SA handgun safety features.

P

Pond James Pond

New member
I don't know many single action autoloaders but of course there is the 1911, my personal favourite the Astra A70, certain variants of the CZ75/SP-01 and others.

Now bear with me as this will seem a strange question: if any of these were ever in condition 2 (chambered, hammer down) would there be any passive safeties in case the gun were dropped on its hammer spur or muzzle first, for example?

Please, this is not a debate about the relative merits of one form of carry over another.
I simply want to understand about the mechanical systems within such firearms to know if such safety features are included.
 
You're aware that many 1911s have a firing pin block, right? Most modern Colts have the Series 80 firing pin block (a few current models do not). All Para-Ordnance and ParaUSA 1911s have the same system, which Para licensed from Colt. It is also used by SIG, Kahr/Auto-Ordnance, and several other makers. Kimber (anything with a Roman numeral II in the name) use a different type of firing pin safety (the Swartz type), and many S&W 1911s use a Swartz type firing pin safety.
 
You beat me to it, Aguila Blanca.

The only thing I can add is that Springfield 1911s use a very simple system - a lightweight titanium firing pin and a heavy firing pin spring. If the pistol dropped on it's muzzle the firing pin does not have enough mass/inertia to overcome the resistance of the spring.

I don't know anything about CZs, Astras, etc.. Sorry.
 
Nearly every NEW handgun introduced in the last couple of decades has some form of firing pin block or safety installed -- even some of the SA revolvers (designed for SAS competition) have them.

It's only older guns that it remains a concern.
 
The 1911 and its clones use an inertia firing pin that will positively prevent firing if the hammer is down and the gun dropped on the hammer. Some copies, though do not, so the firing pin is resting on the primer when the hammer is down, and those can fire if dropped on the hammer. Some other guns, like the P.38, have a firing pin block to prevent that from happening, and also to prevent firing if dropped on the muzzle.

Firing if dropped on the muzzle is usually independent of the hammer position. In the original 1911, the gun theoretically can fire, but only if the hammer is cocked and the safety is engaged blocking slide movement. If the slide is free to move, it ordinarily absorbs the shock and the firing pin won't retain enough inertia to fire the chambered round. (Full length guide rods eliminate this element of safety and the result is a lot of new laws and new designs to block the firing pin.)

It might be of interest that in testing the early Radom Model 1935 pistol, the Polish engineers found that it would fire if dropped on the muzzle. The flaw was traced to its full length guide rod, so they redesigned it to be in two pieces with a spring in between. Some folks wonder why the Radom has that odd, jointed guide rod, and that is why.

Jim
 
I won't speak to the newer designs, other than to say those with a firing pin block are built to comply with modern requirements for "drop safety".

I can speak to the original 1911/A1 system. No drop test or impact test I am aware of has ever gotten one to fire from a blow to the hammer with the hammer down. The 1911 uses an inertia firing pin, which is shorter than the distance it has to travel, AND has a spring to ensure it stays in the rear position.

If you "hammer" the hammer, when its down, the firing pin IS touching the hammer, BUT so is the firing pin stop. The hammer is resting against the stop, there is no possibility of an impact driving the pin forward.

The pin being driven forward can only happen when the hammer is not resting against the stop. Lift the hammer (even a little, not even to half cock), the spring loaded firing pin then peeks its head out, above the level of the stop plate, so that it can be struck. With the hammer down, the pin is flush with the stop plate and cannot be struck and driven forward.

A drop on the muzzle is another matter. The pistol CAN fire under exactly the right conditions. But, those conditions are very rarely encountered in just the right amounts.

If the gun falls far enough to overcome the inertia and the resistance of the firing pin spring, AND do so with enough energy to detonate the primer, it will go off. This has happened in some documented accidents. (I call them freak accidents).

In testing, it was found that #1, the gun has to land essentially straight on the muzzle, #2, it had to land on a very hard surface (steel, or concrete. wood might, or might not be "hard" enough, at a given height, pine vs teak etc).

Now, this applies to GI spec guns, in proper working order (and with GI ammo). Do something to the specs (like a alloy firing pin, different spring, full length guide rod, etc) and you change things in ways I don't know.

one set of tests I read ages ago (and going only from my admittedly flawed memory) they had to build a special track to get the pistol to land muzzle down, and it had to fall 6 to 30 feet, depending on exactly what the impact surface was, in order for the inertia to overcome the design and the pistol fire.

The same tests could not get the pistol to fire from any drop or blow to the cocked hammer. What happened in their tests was force sufficient to break the sear/hammer engagement usually broke the hammer pin, and the hammer would fly out of the gun. Again this is me remembering something I read decades ago, and I might be leaving out vital information, so I wouldn't take any of this as an absolute.

In General terms the 1911 system is pretty safe. But not absolutely safe.

The firing pin blocks do make them as absolutely safe as humanly possible. My PERSONAL opinion is that they are unnecessary, and are simply a few more parts and a slight complication to assembly. But I am willing to accept the small risk.

Current Drop safety standards came about largely from gun control efforts, particularly in California. Decades ago when CA was creating its "only guns on the approved list can be sold" policy safety testing was required and guns had to pass their(CA specified) tests (and the mfg had to pay for the testing).

I believe the drop test requirements were deliberately written so as to exclude as many guns as possible, but that's just my nasty suspicious nature at work.

The easiest way to be able to pass the tests was the inclusion of a firing pin block, and nearly all designs created after the 70s include one.

There were designs with firing pin blocks before the current levels of safety requirements became the general norm. Today almost everything intended as a "Duty" class gun has them.

Hope this helps answer at least part of your question.

if not, I shall try to confuse you, again! :D
 
My Star Firestar in 40 S&W has a firing pin block.It's safe to carry with the hammer down with one in the chamber. I never do this,but it would be ok if someone wanted to carry in that condition.
 
OK. Interesting.

So it seems that if a SA semi is carried condition 2 it is pretty safe from an AD and certain from an ND, given that it has no DA capabilities.

Again, just to clarify, I know that most are proponents of Condition 1 carry, but right now I am purely interested in the inherent safety of Condition 2 in and of itself, not in comparison to Conditions 1, 3 or 4.
 
I am purely interested in the inherent safety of Condition 2 in and of itself...
Click to expand...

In what respects? Safe when dropped? Safe when struck? Firing pin blocks address that regardless of CARRY CONDITION.

You can have a negligent discharge is any carry state that leaves a round in the chamber... it's just harder with some guns than others. :)
 
Last edited:
The safety issue with "condition 2" is GETTING the hammer down on a live round. With a 1911 style pistol, there is no way to lower the hammer, except to pull the trigger and ease the hamme down.

This is DANGEROUS. Should the hammer slip during this process an ND is almost surely going to result. Options to place other fingers in the way of the hammer just make an already dangerous process harder to accomplish.
 
I agree with Sharkbite on the danger of lowering the hammer.

I always pinch the hammer with my thumb and index finger of my weak hand and slowly let the hammer down while pulling trigger and making sure the muzzle is in a SAFE direction.
 
The safety issue with "condition 2" is GETTING the hammer down on a live round. With a 1911 style pistol, there is no way to lower the hammer, except to pull the trigger and ease the hamme down.

This is DANGEROUS. Should the hammer slip during this process an ND is almost surely going to result. Options to place other fingers in the way of the hammer just make an already dangerous process harder to accomplish.
Click to expand...

This is indeed true, but something I have to practice anyway as any IPSC match that is loaded and holstered must be hammer down, so I need to lower my non-decocker SP-01 manually.

However, I agree that as a general point it is the weak point in the traits of Condition 2.
 
Drop safeties have been around a while. Both muzzle and hammer drops.

The method of how they accomplish this varies, some better than others, most effective for reasonable drops. The need for drop safety has been known for a long time.

The practice of leaving one chamber empty on old SA revolvers was a way of gaining a field expedient drop safety. It was pretty much standard practice for a while, until the advent of drop safeties that allowed revolvers to be loaded to full capacity while carried.
 
Sharkbite said:
This is DANGEROUS. Should the hammer slip during this process an ND is almost surely going to result. Options to place other fingers in the way of the hammer just make an already dangerous process harder to accomplish.
Click to expand...

You seem to be addressing this topic emotionally or theoretically rather than as someone who has tried some of the "optional" (fingers in the way, etc.) methods. Almost surely going to result? And you're wrong about a very key point: placing fingers in the way of the hammer make "an already dangerous process" -- your terms, not mine -- SAFER, not harder to accomplish.

A key question: have you personally had, seen, or even heard about a negligent discharge that occurred while a hammer was being lowered? If you answer "yes," I'll be very surprised.

Letting the hammer drop won't ALWAYS ignite the primer -- and the farther DOWN the hammer goes before it slips loose (if it slips loose), the less likely ignition is to happen -- because the hammer has to hit pretty strongly to have the forced needed to overcome the firing pin spring and drive the firing pin far enough to hit the primer with force.

When ND's occur, they usually happen in other situations, when the shooter is distracted by other activities, etc. Most of us who are lowering a hammer manually have the good sense to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, so that even if the hammer does slip (not likely), and even if is far enough BACK (close to the fully cocked position) to have the force needed to ignite the primer (also not likely), the gun will be pointed down range or at the ground in front of the shooter. Were that to happen, the only thing damaged will be the shooter's self esteem (and depending on rules in a match, the shooter's ability to continue in the competition.)

I was one of several safety officers in our local IDPA club for number of years, and for many shooters -- any who were not starting from cocked and locked -- starting from a lowered hammer, with a round chamber is the normal starting position. For those NOT having a decocker, manually lowering the hammer is a required step. Many matches (monthly) over a period of years, and over many practice sessions, and I never saw one. Most of that time I was shooting either a Glock (no issue) or a CZ or a CZ-pattern gun without a decocker.. I also go an indoor range regularly, where all levels of shooters do their thing... I still have not witnessed nor heard of a hammer-lowering ND.

It's wise to be wary, but don't make lowering the hammer a bigger safety issue than it is. People drawing and firing from a holster scare ME a lot more than someone lowering the hammer!!
 
Last edited:
According to what I have read, the CA drop test requirements were written after a loaded 1911 fell a couple of stories and landed muzzle down on a steel staircase. The gun discharged and the ricocheting bullet killed a police officer. I don't know is that is true or not. I also have a nasty mind so I wouldn't put it past the state to invent a tale to justify more gun control.

Jim
 
I agree with Walt on lowering the hammer manually on a live round. It is a non issue, and perfectly safe. If you are worried, put your thumb between the hammer and firing pin when lowering the hammer. Decockers are a answers to a question not asked. They are "feel good" devices.
 
Pilot said:
I agree with Walt on lowering the hammer manually on a live round. It is a non issue, and perfectly safe.
Click to expand...
You and Walt are entitled to your opinions, but there are a great many 1911 cognoscenti who adamantly disagree with you. This is one of those things that are not a question of fact, it's a question of opinion.

I have done it (lowered a hammer with a live round chambered), but I don't make a practice of it and I would prefer to avoid doing so if at all possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top