Legal starting condition for CZ-75BD in Limited

[lawboy]

What exactly is your problem with shooting the first shot double action?

If you think it is a handicap, it is nothing compared to losing points to major guns with every B,C, or D hit.

Dry fire for 10 minutes each day for a week and you will be over it. If you dry fire for 3 weeks and work in a draw, target acquisition, and transition into the drill, it will put you miles ahead of where you are now without having to fire a shot in competition.

That is a simple drill: Draw, acquire target, press trigger, transition to second target, press trigger. Do this 20 times every morning before leaving for work and again when you get home. 21 days and you won't even notice the first double action trigger stroke.

If you are going to play, don't make decisions designed to AVOID ANYTHING. Train.

[aztecdriver]

Now the OP has a different problem, since he has no safety. His gun MUST be decocked (with the decocker, or manually, makes no diff) before it is holstered.

Not quite correct. Decocker equipped guns must be decocked using the decocker -- decocking them by using the trigger results in a match DQ:

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

Nik,

I've got a problem with this. While I see what you are saying, it's the same safety concern. Your dqing someone for doing something deemed safe with differing equipment. This needs a tweek in the wording. If someone wishes to decock manually, they should be permitted to do so safely.

[Nik Habicht]

Now the OP has a different problem, since he has no safety. His gun MUST be decocked (with the decocker, or manually, makes no diff) before it is holstered.

Not quite correct. Decocker equipped guns must be decocked using the decocker -- decocking them by using the trigger results in a match DQ:

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

Nik,

I've got a problem with this. While I see what you are saying, it's the same safety concern. Your dqing someone for doing something deemed safe with differing equipment. This needs a tweek in the wording. If someone wishes to decock manually, they should be permitted to do so safely.

Aztec,

with respect no it doesn't. A gun with a decocker is not equivalent to the same model gun without a decocker. Assuming no parts breakage on either gun, utilizing a decocker to lower the hammer usually prevents the firing pin from making contact with a primer. Doing the same thing manually, does not guarantee that. Let your thumb or fingers slip and the gun fired. Slip on a decocker, and the worst thing that hap[pens is that the hammer remains cocked, and you do it again....

If a gun has a decocker as a safety measure, it must be used, as that is safer than placing a finger on the trigger. If a gun does not, then the trigger may be used.

Or, we could resolve this simply by not allowing DA/SA without a decocker to play in USPSA -- but I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind.....

[aztecdriver]

Now the OP has a different problem, since he has no safety. His gun MUST be decocked (with the decocker, or manually, makes no diff) before it is holstered.

Not quite correct. Decocker equipped guns must be decocked using the decocker -- decocking them by using the trigger results in a match DQ:

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

Nik,

I've got a problem with this. While I see what you are saying, it's the same safety concern. Your dqing someone for doing something deemed safe with differing equipment. This needs a tweek in the wording. If someone wishes to decock manually, they should be permitted to do so safely.

Aztec,

with respect no it doesn't. A gun with a decocker is not equivalent to the same model gun without a decocker. Assuming no parts breakage on either gun, utilizing a decocker to lower the hammer usually prevents the firing pin from making contact with a primer. Doing the same thing manually, does not guarantee that. Let your thumb or fingers slip and the gun fired. Slip on a decocker, and the worst thing that hap[pens is that the hammer remains cocked, and you do it again....

If a gun has a decocker as a safety measure, it must be used, as that is safer than placing a finger on the trigger. If a gun does not, then the trigger may be used.

Or, we could resolve this simply by not allowing DA/SA without a decocker to play in USPSA -- but I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind.....

Basically that's exactly what I had in mind - based on your position. If manual decocking is such a safety concern that we will dq someone for not using a decocker despite doing so safely - then we should not allow it period. As we know, manual decocking is something we know can be done safely and something regularly done with very little issue. You are advocating to dq someone for doing a normally regularly done procedure by other people because of a feature on the gun. I'm not arguing the advantages of a decocking system. I'm arguing the act of manual decocking is exactly the same from one with and one without. One is perfectly acceptable and the other is a dq - because of a feature on a pistol. If for one person it's considered safe gun handling - the exact same action can not be considered unsafe by someone else simply because they have another option available to them to bring the hammer down.

If this position is the truth, the rules in D4 should clearly state " if the pistol has a decocker available, it must be used to decock the hammer. A violation of this rule will be a match disqualification. (10.5)" as it is, it's an obscure reference to an exception to the rule for finger in the trigger guard during loading.

I'll ask john.

[sperman]

Considering hammers were lowered without a decocker several thousand times at the production nationals wtihout an AD, I have a hard time considering this procedure dangerous.

[Nik Habicht]

Both of you -- it's a matter of risk management. Why would you want to introduce a potentially riskier human element, when a safer mechanical option to accomplish the same thing exists? I don't want to defend the liability issues involved in a hammer-lowering AD that travels in an unsafe direction, and I really don't want to defend it if a potentially safer option exists but isn't exercised because of a perceived unfairness.....

A CZ-75 isn't the same thing as a CZ-75 with a decocker. We don't want fingers in the trigger guard during loading. We make an exception for two narrow classes of firearms -- to not exclude them from competition -- and in doing so strike a balance between safety and exclusion.

Note that the exemption also covers Revolver shooters shooting guns without hammer spurs -- because apparently it's important to be able to spin the loaded cylinder, to ensure that the moonclip will rotate without binding......

Again -- balance.

[aztecdriver]

Nik,

I disagree with you. The action - regardless of the platform - is the same. Either the action is safe or it's not. If you have such a problem with the action so as to dq someone for not using a decocker, imho, you should not allow it period.

As I said, we'll see what DNROI says - I'm pretty sure i'm not getting you off your opinion and you sure aren't going to get me off mine. I respect that. Let's let some others help us.

[cnote]

slight drift, but the decocker leaves a CZ half cock, and manually it has to go to full decock. This was instituted a few years back via a published ruling prior to the current rule book if I am not mistaken. Wondering if the reason behind this was people attempting to get it manually to the half position with AD results.

Edited October 30, 2013 by cnote

[Nik Habicht]

slight drift, but the decocker leaves a CZ half cock, and manually it has to go to full decock. This was instituted a few years back via a published ruling prior to the current rule book if I am not mistaken. Wondering if the reason behind this was people attempting to get it manually to the half position with AD results.

That was part of it -- the internals may be designed differently on some semi-autos, depending on whether the particular version has a decocker or not......

[aztecdriver]

slight drift, but the decocker leaves a CZ half cock, and manually it has to go to full decock. This was instituted a few years back via a published ruling prior to the current rule book if I am not mistaken. Wondering if the reason behind this was people attempting to get it manually to the half position with AD results.

It's a good point - although it's slightly skewed in what you say - funny, I can't find the ruling... maybe someone will have better luck.

Here's the deal, decocker does indeed leave the hammer at a less than flush fully decocked, but - if you use the decocker - the gun is deemed fully decocked where it lands. There were those that were lowering the hammer and stopping at a half cock without the decocker and equating that to decocked because that's where it landed with the decocker - that is not the case.

If the decocker is used, where the decocker leaves it - it's decocked.

If I'm wrong, i'm going to need a link to the rule.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

I disagree with you. The action - regardless of the platform - is the same. Either the action is safe or it's not. If you have such a problem with the action so as to dq someone for not using a decocker, imho, you should not allow it period.

As I said, we'll see what DNROI says - I'm pretty sure i'm not getting you off your opinion and you sure aren't going to get me off mine. I respect that. Let's let some others help us.

Aztec,

here's the real question: If you're ROing a shooter with a Sig 226 in Production, and at LAMR he lowers the hammer by pulling the trigger, rather than using the decocker, what call do you make?

And here's a hypothetical: You're given two choices, and have no other options. Someone will point a cocked gun at your head and decock it. Would you prefer that they lower the hammer manually, or use the decocking mechanism (which includes a hammer block, that would prevent a falling hammer from impacting the firing pin) built into the gun?

I get the fact that many people accomplish this safely on the range, and that with some guns the end result is perfectly safe (CZ-75b comes to mind). I'm not willing to assume I know more than the engineers who designed some guns with decockers, that leave the hammer in a position other than fully down. I have to assume that there is a reason behind their "madness", especially when the owner's manual recommends to only decock the piece using the decocker....

[aztecdriver]

Nik,

I disagree with you. The action - regardless of the platform - is the same. Either the action is safe or it's not. If you have such a problem with the action so as to dq someone for not using a decocker, imho, you should not allow it period.

As I said, we'll see what DNROI says - I'm pretty sure i'm not getting you off your opinion and you sure aren't going to get me off mine. I respect that. Let's let some others help us.

Aztec,

here's the real question: If you're ROing a shooter with a Sig 226 in Production, and at LAMR he lowers the hammer by pulling the trigger, rather than using the decocker, what call do you make?

And here's a hypothetical: You're given two choices, and have no other options. Someone will point a cocked gun at your head and decock it. Would you prefer that they lower the hammer manually, or use the decocking mechanism (which includes a hammer block, that would prevent a falling hammer from impacting the firing pin) built into the gun?

I get the fact that many people accomplish this safely on the range, and that with some guns the end result is perfectly safe (CZ-75b comes to mind). I'm not willing to assume I know more than the engineers who designed some guns with decockers, that leave the hammer in a position other than fully down. I have to assume that there is a reason behind their "madness", especially when the owner's manual recommends to only decock the piece using the decocker....

Nik,

At this point, I'm going to have to not make any call. He decocked the gun, did it safely without ADing and to be honest with you - I would not be able to tell you which Sig's have decockers and which don't - or which CZ's have them - and which don't. They aren't in my experience - and i can't expect every RO to know every gun and it's capabilities. It's completely unreasonable.

Your hypothetical is bs. Here's why 1. there is no way, hypothetical or not, someone is putting a gun to my head. and if that happened there's another one coming the other direction quick fast and in a hurry. 2. No one lowering their hammer is ever pointing the gun in an unsafe direction. They know they are doing something that if a slip occurs, it needs to go down range.

I am not buying your argument. ONCE AGAIN, if lowering the hammer manually is so dangerous that we are going to DQ someone for not taking advantage of a Decocker, yet, executes the manuever as safely as one without - we need to stop allowing guns without decockers.

And I still disagree - and I'll respectfully wait for someone with other input.

[Nik Habicht]

From the CZ-75 manual:

Load the pistol. Grasp the grip, POINT IN A SAFE DIRECTION. With thumb press on the grooved area (thumb piece) of the hammer, pull the trigger and release the hammer slowly ahead (Fig. 6) until it rests on the action or safety thumb of the hammer. Release the trigger. Practise this operation very carefully to avoid an accidental discharge! We strongly recommend to practise this operation beforehand with the pistol unloaded!

and contrast that with:

Decocking
The version equipped with a manual safety is not covered in this section!
MAKE SURE THE PISTOL IS POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION and thumb down the decocking control lever (Fig. 7). Pressing down the decocking control lever actuates the lowering of the hammer from the cocked position to the hammer safety notch position, without any need to pull the trigger. Even if there is a cartridge in the chamber the pistol is (hammer decocked) safe for all normal handling in this state, and ready for immediate use in a Double Action mode of fire.

Notice there's no accidental discharge warning......

Sig says the following in their 226 manual:

Decocking Lever
The decocking lever on the SIG SAUER pistol is designed for the express purpose of decocking the firearm. The reason it is there is because it is not safe practice to decock a pistol by pulling the trigger and attempting to ease the hammer forward manually. To decock your pistol, push down the decocking lever (keep your finger OFF the trigger while you do this).

WARNING – DECOCKING LEVER
Always use the decocking lever to decock your SIG SAUER pistol. This is the only way to safely lower the hammer from the cocked position and prevent an accidental discharge. This warning applies to all pistols with decocking levers. The positive way to safely lower the hammer is by use of the decocking lever. Never lower the hammer by pulling the trigger and attempting to ease the hammer forward manually. Manually lowering the hammer is dangerous and prevents full application of the pistol’s safety features. The decocking lever is the only proper means of lowering the hammer and assuring that the hammer rests in the intercept notch. Again, DO NOT THUMB THE HAMMER DOWN: the consequence can be serious injury or death – only and ALWAYS use the decocking lever!

S&W has this in the owner's manual for their DA/SA models:

FOR TRADITIONAL SINGLE ACTION & DOUBLE ACTION
• If you decide not to fire after you have manually cocked the hammer or if you decide to suspend firing, keep the pistol pointed in a safe direction.

• Remove your finger from within the trigger guard.

• Rotate the decocking lever fully down into the “safe” position.
• This action will decock the hammer allowing it to fall against the decocking safety body and will release the trigger to its forward position.
• The pistol may now be holstered and carried safely.

We're not treating identical shooters differently, we're treating shooters with differing equipment according to the recommendations laid out by the manufacturers of the equipment. It's really that simple.....

Of course if everyone would just shoot a Glock, we wouldn't have this problem, but since some folks insist on shooting heavy blasters...... :P

[Nik Habicht]

slight drift, but the decocker leaves a CZ half cock, and manually it has to go to full decock. This was instituted a few years back via a published ruling prior to the current rule book if I am not mistaken. Wondering if the reason behind this was people attempting to get it manually to the half position with AD results.

It's a good point - although it's slightly skewed in what you say - funny, I can't find the ruling... maybe someone will have better luck.

Here's the deal, decocker does indeed leave the hammer at a less than flush fully decocked, but - if you use the decocker - the gun is deemed fully decocked where it lands. There were those that were lowering the hammer and stopping at a half cock without the decocker and equating that to decocked because that's where it landed with the decocker - that is not the case.

If the decocker is used, where the decocker leaves it - it's decocked.

If I'm wrong, i'm going to need a link to the rule.

You're correct in that interpretation: If the gun's decocker equipped, the decocker must be used and where ever it leaves the hammer is acceptable. If the gun doesn't have a decocker, then the hammer needs to be lowered manually all the way down.

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

I disagree with you. The action - regardless of the platform - is the same. Either the action is safe or it's not. If you have such a problem with the action so as to dq someone for not using a decocker, imho, you should not allow it period.

As I said, we'll see what DNROI says - I'm pretty sure i'm not getting you off your opinion and you sure aren't going to get me off mine. I respect that. Let's let some others help us.

Aztec,

here's the real question: If you're ROing a shooter with a Sig 226 in Production, and at LAMR he lowers the hammer by pulling the trigger, rather than using the decocker, what call do you make?

And here's a hypothetical: You're given two choices, and have no other options. Someone will point a cocked gun at your head and decock it. Would you prefer that they lower the hammer manually, or use the decocking mechanism (which includes a hammer block, that would prevent a falling hammer from impacting the firing pin) built into the gun?

I get the fact that many people accomplish this safely on the range, and that with some guns the end result is perfectly safe (CZ-75b comes to mind). I'm not willing to assume I know more than the engineers who designed some guns with decockers, that leave the hammer in a position other than fully down. I have to assume that there is a reason behind their "madness", especially when the owner's manual recommends to only decock the piece using the decocker....

Nik,

At this point, I'm going to have to not make any call. He decocked the gun, did it safely without ADing and to be honest with you - I would not be able to tell you which Sig's have decockers and which don't - or which CZ's have them - and which don't. They aren't in my experience - and i can't expect every RO to know every gun and it's capabilities. It's completely unreasonable.

Your hypothetical is bs. Here's why 1. there is no way, hypothetical or not, someone is putting a gun to my head. and if that happened there's another one coming the other direction quick fast and in a hurry. 2. No one lowering their hammer is ever pointing the gun in an unsafe direction. They know they are doing something that if a slip occurs, it needs to go down range.

I am not buying your argument. ONCE AGAIN, if lowering the hammer manually is so dangerous that we are going to DQ someone for not taking advantage of a Decocker, yet, executes the manuever as safely as one without - we need to stop allowing guns without decockers.

And I still disagree - and I'll respectfully wait for someone with other input.

If you can't look at the side of a gun and see the decocker while the shooter's loading -- I don't know how to help you there.....

But under 10.5.9, the moment you see the competitor place their finger on the trigger during LAMR, you should be calling "Stop" if you're not aware of the decocker status of the gun. (Because lowering the hammer manually is an affirmative defense -- not something that you should routinely accept.) Competitors need to keep their fingers out of the trigger guard during LAMR, as the rules are written.

And I guess you're not answering the hypothetical (which is unrealistic because it's a hypothetical situation) either because you're deluded into thinking that they're really equivalent, or because you don't want to surrender any ground......

I get that.....

I'll be interested in seeing Amidon's response.....

[bikerburgess]

It's pretty simple they earn the DQ because that is what is specifically called for in the rule book.

If we start enforcing the rules only when you think they are pertinent we are going down a slippery road. If a shooter unloads and shows clear then hammer downs then sweeps his hand do you DQ? You know the gun is empty, how about a snap cap at a safety area? It is not actual amunition so it's not dangerous is it?

Run the shooters by the rules as they exist if you don't like the rules write your AD and ask for a change

Mike

[aztecdriver]

It's pretty simple they earn the DQ because that is what is specifically called for in the rule book.

If we start enforcing the rules only when you think they are pertinent we are going down a slippery road. If a shooter unloads and shows clear then hammer downs then sweeps his hand do you DQ? You know the gun is empty, how about a snap cap at a safety area? It is not actual amunition so it's not dangerous is it?

Run the shooters by the rules as they exist if you don't like the rules write your AD and ask for a change

Mike

Excuse me? Mike, no offense, but you need to stop accusing me of running matches outside of the rules. That's a gross overstatement of this discussion and hardly appropriate. And it's not clear in the least.

Nik and I disagree on interpretation of 10.5.9. Had the rule book stated "thou must use the decocker if equipped" and I said bs, I think it's perfectly safe, your comments would be valid. As they are now an insult I disregard them.

Edited October 31, 2013 by aztecdriver

[OUshooter]

Nik,

I disagree with you. The action - regardless of the platform - is the same. Either the action is safe or it's not. If you have such a problem with the action so as to dq someone for not using a decocker, imho, you should not allow it period.

As I said, we'll see what DNROI says - I'm pretty sure i'm not getting you off your opinion and you sure aren't going to get me off mine. I respect that. Let's let some others help us.

Aztec,

here's the real question: If you're ROing a shooter with a Sig 226 in Production, and at LAMR he lowers the hammer by pulling the trigger, rather than using the decocker, what call do you make?

And here's a hypothetical: You're given two choices, and have no other options. Someone will point a cocked gun at your head and decock it. Would you prefer that they lower the hammer manually, or use the decocking mechanism (which includes a hammer block, that would prevent a falling hammer from impacting the firing pin) built into the gun?

I get the fact that many people accomplish this safely on the range, and that with some guns the end result is perfectly safe (CZ-75b comes to mind). I'm not willing to assume I know more than the engineers who designed some guns with decockers, that leave the hammer in a position other than fully down. I have to assume that there is a reason behind their "madness", especially when the owner's manual recommends to only decock the piece using the decocker....

Nik,

At this point, I'm going to have to not make any call. He decocked the gun, did it safely without ADing and to be honest with you - I would not be able to tell you which Sig's have decockers and which don't - or which CZ's have them - and which don't. They aren't in my experience - and i can't expect every RO to know every gun and it's capabilities. It's completely unreasonable.

Your hypothetical is bs. Here's why 1. there is no way, hypothetical or not, someone is putting a gun to my head. and if that happened there's another one coming the other direction quick fast and in a hurry. 2. No one lowering their hammer is ever pointing the gun in an unsafe direction. They know they are doing something that if a slip occurs, it needs to go down range.

I am not buying your argument. ONCE AGAIN, if lowering the hammer manually is so dangerous that we are going to DQ someone for not taking advantage of a Decocker, yet, executes the manuever as safely as one without - we need to stop allowing guns without decockers.

And I still disagree - and I'll respectfully wait for someone with other input.

If you can't look at the side of a gun and see the decocker while the shooter's loading -- I don't know how to help you there.....

But under 10.5.9, the moment you see the competitor place their finger on the trigger during LAMR, you should be calling "Stop" if you're not aware of the decocker status of the gun. (Because lowering the hammer manually is an affirmative defense -- not something that you should routinely accept.) Competitors need to keep their fingers out of the trigger guard during LAMR, as the rules are written.

And I guess you're not answering the hypothetical (which is unrealistic because it's a hypothetical situation) either because you're deluded into thinking that they're really equivalent, or because you don't want to surrender any ground......

I get that.....

I'll be interested in seeing Amidon's response.....

Slight drift here but there is no dq for a finger in the trigger guard after MA unless the shooter is loading, unloading our reloading. After MA i can draw dry fire twice, then grab a mag load and get set. If I'm missing an interpretation i would appreciate a reference to the rule.

[OUshooter]

And i rarely refer to an gun owners manual for safety tips, only operational info. My sti actually said "this product should be considered dangerous" or something close to that.

I think for USPSA common sense has to have a place. If a shooter manually decocks a gun with a decocker and ND's they get their DQ. Otherwise it seems the rules need a rewrite to spell out the intent to require use of a decocker.

If manually decocking a gun with a decocker isnt "safe" then neither is 9mm major IMHO. Really makes me wish i would have asked this in my RO class.

[Norther]

Splitting hairs, but I submit that lowering the hammer after make ready is not part of the loading/reloading sequence at all (you never do it during the course of fire) and should not be subject to the rule prohibiting finger in the trigger guard. You're done loading by then. But the followup sentence allowing it for certain guns confuses the issue a bit.

[Nik Habicht]

And i rarely refer to an gun owners manual for safety tips, only operational info. My sti actually said "this product should be considered dangerous" or something close to that.

I think for USPSA common sense has to have a place. If a shooter manually decocks a gun with a decocker and ND's they get their DQ. Otherwise it seems the rules need a rewrite to spell out the intent to require use of a decocker.

If manually decocking a gun with a decocker isnt "safe" then neither is 9mm major IMHO. Really makes me wish i would have asked this in my RO class.

Probably so do most of us. But if you're devising a set of rules, to safely run a sport involving loaded guns, you perhaps need to consider the liability implications of ignoring an owner's manual for a gun.....

Most likely a plaintiff's attorney would not ignore it.....

I cited from some owner's manuals to point out some of the logic behind the specific wording of rule 10.5.9.....

And you're right -- perhaps I should have referenced Loading -- but at Make Ready, the rule book instructs the shoot to prepare the gun in accordance with the stage briefing and the gun ready conditions laid out earlier in Chapter 8. You can argue that lowering the hammer on a gun isn't part of loading, but it is part of the Make Ready procedure specifically referenced in Rule 10.5.9, which evolved specifically to allow this in 2008:

2004 Rule book:10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading.

2008 Rulebook Draft Rule:

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “load and make ready command” to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking lever.

And that evolved into the final and current rule:

2008 Rulebook:

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

The topic was covered extensively in the RO refresher course I attended in 2011 and 2012.....

[sperman]

I think that's a big discrepancy in the rulebook. By the time you get to lowering the hammer, loading is complete, so why would you need an exception during make ready?

[motosapiens]

Probably so do most of us. But if you're devising a set of rules, to safely run a sport involving loaded guns, you perhaps need to consider the liability implications of ignoring an owner's manual for a gun.....

Most likely a plaintiff's attorney would not ignore it.....

sounds like glock owners should not be allowed to use reloaded ammunition in uspsa matches. Their owner's manual is pretty specific on that topic.

imho, the wording of 10.59 is not clear enough for me to dq someone for safely manually decocking a gun that has a decocker, but I can see how someone else would interpret it differently, and I would probably just try to remember to use the decocker rather than argue the point and distract from my match.

[JAFO]

On CZ's that do not have a decocker, do they have a firing pin block? I ask as a comparison to Sigs, which do have a firing pin block that is disabled when you pull the trigger to lower the hammer. This is the primary reason to use the decocking lever on a Sig. It leaves the firing pin block active during decocking.

Most of the USGH rules we have in place are there to prevent ADs whenever possible. Even though an individual may believe they are safe enough to sweep themselves, reload with their finger in the trigger guard, etc, during a course of fire without causing an AD (or worse), the rules are there for the safety of all and we all follow them. The exception to 10.5.9 is only there to let non-decocking DA/SA pistols play. I really don't see a reason to allow even the potential for an AD when you don't need to. If your gun is equipped with a device that lowers the hammer in a safer manner than pulling the trigger, why would you not use it?

Here's a more likely hypothetical. Would you also support that 10.5.9 be amended to exempt pistols with magazine disconnects? If the mag is not in the gun, it can't fire. Once the mag is in the gun, it can fire, but loading is complete at that point and your finger can be on the trigger.

[aztecdriver]

On CZ's that do not have a decocker, do they have a firing pin block? I ask as a comparison to Sigs, which do have a firing pin block that is disabled when you pull the trigger to lower the hammer. This is the primary reason to use the decocking lever on a Sig. It leaves the firing pin block active during decocking.

Most of the USGH rules we have in place are there to prevent ADs whenever possible. Even though an individual may believe they are safe enough to sweep themselves, reload with their finger in the trigger guard, etc, during a course of fire without causing an AD (or worse), the rules are there for the safety of all and we all follow them. The exception to 10.5.9 is only there to let non-decocking DA/SA pistols play. I really don't see a reason to allow even the potential for an AD when you don't need to. If your gun is equipped with a device that lowers the hammer in a safer manner than pulling the trigger, why would you not use it?

Here's a more likely hypothetical. Would you also support that 10.5.9 be amended to exempt pistols with magazine disconnects? If the mag is not in the gun, it can't fire. Once the mag is in the gun, it can fire, but loading is complete at that point and your finger can be on the trigger.

My concern is simple - and probably very obscure quite honestly. Most all will use the decocker as it really makes a whole lot of sense. As you and Nik point out, you are removing the risk that a slip will cause a gun to discharge.

I can only see this applying to a competitor that switches to a backup or borrows a gun that is similar to their chosen platform, but may have the additional feature - like for example, the CZ75 that we have all talked about. That person may continue to operate the gun as they did their primary platform without realizing that they must - which I disagree is clear enough, if indeed true. The logic that one would use is that I have a make ready routine permits me to do this with my other gun - where does it say that I must do so now. As others have pointed out, and I agree with, the exception seems to have been placed in a part of the rules dealing with the violation of finger in the trigger guard during loading, and if one were to try and ding me for a DQ in the hypothetical practice of lowering the hammer because I forgot that my new platform that I borrowed has the extra little lever - I would then argue that I was not loading, unloading or reloading the gun. Loading is complete once the slide is forward and the gun is in the state of "loaded". I could then instead of dropping the hammer just go ahead and sight picture the weapon, place my finger on the trigger and as long as I don't discharge the weapon - I'm still legal. I don't go back to "loading the gun" to lower the hammer, so 10.5.9 would never apply anyway. Others have reasonably made this point. This is ambiguous enough for Nik and I to have differing understandings of the rule - and to be honest, and I'm not touting my understanding of the rule book - but if we disagree to the extent we do - then other competitors could possibly have bigger issues with the interpretation of it.

What are the chances of this actually happening - honestly, I don't know. It may just be a cerebral exercise. Still, the implication that the exception, placed where it is, implies that all weapons with a decocker must be used to decock is one that I don't agree with, and so do many others - those that have posted and others that I have discussed this with directly. This is why - because it is an interpretation of the rules, I have sent a request to DNROI to address this for us. I'm perfectly accepting to be wrong here - but if I am - I will request that this be made clear in Appendix D that if the weapon is equipped with a decocking mechanism that it must be used to do so or violate 10.5.9, very easily removing any ambiguity and I can easily point out to those that unknowingly do so where they violate the rules. Sitting here, I can think of other situations that this can occur. A newbie that brings a sig 226 that withnesses someone with a GP6 get ready and they just emulate what he does. Newbies have problems with understanding they can't use the decocker for "If Clear Hammer Down, Holster" and we have them fix the problem. After they fix it, they may just assume that decockers are bad because of that situation and proceed with manual maneuvers depending on their comfort level with the platform. If I'm going to send someone home, I'd rather not have to explain to a newbie using 10.5.9's exception as it stands and have to deal with someone that says - if I do this, it's unsafe but if he does it it's perfectly acceptable.