Forgetting to decock — where does the blame actually land?

**Let me break this apart**, because I think the framing here is doing some work that doesn't actually hold up.

You're presenting this as a platform problem masquerading as a training problem. I'd flip that: this is a training problem that some platforms make easier to ignore.

**What actually matters here?** Consistency. Not feel, not ergonomics, not hammer geometry. A decocker—any decocker—is a *manual safety device*. It requires a deliberate action. If you're running DA/SA and you're not decocking every single time, you've got a training gap. Full stop. That gap exists because you haven't made it automatic, not because the P320's trigger didn't nag you hard enough.

**Why does the hammer visibility argument break down?** Because if you're relying on *visual feedback* to remember a critical safety habit, you've already lost. You're not training the habit; you're hoping the gun reminds you. That's not how this works. A Glock or an M9A3 decocker doesn't care how it *feels*—it cares whether you *did it*.

**Your specific use case matters here.** If you're carrying DA/SA and you dry fire occasionally without a protocol, you need to establish one *now*—not debate whether the gun should feel scarier. Build the habit the same way you built your draw: every single rep. Decock during holstering. Make it part of the motion, not a separate step you remember.

If you can't lock that in after a few weeks of deliberate practice, then yes—switch platforms. But don't frame that as the gun's failure. That's yours to own.

gulfcoast_ops is right about the training gap. I'll grant him that. But he's solving half the problem.

Here's what I'd tell you: a single-action gun with an exposed hammer doesn't have this problem because there *is* no decocker to forget. You carry cocked and locked. Condition One. Hammer back, safety on. You see it. You feel it. You know the state of the gun every time you touch it.

With a DA/SA decocker, you've introduced a manual safety step that has to happen *after* the drill ends. That's backwards. Safety should be the default state of the gun, not a habit you're supposed to layer on top of your training.

I'm not saying DA/SA guns are unsafe if you train properly. I'm saying you've made the problem harder than it needs to be. A 1911 in Condition One tells you what it is. A P320 after you've forgotten the decock? It lies. The trigger feels safe but it isn't.

You want to run DA/SA, fine. Build the habit gulfcoast described—make the decock automatic. But if you're looking for a gun that doesn't ask you to remember a step you're apparently prone to forgetting, that gun has a hammer, a grip safety, and a thumb safety. Been the answer for over a century.

Choose one. Own the choice. Don't blame the platform for a problem you created by picking the harder tool.

Both of you are right about training and platform design, but you're skirting the actual liability exposure here, and it matters legally.

If you carry a DA/SA decocker, forget to decock, and that gun discharges—whether in a defensive situation, during a draw, or on the range—you've created a negligent discharge. The plaintiff's attorney doesn't care that your trigger is stiff or that the hammer looks cocked. They care that you had a manual safety mechanism available to you, didn't use it, and someone got hurt.

That's strict liability in most jurisdictions under negligent entrustment or simple negligence. Your homeowner's or umbrella policy likely excludes firearms anyway, so you're defending that suit personally. Even if you win—and winning on "I forgot to decock" is not a given—you're out $50–150K in legal fees.

Here's what actually controls: your training standard. If you can demonstrate a repeatable, documented protocol where decocking happens automatically (same way you document dry-fire safety, holster selection, or ammo storage), you've established a reasonable standard of care. That's defensible. If you're running a gun you occasionally forget to decock and you have *no* documented protocol to address it, you're admitting negligence before trial starts.

So the fix isn't "pick a 1911" or "decock every time." It's: document your standard, train to it consistently, and review it annually. If you can't maintain that standard with DA/SA, switch platforms.

Not legal advice—talk to a lawyer licensed in your state about your specific liability exposure.

I'll come at this from the duty side, because the context actually matters here.

In my department, we carry M9A3s—DA/SA with a decocker. Every single officer qualifies twice a year, and decocking is part of the course of fire. It gets drilled. But here's the thing that civilians don't always see: duty use is *structured*. You draw at a range. You draw in training. You draw in a contact situation where adrenaline is running and muscle memory takes over. You do not draw at your kitchen table at 9 PM on a Tuesday because you want to practice your presentation.

That structure is why the decock habit sticks in duty use. The gun comes out, something happens (shot, no-shoot, reset), and the gun goes back. Holster to ready to holster. The decock is part of that cycle. It's not an afterthought.

Where it breaks down—and gulfcoast_ops is right about this—is when someone runs the same gun off-duty or in civilian dry-fire and tries to apply duty discipline without the duty structure. You're drawing in your living room. There's no range officer. There's no formal course of fire. The decock becomes a separate step you have to remember, and if you're not drilling it the same way you drilled it at qualification, it drifts.

My take: if you're carrying a decocker off-duty, you need to replicate the duty discipline—which means treating every range session and every dry-fire session like it's a formal drill with a decock-and-holster requirement built in. Not because the gun owes you that reminder, but because you need to own the platform you picked.

If that doesn't happen naturally for you, jmb's right—switch platforms. No judgment. Different tools for different contexts.

I think you've all landed on pieces of the same problem, and honest assessment: the disagreement is mostly about which piece matters most in your specific context.

gulfcoast_ops is right that a forgotten decock is a training failure—full stop. But jmb.forever is also right that you can engineer the problem away entirely. Those aren't contradictory; they're different solutions for different people.

Here's where I'd push back on the frame though: this isn't really about whether DA/SA decockers are "right" or "wrong" guns. It's about whether you're the person who can maintain the protocol. And honest—most people aren't, not consistently, especially off-duty.

I ran M&P9s and Berettas for years in classes. Saw instructors who could decock automatically. Saw shooters who couldn't, trained them for weeks, and watched it drift the moment they stopped formal range work. It wasn't because they were careless; it was because the habit required constant reinforcement and they didn't have the duty structure bluegrass.leo described.

So here's my actual take: if you're asking the question "where does the blame land," you've probably already felt the friction. That friction is data. Right for you = a platform where the safe state is the default state (cocked and locked, or striker-fired with a safety you engage at the same moment you disengage). Wrong for you = spending mental bandwidth on a step that doesn't stick naturally.

ctpistol's liability point is the one that seals it for me. You can train around a decocker. You can own the habit. But if you ever have to use that gun defensively and you're carrying it cocked because you forgot—that deposition gets ugly fast.

Where do you actually find yourself? Is the decock habit holding, or is it drifting?