What besides the Ruger MK series are always "cocked and locked" when loaded?

D

Doyle

New member
I briefly owned a Ruger MKII. Fun gun to shoot at the range but that was the only place I felt comfortable taking it. I wore it once into the woods but quickly gave that up. What I couldn't get past was the fact that if the chamber was loaded, the only thing that kept that pistol from accidently going off if the trigger was bumped was the safety. In other words, it was in a perpetual condition one state. I just can't carry around a handgun in a holster with a cocked hammer/striker and only a single mechanical safety. At least with a 1911 style you have both the thumb safety AND the grip safety.

Anyway, all that got me to thinking. How many other pistols are like the Ruger MKs? I think the older High Standards (that look like the MKs) have the same design. Any others?
 
Lugers
Hammerlis (many of them)
many hi standards
Colt Woodsmans
S&W 41s
Lahtis
Nambus
walther olympians
Walther 4s
Colt 1903s
MABs
Many Brownings, Buckmarks,

...and those are just the ones that come to mind, I'm sure there are hundreds if I wanted to take the time to thumb through the piles
 
Most Rugers including the new LC9s
Browning Buckmark
S&W 22a, and 41
Beretta Neos
High Standard (hammerless models, which is most of them)
Glock ( which is highly likely what your local police carry)
Springfield Armory XD
Smith & Wesson M&P
KAHR Arms
HI-Point
Most any pistol that is striker fired! If you don see a hammer, the striker is most likely cocked.
Very common, modern system which also incorporates other internal safety features to avoid the problem you are fearing.
Some have no external, mechanical safety, but rely on a trigger safety like the Glock, or a long, relatively firm trigger pull like the Kahr.
A simple video explanation:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7fpeK17grpI
 
Last edited:
Most single action pistols that are not based on the 1911 have only the the safety.

Sig makes SA versions of the 226, that only has a thumb safety.

A CZ75 can be carried cocked and locked.

Just a couple examples...

Many striker pistols are at least partially cocked, and several are fully cocked. XDs, M&Ps, PPQ, the new Sig and H&K come to mind.
 
only CZ B models can be carried cocked and locked. otherwise they have a decocker and cannot be locked, only decocked to DA mode
 
The facts stated above should really highlight the extreme importance of the 4 Rules of Safety, and may explain why so much emphasis is placed on keeping the trigger finger outside the trigger guard.

As mentioned, handguns such as the Smith & Wesson M&P line are single-action weapons, carried condition one--if you press the trigger, or something generally finger-like in shape presses the trigger--the gun goes bang. There are thumb safety configurations available. While Glock calls their weapons 'safe action' pistols, they are, to my mind, double-action pistols with very minimal trigger travel--about as close to being single action as you can get and still get away with not being strictly single-action.

In both cases, you're looking at 100% reliance on not pressing the trigger as the basis for safety and avoidance of accidental discharge when the weapon is being held by the operator. All other safeties that are actually part of the gun only serve to keep the gun from discharging by any means OTHER than pressing the trigger (e.g., being dropped on the sidewalk, etc).
 
well the XD's do have a grip safety and i know for a fact that the grip safety has to be "deactivated" to fire regardless if the trigger is pressed.
 
I agree with the premise that when loaded, locked and cocked as we say, that there is only the remaining mechanical safety (as opposed to keeping things like fingers off the trigger).

But I wonder, why not just keep the chamber empty when in the holster and wandering around in the woods ?

Other than the few seconds saved when loaded, the only other advantage is 11 rounds available instead of 10.
 
Pyzon said:
. . . .But I wonder, why not just keep the chamber empty when in the holster and wandering around in the woods ?

Other than the few seconds saved when loaded, the only other advantage is 11 rounds available instead of 10.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

"Other than the few seconds saved . . . " That reminds me of the old joke: "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Those few seconds could prove critical.

Also, if you find yourself in a situation where you truly need your pistol, you may not have two free hands to chamber a round.
 
I have never heard of a Ruger Mk series going off accidently from that condition except from careless gun handling. I'm not saying that it never happened: but I have never heard of it.
 
Do you carry all your long guns with an empty chamber?
Click to expand...

It isn't the actual carrying in my hand that gives me cause for concern. Indeed, I do carry my hunting rifles cocked and locked. However, I can always control both the trigger and the muzzle of a rifle or shotgun. A handgun, by contrast, goes in a holster pointed right along side my leg (or worse if it is an IWB holster).

I'm perfectly comfortable with true SA or a DA/SA carried with the hammer down. I'm also perfectly comfortable with a DAO. Even a glock with the "half cock" state it is in is OK. It's just that small percentage of pistols that are always cocked and locked with only a single safety that give me the hibbee jibbees for carrying in a holster. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious.
 
If you have a good holster and happen to be right handed, the holster should prevent things from getting near the trigger or near the safety and sweeping it off.
 
For me, a .22 MK II carried in the woods is a plinker. While I am perfectly comfortable carrying holstered with one in the chamber, if that bothers you , as others have said, just carry it with the chamber empty.
 
Maybe I'm just being overly cautious.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You probably are. If you will carry a Glock or a DA revolver you can carry a cocked and locked pistol. Get a good belt and a holster that covers the trigger.

If you don't want to carry a particular gun design, don't. But remember, if there was something about that design that made the gun inherently dangerous to carry in a holster, they wouldn't be making so many of them. They would have been lawered to extinction. :rolleyes:
 
What I couldn't get past was the fact that if the chamber was loaded, the only thing that kept that pistol from accidently going off if the trigger was bumped was the safety
Click to expand...

That's a "safer" condition than any gun that does not have manual safety (DA revolver, any auto pistols with a "trigger safety"), so what are you used to that seems safer?
Mechanically, there's really nothing safer than a SA auto with the manual safety engaged, since it's about the only design that can't be fired from its normal ready condition by merely pulling the trigger.
 
That's a "safer" condition than any gun that does not have manual safety (DA revolver
Click to expand...

Not true at all. A DA revolver with a hammer block is about as safe as an unloaded revolver. No amount of mishandling short of actually pulling the trigger itself is going to make it go off.
 
I'm perfectly comfortable with true SA or a DA/SA carried with the hammer down. I'm also perfectly comfortable with a DAO. Even a glock with the "half cock" state it is in is OK. It's just that small percentage of pistols that are always cocked and locked with only a single safety that give me the hibbee jibbees for carrying in a holster. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. A DA revolver with a hammer block is about as safe as an unloaded revolver. No amount of mishandling short of actually pulling the trigger itself is going to make it go off.
Click to expand...

Man I'm confused. People have explained numerous times in this thread that the large difference you think exists in terms of safety between certain types really isn't true. How can you be worried about cocked and locked more so than a revolver with the hammer back? :confused:
 
That's a "safer" condition than any gun that does not have manual safety (DA revolver

Not true at all. A DA revolver with a hammer block is about as safe as an unloaded revolver. No amount of mishandling short of actually pulling the trigger itself is going to make it go off.
Click to expand...

"Short of actually pulling the trigger"? If you pull the trigger on a loaded DA revolver, it will fire. If you pull the trigger on the OPs Ruger, with the manual safety engaged, it will not fire. You can decide for yourself which is "safer", but I consider any gun that will fire without first manipulating either a passive or manually-operated safety is less safe than one requiring the additional manipulation by the shooter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top