Want downward sweep decocker type safety

[wbond]

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.

 

[Old Dog]

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]

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]

Thanks Old Dog. I'll check those out.

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]

These are decockers?

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]

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]

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]

Para-Ordnance LDA would be another good choice. Thin like a 1911, DAO, and that lovely 1911 safety...

 

[smince]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Winzeler]

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]

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]

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]

Please elaborate

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]

Must be cheaper.

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]

I want the decocker to also be a safety

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]

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]

I could go look it up and then quote back actual cases...

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]

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]

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]

Bersa

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]

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]

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?

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]

Should be about the same unless the fact the CZ has no grip safety makes you feel less safe.