Safety or not to safety
- Thread starter GaryED50
- Start date
I did it on mine with the help of a YouTube video. About the only negative is the right side of the decocker sticks out more (assuming you’re just buying the simple kit). Other than that I prefer it this way as I am more used to DA/SA SIGs without a safety, plus were you to inadvertently actuate the decocker while manipulating the slide you wouldn’t end up with a pistol on safe when you didn’t mean to. Worth is always relative, but for as cheap as the kit was I am happy with the result.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wild cat mccane
New member
D Spring it up while ye'r at it
HK V3, Sig SA/DA, Walther P99...just like the decocker not being a safety.
HK V3, Sig SA/DA, Walther P99...just like the decocker not being a safety.
First off. an "is it worth it?" question is one only you can answer. 
Now, a couple of points to consider...
You have referred to the part as the "Decocker". IT's not. It is the SAFETY.
it may be referred to as a "decocking safety" by some folks, but it is the safety. It just happens to safely drop(decock) the hammer when applied. Look in the owner's manual parts list, you'll see the maker calls it the safety.
And that is going to matter if the dark day ever arrives that you wind up in court over anything involving that gun.
Any lawyer (and prosecutors ARE lawyers) worth their fee is going to seize on the fact that you had the gun modified, and try to use that to convince the jury that you were in the wrong.
Turning the safety into a decocker only (because its your personal preference) in today's legal climate isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Because, if you ever wind up in court, the jury is going to be told that you "Willfully and deliberately deactivated the safety on the pistol, making it easier to shoot!"
And the rub is, that's not a lie.
It doesn't matter what you intend, or what you believe, in court, it matters what someone convinces the jury to believe.
Turning the safety into a decocker only does literally defeat the safety, IT no longer works as designed. The fact that the gun is mechanically safe to carry with the hammer down and the safety OFF doesn't matter. YOU disabled the safety!
Shooter will understand that your big concern is you don't want to risk having the safety go "ON" when you need it off. The general public does not know this. And they are who is going to be on any jury. ALL they will know is what the lawyers tell them. And if there is even any chance at all of the argument gaining traction in their minds, the other side WILL use it against you.
They can take your modified gun, show it off, tell the jury how you intentionally disabled the safety. The Police don't do that, the Military doesn't do that. Only someone actively seeking a shooting would do that. They'll do their best to show how your disregard for safety and your overall "gunfighter" attitude created the shooting, etc, etc, etc...
is it a big risk? not likely, but needing to use your pistol defensively isn't likely, either....Now, someone will come along and demand some proof, some case where this was done and someone went to jail because of it, and since I can't provide that, they'll claim its not worth considering. Maybe its not, but I'm not going to put myself in a position where I might possible be the test case. Won't recommend you do that, either.
If decocker only is important to you (and it must be if you're considering modifying the gun you have), I would say, get a different gun. Get something that works the way you WANT and are comfortable with, the way it comes out of the box. Sigs are good guns, (I personally prefer them to the Berettas) and have decockers, not decocking safeties.
Maybe I'm making much ado about nothing, but what if I'm not??
Go watch MY COUSIN VINNEY, its one of my favorite "court" movies. If you can get past the R rated language it's an excellent (and humorous) telling of how circumstantial evidence and the phrasing used in court can create a totally false, yet believable, recounting of what actually happened.
It's your gun, do what makes you happy with it.
Now, a couple of points to consider...
You have referred to the part as the "Decocker". IT's not. It is the SAFETY.
it may be referred to as a "decocking safety" by some folks, but it is the safety. It just happens to safely drop(decock) the hammer when applied. Look in the owner's manual parts list, you'll see the maker calls it the safety.
And that is going to matter if the dark day ever arrives that you wind up in court over anything involving that gun.
Any lawyer (and prosecutors ARE lawyers) worth their fee is going to seize on the fact that you had the gun modified, and try to use that to convince the jury that you were in the wrong.
Turning the safety into a decocker only (because its your personal preference) in today's legal climate isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Because, if you ever wind up in court, the jury is going to be told that you "Willfully and deliberately deactivated the safety on the pistol, making it easier to shoot!"
And the rub is, that's not a lie.
It doesn't matter what you intend, or what you believe, in court, it matters what someone convinces the jury to believe.
Turning the safety into a decocker only does literally defeat the safety, IT no longer works as designed. The fact that the gun is mechanically safe to carry with the hammer down and the safety OFF doesn't matter. YOU disabled the safety!
Shooter will understand that your big concern is you don't want to risk having the safety go "ON" when you need it off. The general public does not know this. And they are who is going to be on any jury. ALL they will know is what the lawyers tell them. And if there is even any chance at all of the argument gaining traction in their minds, the other side WILL use it against you.
They can take your modified gun, show it off, tell the jury how you intentionally disabled the safety. The Police don't do that, the Military doesn't do that. Only someone actively seeking a shooting would do that. They'll do their best to show how your disregard for safety and your overall "gunfighter" attitude created the shooting, etc, etc, etc...
is it a big risk? not likely, but needing to use your pistol defensively isn't likely, either....Now, someone will come along and demand some proof, some case where this was done and someone went to jail because of it, and since I can't provide that, they'll claim its not worth considering. Maybe its not, but I'm not going to put myself in a position where I might possible be the test case. Won't recommend you do that, either.
If decocker only is important to you (and it must be if you're considering modifying the gun you have), I would say, get a different gun. Get something that works the way you WANT and are comfortable with, the way it comes out of the box. Sigs are good guns, (I personally prefer them to the Berettas) and have decockers, not decocking safeties.
Maybe I'm making much ado about nothing, but what if I'm not??
Go watch MY COUSIN VINNEY, its one of my favorite "court" movies. If you can get past the R rated language it's an excellent (and humorous) telling of how circumstantial evidence and the phrasing used in court can create a totally false, yet believable, recounting of what actually happened.
It's your gun, do what makes you happy with it.
To the point about perception in court, Beretta both sells the G conversion themselves on their website to private citizens and now sells pistols that come from the factory where the decocker/safety does in fact only function as a decocker. Does that mean that such a modification can’t or won’t come up at all in court as a result? I can’t guarantee that anymore than anyone can guarantee it will come up in the first place. I’m of the opinion if you are modifying a firearm from one factory configuration to another then there is less of a risk of being perceived as “defeating” the factory safeties. In this case the prosecutor and/or officer also have to know enough about firearms to know that on a Beretta the safety levers should stay down and not spring back up to notice the change in the first place. That’s certainly possible, but as was pointed out many people (and this includes law enforcement) frankly don’t know all of the technical details of the various firearms out there. I wouldn’t gamble on ignorance, however.
Edit: I’ve also heard the argument that if you want to modify a firearm with something even like a factory part swap, having a gunsmith do it might not be a bad idea. To me this seems more relevant from the idea of mitigating liability in the event the firearm malfunctions and that malfunction results in an injury, but I guess you can argue it shows a level of personal responsibility by having a trained professional perform the install.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Edit: I’ve also heard the argument that if you want to modify a firearm with something even like a factory part swap, having a gunsmith do it might not be a bad idea. To me this seems more relevant from the idea of mitigating liability in the event the firearm malfunctions and that malfunction results in an injury, but I guess you can argue it shows a level of personal responsibility by having a trained professional perform the install.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
A Beretta 96G SD .40 S&W with the heavy brigadier slide is one of those guns that I’ve wanted for a long time, if I could only find a good one at a decent price. I did see one in Cali when I lived there that was off roster, but was being sold as a P2P transfer for $1,700.00, which was out of my price range. I’ve had a chance to shoot one of these enough times in the past to know that I like it, but these are hard to find used. With that heavy slide it really works well in the forty caliber. The “G” decocker is just an added bonus on that gun.
First off. an "is it worth it?" question is one only you can answer.
This, 100%.
I bought my daughter a Shield a few years ago because she is more comfortable carrying chambered with a thumb safety than without.
My 43 does not have one and I am fine with that.
What works for you?
Edit - you're in Canton. Kewl. I'm effectively in Woodstock although just a mile South of "the border".. Marietta extends to AL so I say that. We used to shoot USPSA @ BigWoods, and might again soon now my daughter is back from military training.
Without wanting to derail this post too far...I bought a S+W M+P 9 C with a 1911 style thumb safety.S+W makes a "No Safety" version of the same gun.
I'm not sure,but I think conversion would simply be a case of removing the safety and spring.
While I would now prefer it to be the "No Safety" version,I agree it would be unwise to defeat the factory safety. I won't do that.
What MIGHT be legitimately possible would be to send it back to S+W, and generate a work order that it was factory reconfigured to the non-safety model.
Thats the only way I'd do it.
I'm used to 1911 's, so the safety is familiar,Its not a big deal. Mainly what I don't like about it is few holsters offer a version for the safety.
I'm not sure,but I think conversion would simply be a case of removing the safety and spring.
While I would now prefer it to be the "No Safety" version,I agree it would be unwise to defeat the factory safety. I won't do that.
What MIGHT be legitimately possible would be to send it back to S+W, and generate a work order that it was factory reconfigured to the non-safety model.
Thats the only way I'd do it.
I'm used to 1911 's, so the safety is familiar,Its not a big deal. Mainly what I don't like about it is few holsters offer a version for the safety.
For what it might be worth, until rather recently, the CHP carried S&W 4006 DA/SA pistols with the "safety" (which, in fact, was patterned on the P38 safety, which also inspired the Beretta 92 safety) in the same condition as proposed: works as decocker then springs back to fire position. Given that CHP considered the safety function both unnecessary and a risk to its officers, it is hard to see how anyone could contend its removal was imprudent.
Because often people hold the decisions of police departments to a different standard than those of the individual private citizen.
Now, that being said, "that's what the police do" is often a valid defense when accused of doing or using something the opposition is trying to portray as evil or indicative of a desire to be involved in an incident.
Police and military organizations have their own have their own ideas about what equipment and practices is best for them and their mission. These are not always the same as what's best for personal self defense.
I'm unclear as to what the issue is here, I own a couple of Beretta DA/SA pistols with the safety/decocker function and if you have the presence of mind do decock your pistol than why not simply flick the safety live backup putting the gun in DA only mode on the first shot? This makes the pistols at least as safe or safer than most of your striker fired guns! I know that my Walther's and my lone Glock 19 have far lighter triggers all the time vs my Beretta DA/SA triggers.
RKG said:
That 4006 S&W TSW that the CHP carried back in the day, was missing a safety. What it wasn’t missing was a 12lb DA trigger pull, a spurless hammer (which I hate on a DA/SA gun), and a mag disconnect. BTW, the CHP replaced these with the M&P in 2009. When these went out of service, these were surplussed to a lot of states at really cheap prices, except of course, CA.
101combatvet
New member
Because people like to spend money on silly stuff?