Ever discharge a firearm while using a decocker?
- Thread starter Rail Gun
- Start date
Responding to this question elsewhere, I found that there is a very small zone of the trigger travel on my SIG-Sauer P226 in which the various safeties are all defeated, as they must be for the gun to fire, such that if I carefully hold the trigger in that zone, press the decocker to the bottom of its travel and freely release it, the hammer will fall with enough speed to fire a chambered round. Note that to do so requires a finger on the trigger during decocking, in violation of the manual, common sense, and the accepted canon that thou shalt not put your finger upon the trigger unless sights are on target and you are ready to fire. It also requires that you abandon the excellent control of the hammerfall possible if you keep your thumb on the lever when decocking. The possibility is there, the probability vanishingly small. Given that Murphy was a raging optimist, someone will manage a negligent discharge by achieving the same combination I discovered.
Last edited:
I've never had it happen with me, but I haven't exactly done it a whole lot--I prefer single-action autos. My heart flutters a bit in my chest every time I've used a decocker, though... it just seems so unnatural to watch the hammer fall on a loaded chamber and have it not go bang.
Psychonaut
New member
No, never. I have 9 pistols and all are Da/Sa with a decocker.
How are you "decocking" if you are pulling the trigger?
I looked back on when I pontificated about this over a year ago, and realized that I hadn't left any room for truly stupid engineering, like the CZ-52. But a decocker of the proper design not only has multiple safeties, it is designed so that if it fails to work nothing at all happens. A frame decocker should put the hammer intercept in place as a step that allows the hammer to fall, for instance. No intercept, no hammer release. From the safety standpoint, the slide mounted type is probably the most failure proof, despite dropping the hammer with force.
Of interest, the first couple years of the USP had a terrible system. The decocker dropped the hammer right on the firing pin. The only thing preventing ignition is the passive firing pin block. It's not hard to see that this is ludicrously stupid. HK later added a hammer intercept.
The flip side is that if you can't generally trust a decocker, I'd be very apprehensive about trusting things like manual safeties, grip safeties and firing pin blocks. All may prevent firing when needed.
A shooting buddy of mine had his CZ 52 go off the first time he tried to decock it. Fortunately he was at the range function checking it, so no one was hurt.
I have heard of the Ruger recall and the known problems with the P-38 decockers. They are just reminders why you should always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
I have heard of the Ruger recall and the known problems with the P-38 decockers. They are just reminders why you should always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
Had a Walther PPK/S go off one time when decocking. The drum that rotates up to go between the hammer and firing pin was apparently cracked from decocking god knows how many times. It actually broke and allowed the hammer to just touch the firing pin; which was enough. Gun was pointed in a safe direction so no injuries; but it sure scared the hell out of me; and didn't do my waterbed any good either! I remember reading years ago about not letting the hammer just fall on PP style guns; but rather guide it down with your thumb while decocking so that hammer doesn't keep slamming into the block of steel with resultant parts damage. Too bad I never followed that advice. Nowadays I have very few pistols with decockers, and am leery of them all. Anything can break; be careful.