Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,893 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As I mentioned in my post on the welcome forum, I just put an older 92 AF on lay-a-way. My question is, why are the older non-decocker 92's da/sa? I'm certainly NOT going to thumb the hammer down on a live round, so if there is no decocker why not go with SAO?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,000 Posts
you can certinly treat your pt92 as a SA if you like.. if you wanted to it could go it's entire life never being fired in DA.

but DA certinly holds a double strike advantage.

personally i do not like the decockers on the pt92's they dont drop the hammer all the way.. i've just gotten acustom to carrying mine in con1 (cocked and locked, SA)

decocking by hand a semi-auto is a bit more tricky then a revolver..

i reckon the reason they dont decock all the way is cause the firing pin is'nt shielded from the hammer strike even though it does have a firing pin block.. it's probably a matter of safety (incase block failed) and also probably would'nt be to healthy on the firing pin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
De-cockers weren't considered de rigeur until the 1970's and 1980's, when the less-stringent qualifications for LEOs finally took hold. Less than dedicated gunners, and overly-anxious administrations, hated single action guns, and even SA/DA. There was the fear of the "hair-trigger" causing an AD, and people being injured. The same fear of lowering the hammer on a live round sent the undereducated scrambling to find weapons where all of this could be avoided.

Properly done, there is no danger of an AD while manually lowering the hammer on either a revolver, or a semi-auto. The de-cocker is a hardware solution to a soft-ware problem. Thinking about it, it wasn't until the 1960's that LEOs were taught that double-action fire ONLY was the way to go. It wasn't a problem prior to that.

If you have concerns with the PT92AF, carry it in Condition 3 until you're ready to shoot. On many pistols, the de-cocker is on the slide, and is harder to manipulate than the safety/de-cocker of the AFS series, or the safety of the AT series. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
Taurus added a de-cocker later because LEO's wanted them on their sidearms (or it could've been a requirement).

I agree with JR; if you're careful enough it's not unsafe to manualy decock it (still I'd have the gun pointed in a safe direction while doing it ;)).
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,792 Posts
I'll second what JR said! Manually decocking a Handgun, safely, is an often negelected skill that seems to have been lost. It was most commonly used with Revolvers, DA and SA, in the past. It is also a skill needed with the CZ75 pattern semi-auto handguns, of which I own quite a few. Practice with an unloaded handgun, till you feel confident on doing so with a chambered round. Also, if there is an NRA instructor nearby, get some instruction on it.

One item of note is that when you are holding the Pistol, restraining the hammer. You trip the sear with your trigger, start lowering the hammer, let go of the trigger and the automatic Firing Pin lock will engage, before you have let the hammer down to the half cock notch (which is actually more like a 1/4 cock notch.). It will take your full attention to coordinate all of these in the proper sequence and motion rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,893 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I can and have manually decocked pistols before, this has always been done at the range or with an empty gun. I have no problem with condition 1 as I carry my PT1911 that way all the time. Manually decocking does have a slight margin of error (even for experts!) and I would rather not take the chance. I was just wondering if there was any reason other than restrike capability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,779 Posts
De-cockers got a bad rep from the P-38 Walther. Well-used P-38 pistols, and some late war-time production pistols, suffered from failures, and de-cocking fired the weapon. The CZ-52 also developed the same problem, and it's an SA with a de-cocking mechanism.

There were also some failures amongst well-worn Model 39 S&W's in the original group of serial numbers.

Any mechanical system is prone to wear, and ultimate failure. There's easily as much chance of a mechanical failure as there is of your thumb slipping off of the hammer.

Why they have been applied to weapons is as much a matter of policy as anything mechanical. Activating a de-cocking mechanism with the gun pointed towards someone is as dangerous as manual operation to lower the hammer.

SAO pistols are regarded as "for specially-trained operators only" by today's police and military administrations. However, they still expect people to hit what they aim at. DAO pistols require more training, and more often, to develop maximum potential, and keep it. DA/SA combines the speed of a revolvers first round with the accuracy potential of the SA trigger on subsequent shots. Because of the perceived liability issues of carrying in Condition One which would occur after chambering a round, the de-cock mechanism makes the administrators feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It wasn't until the Beretta 92FS evolved that there was a de-cocking mechanism involved, and that was in the 1980's. Prior to that, the Model 92 was a DA/SA pistol. Taurus bought the machinery for this pistol, and obviously didn't feel the need to change it. Upon realizing acceptance in the American market, they added the de-cock feature to compete. :D
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,792 Posts
JR said:
De-cockers got a bad rep from the P-38 Walther. Well-used P-38 pistols, and some late war-time production pistols, suffered from failures, and de-cocking fired the weapon.
It should also be noted that the WWII Nazi's employed Slave Labor of Jews and Pols at Spreewerke to build some small arms. Most notably, P38's. There was some deliberate sabotage going on during production. Most notably, the grinding of the decocker drum to not block the firing pin and the exclusion of the Sauer designed Automatic Firing Pin lock. Some German Officers got a loud surprise when decocking their P38's and some un-suspecting American GI's accidently shot themselves or others, when decocking those P38's. Any wartime P38 should be inspected for it's Safety System's proper operation, before being put to use.

I have an original 1944 Vintage Walther P38, in excellent working order, and it was one of my first 9mm Pistols. It is sort of in honored semi-retirement (Safe Queen). I also have two post War P38's, that are also very excellent handguns.

The P38 like reliability was one reason I chose to buy my PT92. PT92's of any vintage are tough and reliable, and even one without the decocker, should serve very well!

JR said:
There were also some failures amongst well-worn Model 39 S&W's in the original group of serial numbers.

Any mechanical system is prone to wear, and ultimate failure. There's easily as much chance of a mechanical failure as there is of your thumb slipping off of the hammer.

Why they have been applied to weapons is as much a matter of policy as anything mechanical. Activating a de-cocking mechanism with the gun pointed towards someone is as dangerous as manual operation to lower the hammer.
So true!
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top