WheelGunMan
Member
I was carrying a P365XL with a safety and just wasn't comfortable with it. Switched to a HK P30SK DA/SA w/ decocker and no safety. Very comfortable with that. To each their own.
Decocker/manual safety or striker for CCW
- Thread starter ezee
- Start date
- Status
Hangingrock
Member
I am a firm believer of KISS also known as Keep It Simple Stupid. For concealed carry a S&W Shield 9x19mm. Should I supplement my primary it would be with a S&W M640 38Spl. I simply do not do carry rotation. If a S&W Shield 9X19 mm with a (8) round magazine capacity and one round chambered for a total of (9) is not of adequate then so be it. I would consider it a failure on my part (Avoidance Of Stupid Places, People & Things) if I were involved in an exchange of weapon fire. Do I have other handguns yes for other purposes such as target shooting and etcetera.
JTQ
Member
Lots of folks like and safely carry striker fired guns. If that's what you like have at it.
As a data point, here's Ernest Langdon discussing the features of the Beretta 92/M9. While the whole video is good, you can skip to the 2:05 mark and follow until about the 3:35 mark.
Last edited:
FL-NC
Member
I prefer strikers like Glock/ M&P, without an off switch, carried in a good holster. The less controls to operate, the less chance of a mistake, and I like the same trigger throughout an engagement. My only exception would be a 1911 cocked and locked.
JTQ
Member
In the world of auto's, the folks that compete with the CZ75 family of guns (Tanfoglio's etc), manually lower the hammer on the range all the time, but probably don't carry those guns defensively, so they probably don't think it's a big deal (for what it's worth, we have this current thread https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/uspsa-ro-killed-in-ad.878033/ ) since they are just range guns.
On the other hand, of those that carry a 1911 (or Browning Hi-Power, or just about any single action auto), just about all of them carry it in Condition 1 (round chambered, hammer cocked, safety on), and most think Condition 2 (round chambered, hammer down) a bad idea, and most practically never employ Condition 2 and stick to either Condition 1 or Condition 3 (empty chamber, hammer down).
Another data point, this with the 1911, on conditions of carry
Make sure to carefully read the owner manual and their other literature on the Rami at the CZ website. Going by memory but I believe they address your concern about lowering the hammer on a non-decocker equipped model.
Jim Watson
Member
I am at present carrying the Ruger LC9s variant with thumb safety. I also have a Glock 43 without manual safety and consider that it has enough length and weight of trigger pull to serve. My "house gun" is a Sig P226 DA/SA.
So I have been known to swing three ways.
On the other hand, my Burwell tuned S&W Plastic M&P is great for IDPA where it starts in an open top belt holster and is shot on an expected command. But I don't carry it.
My main match guns are 1911 types. The main reason I don't carry one, even a Commander, is the weight. The plastic guns are just so much handier.
Many years ago, I carried "Condition 2" for a while. The above Commander still has the spur hammer installed for the purpose. But I got over that when I realized I was listening to a southpaw who learned before ambidextrous safeties were common.
Early days, I shot IDPA SSP with a CZ 75, hammer lowered manually. Back then it made the SOs nervous but it seems to be standard operating procedure in USPSA Production. Apparently you can't get a two pound trigger pull on a decocker CZ.
So I have been known to swing three ways.
On the other hand, my Burwell tuned S&W Plastic M&P is great for IDPA where it starts in an open top belt holster and is shot on an expected command. But I don't carry it.
My main match guns are 1911 types. The main reason I don't carry one, even a Commander, is the weight. The plastic guns are just so much handier.
Many years ago, I carried "Condition 2" for a while. The above Commander still has the spur hammer installed for the purpose. But I got over that when I realized I was listening to a southpaw who learned before ambidextrous safeties were common.
Early days, I shot IDPA SSP with a CZ 75, hammer lowered manually. Back then it made the SOs nervous but it seems to be standard operating procedure in USPSA Production. Apparently you can't get a two pound trigger pull on a decocker CZ.
If it's Majority Rule then you're getting a Ruger revolver with a Glock or 1911 next in line.
Personally I'm busy writing @Trunk Monkey 's wife an email
Old Dog
Member
Love this kind of thread! Controversy! Strong opinions! Vociferous disagreement!
I'll admit, when my department switched to a plastic striker-fired pistol some thirteen or fourteen years ago, after years with a steel-framed de-cocker/safety DA/SA, I, as a firearms instructor, initially thought to myself: "Old Dog, we shall be seeing a metric butt-ton of negligent discharges now."
Didn't happen. We may be seeing fewer NDs over the past several years than we had with the old pistols. Partly, I suspect, because our training has improved substantially.
So this is where I'm at: safely carrying -- and using -- striker-fired pistols is hugely dependent on solid training practices. Practice for private citizens.
Nothing more. It's not complex. As I said in another thread, "Rule 3 Applies." That, and good holsters, good training and making sure stray dangly thingies don't migrate down into your kydex holster as you're re-holstering your weapon.
I've carried mostly 1911s, SIG P-series, revolvers, and lately, SIG P-320s and 365s off duty for many years. Horror of horrors! None have manual safeties -- all fire when the trigger is pulled. Imagine that.
I'll admit, when my department switched to a plastic striker-fired pistol some thirteen or fourteen years ago, after years with a steel-framed de-cocker/safety DA/SA, I, as a firearms instructor, initially thought to myself: "Old Dog, we shall be seeing a metric butt-ton of negligent discharges now."
Didn't happen. We may be seeing fewer NDs over the past several years than we had with the old pistols. Partly, I suspect, because our training has improved substantially.
So this is where I'm at: safely carrying -- and using -- striker-fired pistols is hugely dependent on solid training practices. Practice for private citizens.
Nothing more. It's not complex. As I said in another thread, "Rule 3 Applies." That, and good holsters, good training and making sure stray dangly thingies don't migrate down into your kydex holster as you're re-holstering your weapon.
I've carried mostly 1911s, SIG P-series, revolvers, and lately, SIG P-320s and 365s off duty for many years. Horror of horrors! None have manual safeties -- all fire when the trigger is pulled. Imagine that.
“CCW” indicates concealment is desirable. All else being equal, the slide of a striker-fired weapon protrudes farther to the rear, to contain the striker mechanism. The way I wear a pistol, the outer rear corner of the side, of a blocky Glock, is what pushes outward, against the cover garment. This does not mean that I never carry a Glock, but that the blocky, protruding slide is the major factor in “printing” against the cover garment.
So, a hammer-fired pistol is less-likely to have a slide that protrudes, to the rear, as much as a striker-fired pistol. This affects the “concealed carry” part of CCW. Of course, mounting a big, squared, rear sight, at the extreme rear of the slide, works against the concealabilty of any pistol.
One of the factors, in choosing a 1911, as my first handgun, ‘way back in late 1982 or early 1983, as I remember it, is so that working a thumb safety would become a “natural” part of the draw. Well, I was correct, except that many pistols, with thumb safeties, do not have the safety located in the natural arc of my thumb’s movement. Over time, I have learned to avoid specific pistols, because I am likely to miss engaging that thumb safety.
So, in MY hands, a thumb safety weighs against my wanting to use a pistol as a defensive weapon, unless it is a 1911.
I carried a decocker SIG P220, for police duty, and concealed for personal defense, 1991-1993. My only problem was that the heel-clip mag release sometimes snagged on the seat backs, inside vehicles, while the weapon was carried openly in my duty rig. This allowed a partial drop of the magazine. I reverted to carrying a revolver, on my duty belt. I had no problems with the decocker concept, or DA/SA. I thought that I would like to carry a SIG again, but one without the heel-clip system for the magazine.
So, I am OK with decocking. The need to on-safe a 1911 thumb safety translated well to the need to decock a P220.
When I finally returned to SIG, it was with the DAK trigger, in 2004, though I later added decocker SIGs. All went well, until shortly before I reached age 50. I was mandated to use .40 S&W while on duty, and combination of the .40’s fast acceleration, substantial bullet weight, and the high SIG bore axis, was a harsh combination, if I wanted to train realistically, with my duty/carry guns and duty/carry ammo. Four years later, when my chief OK’ed 9mm to be an authorized alternative duty cartridge, I switched systems, to a lower-bore-axis weapon, the Glock 17 and G19. The blocky, protruding slide was more trouble to conceal, but I needed to start using “orthopedic” pistols, and, to use while at work, had to choose models that I met PD policy.
Using a 1911 thumb safety never lost its “natural” aspect. When my SIG P229, with .40 ammo, started hurting my aging right hand and wrist, I pulled my full-sized, all-steel, low-bore-axis, milder-recoiling .45 ACP 1911 from the safe, lubed it, and started carrying it during personal time. (I believe that frame width is also a factor, as my weapon-hand thumb is in a more ergonomic position, if I am not holding a wide-body pistol.) For a number years, I had followed the concept of normally using the same pistol system, on and off the clock, but after verifying that I did, indeed, still reliably remember to work the 1911 thumb safety, I was comfortable using more than one auto-pistol system.
So, I am “OK” with several auto-pistol systems, including single-action 1911 with thumb safety, DA/SA with decocker, DA-only, DAK, and striker. I feel that a partially-cocked striker is safer than a fully-cocked striker system, but ultimately, safety is in the brain of the user.
So, a hammer-fired pistol is less-likely to have a slide that protrudes, to the rear, as much as a striker-fired pistol. This affects the “concealed carry” part of CCW. Of course, mounting a big, squared, rear sight, at the extreme rear of the slide, works against the concealabilty of any pistol.
One of the factors, in choosing a 1911, as my first handgun, ‘way back in late 1982 or early 1983, as I remember it, is so that working a thumb safety would become a “natural” part of the draw. Well, I was correct, except that many pistols, with thumb safeties, do not have the safety located in the natural arc of my thumb’s movement. Over time, I have learned to avoid specific pistols, because I am likely to miss engaging that thumb safety.
So, in MY hands, a thumb safety weighs against my wanting to use a pistol as a defensive weapon, unless it is a 1911.
I carried a decocker SIG P220, for police duty, and concealed for personal defense, 1991-1993. My only problem was that the heel-clip mag release sometimes snagged on the seat backs, inside vehicles, while the weapon was carried openly in my duty rig. This allowed a partial drop of the magazine. I reverted to carrying a revolver, on my duty belt. I had no problems with the decocker concept, or DA/SA. I thought that I would like to carry a SIG again, but one without the heel-clip system for the magazine.
So, I am OK with decocking. The need to on-safe a 1911 thumb safety translated well to the need to decock a P220.
When I finally returned to SIG, it was with the DAK trigger, in 2004, though I later added decocker SIGs. All went well, until shortly before I reached age 50. I was mandated to use .40 S&W while on duty, and combination of the .40’s fast acceleration, substantial bullet weight, and the high SIG bore axis, was a harsh combination, if I wanted to train realistically, with my duty/carry guns and duty/carry ammo. Four years later, when my chief OK’ed 9mm to be an authorized alternative duty cartridge, I switched systems, to a lower-bore-axis weapon, the Glock 17 and G19. The blocky, protruding slide was more trouble to conceal, but I needed to start using “orthopedic” pistols, and, to use while at work, had to choose models that I met PD policy.
Using a 1911 thumb safety never lost its “natural” aspect. When my SIG P229, with .40 ammo, started hurting my aging right hand and wrist, I pulled my full-sized, all-steel, low-bore-axis, milder-recoiling .45 ACP 1911 from the safe, lubed it, and started carrying it during personal time. (I believe that frame width is also a factor, as my weapon-hand thumb is in a more ergonomic position, if I am not holding a wide-body pistol.) For a number years, I had followed the concept of normally using the same pistol system, on and off the clock, but after verifying that I did, indeed, still reliably remember to work the 1911 thumb safety, I was comfortable using more than one auto-pistol system.
So, I am “OK” with several auto-pistol systems, including single-action 1911 with thumb safety, DA/SA with decocker, DA-only, DAK, and striker. I feel that a partially-cocked striker is safer than a fully-cocked striker system, but ultimately, safety is in the brain of the user.
Last edited:
A manual safety is only as safe as the user has trained himself/herself to be. I have cringed whenever I would see one of my colleagues working the thumb safety of his 1911 duty pistol. He would off-safe as soon as he cleared the holster, then walk and otherwise move about with an off-safed weapon. A weapon which he bragged had such a perfectly light trigger trigger pull. Bad juju!
The user of a decocker pistol can be reliable about decocking, as necessary. Safety is about the user.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
sevt_chevelle
Member
You'd be wrong. My PCR with a CGW pro package and minor polishing of the trigger bar and hammer strut measured a 1.5lb trigger pull with a Lyman electronic trigger gauge. Just a tad light for CCW.
As a CZ fanboy, the Rami makes no sense to me at all. It weighs just as much if not more then a Pcr does, with the extended mag, its the same size as a Pcr.
I agree. Hammer and de-cocker, for me, too. There's something wrong with a pistol you can't uncock, without completely unloading it.
Project355
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 672
DAO for this old man.
halfmoonclip
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 2,767
If the OP is troubled by the trigger pull on his 365, it is no large trick to add a manual safety. The MS is easily wiped off on the draw, tho' I'm happy with the 365 safety-off in a holster that protects the trigger.
Personally, that double-to-single transition is something I don't want to deal with if I'm scared enough of something to point a gun at it.
Moon
Personally, that double-to-single transition is something I don't want to deal with if I'm scared enough of something to point a gun at it.
Moon
Jim Watson
Member
That is certainly "match grade" that is supposed to be more difficult to do on a D.
Yes and yes.
The CGW packages will allow you to get a trigger as good as you like, up to being very similar to a nice 1911 trigger with the right parts.
I have 6 CZs because I love how they fit my hand, how well I can shoot with them, and I just like how they're built and how they function. Being a big CZ fan I considered getting a RAMI but it is a very odd-ball gun to me, lacking some of the ergonomic aspects that make the CZ line so appealing to many people. For carry I like the PCR, or possibly the P-01 if you don't mind having the little bit of extra bulk of the rail when carrying, and sometimes have need of the rail like when using the gun for HD.
The Rami makes a lot of sense. You can make it almost as big as the PCR, but you can’t make the PCR as small as the Rami. There are those times where one really needs to carry as concealed as possible.
And if the Rami makes no sense, tell that to the guys who carry a Glock 26. They are almost exactly the same size. In fact, some holsters for the Glock 26 work just fine for the Rami.
JR24
Member
For the RAMI specifically? Decocker, no question in my mind. CZ safeties do not work for my hands and thumbs, so DA/SA and therefore decocker is what I'd do.
I have no problems with SAO and thumb safeties and carry them (most) often, but the safety has gotta fit my hands/muscle memory to disengage it as part of my firing grip, so basically 1911s or Sig SAO, even the 365 safety isn't quite close enough for my liking.
Of course that's 100% my requirements, so YMMV
I have no problems with SAO and thumb safeties and carry them (most) often, but the safety has gotta fit my hands/muscle memory to disengage it as part of my firing grip, so basically 1911s or Sig SAO, even the 365 safety isn't quite close enough for my liking.
Of course that's 100% my requirements, so YMMV
Trunk Monkey
member
The RAMI is an off shoot of the CZ40B which was a collaborative effort between Colt and CZ. It never really got off the ground and I'm not sure why because people that own the 40B really like it.
ETA IMO this gun fills essentially the same space as a CZ75B in .40 S&W. I would own one or the other but not both.
ETA IMO this gun fills essentially the same space as a CZ75B in .40 S&W. I would own one or the other but not both.
Last edited:
SwampWolf
Member
Most decocked pistols (i.e., SIGs and Beretta 92s) have substantially heavier and longer da, (first shot) trigger pulls than typical striker pistols do. That long, heavy trigger pull makes a nd less likely and precludes the need for a manually operated safety (though you can have the both, as in the Beretta Model 92 or most Third Generation Smith & Wesson pistols; a sort of "belt and suspenders" take).
- Status