[vito]

I've often thought that the decocker feature on my old Ruger P97 gives me the best of both worlds: a round in the chamber ready to fire and a longer than normal trigger pull on the first round as a safety feature. I wonder why more semi-auto's don't have this feature. Manually lowering the hammer on a chambered round does not seem to be nearly as foolproof or convenient.

[2wheels]

Why would they need them? The only guns that need decockers would be DA/SA guns that are meant to be carried hammer down.

I certainly don't need or want a decocker on my SAO 1911s, I carry them cocked and locked and never need to manually lower the hammer on a chambered round.

[Lucky Derby]

The only gun that "needs" one that doesn't have one, that I can think of, is some of the CZ75s, and even they offer a model that has one.
Striker fired pistols like the Glock, have no hammer to decock. SA pistols, like the 1911, have no reason to be decocked.

[BamAlmighty]

I have the feature on my Sig P226 and Beretta 92FS... can't say I have actually really used them.

[2wheels]

I have the feature on my Sig P226 and Beretta 92FS... can't say I have actually really used them.
How do you decock your guns then? Holding the hammer and pulling the trigger?

[Plan2Live]

Why would they need them? The only guns that need decockers would be DA/SA guns that are meant to be carried hammer down.

And without the decocker you have to hold the hammer with the thumb and pull the trigger to decock them. Not the safest method. That's why decockers are essential to a DA/SA auto, in my opinion. I highly prefer this style pistol for conceal carry but in today's market there are limited models available, especially in the compact/sub-compact range.

[Drail]

There have been enough cases of a pistols firing unexpectedly when being "decocked" that I would never use one. If you have one and use it be prepared for the gun to fire every time you "de cock". If you cannot physically lower a hammer or unload a pistol then a de cocker isn't going to make you any safer. Ask the NYPD about their experiences with "de cocking" a pistol while holding a suspect at gun point while another officer handcuffs him. OOOPS! I would much rather rely on my thumb and muzzle discipline to lower a hammer than a mechanical device that I have no idea if it's working correctly or not while allowing the muzzle to cover things I do not intend to shoot. Most people are probably better off just unloading a pistol than trying to lower a hammer on a chambered round. Or place the pistol on "safe". No one seemed to worry about this when everyone was carrying SA and DA revolvers that needed to be "de cocked". It's a miracle every revolver shooter hasn't blown both their feet off or killed all of their friends. For some reason now we have lots of people who believe the danger is simply too great. What's changed?

[BamAlmighty]

How do you decock your guns then? Holding the hammer and pulling the trigger?

While pointing in a safe direction... a fact of life coming from the 1911 world.

[robinkevin]

I agree with others I ride the hamer down even if using a decocker. Its old school but it works.

[Walkalong]

I hate decockers, they give me the heebie jeebies. I cut my teeth on the 1911, so the decocker is just foreign to my way of thinking. Safety off, fire. Hammer falls, it should fire. If I want a double action autoloader, I'll get one. No need in the world for a decocker.

[PONTIACDM]

I have had decockers on and off my whole life. I've never had a reason not to trust them. That doesn't mean I point it at someone and try it. The only stories I've heard was with Ruger. I believe back in the day they had a recall on the P89 for the decockers, I think. I'd bet money a big majority of those were operator error. It was probably convenient to blame the decocker to cover their butt.

[06]

A bud has a hole in the floor of his PU because of a decocker. Have always used my thumb and as an added safety I place a finger under the hammer---just in case my thumb might slide. Do not want any part of a decocker-just not comfortable with dropping a hammer onto a loaded barrel.

[chicharrones]

For those that don't know, there are at least two types of decockers that I know of.

1 - the type that essentially "dry fires" the gun (Beretta, Bersa, etc.)

2 - the type that lowers the hammer at slow controllable speed (CZ, Sig, etc.)

As shown in this video by someone else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O67gOSZI1RQ

[EddieNFL]

Decocker = Solution still looking for a problem.

[chicharrones]

I don't see it that way, Eddie.

A proper functioning decocker makes pulling the trigger unnecessary. Pulling the trigger to decock will bypass the firing pin block which could allow the firing pin to strike a live cartridge if the hammer slips past a thumb.

There are guns that have no manual safety that do have decockers. While not necessary for a range gun that the magazine will be emptied everytime, a decocker is a useful tool for a DA/SA gun used in the field if and when a magazine is not emptied.

Of course, decocking manually is easily done and I've done it with handguns and long guns. However, some of these modern handguns have really small hammer spurs and don't have much for a thumb to hang onto when being decocked manually.

[HOOfan_1]

While pointing in a safe direction...

I do the same when I use a decocker....shouldn't we always be pointing a gun in a safe direction to begin with?


1 - the type that essentially "dry fires" the gun (Beretta, Bersa, etc.)

2 - the type that lowers the hammer at slow controllable speed (CZ, Sig, etc.)


My FNP decocks to the half cock position, it doesn't get close to the firing pin stop plate.

[Carl N. Brown]

The decocker on the CZ-52 is notorious for becoming dangerous after a little wear and tear. Even using the decocker, I keep my thumb on the hammer. I actually do the same on the H&K USP even though its decocker is more robust. I will say that using the decocker is less likely to fire the gun unintentionally than holding the hammer and pulling the trigger. The muzzle should be in a safe direction no matter what.

As far as more guns having decockers, the answer is there are arguments for and against the idea, same as arguments for and against magazine safeties or grip safeties. I tend toward the keep it simple and uncomplicated school.

[Shadow 7D]

Let not forget
what stops the decocker, many of the designs have a brute force type hammer block or a rotating safety that blocks the FP when decocking

gist is, enough hits and the hammer block is likely to fail,
I like the CZ 82, it has a hammer block thats raised at the base of the hammer
you decock it by pulling the trigger while holding the hammer (I put the web of my hand between the hammer and FP)

let go of the trigger raised the hammer and you slowly lower it. As long as you let go of the trigger once the hammer is off the sear you are reasonably safe. Compare that to a P 64 that drops the hammer on the safety barrel. Pretty standard to find one with a broken safety, cracked right through.

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

Jeff Cooper & Gun Nut paranoia.

[breeze010]

In all honesty, the decocker on my P95 (only gun with one) makes me nervous. Something about the hammer dropping on a live round just unsettles me. Still, I realize it is probably safer than simply pulling the trigger down and riding the hammer down with a thumb. Of course I always have the muzzle in a 'safe' direction...but I don't really want to shoot anything in my home, so I use the decocker, ride the hammer down with my other hand and usually have a finger to block the hammer just in case.

May sound a little extreme but I would rather be paranoid and spend the extra second than have an AD/ND caused by a faulty DC in my house. If I'm at the range shooting and need to DC for whatever reason (practice DA pull, etc) then I simply use the DC while the gun is pointed downrange. If the DC does fail then at least I can be sure exactly where the round is heading. Maybe after a few more years or more guns with DCs I will feel more comfortable but for now I'll continue taking all the precautions I can.

[Drail]

If you're going to use one expect the gun to fire every time and know where it's going to go.

[HOOfan_1]

If you're going to use one expect the gun to fire every time and know where it's going to go.

the same could be said of lowering the hammer by pulling the trigger and lowering it with your thumb

[EddieNFL]

Jeff Cooper & Gun Nut paranoia.
Bingo!

[Plan2Live]

Prior to this year my only pistol has been a S&W 459 with decocker that I bought in 1986. I normally only use the decocker when preparing the gun for home defense/self defense and not general range use. I have ALWAYS pointed it in a safe direction, without being told to do so, and so far it has never failed. I was decocking my Winchester Model 1890 .22 short rifle (external hammer) once and it slipped and fired. Granted, I was much younger but considering the manual method has failed me and the decocker has not I'm more comfortable with the decocker. Just one man's opinion.

[ATLDave]

Because relatively few people want both a safety and a de-cocker, and lots of people would rather have the safety, which allows for Condition One, than a de-cocker.

[Red Cent]

I have used and carried a 1911 45acp for over 40 years. I carry cocked and locked. It stays that way. If, for some reason I want to empty the pistol, say in the house, I drop the mag, rack the slide, and drop the hammer.

A decocker on a 1911. Something about a boar hog comes to mind.

In USPSA or IDPA, you will be asked to do this after every stage.

[we are not amused]

the same could be said of lowering the hammer by pulling the trigger and lowering it with your thumb

Actually, it was said, several times.:banghead:

I prefer the method of lowering the hammer with my thumb, even if using a de-cocker. Of course the gun is pointed in a safe direction when I do so, that goes without saying. Hopefully, those who use the de-cocker are also pointing the gun in a safe direction.

Hopefully, anyone "playing" with a gun, is always keeping it pointed in a safe direction.

I don't trust de-cockers, and have only limited faith in safeties. Never had a safety fail on me yet, except for the thumb safety on a 1911, which is why I don't put unlimited faith in them.

Yes it was physical damage on the 1911, from a previous owner, since fixed, but I just don't trust safety devices on almost anything. If they fail, but you are keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction, no harm, if they fail and you have the gun pointed in a unsafe direction, disaster.

Before some idiot accuses me of not using safeties because I don't trust them, nothing could be further from the truth, I use them, I just don't trust them, or depend on them to keep me safe.

[holdencm9]

Let not forget
what stops the decocker, many of the designs have a brute force type hammer block or a rotating safety that blocks the FP when decocking

gist is, enough hits and the hammer block is likely to fail,

Likely twice as many hits as shots you'll ever put through the gun.

I don't mind decockers, I have a Beretta 92 that I am not at all worried about the decocker failing (not that I point it at people while decocking anyway), I also don't mind SAO condition 1, glock "safe action" etc. They are all different but it is just personal preference and what you intend to do with it. As I understand it one of the biggest knocks against it is for IDPA you have to start with safety on, and first shot without cocking, so with a Beretta has to be DA, so people have to learn 2 trigger pulls essentially. With 1911's condition 1 or Glocks/XD's it is only one trigger to learn. Is that the case? I can see why some people and the military like the DA/SA w/ decocker. I can also see why people dislike them for competition.

[1911Tuner]

If the day ever comes that I no longer have the manual dexterity to safely lower a hammer, I'll sell the guns and take up needlepoint.

[EddieNFL]

Couple of months ago I was SOing a club match. One of the shooters in my squad was using a Beretta 92 and experienced several malfunctions. Each time he would tap, rack he unintentionally engaged the safety. Wreaked havoc on his scores. Would have been much uglier in a gunfight.

[PT92]

I have used the decocker on my PT-92 and P95 for years now absent any issues--However, with the one caveat being that I still use my thumb on the hammer to be sure as Murphy's Law always has a way of occurring somewhere/sometime.

-Happy Holidays

[saturno_v]

To the OP

Most of the reasons are costs..DA/SA pistols with decocker are expensive to produce.....you will find some people trying to justify how a striker fired pistol with no external hammer can be better in some situations...again, main reason is cost (one of the most appealing feature of Glock to the bean counters of Law Enforecement agencies).

Personally, even when I decock I still use my thumb and forefinger to hold the hammer and lower it down in a controlled way and of course I keep the gun pointed in a safe direction....there is not such thing as being too cautious when handling firearms...

[1SOW]

Does a revolver have a "decocker"? Why not?
A decocker is not needed for safety.
A decocker adds needless hardware (and trigger pull) to the pistol's action.
For the person who shoots one box of ammo per/year to test the gun, a decocker might "slightly" improve safety. Said person is likely to be dangerous, with or without a decocker.

[Zerodefect]

Why would I ever decock my 1911? LOLz.:neener:

My Ruger P95 had a terrible 1st trigger pull, it was like I had to say a prayer as I was pulling the trigger, and believe me there is time with the Rugers slow heavy trigger pull, just to make sure my 1st shot actually hit the target.

I know cops like 50 pound trigger pulls, but sheesh. I switched to Glocks and 1911's as soon as I out grew the 9mm Ruger P95, and noticed a huge decrease in my 1st shot out of the holster time.

[GLOOB]

You want MORE? Seems like every modern DA/SA handgun made, today, has one. I think someone mentioned some model CZ not having one. So I guess there's at least one.

Can anyone else think of another modern DA/SA semiauto that doesn't have a decocker??

Personally, even when I decock I still use my thumb and forefinger to hold the hammer.
STILL use? I would never decock a gun manually this way. Even if it has a commando hole or is skeletonized with cutouts, the hammer is still a relatively flat-sided object. Pinching it between thumb and forefinger relies primarily on friction to hold the hammer back. A little sweat, oil, or grease could give you a really bad day.

I'm comfortable decocking just about any gun, manually, on the range. But in my home or other area where a gunshot is unacceptable, I only do it if the gun has a trigger activated firing pin safety. It adds a lot of extra insurance in case your thumb slips. The way I do it is to make sure the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction. Then make sure the hammer is positively blocked with the tip of my thumb or the base of my offhand index finger physically wedged between the hammer and slide when I pull the trigger and then IMMEDIATELY RELEASE IT. If my thumb slips, then I just get pinched. Then I get my finger out of the trigger guard before unblocking the hammer and letting it down the rest of the way. If my thumb slips, now, then hopefully the FP safety is in good working order.

I have actually removed the decocker on a couple of my guns. But it wasn't because I don't trust them.

On my FNX, the levers were in the way of my grip. I completely removed the levers and now decock it manually. It has a positive trigger activated firing pin safety. The other is one of my CCW's, a polish P64. It has a horrible DA trigger pull, and the only firing pin block is the manual safety. From what I can see, hammer down, safety off is the LEAST drop safe way to carry it. A blow to the back of the hammer can defeat the trigger activated "half cock" notch, sending a round upwards. This is what appears to have happened from two separate user reported AD's with this frearm. In both cases, the gun was dropped and sent a round skyward. One through the guy's arm. The other just put a hole in a fella's ceiling, about a foot away from his head. So rather than carry it with the manual safety on AND a 25 lb trigger pull, I modified it so I can carry it cocked and locked. Of course, I completely understand the inner workings and safety features, otherwise I woulda left it alone. The manual safety on this gun stays on all the time unless its being fired.

[makarovnik]

Love my P95DC. No safety to worry about.

[Dogguy]

I used to shoot 1911s. Didn't need no stinkin' decocker. But one night about 25 years ago, I dropped the hammer on a 1911 without meaning to and...well, I've changed my mind since then.

I own several brands of DA/SA autos that have decockers. Many of them have safety/decockers which I do not particularly care for. Many drop the hammer instead of lowering it gently--I don't like that too much. Many have the decockers on the slide, another feature I don't particularly care for. I like placement and hammer-lowering mechanism on SIGs. The decockers on the CZs also seem pretty well placed. Then there's the Glocks....

[Jbabbler]

As an aside, my SW99c is a striker fired sub compact with a decocker. I like the feature and find that it really allows the gun designers to give you a superior, light trigger pull when needed and a long, heavy pull for holstering. I like what they did with that and would like to see more striker fired guns with that option.

[Fishbed77]

Most of the reasons are costs..DA/SA pistols with decocker are expensive to produce.....you will find some people trying to justify how a striker fired pistol with no external hammer can be better in some situations...again, main reason is cost (one of the most appealing feature of Glock to the bean counters of Law Enforecement agencies).

As an aside, my SW99c is a striker fired sub compact with a decocker. I like the feature and find that it really allows the gun designers to give you a superior, light trigger pull when needed and a long, heavy pull for holstering. I like what they did with that and would like to see more striker fired guns with that option.

I was about to mention the same thing about my Walther P99AS (SW99 was a liscensed copy of the Walther P99). The P99/SW99 gives you the option of the long (Anti-Stress) first SA pull or to decock to DA. Like you, I like the option to fully decock to DA for carry. There is no manual safety to worry about in an emergency situation, and it cetainly feels safer than somthing like a Glock.

It's a superb system that gives you what I feel is the best trigger pull of any striker-fired pistol out there. You also get all the benefits of a hammer (double-strike capability, visual indication that the gun is cocked, and ability to easily recock) with none of the downsides (hammer bite, snags, a large moving mass that can interfere with accuracy on a very lightweight pistol).

It's truly a unique (and very easy to use) system that I'm surprised no one else tried to copy. It doesn't really differ in operation from any other DA/SA system, so training isn't an issue.

[thunder173]

If the day ever comes that I no longer have the manual dexterity to safely lower a hammer, I'll sell the guns and take up needlepoint.

Amen,....and,...ahem,....AMEN!!!

[brickeyee]

A lot of us find cocked and locked for a 1911 just fine.

[mljdeckard]

They are a convenience. Certainly not a necessity.

[GreyCoupe]

I think a safety and a decocker are redundant. I have handguns with and without dockers, and I prefer to decock on a live round with a slow, controlled action that will not result in an AD if I slip. A sweaty thumb and a trigger release decock leave the firing pin in play. The gun is no longer cocked but ready to fire with one in the chamber, because the guns I have with decockers [Walthers, SIGs], I know they are safe to carry loaded.

If the SHTF, I have one round ready via double action, and a magazine full of single action rounds ready to go. This is one action less than a 1911 requires [moving safety from safe to fire].

In the end, I think both decision points and safety are enhanced by carrying only what you are familiar with.

[EddieNFL]

I used to shoot 1911s. Didn't need no stinkin' decocker. But one night about 25 years ago, I dropped the hammer on a 1911 without meaning to and...well, I've changed my mind since then.

I stand corrected...some folks need them.

[EddieNFL]

This is one action less than a 1911 requires [moving safety from safe to fire].

Distance traveled by the 1911 safety and trigger combined are a good bit less than the trigger travel on every DA I've ever fired. Also, for trained shooters, the safety has no bearing on the speed of the first shot.

[Ar180shooter]

Decockers only have use on DA/SA firearms. How many DA/SA pistols can you name that do not have a decocker of some sort?

[easyg]

Why don't more guns have decockers?

Because there are plenty of shooters who don't like them.


I don't like DA/SA pistols.
I prefer a SA pistol with a manual safety or a Glock style pistol with no manual safety.

I prefer a consistant trigger pull.
I want the trigger to have the same pull weight and the same amount of travel from the very first round to the very last round.

The last thing I want is a 13 lb. long pull followed immediately by a 4 lb. short pull.

[ecureed]

please correct me if i'm wrong, but i've never worried a bit when decocking my CZ P-01 because i've always understood that the firing pin safety prevents the gun from being fired if the trigger is not pulled. well you don't pull the trigger to decock the gun so where is the danger? besides that, the P-01 doesn't decock fully, only to a half-cock notch so i've considered that as a second added safety measure.

my 75b on the other hand that must be decocked manually, now that will heighten the senses!

[balance 740]

I don't understand the comments about how decockers are dangerous. The only way they are dangerous is if one or more parts inside the pistol happen to be broken or fail at the same time. Parts don't only break on DA/SA pistols.

If the sear on a 70-series 1911 fails while the hammer is cocked, what happens to the round in the chamber?

I would have no problem relying on the sear of a 70-series 1911 to keep the hammer cocked, for the same reason that I would have no problem relying on a decocker to decock the hammer or striker on a DA/SA pistol. Is there any modern pistol designed (and by modern I mean designed within the past three decades lets say), with a decocker that has a reputation for failing?

Some DA/SA pistols can't be decocked by hand. Should these pistols be considered unsafe?

I understand if you have a different opinion, but out of curiousity, I'd like to know how you got there. I honestly don't remember hearing of any modern pistol design suffering from a broken decocking mechanism that caused a discharge. I have heard of broken firing pins sticking through a breechface though, and I have heard of worn sears in SA pistols.

In my opinion, it is not an issue worth worrying about.

As for the original question, in my opinion, the only pistols that need decockers, are DA/SA pistols designed to be carried with a DA first shot. DA/SA pistols seem to be losing popularity these days, so you will probably see less and less pistols coming out with decockers because you will see less and less DA/SA pistols.

[sedona]

I don't mind the decockers on my rugers and sigs.When i first got my P95dc i would hold the hammer when i decocked,then i called ruger and was told not to do that.Haven't worried about it since.

[chicharrones]

As for the original question, in my opinion, the only pistols that need decockers, are DA/SA pistols designed to be carried with a DA first shot. DA/SA pistols seem to be losing popularity these days, so you will probably see less and less pistols coming out with decockers because you will see less and less DA/SA pistols.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Metal framed, hammer fired, DA/SA pistols do seem to be fading away. Being that I started on revolvers, that type of pistol is still very appealing to me.

[Bovice]

My experience on this "issue"

-Drawing from a holster on the clock and firing the first shot in DA hardly gives you time to feel the difference. Try it, you'll be hard-pressed to prove to yourself that you felt it being different. Everyone I know who shoots DA/SA pistols says the same thing.

-The argument that repeated hits against a hammer block (such as with the SIG design decocker) will cause it to fail from fatigue aren't really so valid. For any material there will be an S-N curve. For a specified stress (S), the material will survive a certain number of cycles (N). At the relative lower level of stress for a material, there is a magic little number for S (stress) called the fatigue limit. At or below the fatigue limit, the material will have an infinite life. No number of cycles can cause a failure, assuming the stress remains at or below the fatigue limit. Given the apparent workmanship on their firearms and a high reputation for quality, I can guarantee you that their engineers know this. Any mechanical engineer would, for that matter. You can calculate the stress a number of ways. Depending on the geometry it may be simple to calculate by hand. If it's complex, you can use FEM simulation software to do a stress analysis. Then, it's only a matter of material selection. Very simple.