Originally Posted by stoatman

I am fairly sure that the Browning has some form of trigger safety to make it drop safe if carried hammer down on a loaded chamber.
In all honesty,DA/SA with a decocking lever is The Way Forward. Selective action which decock by holding the hammer and pulling the trigger is just asking for an accident to happen. Thumbing back the hammer or releasing the safety catch is just one extra thing to do under stress, which to my mind compounds the problem.

Of the full-size all metal designs, the sig P226 is one of, if not the, best DA/SA pistols with a decocking lever. The latest offering from C. Z. also appears good, but I think they deleted the interruptor to improve the trigger pull for the competition market. I could be wrong though. interestingly, they make a safety catch version as well as a decocking version.

Regrettably not! There is no positive interrupt between the striker and cap... hence the need for the wedgie thing! (I think the 1911 is the same..)

The hammer does rebound at rest and does not lie on the head of the striker, however there is always the chance it will bounce out the bent if smacked...

Safety is worse than useless...

I seem to recall the few times that I fired a CZ75 in the early 90's that it seemed a better package than the issue Browning, in fact I preferred my .380 Browning BDA over the issue 9mm and also over the PPK in .380 I had before that!

Okay, I guess they had not invented such marvellous things as rebound strikers and striker interrupts back in the early 1930s then...

Interestingly, the prototype 1911 did NOT have a thumb safety, the grip safety being deemed sufficient. Strangely, the grip safety was not deleted when the thumb safety was introduced though.

I would personally think twice about carrying a handgun which only had a grip safety!

Well here's the solution to the pistol ammunition query:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKMz3tYx-M

Clearly it's not a full Crisat test at range but it's still pretty impressive.

The Browning (L9A1) has no safety for preventing a strike on the hammer carried forward on a chambered round because it should never be de-cocked. If the weapon is dropped on a hammer that is cocked and it is knocked from the sear, the hooked half bent on the hammer "should" catch the sear nose preventing the hammer striking the firing pin. The only way for the sear nose to miss the half bent is if the trigger is pulled, the trigger tipping lever sear is engaged with the tripping leaver in the slide, which holds the sear out of engagement. So although it is easy to drop an L9 and watch the hammer ping forward, it is much rarer to have it fire a round.

Originally Posted by HE117

Originally Posted by stoatman

I am fairly sure that the Browning has some form of trigger safety to make it drop safe if carried hammer down on a loaded chamber.
In all honesty,DA/SA with a decocking lever is The Way Forward. Selective action which decock by holding the hammer and pulling the trigger is just asking for an accident to happen. Thumbing back the hammer or releasing the safety catch is just one extra thing to do under stress, which to my mind compounds the problem.

Of the full-size all metal designs, the sig P226 is one of, if not the, best DA/SA pistols with a decocking lever. The latest offering from C. Z. also appears good, but I think they deleted the interruptor to improve the trigger pull for the competition market. I could be wrong though. interestingly, they make a safety catch version as well as a decocking version.

Regrettably not! There is no positive interrupt between the striker and cap... hence the need for the wedgie thing! (I think the 1911 is the same..)

The hammer does rebound at rest and does not lie on the head of the striker, however there is always the chance it will bounce out the bent if smacked...

Safety is worse than useless...

Well, you're actually both right! The older Brownings had no firing pin lock, but one was introduced late into the MkII production run and all MkIIIs have this feature. I'm pretty sure that all UK Brownings are now MkIIIs.

The device is a little paddle on the sear lever that blocks the path of the firing pin. When you pull the trigger, this pivots out of the way, freeing the firing pin. See http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/D...IIandMkIII.htm for a picture.

Regretably though, this does not make it any safer to lower the hammer onto a loaded chamber, as the only way to do this is to stick your thumb under the hammer and pull the trigger. If you are going to do this though, hammer at half c0ck is the way to go, not fully down. For most people though, loaded but not made ready is the safest way to carry a Browning. Condition 1 (loaded, made ready, safety applied) is only really appropriate if you have had the required training and range time.

Sig 229 is the way forward IMHO.

Gun nut,

There is a school of thought which says that if you have to carry in condition three ("Israeli carry", loaded but not made ready), you shouldn't be carrying at all.

I sound like a stuck record here, but DA/SA is the only way to go in this day and age ( or glock *spit*). Decock over a loaded chamber with a double action first shot is both safe, simple, and ready to go.

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by smallbrownprivates

Have a look at Scabster Mooch's Chinese defence vid about their new Type 95 rifle.

The rationale for going to 5.8mm given by the uniformed gentleman towards the end of the vid is that if they are invading a country with standard 5.56mm or 5.45mm weapon systems, they can use the smaller calibres in their rifles, however if China is invaded, 5.8mm won't fit in 5.56mm/5.45mm weapons.
A sound theory which supports their national defence strategy!

Is this feasible? sounds very dodgy....

Gun Nut/Ugly/Gravelbelly/Stoatie any thoughts?

That isn't what he actually said. He stated that if they used the same ammunition as an enemy when invading the enemy's territory they would have the advantage of being able to use enemy stocks of ammunition. As their strategic outlook was defensive, this advantage would transfer to an enemy invading China. By having a different calibre (5. they would deny an invading enemy the use of captured ammunition stocks.

None of these rounds are interchangeable.

I was once in a position to ask someone who knew quite a lot about the subject why the Chinese had adopted 5.8mm. His answer: "because they can!", i.e. national pride had a lot to do with it. Dave Fortier, writing in Small Arms Review magazine was a bit kinder. His research found that the Chinese had done a lot of analysis and experimentation to arrive at 5.8mm. His article also mentions the same reason given in the TV interview - denying captured stocks to the enemy.

See: http://bbs.taiwantp.net/cgi/roadbbs...._post&post=817

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Well, you're actually both right! The older Brownings had no firing pin lock, but one was introduced late into the MkII production run and all MkIIIs have this feature. I'm pretty sure that all UK Brownings are now MkIIIs.

The device is a little paddle on the sear lever that blocks the path of the firing pin. When you pull the trigger, this pivots out of the way, freeing the firing pin. See http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/D...IIandMkIII.htm for a picture.


Sig 229 is the way forward IMHO.

From a military point of view, none of our "issue" L9A1s have this type of slide or sear lever, so there are over 20,000 Brownings without this form of safety incorporated.

As for the P229, the P226 is the way forward IMHO LOL!

Originally Posted by Picatinny_Rail

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Well, you're actually both right! The older Brownings had no firing pin lock, but one was introduced late into the MkII production run and all MkIIIs have this feature. I'm pretty sure that all UK Brownings are now MkIIIs.

The device is a little paddle on the sear lever that blocks the path of the firing pin. When you pull the trigger, this pivots out of the way, freeing the firing pin. See http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/D...IIandMkIII.htm for a picture.


Sig 229 is the way forward IMHO.

From a military point of view, none of our "issue" L9A1s have this type of slide or sear lever, so there are over 20,000 Brownings without this form of safety incorporated.

As for the P229, the P226 is the way forward IMHO LOL!

OK - my mistake! So how come all our Brownings have the other MkIII features like the plastic grips, dovetail sights and extended safeties? Factory or base refurbishment perhaps?



P229 as its machined slide is more durable than the stamped and welded slide on the P226 - but we are splitting hairs!