Taurus miracle safety system

[Handy]

I was reading the Metcalf review of the upcoming PT-1911 and came across this:

The internal self-engaging firing pin safety is a new Taurus design that involves neither the trigger pull (as do Colt Series 80 Model 1911s) nor the grip safety (as do Kimber Series II Model 1911s).

Does anyone have any idea what could possibly disengage the FP safety if NOT the trigger nor grip safety. I'm scratching my head.

I suppose they could have linked it to the manual safety - but what's the point in a drop safety that only works when the manual safety is engaged?

[RsqVet]

Good question!!!

Personally I carry a series 70 style 1911 and it has not killed me yet so I am somewhat indiffirent towards FP safety design --- seems that activation / deactivation via the thumb safety would not be compleatly crazy --- it will not help you if the sear breaks but then neither will the kimber grip activated FP safety, I would hazard a guess the thinking would go along the lines of a drop discharge is most likley to occur with the safety on, though the logic there is somewhat subject to debate, personaly I don't think the series 80 design is all that bad --- in fact if done well (as David Lack does) I would be fine with it in a carry gun, mine just happens not to have it.

A likely result of this new and unique systiem will be a compleate or partial incompatiability with the sea of aftermarket 1911 parts out there thus rendering the tarus harder to customize or improve other than putting new grips on the thing --- unless they make that diffirent as well --- any word yet on if and where they have put an idiot lock on the thing?

[Handy]

Actually, I don't see how you could describe one linked to the manual safety as a "passive safety".

I just think Metcalf is confused.



More evidence that gun writers are bozos. This kind of stupid stuff I find so often in gun rags that I just stopped reading them completely.

[RsqVet]

Very true on both counts

I have learned more from the people I meet and talk to at the range and shops than any gun rag, of course you have to filter out the BS and the Blow hards, but at liest when you get done filtering there is something there wich I can not say about most gun mags

[Petre]

We get it Handy ... you don't like Taurus. :rolleyes:

I could explain to you what is meant by "self-engaging firing pin safety" but I don't see the point.

[Avizpls]

Petre,

could you explain it for those of us willing to listen?

[Handy]

I'm all ears.


This ought to be illuminating.

[Petre]

As Handy put it ... here is my crowning achievement ... :rolleyes:

That statement "self-engaging firing pin safety" ... there's a few ways you could look at it.

Handy's way , fueled by a need to put down the Taurus firearms company ... or in a more logical way where you actually read what is being said here before jumping the gun.

That statement does not say that the trigger does not disengage the safety.

In Handy's haste he is misreading and interpreting it.

It says that it is self engageing and does not involve the ....... trigger pull (as do Colt Series 80 Model 1911s) ......... Think about that.

A very similar Taurus safety is already in use on the MilPro's and 24/7's .... How does it work?

There is a positive (i.e. self engaging) firing pin safety within the slide that physically blocks the striker until the trigger is fully retracted. That means it engages on it's own ... of course pulling the trigger will DISENGAGE IT. But that's the opposite of engage now isn't it. :cool:

The block is moved aside by a stud on the trigger bar that engages it as the trigger bar moves to the rear. The configuration of the trigger bar is such as it moves to the rear, the forward portion rises to disengage the striker block while the sear at the rear of the bar drops and releases the striker, which then moves forward under spring pressure to fire the cartridge.

Taurus has been using this system of self-engaging fire-pin safety for a few years now and I'm sure the one Taurus designed for their new 1911 will be VERY similar.

I suppose we could nit pic Metcalf's words ... but I for one (And others I'm sure) understood exactly what he meant.

:cool:

[Handy]

All firing pin blocks work like that. Whether you want to use the word "engage" to mean disable or the opposite, if you're not using the grip safety to "disarm" the grip safety, you're using the trigger pull to do it.

That goes for all Taurus pistols, Beretta, Sig, Glock, HK, Colt Series 80, yada, yada. They ALL use a spring actuated piston in the slide that blocks the firing pin until pushed out of the way by some extension of the trigger. Since Taurus safeties work just like Series 80 safeties, this "new" one can't work like a Taurus, can it?


The article says that the design "does not involve the trigger pull". Your examples all involve the trigger pull.

[Avizpls]

I see what you mean. Pulling the trigger disengages it. It engages automatically.

And I know the details of how it works on my PT140

Thanks

[Handy]

Pulling the trigger also disengages the Series 80.

[Petre]

I didn't think you'd be satiusfied Handy ... now take a minute and concentrate on the portion I put in red ... and get rid of the "dis"

Like I said ... you could nit pic Metcalfs words ... but what he said was clear enough to me.

[Handy]

I did think about it. Read the quote. He says that it involves NEITHER the trigger or the grip safety, and this is NEW.

The series 80 involves the trigger. And it is old.

[Petre]

I didn't think you'd get it ... and I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing it with you.

I get it. You don't care for Taurus.

Maybe we can just agree to disagree about Taurus and agree on other makes.

No hard feelings.

[Handy]

I brought this up because it seemed like a stupid gunrag thing, not a stupid Taurus thing. You're being childish.


One more time: Passive block firing pin safeties are spring loaded to the blocked position. They require input from the shooter to be disengaged or disarmed. This has been traditionally done with the trigger, or the grip safety. Dick says it is neither, and it is new.


If not the trigger or the grip, what's left?

[Handy]

BTW, if you're struggling to follow what I'm talking about, take a look at some exploded diagrams online. Of the guns with passive pin safeties, only some of the Walthers and Steyrs use a system that doesn't involve some type of vertical spring-loaded piston in the slide. With the exception of the Schwartz safety, they all use the trigger pull to disarm the piston.

[Trip20]

I now understand what's confusing you, Handy, and find myself just as perplexed.

What other part, which involves user interface (other than trigger and grip), will disengage the safety in order for the striker to move freely?

Petre says get rid of "dis"... but that doesn't make sense to me since it's a positive safety, and the only thing there is to do is "dis" - engage or "dis"-arm.

Or... maybe I've had a rough day at work and I'm not firing on all cylinders... that's possible.

Petre, help me out here, please. I don't know much about this at all.

[Handy]

Trip,

You don't need to get into a discussion of which way to use the word "engage". The crux of the matter is that the author says the system doesn't work like a series 80 using the trigger (which works like every other gun, including Taurus's other products) or like a Kimber.


This isn't a semantic problem. Dick ruled out both major systems, with examples, and said the system was new. It must be, because I'm completely stumped how it can work without input from either trigger or grip and be a passive system.

[Trip20]

As long as we don't have to swipe our drivers license along the slide between shots for a NICS check... I'm interested to see how this works.

[Handy]

Same here, though I suspect this is the result of not listening or asking questions on the authors part.

[OBIWAN]

Maybe it is just a stiff firing pin spring a la 1911:D

Otherwise I got nuthin

One hopes that whatever it is it still allows the weapon to fire when you need it to

[Petre]

I think Handy, you need to look more closely at how a Colt Series 80's firing pin drop safety works. As it does involve the trigger pull in what could be a negative way and is a part of the trigger pulls action , both in engaging and disengaging.

The Taurus system is self engaging and is only disengaged by the trigger and will not affect trigger pull.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding this , or are simply unwilling to because you would rather try to make someone/thing look foolish.

Maybe you should take a closer look Handy at one in action and then maybe you'll understand instead of nitpicking semantics.

[cheddar]

now I see how handy has 7000+ posts...
LOL

[Handy]

A series 80 system works via a lever that connects the trigger bow to firing pin block plunger. Page 18 describes how the safety works, 42 shows the "Plunger Lever" in action, and the lever can be seen on 56 and 57 as part 31.
http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/downloads/Manuals/LoRes/MKIV%20Series%2080%20&%2090%20Pistols.pdf

Of interest, this is EXACTLY how most Taurus pistols work as well. You'll want to consult the diagrams on the top of page 21 in this Taurus manual. The part marked "3" is the "Firing Pin Block Lever", which, like in the Colt, connects the trigger pull to the "Firing Pin Block".
http://www.taurususa.com/pdf/pistol_manual.pdf


The Taurus system is, in fact, much more like a Series 80 than something like a Glock which contacts the pin block plunger via an angled surface on the trigger bar. But this too puts plunger spring pressure on the trigger, affecting trigger pull, just like the Taurus and Colt systems.



Now, what are you talking about? And please, no need to just address me, other posters in this thread don't follow you either.

[Petre]

:D I didn't think you'd get it.

NO instead you use a 20+ year old design from Taurus / Beretta as your arguement and claim most Taurus pistols do the same. :D

Thankyou for the good laugh .

I'm done ... you'll learn when they come out if you choose to take a look.

Book mark this thread and maybe we'll talk more later AFTER the Taurus 1911 comes out. :cool:

[Handy]

I think I'll look back on this thread and see how you danced around the issue, instead of being gentleman and explaining what you're talking about.


BS will not get you far in life. I'd be happy to "choose to take a look" at any article, webpage, manual, parts diagram or whatever you'd be kind enough (but unlikely) to direct me to.




This is a very simple question - how does a firing pin block get disarmed without the trigger?

[Petre]

I never said it didn't Handy ... as a matter of fact I said the opposite.

Your evidence was a 20+ year old design to compare to it. Now go take a look at how they work on the new Mil Pros and 24/7 pro's.

I'm done playing this game.

[Handy]

Petre,

There is no game here. Several posters also don't see how the "internal self-engaging firing pin safety is a new Taurus design that involves neither the trigger pull (as do Colt Series 80 Model 1911s) nor the grip safety (as do Kimber Series II Model 1911s)."

If you know, tell us. The 24/7 Taurus mechanism ALSO involves the trigger pull, as it says on page 20 of the Taurus manual I linked. "AUTOMATIC FIRING PIN BLOCK SAFETY built-in safety that blocks the firig pin from movement until the trigger is pulled competely to the rear as part of the firing sequence."

If you can explain how the trigger is UNinvolved in the above, I'd like to hear it.

[Petre]

Again you place words in my mouth. I never said it does not get disengauged from pulling the trigger and you already know this.

You might want to ask yourself "What is trigger pull and how is it important"?

Then think about how you might affect it or not.

[Handy]

Those weren't your words, they were Dick Metcalf's. You said that you agreed that they made sense, and would explain what "self-engaging" meant.

You haven't. All pistols with firing pin blocks work essentially the same way: The trigger puts pressure against the firing pin block plunger, affecting the trigger pull. That's as true of the 24/7 as the Colt or of ANY gun you could name.

And before you try to muddy the waters with your engage/disengage nonsense, there is NO system whereby the trigger pull makes the safety go to safe. They ALL go to safe on their own, and they ALL get disarmed by trigger pressure.


Support this statement "that involves neither the trigger pull..." or shut up.

[Petre]

OK ... I TRIED to get you to think about it for yourself ... Because you really had this desperate need to try to discredit Metcalf Taurus and anyone else.

The funny thing is , just how simple it is.

So LET's examine Metcalf's comments...

The internal self-engaging firing pin safety is a new Taurus design that involves neither the trigger pull (as do Colt Series 80 Model 1911s)

Here he says the same basic thing about a different Taurus
The gun also has a self-engaging firing pin block that doesn’t
release until or unless the trigger is squeezed all the way to the rear.

And again in another article ...
Of course, the gun also has a self-engaging firing pin block that requires the trigger to be moved all the way to the rear for release.

WOW ... he makes this dumb comment about Taurus's firing pin block system being self engaging , over and over. Why is that ? :confused:

The most key word here is trigger pull. in the one comment you have made issue about on the 1911.

You keep looking at this as "pulling the trigger". Dyslexic perhaps ? :confused:

But is that what trigger pull actually means in gun terms , Mr Alloy ?

Maybe you should take my previous advice and look up Trigger Pull in the Handy Hand Book of Gun terms.

HERE ... let me help you out ...

TRIGGER PULL - "the amount of force which must be applied to the trigger of a firearm to cause sear release."

NOT , the action of pulling the trigger .

Now go back and think about how a Colt series 80 works. Does it's drop safety affect trigger pull ? Hmmmm

But the Taurus designed self engaging one does not ... does not what ? INVOLVE or AFFECT TRIGGER PULL.

No one is saying the trigger doesn't deactivate it. :rolleyes:

It engages on it's own , with out being in the trigger action in a way that affects TRIGGER PULL.

[Handy]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

All you need to do now is explain HOW a trigger can push against a spring loaded plunger and NOT AFFECT trigger pull?


Done well, any of these systems can have minimal affect on trigger pull - most 1911 smiths will tell you that the series 80 mod is no barrier either. But the claim is being made of NO AFFECT. Take the plunger out of any gun with an already decent trigger and you can feel the difference no longer having that spring pushing against the trigger makes.

[RsqVet]

Petre ---

You should be a criminal defense attorney or perhaps you already are, thousands who are in hot water await sophmoric logic such as yours to be hurled about in front of 12 folks who can't make heads or tails of it so they believe it reasonable dbout and aquit the SOB's

Seriously -- this thread has been very amusing, and by the way you are dead wrong. Period. No debate, no symantics.

Handy posed an intresting question, and one possible explanition (other than the writer mis-speaking) and you have attacked and then tried to explain things you clearly do not understand and otherwise wraped yourself up in symantics.

Most all modern, and certainly all 1911 FP / striker blocks work the same from the slide rail up, meaning that in the slide there is a plunger, spring loaded that blocks the FP i.e. locks it in place, except when a finger from the lock work contained within the frame or reciever depresses the srping loaded plunger thus allowing motion --- the mechanics of getting the finger up there to depress the plunger are varied --- most DA pistols it's off the trigger bar as you describe for other Tarus autos, on Colt series 80 it's off the the trigger bow by means of a 2 lever system, Kimbers 1911 FP safety gets it's motion by linkage to the grip safety.

The orginal quote posted is: "The internal self-engaging firing pin safety is a new Taurus design that involves neither the trigger pull (as do Colt Series 80 Model 1911s) nor the grip safety (as do Kimber Series II Model 1911s)."

Now as everyone here, except perhaps yourself takes this to imply he is stating that the Tarus 1911 does not imploy one of the two previous methods of FP block deactivation, hence the question how does it do it, in the quoted sentance the term tirgger pull is CLEARLY referring to the action of pulling the trigger, not the weight of the trigger pull or the quality of the trigger pull on the weapon in question.

Had the man ment to imply what you are stating in your most recent post that the Tarus FP safety is simply a series 80 style that in (Snickers from the legions of gunsmiths who have sought but not obtained this) no way affects the quality or weight of the trigger pull than all he would have had to do is say that(a good way would be by saying hey Tarus perfected what colt and others have long treid to do as this is true --- a series 80 will in the best of guns be a little diffirent (weight / feel) than a comperable series 70 --- is't neglagable for combat use, relevent to competition shooters and tuning a series 80 is a highly sought after skill), he is a writer and it's his job to be clear and concise, I find the quote posted by Handy to be clear and concise in it's statment; the only thing missing is an explanition of the system imployed in this gun which was the subject of this thread before you hijacked it with sophmoric arguments that are sadly wrong.

Please cease this and maybe throw Handy a hey yeah that was right after all and let something worth while be discussed here.

[shield20]

Yep - I am wondering too - "involves" means..."involves" - looked that up and it is WAY different then "affects".

IF the author mis-spoke - OK, but IF he meant "involves neither" then I too am very curious how it works.

Fair question.

[Petre]

Well RsqVet ... it would seem you too confuse what "trigger pull" means then.

Serious question ...
What does the statement ... "This" does not involve "trigger pull" .... Mean to you.

To me it means - Does not involve the amount of force which must be applied to the trigger of a firearm to cause sear release.

Maybe to you it means does not involve pulling the trigger. It's obvious that's what some were thinking.

Now this, especially coming from someone that argued with me that "alloy" only means aluminumm with guns (Handy)... certainly must know the textbook definition of "trigger pull".

It's semantics to be sure ... but when I read the word trigger pull ... I looked at it's meaning as such and tried to get others to do the same by thinking about what was actually being said.

Maybe I expected too much , but then again , I'm really good at solving puzzles and problems , so maybe I just look at things differently. :confused:

[shield20]

I will jump in here - may help with the confusion - "involves" means "contains as a part of" or "to have as a necessary feature".

"involves neither trigger pull..." would mean that the safety is NOT dependent on trigger pull, or that trigger pull (or trigger force) is not necessary as a component of it's system (to be released).

Still curious as this may indeed be something new...

[auto45]

Not to "muddy" the waters, but I did "read" on another forum that it does have something(part) that "runs" through the hammer. I'm not sure what that means and it wasn't clear by description.

Perhaps, it's just a manual lock on a hammer or some device that "locks" the hammer until the trigger is pulled.
That would be different than a FP block, but wouldn't eliminate the trigger action. Just speculating of course.

[Petre]

Shield20 ... I would say ... YES it was a curious choice of words ... But when I read it , I immediately though of "trigger pull" as it's used with guns.

[shield20]

Petre - and I immediatley figured it must be something different.

Would make much more sense then if he used "affects neither" - or better yet - if it is indeed different - damn it he should have just said how it works!!!! :)

ps - the gun in his article sure looks nice!

[Trip20]

I believe I now understand a little more about this system... so thanks to all involved.

I will say it was quite hard to discern amongst all the hissing and striking of the fork-tongued members.

Chill out guys... :cool:

[Sarge]

I read Metcalf for years, and long ago concluded that he is nothing more than a shill for various manufacturers. He is also the bozo who would have us believe that service pistols, manufactured using the most modern materials and machining methods, should be held to an accuracy standard of 4.5" at 25 yards.

I quit reading him along time ago. You'll actually get better info from internet firearms forums, assuming your BS meter is functioning properly.

[JR47]

At this point, with zero pieces in the marketplace, why would anyone assume to be an expert on it? Let's see what the real story is when they arrive. Post count aside, just what has been resolved? So, a couple of people don't like Metcalf, that's not what the thread was about. The tongue-in-cheek wording of the thread header should have been enough warning.:)

[Sarge]

JR,

If we can't count of the firearms press to give us at least a semi-accurate evaluation of products a little earlier than "when they arrive" then what good are they to us? If we don't point out the shills- who are the newbies to this game to believe?

I ain't looking for an argument, and couldn't care less about my "post count". My issue with Metcalf goes to the subject of this thread- accuracy of reporting, or rather the glaring lack of it in some cases.

[JR47]

Isn't an arguement. I read these mags to SEE what's new, not to read the glowing reports. It's just that the thread becomes way too cluttered when you begin to add in the opinion we hold of gun writers. It just turns into a shouting match. We already have enough of those. :)

[RsqVet]

Petre ---

It as I think has been mentioned previously, is physically IMPOSSIBLE to make a mechanical linkage that operates the FP plunger that does not in some perhaps small (depending on a bunch of design and manufacturing factors) way affect trigger pull --- the force required to pull the tirgger --- Why?? because somewhere some how energy must be used to push down the FP safety plunger, moreoever as trigger pull, offten but not always also refers to the quality (smoth and shot, long and gritty etc. and etc.) of the operationof the trigger it is impossible to add an additional mecanical linkage of some sort that does not in some manner add to this --- yes in a good gun well executed this will not be important and will be close to imperceptable in a great gun unless perhaps you are a competition shooter in the upper level of the sport

The trials and tribulations of the series 80 type FP safety are WELL KNOWN among anyone who is more than a casual spectator to 1911's so it would be foolish for the writer to imply ZERO effect on a gun with this sort of safety as this is unlikely to impossible in the eyes of many plus describing the gun as having a series 80 FP safety or a modification of such woudl be very descriptive and useful to those who have know how and are intrested in the 1911.

I too enjoy puzzles mechanical as well as word, from his posts I'm guessing Handy does as well, I think that the difference is we look to the common denominator and senable usage of language and you are looking to tie simple statements in knots to try and extract a diffirent meaning which YOU would prefer the statements to hold.

Also please drop the Alloy argument, Handy was right on that one as well, plus have you found that element Steel anywhere on the periodic table of elements yet?

If you still want to argue the symantics of this yet some more I'm happy to, please just promise me the following --- start using the term "gay" in casual conversation to mean happy in as many way as possible preferably in refernace to yourself and in mixed company, it is after all an accepted meaning of the word.

[Petre]

Taurus revolvers internal safety doesn't in anyway affect trigger pull.

I have 3 of them and by design , this is a fact.

Granted pistols are different , but I can see where the design has little or no affect.

Anyway ... I'm not here to back their claim. I just tried to explain what was meant by it.

[Handy]

Revolvers don't have any bearing on this, because they don't even have a firing pin safety.


They have transfer bars, which are analogous to hammer intercepts on decocking DA autos. As for your claim that the operation of the transfer bar "doesn't in anyway affect trigger pull", I guess we'll put that up with the rest of your claims.

Transfer bars are spring loaded, and the trigger must push them out of the way to make them function. What does that sound like?


Because of the type of linkage revolver triggers have, transfer bars provide only the most minor (but real) resistance to the trigger. So far, this has not been the case with autos.

I have designed an auto that substitutes the firing pin plunger spring for the trigger return spring, hoping to get a better trigger pull from simplifying the mechanism in this manner. And maybe Taurus thought of the same thing, eliminating some of that friction and spring resistance. I'll be curious to see what this amounts to.

[Petre]

I believe I said pistols are different. The point is , the safety is part of the trigger action but does not affect trigger pull.

Why is it out of the realm of possibility that something like this cannot be achieved , albeit in a different manner with a pistol.

It's only not possible til somebody does it.

[Handy]

It does affect trigger pull, though minorly. I explained that. Cock your revolver and hold the hammer back - now pull the trigger and see how the transfer bar is moving - that's affecting the trigger pull. Remove that part and the trigger will be even smoother.


And you could make an auto similarly - I explained that as well.




There is a substantial difference between very little affect and no affect. A gunsmith can already make a series 80 system have very little affect on trigger pull.

[Sarge]

You guys are forgetting the Swartz, a version of which is currently featured on Series II Kimbers. It works off the grip safety alone, and has absolutely no effect on trigger pull.

[281 Quad Cam]

invssgt,
You guys are forgetting the Swartz, a version of which is currently featured on Series II Kimbers. It works off the grip safety alone, and has absolutely no effect on trigger pull.

First post.

The internal self-engaging firing pin safety is a new Taurus design that involves neither the trigger pull (as do Colt Series 80 Model 1911s) nor the grip safety (as do Kimber Series II Model 1911s).

[Sarge]

Well, duh.

[Gazpacho]

It took the time to fully read through this thread to theorize a way to come up with a way for the FP block to work without out affecting trigger or grip safety "pull". It would utilize the stored energy of the mainspring. Imagine a mechanise that operates with the release of the mainspring. Let's say that the mainspring moves a very tiny lever which disengages the FP block. This lever would move through a space normally blocked by the trigger bow and the grip safety. In its engaged state, the lever would not be in contact with the trigger bow or grips safety, thus no affect on trigger pull.

I'm not saying this is how it works, just that it is theoretically possible.

[Petre]

Good example Gazpacho . Like I said ... It's only not possible 'til somebody does it.

[Handy]

Gazpacho,

I was thinking along those lines, too, but felt that the system would be difficult to construct without it deactivating the pin safety in the case of a sear failure. Mechanically, it is possible, but I think it might lack practical safety if it doesn't keep any relation directly to an external control.

But your idea is the best one yet.

[281 Quad Cam]

But wouldn't such a safety still go off if dropped?

[Handy]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

Maybe you could do something that avoided relying on the sear when using the mainspring, but it's hard to see how that would work without also damaging the trigger pull.