Manually lower hammer in Production

[DaG]

I just installed an extended mag release from Sig but now the de-cocker won't work. I can modify, but there goes that external modification thing

Can I legaly manually lower the hammer? Since the de-cocker doesn't work, is this a rules violation? TIA

DaG

[Steve J]

Lowering the hammer on a live round by pulling the trigger and controlling the descent of the hammer is just unsafe. Sig probably didn't intend for that to happen. I would recommend you explore what went wrong. I would not use the pistol as is.

That said:

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 “Make

Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking

lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

However, I do not think that 10.5.9 applies to you since you do have a decocker. The fact that it has been rendered nonfunctioning makes your pistol illegal for Production I believe.

APPENDIX D4 — Production Division (Contd.)

22 Specifically prohibited modifications and features

•Disabling of any external safety or externally operated

safety.

You'd have to sign up in Limited or Limited-10. If you sign up in Production, you could end up in Open.

6.2.5.1 However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other

requirements of a declared Division during a course of fire, the

competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise

the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

I still think your Sig is currently unsafe after the modification. I wouldn't let you shoot it if I were the MD unless the pistol has a sear block safety that makes it single action.

[Bigbadaboom]

Yes you can but I wouldn't recommend it. I've had two shooters D.Q. themselves while I was R.O.ing them due to letting one go while manually lowering the hammer.

Steve is dead on with his post, by the way.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Bigbadaboom

[Jake Di Vita]

You're definitely asking for trouble.

No extended mag release is worth a potential dq (or ad for that matter)...besides I'm sure the standard one works just fine.

[AikiDale]

Then there are the CZ shooters, and others with double action pistols not equipped with decockers, who quite legally manually lower the hammer. Having the finger in the trigger guard while lowering the hammer on such a pistol is not a violation of the rules. Specifically: (emphasis mine)

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.

[Punkin Chunker]

I just installed an extended mag release from Sig but now the de-cocker won't work. I can modify, but there goes that external modification thing

Can I legaly manually lower the hammer? Since the de-cocker doesn't work, is this a rules violation? TIA

DaG

5.1.6

Handguns must be serviceable and safe. Range Officers may demand examination of a competitor’s handgun or related equipment, at any time, to check they are functioning safely. If any such item is declared unserviceable or unsafe by a Range Officer, it must be withdrawn from the match until the item is repaired to the satisfaction of the Range Master.

Decocking manually when you should be using a decocking lever is just not a good idea. A safety feature of your pistol is broken. Fix it before you shoot it.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Punkin Chunker

[ChrisStock]

Then there are the CZ shooters, and others with double action pistols not equipped with decockers, who quite legally manually lower the hammer. Having the finger in the trigger guard while lowering the hammer on such a pistol is not a violation of the rules. Specifically: (emphasis mine)

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.

This was my understanding as well after I purchased my SP01. I am always petrified that I might let the hammer slip when lowering it with a pulled trigger.

As for the OP, your mod has left you in a position to either fib or shoot another division. I might personally be sending it back if there is no way to restore the de-cocking function with the new mag release.

[Steve J]

Then there are the CZ shooters, and others with double action pistols not equipped with decockers, who quite legally manually lower the hammer. Having the finger in the trigger guard while lowering the hammer on such a pistol is not a violation of the rules. Specifically: (emphasis mine)

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.

IMHO - a bad exception to allow a bad design to get over.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Steve J

[HSMITH]

I disagree that manually lowering the hammer on a gun is a bad design, I also don't think it is a big deal. Keep a finger in between the hammer and the firing pin as you lower it, worst thing that is going to happen is you get your finger pinched a little. As soon as it is off the full cock notch get your finger OFF the trigger and OUT of the trigger guard and now your firing pin safety is going to stop a discharge should you slip up.

De-cockers complicate the pistol and affect trigger pull quality, if you like them I think that is great but I don't think they are necessary by any stretch. Just my honest opinion.

[Chuck Anderson]

Then there are the CZ shooters, and others with double action pistols not equipped with decockers, who quite legally manually lower the hammer. Having the finger in the trigger guard while lowering the hammer on such a pistol is not a violation of the rules. Specifically: (emphasis mine)

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.

IMHO - a bad exception to allow a bad design to get over.

I think that since the Tanfoglio and CZ are the post popular gun in IPSC Production with maybe (and that's a big maybe) the exception of the Glock that calling it a bad design might be pushing it a bit far. People have been lowering hammers for years with little to no problems. And just because a few people have DQ'd letting the hammer slip doesn't negate the design. I've DQ'd more people with STI pattern guns than any other. If I used that logic, the 1911 is a bad design.

To the point of the thread. I think that if the gun has a decocker that you have deactivated by making an external modificaiton to the gun, specifially the extended mag release, that you're going to run into problems and that 10.5.9's exception would not apply to your gun, making it a DQ for you to decock.

[Johann the Horrible]

In IPSC you cannot install the extended mag release. Is it legal in USPSA? If it is I would have Sig have a look at the gun as the extended mag release should (could not) impact on the de-cocker.

That is now if you did not mean slide release and not mag release off course.

I do not like to lower a hammer on a loaded chamber because, as sure as the Lord made little green apples, sooner or later the hammer will get away from you and you will hit the showers early. Off the range you will sooner or later put a hole in something that does not need another hole.

[j2fast]

Sorry for the drift but I just got a good laugh out of Johann's sig line.

Who is Mike and how many times must I shoot him before he leaves?

To the OP, as I think someone else said, I'd talk to SIG. If its their factory part you would think that installing it wouldn't disable any features.

[racerba]

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.

See emphasis in RED.

[SA Friday]

I'm not a gunsmith, but carry a P228 on duty and have done some basic work on them. I cannot understand how changing the mag release or the slide release would interact and disable the decocking lever on that design. There are no interconnecting parts.

Secondly, there are some CZ's that to have decockers. The difference between the CZ's and the Sig's mechanically decocking systems are when the Sig is decocked vs manually lowering the hammer, both actions result in the hammer being in the same starting point at the pull of the trigger. The CZ does not. It results with the hammer being half-cocked if the decocker is used. IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

[Carlos]

I disagree that manually lowering the hammer on a gun is a bad design, I also don't think it is a big deal. Keep a finger in between the hammer and the firing pin as you lower it, worst thing that is going to happen is you get your finger pinched a little. As soon as it is off the full cock notch get your finger OFF the trigger and OUT of the trigger guard and now your firing pin safety is going to stop a discharge should you slip up.

De-cockers complicate the pistol and affect trigger pull quality, if you like them I think that is great but I don't think they are necessary by any stretch. Just my honest opinion.

I agree. Besides, a de-cocker is a mechanical device that can and eventually will fail, resulting in an ND.

In contrast, manually lowering the hammer will never fail so long as I do my part (and I take personal responsibility for my actions - instead of relying on a mechanical device like the one that failed above - see first post).

[racerba]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

[SA Friday]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

[Steve J]

Then there are the CZ shooters, and others with double action pistols not equipped with decockers, who quite legally manually lower the hammer. Having the finger in the trigger guard while lowering the hammer on such a pistol is not a violation of the rules. Specifically: (emphasis mine)

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.

IMHO - a bad exception to allow a bad design to get over.

I think that since the Tanfoglio and CZ are the post popular gun in IPSC Production with maybe (and that's a big maybe) the exception of the Glock that calling it a bad design might be pushing it a bit far. People have been lowering hammers for years with little to no problems. And just because a few people have DQ'd letting the hammer slip doesn't negate the design. I've DQ'd more people with STI pattern guns than any other. If I used that logic, the 1911 is a bad design.

Sorry for prolonging the thread drift, but DQs have nothing to do with my point. Any handgun that after loading can only be made safe by manually lowing the hammer is significantly lacking in it's design. It's fundamentally unsafe to use under extreme conditions of weather and stress.

[HoMiE]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

Arbitration fee isn't $100 automatically, it is the match fee up to $100, whichever is less. So for a club match, it shouldn't be that much.

[ChuckS]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

Arbitration fee isn't $100 automatically, it is the match fee up to $100, whichever is less. So for a club match, it shouldn't be that much.

If I recall correctly, the last Charity Match I went to at Yuma had a $500 arb fee. In other words, no snivelin'

[HoMiE]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

Arbitration fee isn't $100 automatically, it is the match fee up to $100, whichever is less. So for a club match, it shouldn't be that much.

If I recall correctly, the last Charity Match I went to at Yuma had a $500 arb fee. In other words, no snivelin'

If it's a USPSA match, it should follow USPSA rules.

[SA Friday]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

Arbitration fee isn't $100 automatically, it is the match fee up to $100, whichever is less. So for a club match, it shouldn't be that much.

If I recall correctly, the last Charity Match I went to at Yuma had a $500 arb fee. In other words, no snivelin'

If it's a USPSA match, it should follow USPSA rules.

The arbitration fee was hypathetical and completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, hint, hint.

[JThompson]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

Yup. The hammer has to be fully down and not in half cock, regardless of the method you use to achieve. The only exception is where the hammer is cocked with an external safety applied.

Edited February 28, 2008 by JThompson

[racerba]

IMO, the Sig decocker would be legal to use to make ready, but the CZs would not.

8.1.2.2 "Double action" - chamber loaded, hammer fully down or decocked.

Notice the "or". The CZ would be "decocked" - the hammer does not need to be fully down.

There is a thread on the CZ, decock or fully lower, on THR under the competition section. One of the contributors wrote Amadon and asked. Racerba, I wouldn't abritrate this for $100 if I were you.... "hammer fully down" is the controlling part of that sentence you quoted.

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading,...of a gun without a decocking lever,...

Then the two rules contradict each other. The rules specifically states guns with or without decocking levers. If the hammer needs to be fully down, it should state only that and not include the "or decocked" phrase. Unfortunately, Amadon is the ultimate decision maker, even though he is wrong.

BTW - where is that thread?

Yup. The hammer has to be fully down and not in half cock, regardless of the method you use to achieve. The only exception is where the hammer is cocked with an external safety applied.

You can't pull the hammer to the half cocked position, but if that's where the decocker lever puts it, it should be fine. But apparently Amadon has a different interpretation - again.

Edited February 28, 2008 by racerba

[Eager]

Then there are the CZ shooters, and others with double action pistols not equipped with decockers, who quite legally manually lower the hammer. Having the finger in the trigger guard while lowering the hammer on such a pistol is not a violation of the rules. Specifically: (emphasis mine)

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.

IMHO - a bad exception to allow a bad design to get over.

I think that since the Tanfoglio and CZ are the post popular gun in IPSC Production with maybe (and that's a big maybe) the exception of the Glock that calling it a bad design might be pushing it a bit far. People have been lowering hammers for years with little to no problems. And just because a few people have DQ'd letting the hammer slip doesn't negate the design. I've DQ'd more people with STI pattern guns than any other. If I used that logic, the 1911 is a bad design.

Sorry for prolonging the thread drift, but DQs have nothing to do with my point. Any handgun that after loading can only be made safe by manually lowing the hammer is significantly lacking in it's design. It's fundamentally unsafe to use under extreme conditions of weather and stress.

As a CZ-85 shooter in production, I must disagree. By this same logic, a Glock is an unsafe design because it has no real safety, or even any pistol is an unsafe design because a dumb user could turn it around and shoot himself, your car is an unsafe design because you could crash and hurt yourself. At some point some level of user skill must exist in the design safety determination. Having done probably thousands of manual hammer drops on the CZ, I am confident that anyone can master the skill to the extent that, along with appropriate muzzle etiquette, it can be consifdered a safe design/operation. Safely dropping the hammer of the CZ only scares those who've never done it. It's really not that hard to do consistantly. Not unlike keeping your finger off, and not pulling the trigger of your Glock.

One is not likely to drop the hammer under extreme stress on a CZ, since it also has a thumb safety like a 1911. The hammer drop is used to access the DA first round mode for carry or safe storage.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Eager