Hammer Position at the Start Signal

[bruce282]

What would be considered a half-cocked hummer?! can there be such a thing?

Sure, right before the Viagra kicks in.

Bruce

[Nik Habicht]

What would be considered a half-cocked hummer?! can there be such a thing?

Be nice! :roflol:

[Flexmoney]

Boris,

You are reading far too much into the rule book.

[SA Friday]

DUDE! it's a hAmmer.

Thanks. I actually appreciate corrections such as this one. Once hit with the hAmmer over the head and I will remember it for good.

Thanks again.

I just couldn't resist the temptation...

[Boris Zaretsky]

Boris,

You are reading far too much into the rule book.

yup, but I know it almost by heart.

[Boris Zaretsky]

DUDE! it's a hAmmer.

Thanks. I actually appreciate corrections such as this one. Once hit with the hAmmer over the head and I will remember it for good.

Thanks again.

I just couldn't resist the temptation...

I don't blame you.

[00bullitt]

Half cocked hummer? Only a short Russian would know.

[Flexmoney]

Boris,

You are reading far too much into the rule book.

yup, but I know it almost by heart.

I don't agree with your call. There is no DQ there.

[00bullitt]

OK.....so using logic here. If CZ deems it safer to lower hummer to half cock by use of the decocking lever......would it not seem feasible to lower the hummer by hand to the same position as if a decocker was used? Hence half cock? It does not bypass the DA pull.

And about the DQ if hummer is not fully at rest. Can the trigger be pulled to fire the gun as if in single action as the rules are intended to mean? No....it can not. It is a safe position engineered by the manufacturer. On the CZ SP01 and other DA/SA CZ's it starts in the DA mode.

[Nik Habicht]

bullitt --- applying logic is what the rules interpretation is about. IF the manufacturer designed the gun with a decocker, you must use it. If they didn't, then you must fully decock. If the same manufacturer designs two different variants, one with a decocker, one without we're not going to assume that the same starting condition is appropriate for both --- that would be comparing apples to oranges.....

[Gary Stevens]

Having been in on this decision, Nick states it very well. If your gun has a decocker, use it, and finish making ready. If your gun does not have a decocker, manually lower the hammer as far as it will go, and finish making ready.

Since the SP01 doesn't have a decocker, the answer to the original question is manually lower the hammer as far as it will go, and finish making ready.

As to the DQ, it is the RO's job to insure that the weapon is in the proper position, including hammer if so equipped. To issue a DQ for failure of this requirement would seem to indicate that I, as the RO, had prior knowledge of the hammer position being out of compliance. allowed the shooter to continue, and then hammered them for it. No pun intended.

IMO, this would not be appropriate behavior for an RO. NROI is not in the "gotcha" business.

Gary

Edited July 9, 2008 by Gary Stevens

[00bullitt]

bullitt --- applying logic is what the rules interpretation is about. IF the manufacturer designed the gun with a decocker, you must use it. If they didn't, then you must fully decock. If the same manufacturer designs two different variants, one with a decocker, one without we're not going to assume that the same starting condition is appropriate for both --- that would be comparing apples to oranges.....

So is it not using logic to assume the manufacture only decocks to half cock for a reason? Obviously the manufacturer feels it is a better position at rest in that location than fully down or maybe the decocker would lower it all the way down? I'm sorry but I don't see that as comparing apples to oranges. Now if the half cock/decock position did not exist on the non decocker model and it was asked if it could be added.....then you have a valid point....in my opinion.

Now I'm not asking based on the final ruling.....I'm asking based on logic. Does it not make sense? I think the final ruling should maybe be rethought and involve a technical rep or CZ gunsmith.

My reasoning is that it is still a DA pull and apparently the factory deems it to be a safer at rest position for the hummer if a decocker is used. I think the factory should be asked which is the safer at rest position.

[racerba]

Since the SP01 doesn't have a decocker, the answer to the original question is manually lower the hammer as far as it will go, and finish making ready.

SP01 Tactical has the decocker. Your comment does not apply to ALL SP01s.

Now I'm not asking based on the final ruling.....I'm asking based on logic. Does it not make sense? I think the final ruling should maybe be rethought and involve a technical rep or CZ gunsmith.

The ruling does not apply to one manufacturer of one gun. The ruling applies to all posible situations. Some guns may NOT have the half notch. ROs will not know every single gun's configuration. In order to simplify enforcement, the ruling makes sense and is logical.

Edited July 9, 2008 by racerba

[Chuck Anderson]

That decision did include input from the CZ factory rep. The trigger pull on the CZ from the half cock position is not the same as from the fully decocked position, it is substantially shorter. There are many gun designs that include stop gaps or partially decocked positions. To try and include them all would be a huge mess. Just decock the gun the way it specifies in the rule book and you will be fine.

As far as the DQ, I'm actually getting close to doing it to one shooter. He knows the rule and every time tries to start with the hammer at half cock. Sometimes the RO catches him and they have to decock all over again. Other times he doesn't. At this point I think he is deliberately trying to gain a competetive advantage by knowingly cheating. He's been warned the next time I catch him I'll DQ him for Unsportsmanlike Conduct. If it's a one or two time thing, no problem, but deliberately contravening the rules for going on six months. I think a DQ is warranted.

[racerba]

At this point I think he is deliberately trying to gain a competetive advantage by knowingly cheating. He's been warned the next time I catch him I'll DQ him for Unsportsmanlike Conduct. If it's a one or two time thing, no problem, but deliberately contravening the rules for going on six months. I think a DQ is warranted.

Let everybody know about the situation. What little advantage he thinks he is getting is definitely not worth a DQ.

[Nik Habicht]

bullitt --- applying logic is what the rules interpretation is about. IF the manufacturer designed the gun with a decocker, you must use it. If they didn't, then you must fully decock. If the same manufacturer designs two different variants, one with a decocker, one without we're not going to assume that the same starting condition is appropriate for both --- that would be comparing apples to oranges.....

So is it not using logic to assume the manufacture only decocks to half cock for a reason? Obviously the manufacturer feels it is a better position at rest in that location than fully down or maybe the decocker would lower it all the way down? I'm sorry but I don't see that as comparing apples to oranges. Now if the half cock/decock position did not exist on the non decocker model and it was asked if it could be added.....then you have a valid point....in my opinion.

No it's not --- you're assuming that since the hammer on the decocker version falls to something less than fully down that that position is appropriate for all versions of the gun. In reality, there may be significant design differences, rendering that hammer position totally unsafe on a non-decocker gun.

Now I'm not asking based on the final ruling.....I'm asking based on logic. Does it not make sense? I think the final ruling should maybe be rethought and involve a technical rep or CZ gunsmith.

My reasoning is that it is still a DA pull and apparently the factory deems it to be a safer at rest position for the hummer if a decocker is used. I think the factory should be asked which is the safer at rest position.

The CZ75 Manual --- from the CZ-USA Website, apparently doesn't allow cutting and pasting of info --- but specifically calls for lowering the hammer all the way to the firing pin stop. So the manufacturer is saying that fully down is the safer position for a non-decocker equipped CZ-75.....

Last but not least --- safely complying with the rules of competition is each competitor's responsibility. If the rules require you to do something that you're not comfortable with --- such as lowering the hammer on a DA/SA gun without a decocker, you are always free to shoot a different gun or division. There's are reasons I'm not shooting CZ-75 in Production --- and that manually lowering the hammer thing factors into the decision.

[00bullitt]

bullitt --- applying logic is what the rules interpretation is about. IF the manufacturer designed the gun with a decocker, you must use it. If they didn't, then you must fully decock. If the same manufacturer designs two different variants, one with a decocker, one without we're not going to assume that the same starting condition is appropriate for both --- that would be comparing apples to oranges.....

So is it not using logic to assume the manufacture only decocks to half cock for a reason? Obviously the manufacturer feels it is a better position at rest in that location than fully down or maybe the decocker would lower it all the way down? I'm sorry but I don't see that as comparing apples to oranges. Now if the half cock/decock position did not exist on the non decocker model and it was asked if it could be added.....then you have a valid point....in my opinion.

No it's not --- you're assuming that since the hammer on the decocker version falls to something less than fully down that that position is appropriate for all versions of the gun. In reality, there may be significant design differences, rendering that hammer position totally unsafe on a non-decocker gun.

I guess the word assume pretty much answers it all. Their is no logic in an assumption.

Now I'm not asking based on the final ruling.....I'm asking based on logic. Does it not make sense? I think the final ruling should maybe be rethought and involve a technical rep or CZ gunsmith.

My reasoning is that it is still a DA pull and apparently the factory deems it to be a safer at rest position for the hummer if a decocker is used. I think the factory should be asked which is the safer at rest position.

The CZ75 Manual --- from the CZ-USA Website, apparently doesn't allow cutting and pasting of info --- but specifically calls for lowering the hammer all the way to the firing pin stop. So the manufacturer is saying that fully down is the safer position for a non-decocker equipped CZ-75.....

Cool. Good info to know. I never thought to look on the website for a manual.

Last but not least --- safely complying with the rules of competition is each competitor's responsibility. If the rules require you to do something that you're not comfortable with --- such as lowering the hammer on a DA/SA gun without a decocker, you are always free to shoot a different gun or division. There's are reasons I'm not shooting CZ-75 in Production --- and that manually lowering the hammer thing factors into the decision.

I tried the CZ for a few weeks and decided I would stick with my Glock. Not for the reason you state.....just simply didn't like the CZ.

Edited July 9, 2008 by 00bullitt

[Chuck Anderson]

At this point I think he is deliberately trying to gain a competetive advantage by knowingly cheating. He's been warned the next time I catch him I'll DQ him for Unsportsmanlike Conduct. If it's a one or two time thing, no problem, but deliberately contravening the rules for going on six months. I think a DQ is warranted.

Let everybody know about the situation. What little advantage he thinks he is getting is definitely not worth a DQ.

He has been apprised of the rule. He knows he's going to get DQ'd the next time he gets caught. This is not anything sneaky. He's been warned numerous times and is still intentionally doing it. To me that's unsportsmanlike. I'll argue it before an arb committe if need be, but I'm guessing he's not getting back in the match.

[Flexmoney]

I'd agree with your call, Chuck. (and I would make it, as well)

[Gary Stevens]

I stand corrected on the decocker SP01 model, and revert to the original that if it has one use it and finish making ready.

Gary

[ChuckS]

The CZ75 Manual --- from the CZ-USA Website, apparently doesn't allow cutting and pasting of info --- but specifically calls for lowering the hammer all the way to the firing pin stop. So the manufacturer is saying that fully down is the safer position for a non-decocker equipped CZ-75.....

Here ya go, Nik:

Later,

Chuck

[Vulture]

I'm going to stir this up a little more. There is a question about this in the RO test and i kept getting it wrong because i was thinking of a Para LDA that i have. Double action only with no decocker or hammer that has a half cocked position, only a thumb safety. So according to the rules you could put it in your holster with the thumb safety off and not be violating the rules, because the hammer is fully down. I kept saying that if it has a safety you must engage the safety, but that is not the way the rules are written. Or am i missing something.

[mactiger]

I'm going to stir this up a little more. There is a question about this in the RO test and i kept getting it wrong because i was thinking of a Para LDA that i have. Double action only with no decocker or hammer that has a half cocked position, only a thumb safety. So according to the rules you could put it in your holster with the thumb safety off and not be violating the rules, because the hammer is fully down. I kept saying that if it has a safety you must engage the safety, but that is not the way the rules are written. Or am i missing something.

You're not missing anything. IF a DA pistol is loaded with the hammer fully down, the safety need not be applied.

Troy

[Shay1911]

I don't mean to stir up a hornets nest, but...

An XD or M&P are, basically, single action. After a trigger job, there is no more camming of the striker backwards. Once you press the trigger, the striker is released, a single action. They are allowed to shoot in production as a single action gun, without a safety device engaged, without a minimum trigger pull. To exaggerate this quite a bit, imagine running production with a 1911 without the safety on.

Frankly, the issue of half cock vs. fully decocked looks a bit small compared to that.

In my opinion, this is really a case of the Samurai and not the sword, the Indian and not the arrow. I don't think all these small advantages are really that big of a deal.

I am sure this has been discussed many times over...

[Chuck Anderson]

Yep they have. Neither are considered true SAO guns. Both have safety devices. M&P trigger safety. XD Grip safety (and is there something in the trigger on that one too?) They're considered DAO guns, just like Glock. There is no point in trying to change that now. To do so would seriously ruin the division and the great relationships with manufacturers that have come about as a result of the Division.