USPSA Safety Officer killed

The article states that the CZ Shadow (the gun supposedly involved in the incident) does not have a firing pin safety. That's interesting--and somewhat surprising--but it's even more interesting/surprising that whatever drop safety it was equipped with apparently didn't work.
 
I read that the gun landed on the hammer, along with a suggestion that longer-than-stock firing pins are not uncommon in USPSA?
Years ago, there was concern about the legality of some CZ pistols in IDPA Stock division, that were made with firing pin safeties, but the safeties had been removed by the custom shop in the U.S.; was/is that the case in USPSA Production, too?
 
The gun was reported to be a CZ Shadow, and I was surprised that a newer model like that didn't have a firing pin safety. It never occurred to me that some idiot might have removed it. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised -- being a 1911 guy at heart, I know there are lots of 1911 owners who still maintain the Series 80 firing pin safety makes it impossible to get a good trigger pull. (Yes, I know that's nonsense, but those folks are out there.)
 
safety issue?

Who ever altered the safety, if it was, is legally liable in a product's litigation case and CZ would be held harmless.

The shooter could be held liable in a civil action, of course.
 
Per the article update,the gun was made without a "firing pin safety" Personally,I don't find that remarkable.

The article did not suggest the shooter altered the gun. From what is reported in the article I don't see where the fire about "Altered gun" came from.

Its reported the gun was dropped holstering and landed on the hammer.

I can see how a range officer staging a shooter would be positioned to get hit by a pistol pointing up and to the rear of the hammer hitting the concrete.

Sad.
 
HiBC said:
The article did not suggest the shooter altered the gun. From what is reported in the article I don't see where the fire about "Altered gun" came from.
Click to expand...
That came from a different article, and it was apparently incorrect information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top