Cocked and locked with double action.

[Mizar]

The CZ 75 is designed to be carried on the half cock notch when the hammer is lowered just like the Tokarev. It's bad on JMB designed guns because it was designed to stop the hammer from falling if the last notch broke or something as a safety. On the Tokarev was designed to be carried on the half cock and they over sized the HCN to make it safe. Considering how Czechoslovakia was under Soviet control, they probably designed the notch the same way.

TT 33 has the same captive half cock notch dimensions as a 1911A1 - it's not oversized. CZ 75B and CZ 82/83 are using a very different sear design - similar to Makarov's safety. There were times in the past (long gone and forgotten) when SA autos were carried with hammer resting on the half cock notch. And (maybe) that was the reason John Browning called it "a safety notch"...

Boris

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The CZ 75 is designed to be carried on the half cock notch when the hammer is lowered just like the Tokarev...

The original CZs -- I had one of the earliest ones that wasn't a short-rail -- didn't have a half-cock notch. That was added later, and it's present in the later pre-B models.

When CZ implemented the firing pin block, many years later, their approach let them use the half-cock notch to shorten the trigger pull and to incorporate a decocked position that was safe.

CZ never attempted that until the firing pin block was incorporated in some models, and in the various materials I have from CZ, including a translated Armorer's manual, the use of the half-cock notch is not really addressed. I've never heard of anyone recommending it's use as a hammer starting position UNTIL the decocker models came out.

The half-cock notch WAS there long before the firing pin block and decocker mechanism were added, but it wasn't there originally. I think their use of it with the decocker was a happy use of an existing feature that allowed them to kill two birds with one stone, and not something designed as a "safe carry position."

If you have information to the contrary, please share it with us.


.

 

[JTQ]

Onmilo wrote,
The reason for the manual safety on a CZ pistol is for fire and manuver.
It is far safer and quicker to engage the safety and move than to stop, manually decock the weapon, then move and much safer that taking off running with a cocked pistol in your hand.

Whether or not there is documentation for this, it sure does make sense.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

My point was, that a DA/SA is designed to cut out the only mechanical item prone to user error under stress. Draw, pull the trigger. You don't have to worry about remembering to flip the safety off or rely on muscle memory that might, in an off chance, fail you under the adrenaline rush.

Never heard anyone that trained extensively on a gun with a thumb safety, forget to flip the safety off. I find myself sometimes trying to subconsciously put the safety back on with a shotgun when it's in a different place than a Remington. You don't like it, fine, don't like it but say derogatory things towards those that do something different.

There is a saying: "Different strokes for different folks" and another one "Live and let live". Think about applying those to your life.

 

[tipoc]

From JTQ:

Quote:
the Schwartz type (Kimber)
It is Swartz.

May the Schwartz be with you.

Thank you for the correction.

Accidental (or if you want to call them negligent) discharges due to dropping a 1911, without a firing pin safety, have nothing to do with the position of the hammer or the thumb safety. It has to do with the inertia of the firing pin over coming the firing pin spring.

As mentioned this can occur with 1911s not equipped with either the Colt Series 80 type system or the Swartz type safety. However such unintended discharges are and were rare. The possibility of them was significantly lessened with two developments, the first was the extra power firing pin spring and the second lighter weight firing pin. Together both made it possible for 1911s, without the redundant Series 80 or Swartz systems, to pass most drop tests and such unintended discharges to be essentially eliminated.

It bears mentioning that Colt developed the Swartz system in the 1930s but that the U.S. military did not want it added to the 1911s it procured in the years following it's development. The few accidents that occurred from the firing pin spring being overcome by the inertia of the firing pin when dropped were not common enough to justify the additional cost apparently. The U.S. Navy during WWII asked S&W to install a hammer block safety on their revolvers after a couple discharged as a result of being dropped on the steel decks of ships. They never made a similar request of Colt or any maker of 1911s.

tipoc

 

[Deus Machina]

There is a saying: "Different strokes for different folks" and another one "Live and let live". Think about applying those to your life.

You're absolutely right. I live my life by that. I also poke fun here and there with no ill intent, and I apologize that I did not more clearly indicate that my original comment was such, enough that you felt the need to put me in my place, as it were.

My apologies for that derailment.

As I said, I do not have the training to trust myself to run cocked and locked. If you do, by all means stick with what you know. As previously stated, that's not a flaw, it's a preference.

 

[toivo]

The reason for the manual safety on a CZ pistol is for fire and manuver.
It is far safer and quicker to engage the safety and move than to stop, manually decock the weapon, then move and much safer that taking off running with a cocked pistol in your hand.

Whether or not there is documentation for this, it sure does make sense.

This is what I've always assumed. The only "documentation" for it is the fact that the Czech police holsters that used to come with a CZ-82 have a thumb break that can't be fastened when the pistol is cocked. It isn't long enough to go over the cocked hammer. That kind of suggests to me that they were meant to be carried hammer-down.

 

[Onmilo]

The Soviet State always tried cramming their doctrine down the throats of the satellite States.
The Czechs, being somewhat independent in their line of thinking, always threw that issue back by designing guns that were BETTER than what the Russians wanted them to build.

They did the same thing to the Germans as well!

There is no reason you cannot carry a Modern CZ double action pistol condition one, it just defeats the nature of the original design.

As I said, the manual safety allows a shooter to fire and manuver with speed and safety and without the need to manually recock the weapon or resort to a heavy double action pull first shot when the weapon is already in a combat ready mode.

 

[hAkron]

This is what I've always assumed. The only "documentation" for it is the fact that the Czech police holsters that used to come with a CZ-82 have a thumb break that can't be fastened when the pistol is cocked. It isn't long enough to go over the cocked hammer. That kind of suggests to me that they were meant to be carried hammer-down.

I've got a thumb break duty holster for the 82 and you have to cock the hammer to fasten the strap, otherwise the hammer is in the way of the strap.

 

[toivo]

This is what I've always assumed. The only "documentation" for it is the fact that the Czech police holsters that used to come with a CZ-82 have a thumb break that can't be fastened when the pistol is cocked. It isn't long enough to go over the cocked hammer. That kind of suggests to me that they were meant to be carried hammer-down.

I've got a thumb break duty holster for the 82 and you have to cock the hammer to fasten the strap, otherwise the hammer is in the way of the strap.

Hmm... Different holsters for different strokes, I guess. On mine, the strap goes perfectly over the uncocked hammer. When the hammer is cocked, the strap is too short to go over it, and when I try to go in front of it, I end up with the strap twisted so far off-axis that I can pull the pistol out of the holster without unsnapping the thumb break. By any chance, is your holster one of the drop-leg ones?

 

[bigfatdave]

I wouldn't go by the holsters to determine the design intent of the gun.

 

[Loosedhorse]

IMO, you should either just carry a single-action or man up and get used to the change.

As has been pointed out: an unfortunate choice of words!

Taurus, HK, Springfield, S&W and other manufacturers besides CZ offer DA guns that can be carried cocked and locked. I think we can presume that since the designs allow that mode of carry, the manufacturers leave it up to the user how he'd like to carry it.

And that's personal preference. By allowing different modes of carry, the manufacturers are likely trying to appeal to the largest audience, including those with very different personal preferences on carry mode.

I have noticed that Gun-tests

Up to you, but I wouldn't trust anything that Gun Tests says. I have my reasons.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I, too, gave up on GUN TESTS many years. Lots of subjectivity, but no real rationale or explanations of WHY they feel that way.

 

[toivo]

I wouldn't go by the holsters to determine the design intent of the gun.

I wouldn't either, but I would go by the holsters to determine the intent of the agencies that were issuing these weapons for how they wanted them to be carried. Not that that proves anything...

 

[Walt Sherrill]

With holsters made available for SURPLUS weapons, you really can't be sure of anything -- including the possibility that the holsters provided weren't really the same holsters used with the guns in question.

 

[toivo]

With holsters made available for SURPLUS weapons, you really can't be sure of anything -- including the possibility that the holsters provided weren't really the same holsters used with the guns in question.

The holster I have is a perfect fit, and it's stamped "CZ." But you have a valid point: there could have been all types of different holsters issued for these weapons.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

That one of the holsters mentioned could only be snapped shut with the hammer down, and another could only be snapped shut with the hammer cocked makes me suspicious about the value of holsters to tell us anything about how the gun was intended to be carried.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The half-cock notch WAS there long before the firing pin block and decocker mechanism were added, but it wasn't there originally. I think their use of it with the decocker was a happy use of an existing feature that allowed them to kill two birds with one stone, and not something designed as a "safe carry position."

If you have information to the contrary, please share it with us.

Not sure about "design" but the CZ75B manual does state that the pistol is perfectly safe on the half cock notch and that is how they intend it to be carried. They also state that the safety is for a momentary interuption while firing.

On the CZ82
The CZ82 has a rebounding hammer. When decocked the hammer doesn't sit on the firing pin. I assume this is to keep some DA (no I don't mean Double Action) Communist second lieutenant from blowing his borscht off.

 

[Mizar]

The CZ82 has a rebounding hammer. When decocked the hammer doesn't sit on the firing pin. I assume this is to keep some DA (no I don't mean Double Action) Communist second lieutenant from blowing his borscht off.

CZ82/83 (like CZ75/75B) has an inertial firing pin - if it was possible it will be perfectly safe to carry with hammer resting on the pin.

Boris

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Not sure about "design" but the CZ75B manual does state that the pistol is perfectly safe on the half cock notch and that is how they intend it to be carried. They also state that the safety is for a momentary interuption while firing.

Where exactly, in the manual, does it state this information? I can't find that -- perhaps I missed it.

I have a copy of the original technical manual, for the (pre-B) CZ-75. As best I can tell, it doesn't mention the safety/half-cock notch, but it does give details instructions on how to detail strip the gun, etc., and talks only of carrying cocked and locked, or hammer down. Even though the pre-B models did not have a firing pin block, the technical manual says: "The CZ-75 is very safe with the hammer down and safety off due to the inertia type firing pin."

I also have a copy of one of the original (pre-B) 75 manuals -- again, not for the B version -- as well as manuals for both the 75B and 85B/85 Combat, and none of them say what you're citing above.

Thinking, perhaps, that my copies were older, and what you cite above was a recent addition, I also downloaded the current manual from the CZ-USA website. Alas, all versions say exactly the same thing:

Safety Stop on the Hammer
A half-cock safety notch is on the hammer so as to prevent it from striking the firing pin when the hammer is manually cocked, and a thumb could slip. When the hammer is on the safety stop, it is not leaning against the firing pin stop, but its position is further back.​

I do agree that's it's safe to use the half-cock/safety notch as a starting position (for the models with a firing pin block). The decocker models do this, and they have had one of the two hammer hooks removed to accommodate the decocker mechanism. The non-decocker models have TWO hammer hooks, so they're even safer.

Unless I'm missing something -- and a page number citation will help me find it -- You obviously have a very unusual manual.

.

 

[hAkron]

The holster I have is a perfect fit, and it's stamped "CZ." But you have a valid point: there could have been all types of different holsters issued for these weapons.

Mine is stamped CZ as well, it looks like a duty holster, but it does have 82/83 on it. As far as I'm aware, the 83 was only ever a civilian weapon so this could be a civilian duty 'type' holster made by CZ. It was very inexpensive though and based on the thickness of the leather vs the low price tag (under $20 if I remember correctly) I'm inclined to say somebody was sitting on a mountain of these things. It could also be a similar holster to what you have only with a different strap orientation. If the strap on mine was thinner it would likely fit between the uncocked hammer and top of the backstrap area. I'm attaching some pictures for reference of what my holster looks like and how it is setup.


Its hard to see because of the flash, but the word above the picture of the fox is Zili with some sort of accent mark above the 'Z' below that it says Praha, which is how the Czech write 'Prague', the capital of the Czech Republic.


With the hammer uncocked the strap is a bit short to reach the snap (the metal looking thing that lines up with the snap is the thumb break part, the mating part of the snap is the lower snap looking part)

Here we are - Cocked, locked, and snapped up.

- from the side

Where the strap is in relation to the hammer

 

[Onmilo]

This is my opinion and my opinion only.
Take it for what it is, an opinion.

People who go around touting the half cock notch as a safe carry position are still living in the era of side lock single shot firearms.
NO modern handgun was EVER designed to be safely carried on the half cock notch.
Suggesting otherwise shows both a lack of firearms design knowledge and a lack of safe gun handling techniques.

The "half cock notch" on a modern firearm is ONLY there to prevent a weapon from accidentally discharging in the case of thumb slipping during manual cocking in in the event of the failure of the primary sear.

Even on the very latest designs of the single shot side hammer gun, the best designs carried a three notch tumbler with the lowest 1st click designated as the safe carry position.
This low position kept the hammer away from the firing mechanism but was low enough that if the hammer was pulled away from the notch enough to allow the hammer to fall, the arc would be insufficient enough to hit the firing mechanism with enough force to detonate a cartridge or load.

Even on these guns, the half cock was a redundant safety feature that allowed clearance between the hammer and the firing mechanism so that a cap could be fitted, a pan primed, or the mechanism opened to allow a cartridge to be loaded into the chamber.

The half or second notch also prevented the weapon from firing if the thumb should slip or the hammer be drawn back through contact with outside forces such as tree limbs brush, or folds of clothing by arresting the hammer fall at the half way point to detonation.
Even if the half cock failed to catch the hammer, the first notch would arrest the hammer fall before it came in contact with the firing mechanism.

As old and dead Paul Harvey would say,,,
"Now you know,,,the REST of the story."

 

[hAkron]

I think, at least on a CZ pistol with a firing pin block, the 'half cock' we are talking about is more of a 1/8 cock. When you decock a CZ using the decocker or by pulling the trigger enough to release the hammer, then release trigger and ease the hammer forward it will come to rest somewhere slightly above 'fully' uncocked. The only way to fully uncock a CZ 75 B type of pistol is to pull the trigger while capturing the hammer and easing it forward with the trigger pulled to the rear the entire time. My Springfield P9, which is a Tanfoglio clone of a CZ 75 without the firing pin block DOES have a half cock notch which does leave the hammer more or less half way in between cocked and hammer down. I wouldn't carry it that way. I would carry that gun either cocked and locked or uncocked with a DA first shot (it doesn't have an ambi safety and I'm left handed, so a first DA shot is better than dropping a gun trying to flip a safety with my index finger)

 

[Walt Sherrill]

People who go around touting the half cock notch as a safe carry position are still living in the era of side lock single shot firearms.
NO modern handgun was EVER designed to be safely carried on the half cock notch.

I doubt that any gun was DESIGNED to be carried on the half-cock notch safely, but with the introduction of firing pin blocks and similar safety mechanisms, carry guns with the hammer on the half-cock notch does not create a safety issue. Without that block, or a similar safety system, it's just like any other gun that doesn't have that type of safety -- and potentially unsafe.

The half or second notch also prevented the weapon from firing if the thumb should slip or the hammer be drawn back through contact with outside forces such as tree limbs brush, or folds of clothing by arresting the hammer fall at the half way point to detonation.

Even if the half cock failed to catch the hammer, the first notch would arrest the hammer fall before it came in contact with the firing mechanism.

With the "B" model CZs (those with a firing pin block) the gun cannot fire if struck or dropped, no matter what the hammer does or where it is positioned. It will only fire if the trigger is pulled FULLY to the rear. (That's a point I neglected to mention in my prior post.)

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Where exactly, in the manual, does it state this information? I can't find that -- perhaps I missed it.

Very wierd I just read through both My 75B and 2075 RAMI manual and I can't find it.

I distinctly remember reading in the manual that it was safe to carry the weapon at half cock and that the full safety was for a momentary break in firing.

I am 100% positive I read it I just have to figure out where

ETA I started carrying my 75B on the half cock because I read that