Have you ever experienced ( or been present alongside) an accidental discharge while manually lowering the hammer on any pistol or revolver?

After several decades of using handguns with de-cockers and those without, I wonder just how valuable the de-cockers are.

Perhaps they seemed like a good idea when training groups of LE and/or military who've no experience with DA/SA revolvers.

I haven't.

Of course, I grew up in an age when lever actions didn't have a safety and single actions didn't necessarily have a transfer bar, so one learned to be careful.

quote:

Have you ever experienced ( or been present alongside) an accidental discharge while manually lowering the hammer on any pistol or revolver?

Yes, I was running a pistol shoot and had a shooter who informed me that he was "in the Army and knew how to shoot" try to lower the hammer on his Bersa .380 by pressing the trigger and lowering the hammer manually - he discharged a round down range.

I worked for a PD that issued SIG pistols DA/SA with de-cockers we trained our officers hard to use the de-cocker.

De-cockers are there for a reason.

If the weapon has a decocker use it, it's a much safer way to get to safe for reholstering. When training in the summertime with the sweat, I would not trust the ease down the hammer. If I cooked one off the instructor would throw me off the range ASAP. Sig as well as other manufactures designed them to be used. Many of the modern firearms have a hammer block that will engage as you are lowering the hammer but older guns may not have the feature. Anytime I get a new firearm I play without ammo till I'm comfortable with it's operation, my life may depend on it. Chris

I have a CZ 83 15 round .32 ACP with a safety but no decocker. I put my finger between the hammer and firing pin, pull and then release the trigger, and then slowing move my finger so the hammer is fully depressed. I have never had a problem, but I would rather have had a decocker on this pistol. I tried at the range and pointing downrange pulling the trigger slighthy releasing the hammer, releasing the trigger and then dropping the hammer. After 25 tries I could not induce a dischage. YMMV

I understand the issue existing in revolvers, but I cannot imagine why anyone would manually lower the hammer on a DA/SA gun equipped with a decocker. Use of the decocker becomes engrained in the muscle memory, just like riding the hammer when reholstering or clicking the safety on a SAO pistol. I have trained until I do both without any conscious thought depending on which pistol I have in my hand.

I have never been around anyone who has manually lowered the hammer on a DA/SA pistol, therefore never witnessed a ND. That said, I am sure it happens because every training session and competition I have attended the range officer/instructor always covers the use of the decocker when they see I am using a P226.

I've shot a CZ75 in IDPA SSP and USPSA Production, lowering the hammer for every stage in match and practice. No slips, no bangs.
For a while I carried a 1911 in Condition 2. No slips, no bangs.
Note that these were a "pre-B" CZ with prominent hammer spur, and a Commander with GI wide spur hammer installed for the purpose. Burr hammers get trickier, but still common in IPSC and more and more in USPSA.


But if the gun has a mechanical decocker, use it. SIG Sauer used to warn against easing the hammer on P guns, you could override the internal safeties.

Regardless of preference, using the decockers allows the firing pin to remain blocked by the trigger bar safety. Thumbing the Hammer forward raises the trigger bar safety and then you have a pistol that could go off with a strike to the hammer.

That's my main reason for using the de ocker 100%of the time.

Decockers are faster, simpler and more certain. When a Makarov seems better than a CZ75, that's saying something. And yes, decocking the Makarov blocks the firing pin.

The incidence of accidents by doing so is irrelevant to the practice. With revolvers, there is no choice if the hammer has been cocked and needs to be de-cocked. In my own case, all my defensive revolvers have been de-horned or modified to DAO, so it's a non-issue.

With a decocker, I have no idea why anyone would choose to decock with the thumb on the hammer. Has anybody noticed the finger is on the TRIGGER when using this method?

I thought it was the hammer dropper...?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I thought it was the hammer dropper...?

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
Regardless of preference, using the decockers allows the firing pin to remain blocked by the trigger bar safety. Thumbing the Hammer forward raises the trigger bar safety and then you have a pistol that could go off with a strike to the hammer.

That's my main reason for using the de ocker 100%of the time.

This. Manually decocking the pistol without using the decocker bypasses the internal safeties in place to prevent a discharge. The designers and engineers really know what they are doing when including a decocker.

quote:

Originally posted by SSAreGreat:
I have a CZ 83 15 round .32 ACP with a safety but no decocker. I put my finger between the hammer and firing pin, pull and then release the trigger, and then slowing move my finger so the hammer is fully depressed. I have never had a problem, but I would rather have had a decocker on this pistol. I tried at the range and pointing downrange pulling the trigger slighthy releasing the hammer, releasing the trigger and then dropping the hammer. After 25 tries I could not induce a dischage. YMMV

I just brought home a Beretta 84 Cheetah yesterday with the same configuration; manual safety but no decocker. This is not something I'm used to so it will take a lot of practice for me to safely lower that hammer manually!

FWIW, I'm using exactly the same method... finger between hammer and firing pin, pull and release trigger, then lower hammer to intercept notch. I definitely don't feel comfortable doing it as I've always had pistols with decocking levers, and Beretta wisely added one on the 84F (the upgraded version of mine), but I'll learn it and become comfortable with it... and exercise EXTREME caution while doing so!

All of my pistols are SAO.

I would eject the mag, then rack the slide to eject the round in the chamber, keeping the pistol pointed down range. With my SIG P238, I can rack the slide with the safety in the SAFE position.

I had an accidental discharge while lowering the hammer on my CZ 75b. 100% my fault, had decocked it hundreds of times before, just being nonchalant while doing it. Shot a hole through 2 walls in the house. I'm very careful when I do it now.

If the gun has a decocker there is no good reason not to use it 100% of the time. It maintains the safety mechanisms and is faster and easier (especially under stress) on top of that.

100% up side potential, zero downside potential.

If we're talking SAOs and revolvers, I'd first re-assess my manual of arms to determine what situations (if any) where I'd be manually lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber and if it should ever even be necessary at all.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I thought it was the hammer dropper...?

I figured someone out there would recall...

Is this seriously a discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
Is this seriously a discussion?

That was my thought. I don't understand the question.

Yes, if the firearm is designed with a decocker, it should be used, and I can't imagine why one would lower the hammer on a live round without decocking.

If the firearm has no decocker, then lowering to a half-notch seems pointless, and if no half-notch, lowering onto a live round both unwise and dangerous.

Some insist that when moving between targets on a range, such as shooting a stage of steel, one de-cocks before moving, and I find that ridiculous overkill. De-cocking before returning to the holster or when firing, yes. But not when moving between targets. It's tying one's hand behind the back.

If the decocker is part of the pistol system, part of the manual of arms, part of the design and inherent function of that pistol, then use it. Why would one not??