Proposed Safety and California Compliance

I would worry about the takedown lever not being firmly detained enough in the fire position to prevent it being nudged into interference with the slide or FC mechanism due to a firm or frantic grip, or recoil, being that it seems to be right where the thumb would land. I assume, simply as the takedown lever, it would still need to be strongly held, possibly with a crisp and positive ball/pin detent, in the assembled position to avoid slide interference. Regardless, for California purposes, I would approach it as a legal necessity, more functionally as a lockout than a carry safety. I doubt anyone will consider it a viable carry safety due to ergos. You'd need a dedicated, ergonomically correct lever for that. I would just focus on making it secure in the fire position, yet trying to keep it one hand operable for administrative slide lock, with a strong spring detent at the halfway point so people don't overshoot the sweep during admin lockback

The only other realistic option I can think of would be to move the take down lever to the right side, then add a manual safety to the left side that would resemble a traditional slide lock lever and could double as an admin slide lock when pushed up a bit extra into "safe" with the slide back. This would add a significant protrusion if positive to use, though, as well as manufacturing cost. And it wouldn't suit everyone, whereas the slide takedown integration is ideal if done as a regulatory "trick" without interfering.

Thing is, even if the witness hole is sufficient for a loaded chamber indicator, which it probably is not based on the rules as of 2007 (pg 14), you may also end up dealing with the Cali DOJ deciding to move forward with requiring microstamping capability on all newly approved pistols. The date for implementation was supposed to be Jan 1, 2010, but it's been delayed for now over patent issues. If you get something worked out that doesn't compromise the design's stress/fumble-proofness and functional manners in time to have it approved before (if) they move forward, then you should be OK on the microstamping. Good news is, the California Police Chief's Association is calling for review of the concept and speaking poorly of it on functional and fiscal grounds already, now that they're actually faced with the ramifications, even though they supported the law when it was passed. Go figure.

Also since 2007, Cali requires a magazine disconnect safety, which I'd say most people do not want. I'd suggest it be reasonably end-user removable. I know some pistols are designed with it as a removable option these days.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on February 18, 2010 at 9:47am

The takedown lever does have strong (but smooth) detents in the 9:00, 6:00 and 3:00 positions. And you are right, it wouldn't be a carry safety - just a storage safety. As far as loaded-chamber indicator - we are not too worried about that - it will likely be part of our extractor. As far as magazine disconnect - we would have our transfer bar tilt down in the frame, where it would catch on a ledge instead of operating the hammer. Insertion of the magazine would lift the transfer bar to its operational position. While there probably could be a way to change the gun back, I am wondering what the penalty risk is for a user to do this. Thanks for the info on the test parameters and requirements.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VMole8 on February 21, 2010 at 4:50pm

Arne Boberg said:

The takedown lever does have strong (but smooth) detents in the 9:00, 6:00 and 3:00 positions. And you are right, it wouldn't be a carry safety - just a storage safety. As far as loaded-chamber indicator - we are not too worried about that - it will likely be part of our extractor. As far as magazine disconnect - we would have our transfer bar tilt down in the frame, where it would catch on a ledge instead of operating the hammer. Insertion of the magazine would lift the transfer bar to its operational position. While there probably could be a way to change the gun back, I am wondering what the penalty risk is for a user to do this. Thanks for the info on the test parameters and requirements.

I'm not sure how the law is written regarding mods to a pistol in CA once it's approved and in the hands of the purchaser. But hardly any states have any requirements regarding pistol design, let alone magazine safeties specifically. And while there may have been rumors in the bad ol' 80s and 90s of some gun rag tale of a user-disabled safety nexus in a court case regarding negligence, the risk of such a thing harming a gun owner is so slim in the current era of firearms law savvy attorneys, widely expanded concealed carry and the firearm/self-defense acceptance that comes with it, and "Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground" laws with their presumptions in favor of the ostensible defender, the relevance specifically of a magazine disconnect to any liability would require a spectacular aligning of events, and, as a gun manufacturer, if the weapon worked as designed, your liability would would be eliminated under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. Furthermore, magazine disconnects are largely disfavored in professional and civilian defensive circles, though some police departments mandate them as a tactical calculation vis a vis open carry disarmament scenarios, hence the predominance of an easily and reliably disabled option in many service oriented weapons.

I would strongly suggest a magazine disconnect design that is easily and reliably disabled, either by the end user or enabled at the factory for the minority of unfortunate purchasers who live in states that require what is widely regarded as a tactical impediment or niche feature.

The reality with a pocket pistol is that no matter how carefully calibrated the shape and fencing of the mag release is (which it should be), it's always at least conceivable that the mag release could become depressed in the pocket during the course of everyday activities or a physical struggle/exertion, and one round that leaves the barrel the moment you ask for it is better than one round in the chamber that doesn't fire because the mag fell out when you drew the weapon.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arne Boberg on February 21, 2010 at 5:51pm

While I currently don't know how I would include a magazine disconnect that would be easy for the user to de-activate, I certainly wouldn't state that I was trying to do this on a public forum. My last wish would be to have CA DOJ breathing down my neck. My official statement would be something like, "You assume all liability if you make any alterations that may be unlawful or not authorized by Boberg Arms Corp.".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VMole8 on February 21, 2010 at 6:15pm

Arne Boberg said:

While I currently don't know how I would include a magazine disconnect that would be easy for the user to de-activate, I certainly wouldn't state that I was trying to do this on a public forum. My last wish would be to have CA DOJ breathing down my neck. My official statement would be something like, "You assume all liability if you make any alterations that may be unlawful or not authorized by Boberg Arms Corp.".

The end user is responsible for any laws that apply to them and you are responsible for laws which apply to you. A general statement directed at the general purchaser that the MD is readily disabled by the end user constitutes an option, not a suggestion directed at Californians. And I'm not suggesting that Californians circumvent any laws in this regard. I'm simply pointing out that it's not a popular option in the majority of the country that doesn't require it by law, so the ability to disable it or get it without the MD from the factory would be preferable.

As for the CA acceptance regulations, I don't recall anything stating that the magazine disconnect could not be "readily deactivated" or must be tamper resistant so-to-speak. I think it simply has to exist as sent to and sold by CA FFLs. And if deactivation is illegal, that would fall on the end user. At most, a caution in the manual to owners in "CA and other states [with restrictions to] check local laws before deactivation..." would be good to include out of courtesy. I would just call the CA DOJ division in charge of the inspections and ask what the parameters are. Like I said, it's usually an option on the few guns that even offer the "feature" considering that particular requirement is fairly recent.