stchman
Member
Lever guns, DA/SA revolvers, and SAO revolvers tend to have much larger spur type hammers. This makes it much much easier to do a one handed de-cock.
Why the DA in an SA/DA pistol without a decocker?
- Thread starter Mike P Wagner
- Start date
- Status
Lever guns, DA/SA revolvers, and SAO revolvers tend to have much larger spur type hammers. This makes it much much easier to do a one handed de-cock.
Mizar
Member
One hand decocking is so crucial, so we decided to shoot almost exclusively with two hands hold?
toivo
Member
Last edited:
stchman
Member
While that is neither a lever gun or a revolver, the hammer is spur-like. The spur hammer is usually quite a bit larger than that.
toivo
Member
Thanks, but it's not mine. I have one, but it isn't as pretty as that!
toivo
Member
On single-action revolvers, yes, but a lot of DA/SA revolvers have a spur about that size.
The spur on the CZ-82 is pretty large and easy to grab. You can see it better here:
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
Is there a brand besides CZ that makes a DA/SA with safety and no decocker? I can't think of anybody.
There are several with combination levers up for safe, down to fire, way down to decock. I had a HK USP V1 like that. I worried about inadvertent decocking, but the HK rep at the NRA convention sloughed me off. Any road, I never did it but I read where HK had strengthened the detent between fire and decock.
There are several with combination levers up for safe, down to fire, way down to decock. I had a HK USP V1 like that. I worried about inadvertent decocking, but the HK rep at the NRA convention sloughed me off. Any road, I never did it but I read where HK had strengthened the detent between fire and decock.
Monac
Member
Mike P Wagner, to me this indicates inexperience with double action pistol design. The Benelli B76, which was Benelli's only combat pistol was designed the same way, and I wondered the same thing about it. At one time there was a now-obscure pistol called the ODI Viking, which was a 1911 converted to double action. It also had no decocker. However, pretty soon after it appeared, it was replaced by the ODI Viking Mark II, which had a big steel button in the side of the slide, so you could lock up the firing pin while thumb-decocking the hammer.
Actually, as others have pointed out here, just having an external hammer implies the ability to decock it, yet only a few SA pistols have a safe means of the doing so. The Radom P-35 is probably the most famous of the ones that do, but the old Bernardelli pocket autos, and the early Bersa SA 22's, 32's, and 380's had two safeties - one a trigger block and one a hammer block. The latter allowed safe decocking. So did the hammer block safety on the French 7.65mm Long military pistols.
Even the HP-25 Phoenix had a hammer block safety to allow safe decocking, although its manual safety system was made even more complicated in order to include a magazine safety function. Remarkable in such an inexpensive gun.
I think the reason so few external-hammer SA pistols, and even some DA pistols, have safe decocking mechanisms is that most people are completely confident in their ability to thumb-decock a pistol safely. And for most people, most of the time, this is true. Yet this is a perfect example of something where if enough people do it enough times, there WILL be an accident. It is a question of when, not if.
Last edited:
<*(((><
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,747
Benelli B76, but can't think of any others, other than the CZ clones obviously.
Monac beat me to it.
Mizar
Member
There were/are several, not counting the CZ 75 clones from different manufacturers: H&k USP variant 9/10, early Beretta 84 series, Beretta 92, Korth DA pistol, Viking MP446/MR443 Grach. There were more, but I'm too lazy to search right now...
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Another example. A Ruger GP100 next to a CZ82 next to a CZ75D PCR. Both CZ hammers are at half cock.
View attachment 787549
Jim Watson
Member
More than I remembered.
One thing to watch out for, some decockers lower the hammer to half or quarter cock.
If you are shooting IDPA, that is OK, but if you are manually decocking a CZ, the hammer must be all the way down.
One thing to watch out for, some decockers lower the hammer to half or quarter cock.
If you are shooting IDPA, that is OK, but if you are manually decocking a CZ, the hammer must be all the way down.
zaitcev
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,256
The DA works off half-cock in my Beretta 84, so it's not a problem. In fact, it's better to lower the hammer to half-cock, which makes the gun somewhat drop-safe.
Monac
Member
All this reminds of a vintage Whitney Wolverine 22 target pistol I once owned. It was in pretty worn condition. Not only would the cartridge case rim blow out most of the time, pulling the trigger when the oddly shaped hammer was at half cock would drop the hammer. I found both of these qualities disconcerting, and decided that there were other guns I would rather own and shoot. I sold it well before the prices on them went way up, unfortunately.
It was an ingenious gun, though. It came apart in a very interesting and elegant way, as I recall, and the magazines were well designed.
It was an ingenious gun, though. It came apart in a very interesting and elegant way, as I recall, and the magazines were well designed.
Last edited:
nettlle
Contributing Member
I personally don't care to decock loaded hammer guns with the hammer unless outdoors were a possible discharge wouldn't be a problem. I have rabbit hunted with a M97 and do know how to use a hammer. If I need to decock a loaded semi-auto pistol indoors I will drop the mag and rack the slide to eject the live round in the chamber and then lower the hammer. Decocker isn't a necessity but not a bad feature .
Walt Sherrill
Member
zaitcev said:
The half-cock notch was apparently intended to prevent a full-force hammer strike of the firing pin IF the hammer slipped off the sear while a hammer-fired gun was being handled.
The Beretta 84 B and BB models had a firing pin safety and those models were considered SAFE when carried hammer down. The standard Beretta 84 does not have the firing pin safety feature. ( I have a Browning BDA 380, which is internally the same as the 84 B or BB and was built for Browning/FN by Beretta.) The fact that Beretta felt it necessary to offer additional models of the 81-87 models with B and BB versions might suggest that Beretta didn't consider the half-cock notch a good drop safe mechanism.
stchman
Member
Then how does one safely de-cock a loaded gun?
TN Outlaw
Member
I don't mind lowering a hammer manually either. I'm quite content with doing so and have for years with no issues but a decocker is quicker, easier, and safer. It can also accomplish one handed decocking which is a big plus. It's just more convenient to me and instead of the majority of my concentration going to the hammer/trigger I can easily keep my mind on the direction my firearm is pointing as I simply push down a lever.
It's not a make or break thing for me but an option I prefer for reasons listed above.
It's not a make or break thing for me but an option I prefer for reasons listed above.
lsudave
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,042
Lowering a hammer manually is a learned skill, I guess. For what it's worth, I often find myself lowering the hammer manually on guns that have decockers, since I'm so used to the CZ 75 and doing it that way. This includes my Sig P226 and Beretta 92FS.
I do keep the muzzle in a safe direction when I do.
Doing it unloaded helps a lot in becoming accustomed to the trigger break, I find.
The one pistol I make a conscious point of NOT doing so, is my Savage 1907. That's because it's not really a hammer, but a striker indicator. I've tried it unloaded, and have never felt comfortable with being able to control the speed at which it moves.
I do keep the muzzle in a safe direction when I do.
Doing it unloaded helps a lot in becoming accustomed to the trigger break, I find.
The one pistol I make a conscious point of NOT doing so, is my Savage 1907. That's because it's not really a hammer, but a striker indicator. I've tried it unloaded, and have never felt comfortable with being able to control the speed at which it moves.
My interest in sa/da pistols as a modern american civilian requires a decocker. Those without were not designed for peacetime armed civilians. The most danger I am most likely to be in is a freak accident, so that hammer slip accident is suddenly a *relatively* a bigger danger compared to the other dangers I am prepared for.
To understand a design that doesn't have a decocker, you would have to understand how the Czech and Russian military trained with these weapons back in the day. That's something I don't know. How did they carry these pistols? Did they carry without one in the chamber? If not, then decocking a loaded gun is not something that happened as much outside of the firing range or a combat zone. People were used to decocking revolvers occasionally, and if it was considered something that happened infrequently, maybe it wasn't a big of a deal.
As to whether Russians carried with one in the chamber or not, we can look at how American Soldiers carried the 1911? I think you have to consider that because that would be the type of handgun the perceived adversaries of the cz-75 would have (us!). That I don't know either. Random googling says that they carried it without one in the chamber unless its needed use was imminent. As I understand it, handguns aren't used that often in a war zone, most deaths are a result of artillery or rifles.
I can't attest if this is accurate, maybe someone else can:
https://www.answers.com/Q/What_did_the_marine_soldiers_do_during_World_War_2
To understand a design that doesn't have a decocker, you would have to understand how the Czech and Russian military trained with these weapons back in the day. That's something I don't know. How did they carry these pistols? Did they carry without one in the chamber? If not, then decocking a loaded gun is not something that happened as much outside of the firing range or a combat zone. People were used to decocking revolvers occasionally, and if it was considered something that happened infrequently, maybe it wasn't a big of a deal.
As to whether Russians carried with one in the chamber or not, we can look at how American Soldiers carried the 1911? I think you have to consider that because that would be the type of handgun the perceived adversaries of the cz-75 would have (us!). That I don't know either. Random googling says that they carried it without one in the chamber unless its needed use was imminent. As I understand it, handguns aren't used that often in a war zone, most deaths are a result of artillery or rifles.
I can't attest if this is accurate, maybe someone else can:
https://www.answers.com/Q/What_did_the_marine_soldiers_do_during_World_War_2
What condition or conditions of gun readiness were Soldiers and Marines taught to carry their 1911s in during World War 1 World War 2 Korea and Vietnam?
For today's year 2011 you'll most not likely get any "first hand" accounts from WWI, WWII, and Korean vets as they are all either passed on or over the age of 80 (or close to it)...and those men over 80 probably don't remember with any accuracy. US Army Viet War vets in 1969 were taught "...men this weapon (said while the instructor was holding up the .45) has killed or injured more US military men than any other weapon in the US military inventory (because it was the oldest US weapon still in the system (Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) 1911-1969), it is so dangerous that it has 3 safeties, and unless you are a Military Policeman, involved in direct combat, or otherwise ordered/SOP, if issued this weapon you will carry this sidearm with the magazine in the magazine well but not chambered. When you need to use the sidearm, you will charge the weapon (which will chamber the round)." In South Vietnam most GIs never chambered a round (until needed). And more than once there were found to be chambered rounds, when the men thought the .45 was empty (not chambered). The only line GIs issued the weapon were Patton/Sheridan/ACAV/and some M60 machinegun/recoilless rifle crewmen/mortarmen/artillerymen. Discounting the aviators. Upon returning home civilians introduced to some of the veterans the "term" cocked and locked, which shocked the vast majority of combat veterans. Most GIs in combat preferred rifles over the .45 and considered it "worthless" (GI quote from the war, "if the enemies that close (to where I have use a pistol) then I'll throw it at em!"). When fighting got close and personal, inside the M48 Patton tanks (all crewmen were issued .45s) the driver cocked (chambered) his .45 and let the hammer ease down then drove the tank with one hand with the pistol in the other (the Patton had a steering wheel), sometimes putting the .45 on his lap when he had to use two hands.
For today's year 2011 you'll most not likely get any "first hand" accounts from WWI, WWII, and Korean vets as they are all either passed on or over the age of 80 (or close to it)...and those men over 80 probably don't remember with any accuracy. US Army Viet War vets in 1969 were taught "...men this weapon (said while the instructor was holding up the .45) has killed or injured more US military men than any other weapon in the US military inventory (because it was the oldest US weapon still in the system (Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard) 1911-1969), it is so dangerous that it has 3 safeties, and unless you are a Military Policeman, involved in direct combat, or otherwise ordered/SOP, if issued this weapon you will carry this sidearm with the magazine in the magazine well but not chambered. When you need to use the sidearm, you will charge the weapon (which will chamber the round)." In South Vietnam most GIs never chambered a round (until needed). And more than once there were found to be chambered rounds, when the men thought the .45 was empty (not chambered). The only line GIs issued the weapon were Patton/Sheridan/ACAV/and some M60 machinegun/recoilless rifle crewmen/mortarmen/artillerymen. Discounting the aviators. Upon returning home civilians introduced to some of the veterans the "term" cocked and locked, which shocked the vast majority of combat veterans. Most GIs in combat preferred rifles over the .45 and considered it "worthless" (GI quote from the war, "if the enemies that close (to where I have use a pistol) then I'll throw it at em!"). When fighting got close and personal, inside the M48 Patton tanks (all crewmen were issued .45s) the driver cocked (chambered) his .45 and let the hammer ease down then drove the tank with one hand with the pistol in the other (the Patton had a steering wheel), sometimes putting the .45 on his lap when he had to use two hands.
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
I have been shooting DA/SA CZs for decades and I find the need to explain this from time to time on forums: 1) Decocking a CZ isn't dangerous if you do it right. 2) The manuals are all written by lawyers and are telling you the wrong way to do things:
1) Absolutely do not use the "Pinch the hammer" technique to lower the hammer
2) Do not lower the hammer by placing your thumb on the textured portion of the hammer spur.
Both of these methods allow for slipping and discharge.
The proper method is as follows:
1) Place your thumb sideways on the strike face of the hammer so that it is between the hammer and the firing pin.
2) Using your thumb, put rearward pressure on the hammer so that it relieves the tension on the sear. **NOTE** Do not pull the hammer fully to the rear. Just put pressure on it.
3) Pull the trigger. You will feel the hammer come off the sear. Once you feel that the hammer is on your thumb and not the sear, let go of the trigger.
*** At this point, even if you slip, the gun can not discharge. The only time the firing pin block was out of place was the brief second you were holding the trigger, and your thumb was blocking the hammers forward travel. ***
4) Gently lower the hammer to the half-cock position using
Done. 0% chance of discharge unless you have problems with your thumbs becoming insubstantial.
This is also a 1 hand operation instead of the previously incorrectly stated 2 hand operation.
I've also never seen a PCR or Phantom accidentally decocked under recoil... not that it would actually be a problem because you just pull the trigger to shoot the gun... like you would even if it stayed cocked.
1) Absolutely do not use the "Pinch the hammer" technique to lower the hammer
2) Do not lower the hammer by placing your thumb on the textured portion of the hammer spur.
Both of these methods allow for slipping and discharge.
The proper method is as follows:
1) Place your thumb sideways on the strike face of the hammer so that it is between the hammer and the firing pin.
2) Using your thumb, put rearward pressure on the hammer so that it relieves the tension on the sear. **NOTE** Do not pull the hammer fully to the rear. Just put pressure on it.
3) Pull the trigger. You will feel the hammer come off the sear. Once you feel that the hammer is on your thumb and not the sear, let go of the trigger.
*** At this point, even if you slip, the gun can not discharge. The only time the firing pin block was out of place was the brief second you were holding the trigger, and your thumb was blocking the hammers forward travel. ***
4) Gently lower the hammer to the half-cock position using
Done. 0% chance of discharge unless you have problems with your thumbs becoming insubstantial.
This is also a 1 hand operation instead of the previously incorrectly stated 2 hand operation.
I've also never seen a PCR or Phantom accidentally decocked under recoil... not that it would actually be a problem because you just pull the trigger to shoot the gun... like you would even if it stayed cocked.
GBExpat
Member
Especially those of us who have been doing this for a long time ... and of those, especially those who have spent a lot of time carrying 1911 or variants in Condition 1.
FWIW, I have never been comfortable (and probably never will be) dropping a hammer on a loaded chamber with a Decocker.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
The Czech and Russian military didn't train with CZ-75s. Contrary to popular rumor, the CZ-75 was not designed for domestic military use. It's a 9mm gun in a world of Makarovs and Tokarevs. The CZ-75 wouldn't see domestic use for a decade after it's creation.
- Status
