worry or think about accidental discharge.

Second, and this is a bigger one. It is a statistical fact that a high percentage of the people shot with handguns were shot with their own handgun by an assailant who disarmed them and then shot them with their own gun. I don't remember the exact statistics, but there were compelling.

I'd be interested to see where those statistics came from.

No matter how you carry, you have to think about accidental discharge. No matter how you carry, you have to train with that manual of arms. If you are relying on the safety, you have to train yourself so it becomes automatic to put the safety on before holstering. Any manual of arms has its pitfalls and all of them require training and repetitions to make sure you do it right 100% of the time.

If you have decided that this is the manual of arms you want to train yourself to use, then that's fine. But please don't think that the mechanical safety makes the gun safe all by itself. All of the major action types - SA only with safety, DA/SA with decoker, DAO - all of them can be carried safely, but none of them do the job for you.

Most people do have a "favorite" manual of arms that for whatever reason makes the most intuitive sense to them, or they feel most comfortable with. I guess that's why they make 'em different ways. I'm not criticizing your choice, but whatever choice you make, be sure to put in the homework so you do it right.

benEzra
February 7, 2006, 09:37 AM
I want the decocker to also be a safety that doesn't allow it to fire until the safety turned off.

I've read from someone that they just want it to be a decocker, but not a safety. I want it to be a safety and decocker all frame mounted and sweep down to fire. Why?

Well, first of all, I'd feel a lot safer carrying the gun if I knew it was on safe. I don't want to have to worry or think about accidental discharge.

Second, and this is a bigger one. It is a statistical fact that a high percentage of the people shot with handguns were shot with their own handgun by an assailant who disarmed them and then shot them with their own gun. I don't remember the exact statistics, but there were compelling.

There are also cases of an assailant disarming someone and then the assailant not knowing where or how the safety works and they can't find it quick enough to use it. If someone ever does get my gun, the safety will be my LAST chance, if they don't know how to work it.
Massad Ayoob has discussed this at some length, but mostly in the context of police carry (open carry, lots of interaction with questionable individuals at close range). He was not talking about having a gun taken out of the officer's hands, but rather situations in which the bad guy gets the gun out of the officer's holster. About 20% of police officers are killed this way, and there have been a number of situations in which a criminal took the officer's gun but couldn't figure out how to get it off-safe, allowing the officer time to draw a backup gun.

I'm not sure how applicable that would be to civilian concealed carry, though it could be a consideration for open carry.

I do like having a safety on a gun for use when handling the gun (loading, unloading, holstering, storing). I have an S&W 3913LS with a manual safety/decocker, but it's usually off-safe when in the holster. Note that some guns with manual safeties (PPK clones, etc.) are NOT designed to be carried with the safety off and should be on safe when carrying.

I personally feel that when all things are considered, I want a safety that engages whether gun cocked or not. I'd also like it to do double duty as a decocker.
I know you had mentioned that you'd like a safety/decocker that sweeps down to fire, but the S&W style safety/decocker (slide mounted, sweep forward with your thumb to fire) is IMHO just as fast with practice, and would open up your range of possible pistols quite a bit. There aren't many guns at all with sweep-down decockers, and some of those don't have particularly good reputations for ease of action under stress.

ssteven1
February 7, 2006, 10:10 AM
If you like Bersa's. The mini thunder 9 and 45 have the frame mounted downward sweep saftey decocker just like you want. The mini thunder 9 is not a lot bigger than the 380.

Technosavant
February 7, 2006, 10:45 AM
Aren't I entitled to have an opinion?

You are welcome to it. But I was trying to point out that the facts which formed your opinion aren't necessarily applicable. You are still able to do as you please. You don't even need to answer the questions I raised, but I raised them for the benefit of others.

1) Are other people going to know you carry, and thus a gun is available for the taking?
2) Do you plan on drawing it when use is not justified, thereby placing you in trouble no matter what (whether you shoot or the BG decides to make a grab)?
3) Do you never pay attention to what is going on around you, thus making your carry weapon (if known about) vulnerable?
4) If taking away your gun without being seriously injured is so easy, then why are you worrying about it instead of just planning to take it back?

Feel free to disregard these, but they are food for thought for others who might be worried about the scenario you mentioned. If this worries you that much, you can also wait until a "smart gun" is available, or purchase a retrofit kit for the firearm you choose (they are available, but I and many others aren't remotely interested).

I think benEzra has it right- that sounds more like a stat for police officers, not for civilians with a concealed weapon. LEOs have weapons right out in front of the world, and they often engage in contact with BGs that doesn't involve gunplay, making their weapon vulnerable. You and I will not be doing so, making the risk of having the gun ripped from the holster a moot point.

mbs357
February 7, 2006, 01:45 PM
The DA pull in most DA/SA guns is safe enough to carry. CZ states in the owners manual," the safty only moves in the cocked position ",for a 1911 style carry. Why do you want two disadvantages when a live or death situation happens? :confused:
Off topic, but should be a simple answer.
How safe are CZ-75s when carried cocked and locked with safety on?
Comparable to the 1911?

Moonclip
February 7, 2006, 05:51 PM
Should be about the same unless the fact the CZ has no grip safety makes you feel less safe.

wbond
February 7, 2006, 08:40 PM
One reason I wanted a downward sweep is that it's faster and easier for me. However, from the point of view of foiling a bad guy with a safety he can't easily or quickly work, the up-sweep or forward sweep is counter-intuitive and might be better in that way.

I do like Bersas and CZs, but am open to others as well. On my Firestorm (Bersa) .32 and I have become fairly adept at the upsweep with practice. That practice took me a week to get good at. A bad guy would indeed be more likely delayed by a forward or upsweep safety.

Thanks

Massad Ayoob has discussed this at some length, but mostly in the context of police carry (open carry, lots of interaction with questionable individuals at close range). He was not talking about having a gun taken out of the officer's hands, but rather situations in which the bad guy gets the gun out of the officer's holster. About 20% of police officers are killed this way, and there have been a number of situations in which a criminal took the officer's gun but couldn't figure out how to get it off-safe, allowing the officer time to draw a backup gun.

I'm not sure how applicable that would be to civilian concealed carry, though it could be a consideration for open carry.

I do like having a safety on a gun for use when handling the gun (loading, unloading, holstering, storing). I have an S&W 3913LS with a manual safety/decocker, but it's usually off-safe when in the holster. Note that some guns with manual safeties (PPK clones, etc.) are NOT designed to be carried with the safety off and should be on safe when carrying.


I know you had mentioned that you'd like a safety/decocker that sweeps down to fire, but the S&W style safety/decocker (slide mounted, sweep forward with your thumb to fire) is IMHO just as fast with practice, and would open up your range of possible pistols quite a bit. There aren't many guns at all with sweep-down decockers, and some of those don't have particularly good reputations for ease of action under stress.

wbond
February 7, 2006, 08:52 PM
I also want to look into other models and brands mentioned by others. Thanks again.

If you like Bersa's. The mini thunder 9 and 45 have the frame mounted downward sweep saftey decocker just like you want. The mini thunder 9 is not a lot bigger than the 380.

wbond
February 7, 2006, 08:58 PM
To Technosavant:

You raise some issues below, but I still want what I want for the same reasons as before. A smart gun would be great, but to costly. A safety is good enough and affordable.

I'm NOT an idiot for wanting a safety. I think the Sarah Brady comment was over the top, uncalled for, and got me going, as it was intended to. That smacked heavily of a personal attack, which I don't think was called for. Same with some other things you said.

When I disagreed with you earlier regarding that I wanted a safety-that-decocks and not just a decocker, I was not attacking you. I was only disagreeing with regard to my personal preferences and explaining why.

We can disagree in a polite manner. Can't we? There is no need to make the insulting implications about my intelligence, lack of balls, or insinuate I'm in Sara Brady's camp, etc. I just want a safety and I explained why. That's neither stupid or gutless, nor does it make me an anti-gun person. I just want a safety and I have my reasons. That's all.

So let's leave it at that and get back to what the thread is supposed to be about. Semi-auto safeties that sweep down to fire, up to safe and decock.

I do appreciate that this started with your trying to make helpful suggestions. Thanks for that. Let's please get back to that mind set for the benefit of everyone.

In my experience, people don't like controversial threads and will abandon and avoid them. This thread is a good thing and I'm learning a lot. Others are probably learning too. I don't want this thread to die because I'm still gaining knowledge. So please let's be nice and not argue anymore whether we agree or not. Thanks.

You are welcome to it. But I was trying to point out that the facts which formed your opinion aren't necessarily applicable. You are still able to do as you please. You don't even need to answer the questions I raised, but I raised them for the benefit of others.

1) Are other people going to know you carry, and thus a gun is available for the taking?
2) Do you plan on drawing it when use is not justified, thereby placing you in trouble no matter what (whether you shoot or the BG decides to make a grab)?
3) Do you never pay attention to what is going on around you, thus making your carry weapon (if known about) vulnerable?
4) If taking away your gun without being seriously injured is so easy, then why are you worrying about it instead of just planning to take it back?

Feel free to disregard these, but they are food for thought for others who might be worried about the scenario you mentioned. If this worries you that much, you can also wait until a "smart gun" is available, or purchase a retrofit kit for the firearm you choose (they are available, but I and many others aren't remotely interested).

I think benEzra has it right- that sounds more like a stat for police officers, not for civilians with a concealed weapon. LEOs have weapons right out in front of the world, and they often engage in contact with BGs that doesn't involve gunplay, making their weapon vulnerable. You and I will not be doing so, making the risk of having the gun ripped from the holster a moot point.

Technosavant
February 7, 2006, 09:52 PM
wbond, no personal insult was intended nor was one implied, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. The Brady comment was because their misleading stats tend to get sanitized of all context and quoted in other arenas (news reports), thus legitimizing them and confusing reasonable people. I was NOT implying that you had any part in their camp.

I do think my points on the "having gun taken away" are valid, but like I said, you don't have to think as I think- feel free to disagree and disregard. I never said you were an idiot/stupid/gutless/anything of the sort, and I have seen nothing that would indicate such. I don't really care what somebody else carries, as far as having a safety, decocker, neither, or both. I was just trying to point out that if the reason you were limiting your selection to such features was having a BG grab your gun, then you would be safe in expanding your selection. But it's your call.

As for leaving everything else there, that sounds fine, and again I am sorry if my remarks were more personal than they should have been. I was not meaning that.

There have been a number of good suggestions.

hksw
February 7, 2006, 10:38 PM
I don't have any experience with the CZ83 but from looking at its photos ad your description, it seems that the gun decocks as the safety is being applied in an upward motion. Although some of the guns discussed here do decock and provide a safety lever, most of them do so in two seperate operations. For the guns such as the Taurus PT92/99/100/101 and HK USP, the decocking/safety lever is depressed below level to decock and raised above level to activate the safety.

If the decocking safety lever does work as I had described in the first part, i.e. decocking as the safety is applied in one motion, the Bersa Thunder/FireStorm 9mm/.40SW/.45ACP guns work in the same manner. As the safety is applied upward the hammer also decocks, no need to depress the lever to decock.

smince
February 8, 2006, 06:20 PM
wbond:

I'm not going to insult your intelligence, either, I hope. But I wouldn't put my trust in the direction the safety works as my "Last Chance". BG's may not be brilliant, but they aren't always dummies. Choose a weapon you are comfortable with, then work on weapon retention and maybe consider a BUG as a "Last Chance."

Stasher1
February 8, 2006, 08:07 PM
My $.02 here...

If you're involved in a situation where the BG was able to disarm you and use your weapon against you, you:

a) weren't keeping your pistol concealed
b) drew, but waited too long to pull the trigger
c) let the BG get too close (within 7 yards) to start with
d) any combination of the above


No safety in the world will make up for a lack of training, skill, or situational awareness.

SwampWolf
February 12, 2006, 04:09 AM
In the real world (that is, where you can't always control the proximity of bgs; can't always avoid a situation where your handgun might be wrested away from you during a life-and-death struggle; can't always dictate the terms of the confrontation), carrying a pistol with the safety in the "on" position has saved more than a few good guys' lives in the past. The draw-back is a possibly slightly slower time in getting the pistol into play- a deficiency obviated by "training, skill and situational awareness." The upside is that the bg might experience difficulty in figuring out how to get the safety off, giving the gg some precious time to escape or bring other defensive skills into play, including accessing a back-up gun or even a knife.

As noted by a previous poster, my le career may be unduly over-emphasizing the chances of a "civilian" being disarmed and having his own weapon being used against him. But make no mistake: the statistics alluded to by wbond are very real ones. Carrying a pistol in either mode (safety on or safety off) has advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the individual armed citizen to decide which application is best for him/her. And there are no right or wrong answers to the dilemma...

wbond
February 15, 2006, 12:04 AM
To hksw:

Thanks for your post. Regarding the CZ-83, I own 3 of them. One in .32 ACP, another in .380 ACP, and one in 9x18. The 9x18 is my favorite, but I like them all. They are identical, other than caliber.

CZ-83 safeties are NOT decockers. The safety can only be applied when the hammer is cocked (to facilitate cocked and locked carry). Decocking is accomplished the old fashioned way (with finger on trigger and thumb on hammer). When not cocked, the safety cannot engage, which makes it just like carrying an uncocked revolver.

I don't yet know about the other guns you described, except the Bersa Thunder 9mm, which does work exactly like I want. The Taurus work exactly like I want too, but they're so hideously square and ugly. I know I'm being vain, but I want a bit of looks. Another poster said life is to short to spend with an ugly gun. I know it's vain, but I agree.

Guns that sound like what I want are the Bersa Thunder 9, many Taurus, and at least one HK. There's a few others I want to check out too.

Thanks

I don't have any experience with the CZ83 but from looking at its photos ad your description, it seems that the gun decocks as the safety is being applied in an upward motion. Although some of the guns discussed here do decock and provide a safety lever, most of them do so in two seperate operations. For the guns such as the Taurus PT92/99/100/101 and HK USP, the decocking/safety lever is depressed below level to decock and raised above level to activate the safety.

If the decocking safety lever does work as I had described in the first part, i.e. decocking as the safety is applied in one motion, the Bersa Thunder/FireStorm 9mm/.40SW/.45ACP guns work in the same manner. As the safety is applied upward the hammer also decocks, no need to depress the lever to decock.

wbond
February 15, 2006, 12:06 AM
To Smince:

Your advice is sound. Obviously. However, no plan is a guarantee. Sometimes plans go awry. Never the less, your plan is sound advice and worth following.

No safety is a guarantee either, but I still want one.

What is a BUG?

wbond:

I'm not going to insult your intelligence, either, I hope. But I wouldn't put my trust in the direction the safety works as my "Last Chance". BG's may not be brilliant, but they aren't always dummies. Choose a weapon you are comfortable with, then work on weapon retention and maybe consider a BUG as a "Last Chance."

wbond
February 15, 2006, 12:23 AM
To Stasher1:

All you said is true, but I still want a safety and not just for BG reasons. There are other good reasons to have a safety.

Rather than debate the good reasons for having a safety, let me just point out that they make them for a reason. Likewise, other guns are made without them for a reason.

We all try to plan life as best we can, but any plan can unravel. Your a, b, c, and d are all true, but ask any coach in any sport and they'll tell you that the best game plans don't always pan out and sometimes you have to improvise. Likewise, any competitive athelete would say the same.

Your a-d plan below is sound and worth following, but there are no guarantees that you will get to follow all of those rules.

I don't think there is any harm in having a safety and there are possible benefits. Yes, there are people who forget to let the saftety off. I know one guy who goes to the shooting range and habitiually can't pull the trigger because his safety is on and he forgot it. However, I'm not him.

I can remember to follow your a-d steps when possible and put off the safety too. The problem with your a-d plan is that sometimes life doesn't go as planned.

One time I came home and a stealthy home intruder was waiting for me. He got the drop on me because he knew I was coming home and I had no idea he had broken in. Life comes at you fast and the unexpected can happen. So although your a-d rules are good to follow when possible; you cannot be guaranteed the chance to follow all of them all the time. I survived by having my gun well concealed and leaving it there (I followed your rule a). Your rules b, c, and d did not apply to that situation because he was 2 feet from me when I walked in the door. He was so close I could smell his bad breath. He didn't walk up to me. He was on the other side of my front door waiting when I opened it.

I don't think a gun safety is a guarantee for me or anyone. There are no guarantees. Your rules are no guarantee either because you might not be able to follow them. However, they are worth following to the greatest extent possible. It was your first rule that saved me from having to wrestle for a gun (I kept it concealed). Your first rule helped to compensate for the other rules being already out the window (to close) before the confrontation started.

Whether you agree or not, I want a safety and a decocker. I really wish you guys would devote your expertise to helping me find what I'm looking for: a 9mm Para with a safety and decocker that has a low bore axis and weighs from 27 oz to 32 oz unloaded. Ideal would be 28 oz to 30 oz unloaded.

I know the features I want. Please help me find it.

Thanks

My $.02 here...

If you're involved in a situation where the BG was able to disarm you and use your weapon against you, you:

a) weren't keeping your pistol concealed
b) drew, but waited too long to pull the trigger
c) let the BG get too close (within 7 yards) to start with
d) any combination of the above


No safety in the world will make up for a lack of training, skill, or situational awareness.

wbond
February 15, 2006, 12:44 AM
In the real world (that is, where you can't always control the proximity of bgs; can't always avoid a situation where your handgun might be wrested away from you during a life-and-death struggle; can't always dictate the terms of the confrontation), carrying a pistol with the safety in the "on" position has saved more than a few good guys' lives in the past. The draw-back is a possibly slightly slower time in getting the pistol into play- a deficiency obviated by "training, skill and situational awareness." The upside is that the bg might experience difficulty in figuring out how to get the safety off, giving the gg some precious time to escape or bring other defensive skills into play, including accessing a back-up gun or even a knife.

As noted by a previous poster, my le career may be unduly over-emphasizing the chances of a "civilian" being disarmed and having his own weapon being used against him. But make no mistake: the statistics alluded to by wbond are very real ones. Carrying a pistol in either mode (safety on or safety off) has advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the individual armed citizen to decide which application is best for him/her. And there are no right or wrong answers to the dilemma...

Technosavant
February 15, 2006, 08:46 AM
BUG = Back Up Gun

LE Career = Law Enforcement Career

Manedwolf
February 15, 2006, 09:01 AM
That is the way they were originally made (well, without the decocker, anyway), but the "powers that be"(read: bureaucrats) have declared the slide-mounted safety/decocker to be the prefered method of operation.

Which is why I actually prefer the Taurus to the Beretta. My thumb can find the frame-mounted ambi safety (Taurus) a LOT easier on a draw than it can the slide-mounted one of the Beretta.

Trainman
February 16, 2006, 10:19 PM
What is a Skyy?
This is a SKYY:
http://www.skyyindustries.com/

Heraclid
May 14, 2006, 08:38 AM
Sorry, a bit late to this, but the Browning Pro-9 seems to fit the bill. Frame-mounted combination safety/decocker. All the way up for safe, downward sweep to middle position to fire, all the way down for decocking like a Sig or H&K USP. The setup and feel of it is such that you won't accidentally decock the gun when switching from safe to fire. It is also ambidextrous. Weight is where you want it too (polymer frame). Would be worth a look I think. I'm very new to mine but I really like it. Depends on the grip you like I suppose. It's a double-stack 16 rounder and it is fine with me, but slimmer guns could be had.

I'm not trying to be an arse, but I cannot in good conscience let the Skyy thing go untouched. Do what I did when I was searching for a handgun - read the Skyy forum there and see if you would be willing to rely on that firearm. I sure wouldn't. Sorry, but reliability is everything.

Autolycus
May 15, 2006, 08:41 AM
Wbond: In regards to the safety issue, many cops carry Glocks and other firearms with no safety other than a trigger safety and internal safeties. I would not worry about it as much.

But if you insist on a safety try an HK USP or HK USPc in a Variant 1 or Variant 2 configuration. Variant 2 is the left handed configuration. And I believe there is an ambidextrous safety avilable as an aftermarket part but I am not sure where.

Pilot
May 15, 2006, 09:14 AM
I love my CZ83s, but I don't like that I can't put the safety on when the hammer is not cocked.

Do you have a problem with carrying a DA revolver with no safety? Its the same thing. However, if you want a gun with a safety that can be engaged with the hammer decocked, get a Bulgarian Makarov. Similar in size to the CZ83. Others are the Beretta 84 and 85 series, and HK USP.

Juna
May 15, 2006, 09:55 AM
Go pick up a USP Variant 1. It has exactly what you're asking for... a sweep down-to-fire manual safety that also acts as a decocker if you push it further down past the 'fire' position.

If you enjoyed reading about "Want downward sweep decocker type safety" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!