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

CZ Shadows / TSOs not drop safe


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ltdmstr said:

 

You could say the same thing about any semiautomatic weapon that can fire without a magazine in the gun.  According to you're reasoning, isn't that a design flaw as well?  There are millions of Colt SAA and SW revolvers that have solid, hammer-mounted firing pins.  Those can be very dangerous if not handled correctly.  Is that a design flaw?  If you want to play tort lawyer, they can find "flaws" in just about anything.

yes those are design flaws, and no you can not find such flaws in just about anything

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

But it's designed with a half-cock position to avoid just that.  So with that engaged, it's technically just as safe/dangerous as any gun without a firing pin plunger like a Series 70 1911/2011, or even the Ruger revolver posted earlier.

yes but it allows the shooter to start in a much more dangerous position (hammer resting on pin), and hence a design flaw

 

it really doesn't matter, it is just dangerous to use these guns in this way

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sarge said:

I feel from a personal viewpoint as a fairly experienced CRO, that the shooter failed to ensure the gun was properly holstered. We could never experience this exact incident again if the gun had been holstered as needed.

  This is in no way an attack on the shooter but it is what set the incident in motion. 

Of course it starts with the shooter, but the point here is that some are pointing to the lack of firing pin block as a 'design flaw', when the gun has a mechanism designed into it to at least prevent a drop-fire when falling on the hammer...that being the half-cock position.  Problem is that the USPSA ruling does not allow starting from that hammer position.

 

So see it as less of a 'design flaw' (if at all) and more of an unfortunate conflict of ruling that needs to be addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tango said:

yes but it allows the shooter to start in a much more dangerous position (hammer resting on pin), and hence a design flaw

 

it really doesn't matter, it is just dangerous to use these guns in this way

A 1911 allows a shooter to start from a very dangerous position if they don't engage the thumb safety with the hammer back.  The safety design features are intended to be used, not ignored....so it's only 'just dangerous' when a shooter decides...or is required by rules...to start without the intended safety measures.

 

The gun has it, it should be allowed in the rules. Ultimately I put this more on the USPSA Production rules for this gun than on the gun's design.

Edited by MoRivera
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tango said:

yes those are design flaws, and no you can not find such flaws in just about anything

 

Sure you can.  Cars don't need to go 100+ mph.  They can also be rendered non-operable if the driver is intoxicated, or using a cellular device.  Extension cords can be made waterproof so you're not electrocuted when you bring it in the bathtub with you.  Q-tips cause thousands of injuries every year.  Are those all design flaws?  What else do you want to try?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Silver_Surfer said:

It was a mechanical device that can and will malfunction. 

Which can be said of any safety device...like a 1911's thumb and grip safety.

 

Sig P320's STILL don't have a trigger-safety dingus, even after the 'safety upgrades', and they're used all over.  Even adopted by our military and law enforcement.  Thumb safety still has no bearing on that.

Edited by MoRivera
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sarge said:

This is what makes internet conversations so hard. Has nobody read anything? The gun was a CZ with hammer down after make ready. That TYPICALLY says Production/CO. Gun missed holster and fell onto concrete indoor range floor with hammer striking the floor causing the gun to fire upwards striking the RO.

 This is the original version I got and it has been verified

That sounds about right. Imagine the RO standing beside you and in back a little. You load, lower the hammer, and, while looking down range, still gathering your plan (or, just going over it again), you go to holster, like you have 1k times before, without looking. You drop the gun into the holster (assume the most typical kydex holster, no serious retention), but instead of dropping it into the holster, you miss slightly, catching the muzzle on the front of the holster, flipping the gun out of your hand, rotating it forward, and then falling. It would most likely hit hammer first, pointing backwards and up...right where the RO would be standing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

That sounds about right. Imagine the RO standing beside you and in back a little. You load, lower the hammer, and, while looking down range, still gathering your plan (or, just going over it again), you go to holster, like you have 1k times before, without looking. You drop the gun into the holster (assume the most typical kydex holster, no serious retention), but instead of dropping it into the holster, you miss slightly, catching the muzzle on the front of the holster, flipping the gun out of your hand, rotating it forward, and then falling. It would most likely hit hammer first, pointing backwards and up...right where the RO would be standing. 

I was just doing that with a dummy-pistol here at home and it was pretty much spot-on with what you're describing.  Pistol rotating forward as it tips out away from holster, then angled back as it falls on hammer....pointing right at someone who would be a few feet back and off to the side.  Horrible to imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2020 at 5:01 PM, Koppi said:

Very, Very Sad! Condolences to both families.

 

I feel strongly about this. That is the double action production guns should be lowered to safe cock position (half cock). Why, because we are lowering these guns to a hot position, hammer resting on the firing pin. Also, while in the act of doing this you slip off the hammer and the trigger is fully depressed because it must be to lower the hammer all the way, the gun will fire with the persons hand back of the slide and the gun pointed hopefully, down range at a berm. Or if the gun is dropped for some reason, there is nothing to stop its firing should it land on the hammer. 

 

As far as I know all hammered firearms have the half cock. Rule on Double action: 8.1.2.2. Further, in App. D Special conditions: para: 2, gives the penalty for not fully de-cocking.

 

This issue should be corrected in the rules ASAP.

 

Also, pray that the gun owner did not alter the safeties on the gun for his or her sake.

 

While I don't disagree with you in principle (that the hammer should be lowered to its safest position), there are some factual errors in your assumptions.

 

Not all DA/SA pistols have a half cock notch.  Not by a mile.  Luckily, the most common ones in our sport do.

 

Many (most) DA/SA pistols come with a decocker.  Appendix D4, Special Condition 1 states that the hammer is fully down wherever it stops after activating the decocker.  Appendix D7, Special Condition 2 makes that even more clear and specific.

 

I agree with you but I really don't know yet how to word a rule that would do what you want and cover every single eventuality in pistol design.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tango said:

the flaw is the design with high possibility of a gun going off when dropped on the ground without a part being broken.

 

hammer resting on the firing pin, without a pin block, is a design flaw...the gun goes off when dropped, this is the 21st century we are not talking 1900's firearms here

 

why is this so hard to accept?

 

 

I don't see it as a design flaw. Is gasoline a design flaw in an automobile? In an accident, it can ignite or explode, causing injury and death. Believe it or not, the same can happen with electric cars...the batteries can explode and or catch fire. 

 

What it boils down to is, this was a very unfortunate accident...trying to say that it was a design flaw that caused the accident is moot. Without the input of the operator, it is nothing but a hunk of metal, sitting in a safe. No more inherently dangerous than a broom in a closet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:

I don't see it as a design flaw. Is gasoline a design flaw in an automobile? In an accident, it can ignite or explode, causing injury and death. Believe it or not, the same can happen with electric cars...the batteries can explode and or catch fire. 

 

What it boils down to is, this was a very unfortunate accident...trying to say that it was a design flaw that caused the accident is moot. Without the input of the operator, it is nothing but a hunk of metal, sitting in a safe. No more inherently dangerous than a broom in a closet. 

 

Yep.  According to his reasoning, idiots who get burned when pouring gasoline direct from a can onto an open fire can blame it on a design flaw because the can doesn't have a check valve.  This is the reasoning that puts companies out of business and makes tort lawyers rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From another thread....

 

44 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

I always wondered why a Shadow or a manual-safety CZ couldn't start from that half-cock position, but a decock-model could.  Aside from the fact the the decocker model lowers to that half-cock, the only reason I could come up with was so that it wouldn't give an advantage in double-action pull (shorter) over guns like a Sig or Beretta that decock to the hammer 'fully-forward'...as they have firing pin block plungers.  But then, the CZ decocker models also have firing pin blocks but still decock to half-cock, and they're allowed to start that way.

 

It will only really make sense now if they will allow the partial-cock as starting condition.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tango said:

the flaw is the design with high possibility of a gun going off when dropped on the ground without a part being broken.

 

hammer resting on the firing pin, without a pin block, is a design flaw...the gun goes off when dropped, this is the 21st century we are not talking 1900's firearms here

 

why is this so hard to accept?

 

 

 

The "hammer resting on the firing pin" is not a CZ design flaw.  It's a USPSA rules flaw.

 

ALL DA/SA CZs have a half cock notch to prevent this very thing.  Many DA/SA CZs also have a firing pin block in addition to the half cock notch.

 

DA/SA CZs which come equipped with a decocker will drop the hammer to the half cock notch upon decocker operation, BY DESIGN.

 

So it looks to me by simple deduction that CZ intends its pistols to be carried with the hammer on the half cock notch when in DA mode.

 

For whatever reason USPSA rules require DA/SA pistols without a decocker to be "manually decocked" by lowering the hammer all the way down past any half cock notch that may exist in the pistol.  However, the very same rules state that a DA/SA pistol is "fully decocked" wherever the hammer stops upon decocker actuation.  See Appendix D4 Special Condition 1 and Appendix D7 Special Conditions 1 and 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

I always wondered why a Shadow or a manual-safety CZ couldn't start from that half-cock position, but a decock-model could.  Aside from the fact the the decocker model lowers to that half-cock, the only reason I could come up with was so that it wouldn't give an advantage in double-action pull (shorter) over guns like a Sig or Beretta that decock to the hammer 'fully-forward'...as they have firing pin block plungers.  But then, the CZ decocker models also have firing pin blocks but still decock to half-cock, and they're allowed to start that way.

 

It will only really make sense now if they will allow the partial-cock as starting condition.

 

I always wondered the same thing and I think your reasoning why the rules are how they are is correct but I have no proof.

 

DA/SA CZs are designed to be carried with the hammer on the half cock notch when in DA mode.  That's why the OEM decocker drops the hammer there and not all the way down, even if that particular CZ has a FPB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SGT_Schultz said:

 

I always wondered the same thing and I think your reasoning why the rules are how they are is correct but I have no proof.

 

DA/SA CZs are designed to be carried with the hammer on the half cock notch when in DA mode.  That's why the OEM decocker drops the hammer there and not all the way down, even if that particular CZ has a FPB.

Right now that looks to be both a sensible and pretty easy way to address this particular incident going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read through the comments posted, I see there are a variety of opinions on the topic- from it being a freak occurrence to perhaps instituting some changes to the rule book. 

 

So even with like-minded people that share a common interest/passion for this sport and having above average technical understanding of how firearms function, we still have widely differing views of the problem and potential solutions.  Imagine having this  discussion with the general public and you can see how a tragedy such as this could quickly devolve into blame game with far reaching and very likely unintended consequences, no matter how good the intentions were to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, muncie21 said:

As I read through the comments posted, I see there are a variety of opinions on the topic- from it being a freak occurrence to perhaps instituting some changes to the rule book. 

 

So even with like-minded people that share a common interest/passion for this sport and having above average technical understanding of how firearms function, we still have widely differing views of the problem and potential solutions.  Imagine having this  discussion with the general public and you can see how a tragedy such as this could quickly devolve into blame game with far reaching and very likely unintended consequences, no matter how good the intentions were to start with.

That's what I mean when I say let's not turn this into a witch-hunt like the rest of the world would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

From another thread....

 

 

I can see your point, but the statistics say no. We don't know of many (or any) other accidental discharges of the same type which have occurred, so, to change the rules because of a single occurrence out of millions of times that action has been performed, without incident,  is highly unlikely, although it could happen. If you flip a coin, and call it in the air, you are going to call heads or tails...it will never occur to you to call that it lands on its edge, but that is a possibility...a very, very small possibility, but one that could, given millions of flips, occur. 

Seat belts were invented, put into cars, and then laws were passed to enforce the wearing of them, after possibly hundreds of thousands of people were seriously injured or killed in accidents (again, 99.9% of accidents are caused by operator error). If one person, in the history of motorized transport, had been killed by not having or wearing a seat belt, do you think that seat belts would be a mandatory safety item in every car built, and laws governing the use of them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrumpyOne said:

I can see your point, but the statistics say no. We don't know of many (or any) other accidental discharges of the same type which have occurred, so, to change the rules because of a single occurrence out of millions of times that action has been performed, without incident,  is highly unlikely, although it could happen. If you flip a coin, and call it in the air, you are going to call heads or tails...it will never occur to you to call that it lands on its edge, but that is a possibility...a very, very small possibility, but one that could, given millions of flips, occur. 

Seat belts were invented, put into cars, and then laws were passed to enforce the wearing of them, after possibly hundreds of thousands of people were seriously injured or killed in accidents (again, 99.9% of accidents are caused by operator error). If one person, in the history of motorized transport, had been killed by not having or wearing a seat belt, do you think that seat belts would be a mandatory safety item in every car built, and laws governing the use of them?

So then unless we're looking to ban the gun outright, I guess the best we can do going forward is to be even more careful.  I still felt the rule should have been from the outset that we can start a Shadow from half-cock because it's the same as the decocker models, but it is what it is.

 

It goes without saying how hard it must be for the SO and his family, but also it's unimaginable how that competitor must feel.

Edited by MoRivera
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people on the other thread going on about how this is a design defect.  So, if some here are taking that position, you can imagine what the general public will think.  As for dealing with the latter, it's pretty much impossible to have a rational discussion because they typically have zero knowledge on the subject, and all their arguments are emotional rather than fact-based.  It's an exercise in futility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MoRivera said:

Right now that looks to be both a sensible and pretty easy way to address this particular incident going forward.

...until the aftermarket hammer makers start moving the half-cock notch closer and closer to full-cock for those people that want the lightest possible triggers, and here we are again...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

There are people on the other thread going on about how this is a design defect.  So, if some here are taking that position, you can imagine what the general public will think.  As for dealing with the latter, it's pretty much impossible to have a rational discussion because they typically have zero knowledge on the subject, and all their arguments are emotional rather than fact-based.  It's an exercise in futility.

But also we can see how easy it is to 'demand action' when immediate reactions are so emotional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...