Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
random_guy7531

'Safe Action' Definition

Recommended Posts

During a discussion amongst some friends and I regarding interesting guns that we could use for a carry optics build, we were unable to find what the definition of a 'safe action' gun is. During my search of the rule book, I see definitions for 'single action', 'double action', and 'selective action' (8.1.5.1, 8.1.5.2, 8.1.5.3 respectively), but none for 'safe action'. This is important as the addenda to appendix D4 #19 specifically only allows "Double Action, Double Action/Single Action, and Safe Action guns".

 

As a particularly thorny example, the HK P7 fits all of the definitions of a 'Single Action' gun per 8.1.5.1, as the trigger itself only performs one action (that being the release of the striker), yet it clearly must be considered a 'safe action' gun by the NROI due to its inclusion in the production list. The trigger in the P7 doesn't have a safety dingus on it like most striker fired polymer guns, nor does it add energy to the striker, nor does it disengage a firing pin block at all. While it could be argued that the existence of the squeeze cocker makes the gun a 'safe action' gun, no definitive definition exists, and that doesn't necessarily preclude the gun from still fitting the 'single action' definition.

 

Thus we arrive at a dilemma: what constitutes a 'safe action' gun? And what separates the existing single action only guns from it?

 

If a CZ Tactical Sport had a firing pin block, would it be a 'safe action' gun?

If a 2011 had a trigger dingus a la the Hudson H9, would it be a 'safe action' gun?

What would need to be removed from a PPQ, XD, or p320 for it to no longer be a 'safe action' gun? (Considering the sig doesn't have a trigger dingus, and the PPQ and XD don't have partially cocked strikers)

 

Has the NROI made any rulings on this issue and I just missed them? Is there anything in the main rule book that I am missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, happygunner77 said:

If the trigger's only job is to disengages a hammer or striker, it's just single action IMO. 

That is pretty much what rule 8.1.5.1 says, but that's orthogonal to the question of what the definition of 'safe action' guns are.

 

Lets consider the following train of though:

  • The production list prohibits the inclusion of firearms that aren't double action, selective action, or safe action
  • The HK P7 is on the production list, and does not meet the definitions of double action or selective action
  • The HK P7 must therefore be classified as 'safe action'
  • The HK P7 ALSO meets the definition of 'single action' (per USPSA rule 8.1.5.1) - as all passive safety mechanisms are triggered via the squeeze cocker lever instead of the trigger (at least per top-of-my-head. I will grab my example from the safe to confirm at some point)
  • There must therefore be some minimal set of criteria then which separates 'safe action' and 'single action' which is not related to the number of actions caused solely by the trigger press.

 

What I want to know is - what is that minimal set of criteria?

 

To make matters more interesting, consider the series 80 1911 - which has a trigger activated firing pin block. The overwhelming majority of shooters would consider it to be a single action firearm - but does USPSA? If USPSA considers the series 80 to be a single action gun, what differentiates it from firearms which USPSA has already deemed as 'safe action' firearms which only contain a firing pin block as their passive safety (e.g. sig 320)?

Edited by random_guy7531

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are just using Glock's terminology as a description for any striker-fired pistol.  A CZ TS or a 2011 have hammers.  Hammer-fired guns are classified by one of the traditional descriptions in the rulebook - SA, DA, or DA/SA (selective).  Anything with a striker gets the "safe action" description.  And they can generally get approved for Production, regardless of whether it operates as a SAO, like the PPQ or XD.  SAO hammer-fired guns don't get to play (at least, until they change that rule, too 🙄 ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double action vs single action in the traditional sense has nothing to do with what, if any, safety mechanisms are actuated by the trigger.  If the trigger pull does nothing but release the hammer, it was considered SA.  If it retracted and released the hammer, it was DA.  The advent of striker guns has made the terminology no longer all-inclusive.

 

And you'll note that there is no rule anywhere that specifically prohibits single-action guns on the whole.  There are only statements, like this one from the Sig section of the Production list:

"Notes: No SAO (Single action only) versions are approved."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said above, "safe action" is a term Glock made up to describe their trigger system.  It doesn't describe a whole category of triggers and I don't think any mfg but Glock uses that term to describe their guns. 

 

It's hard to keep up with all the changes, addenda, rulings, etc. lately, but there at least used to be no rule baring SA guns from use in Production, as long as they are on the Production gun list.  I'm also not sure where USPSA uses the term safe action anywhere in the rule book; I can't find that on the USPSA site.

 

The HK P7 is single action.

 

If there's a gun you want to use for CO that's not on the Production gun list the rulebook says what the process is to get that gun approved for CO; that's all you'd have to do to get it approved, you don't have to demonstrate what type of trigger system the gun has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whole lotta fancy talk for a subject clearly defined by a list to pick from, of which the questioned gun is on, therefore, thus, in conclusion, then one must derive, etc, etc, etc, negating the debate, discussion’s, preliminary imposed attempt at a subjective intellectual derivative as mute.

Edited by Hammer002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Hammer002 said:

Whole lotta fancy talk for a subject clearly defined by a list to pick from, of which the questioned gun is on, therefore, thus, in conclusion, then one must derive, etc, etc, etc, negating the debate, discussion’s, preliminary imposed attempt at a subjective intellectual derivative as mute.

Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion and try to understand the rules and how they are or are not applied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion and try to understand the rules and how they are or are not applied. 

 

you mispelled “overthink.”  But carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Hammer002 said:

 

you mispelled “overthink.”  But carry on...

 

They let you use that soap box in matches? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

 

They let you use that soap box in matches? 

 

Sure do.  Asked a lot.  Cause I know.  When they don’t know, they do after.  Lots a guys with only 8 matches in running around loose.   Aaaand done here...

Edited by Hammer002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hammer002 said:

 

you mispelled “overthink.”  But carry on...

You misspelled misspelled. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, this is an amusing thread that does bring up a valid point.  I don’t care enough to double check the rule book for the use of the term “safe action” vs “striker fired” regardlng the OP’s specific question, but every rule book (USPSA, NFL, it doesn’t matter) should use technical terminology rather than manufacturer/advertising names within its ruke set.

 

I made this same suggestion when the Steel Challenge rulebook was updated and PractiScore kept being referenced as synonymous with electronic scoring programs (ala everybody calls tissue “Kleenex” and photocopies “Xeroxs”) rather than using the phrase “electronic scoring program.”  Yes, PractiScore is the only show in town and everybody loves it, but you don’t know what might hit the market a week after the rulebook is published, but if the rulebook only allows “PractiScore” to be used, then the new and improved electonic scoring program would de facto be illegal per the rulebook because of unwise word choice.  

 

In this instance, then (and again, I didn’t check if it’s really the case, just using it as a sample because of the thread), if the rulebook actually does say “safe action,” then by the letter of the law Glocks may be the only striker fired gun allowed if “Safe Action” is a Glock-specific marketing term.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sarge said:

You misspelled misspelled. 😂

 

Oh, now THAT is funnie!

Edited by Hammer002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 2:29 PM, jkrispies said:

...PractiScore kept being referenced as synonymous with electronic scoring programs (ala everybody calls tissue “Kleenex” and photocopies “Xeroxs”) rather than using the phrase “electronic scoring program.”  Yes, PractiScore is the only show in town and everybody loves it, but you don’t know what might hit the market a week after the rulebook is published, but if the rulebook only allows “PractiScore” to be used, then the new and improved electonic scoring program would de facto be illegal per the rulebook because of unwise word choice...

 

As a side note. There is a difference, as you paid for Kleenex and Xeroxes, yet PractiScore stays free for Clubs and Match Directors. If improvements are required of desired, nothing really stop you from letting developers know and keep it great again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 10:02 PM, Hammer002 said:

Whole lotta fancy talk for a subject clearly defined by a list to pick from, of which the questioned gun is on, therefore, thus, in conclusion, then one must derive, etc, etc, etc, negating the debate, discussion’s, preliminary imposed attempt at a subjective intellectual derivative as mute.

 

I think you mean "moot".  😉  Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Edited by JAFO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAFO said:

 

I think you mean "moot".  😉  Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

Lmao.  Half the joke.  Not funny when u have to explain it.  Sigh.......lol.  Well, I thought it was funny.  Good call, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, waktasz said:

is Practiscore not the Official scoring system of USPSA now? 

Yes, but that could potentially change (they might close up shop without notice, etc.) and I don’t think that necessarily means that PractiScore is the only allowed scoring system.  Nonetheless, this is just st an example.  My overall point of leaving specific companies, products, etc, still stands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×