Case for DA/SA…

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Me

First, there is no good use case for a DA/SA pistol. I’m sorry, but that needed said.

Weird to quote myself. I’m kind of interested in this. I’m not really trying to be all knowing……just trying to understand why DA/SA continues to exist.

IMO, the history is basically that most everyone used revolvers at one point. DA revolvers were an evolution of that. Without a manual safety, these proved to be safe tools. IME, a 12lb trigger on a 3lb gun is just hard to pull accidentally, but easy enough to pull with intent.

Out of that history and recognizing the benefits of magazines, DA pistols became popular. People recognize the easier shootability of the SA trigger. So, DA for revolver like safety and SA for improved shootability.

That is great, but DA to SA has proven difficult to master at speed. Really an unnecessary challenge. Many say they have mastered it, but measure shot to shot times and it is usually quite clear.

So, what is the case for DA/SA. I have nothing against it. I owned a CZ75 and a PT101. Both were miserable to me.

So I’m wondering what the continued demand that keeps the few DA/SA guns around?? I’m interested in the discussion because I must be missing something.

[TunnelRat]

My guess is some people like it, and don’t find it to be a problem, or at least not problematic enough to stop using it. I feel like this same argument of, “Why this?”, could be leveled against essentially any action type. Different people like different things. From what I gather, people like the safety inherent of the heavier DA pull without having to disengage a manual safety. Are they right, wrong? I don’t know that there is a definitive answer.

As for the differences on a timer, DA/SA pistols are fairly prevalent in USPSA. Competition shooters do and have done well with them. It’s a system that can be shot accurately and quickly, if you put the effort into it. If you don’t want to, that’s your call.

[tangolima]

The case is certain user group demands it and it sells well enough.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[FrankenMauser]

In the modern world, DA can be seen as an evolution of SA.
But in the primary development of the revolver (~1830-1900), DA came about almost simultaneously. Each method, of course, is likely just an evolution of designs that had been around since the 1600s. (The Royal Armouries, for example, have examples of flintlock revolvers that indexed the cylinder, and cocked and dropped the hammer with a single, long pull of the operating lever [trigger].)
The combination of DA and SA took longer to come together, however.

So, what is the case for DA/SA.

Not everyone is a competition shooter.

For example:
My wife is not much of a recreational shooter, but likes having handguns available for personal defense.
I have many different handguns with different controls, which she cannot keep track of easily. She shoots full size handguns better than compacts. She does not train much.
But what she can do is aim a handgun and pull a trigger.

A cocked and locked handgun that requires disengaging the safety involves one more step (and potential stress-induced mistake) than the handguns that are kept available to her.
In general, she has a Ruger P95DC within reach. Yes, DC is the decocker model. The early decocker that does not double as a safety. Load the pistol, chamber a round, and decock it to drop the hammer. It is not going to go off if the trigger is pulled slightly during a rushed grab.

With a loaded mag and loaded chamber, all she has to do is pull the trigger. One long pull, and then the rest are shorter and easier.

Being DA, she also has multiple-strike capability, should there be a failure to fire and all she does in a panicked moment is keep yanking the trigger. Training to tap-rack-bang could be better than that. But giving her something that might still function when falling back to the most basic reflexes is not the worst thing, either.

[JohnKSa]

I think the simplest answer is that it's a feature that is there if you need/want it but that you can mostly ignore if you don't want to bother with it. Like a person who buys a DA revolver but then shoots every shot SA, cocking the hammer each time.

A lot of people buy guns to shoot/have, not necessarily to carry. At the range, an SA/DA is just an SA unless you take the time to decock it occasionally so you can shoot it DA.

It's also worthwhile to take into account the fact that DA/SA isn't just one thing. There are different types of DA/SA operation.

1. DA/SA with no manual safety. Often these guns have a separate decocker.
2. DA/SA with manual safety that will allow cocked/locked.
3. DA/SA with decocking manual safety.

Looking at the DA/SA pistols which can be carried cocked and locked. These handguns provide exactly the same functionality of an SA that can be carried cocked and locked, but with the additional feature that the trigger is never dead and never needs to be thumb cocked. If the person decides they don't want to carry cocked and locked, either as an isolated instance or as a matter of course because they aren't comfortable with cocked and locked, they can carry with the hammer down on a loaded round if they want and the safety either on or off and they know they will never have to thumb cock the gun. This allows them to get the gun into action one handed, something that is much harder to do with an SA gun carried with a loaded round and hammer down.

There's also the fact that the DA functionality provides some redundancy in the event of a failure in the SA mechanism. I don't think this is probably something anyone thinks about or that comes into play very often, but it is there.

Some folks may want to carry a gun without the trigger covered. It can be a comfort to have a gun with a stiff DA trigger for the first shot to make it unlikely that an unintentional discharge will occur if the safety gets wiped off by accident.

I think some folks like the idea that the gun does not have the energy stored to fire the gun and this makes a DA first shot attractive to them. I think modern designs are very safe and reliable, but even so, a gun with enough stored spring energy to fire it is in a different category from a gun that can't be fired unless something is done to create the spring energy required to fire it. No matter how many things break or malfunction, the latter can't fire while the former could in a really unlikely worst case scenario.

Some may prefer not to deal with a manual safety. A DA/SA offers the option of loaded chamber carry without a manual safety that most agree is reasonably safe whereas most would argue that a cocked SA without a manual safety is problematic from a safety standpoint.

So, what's the disadvantage of adding DA to an SA pistol? Maybe looking at it from this angle gives a different perspective.

1. More complexity. (More parts, more cost, more things that can break/fail)
2. Usually some degradation to the SA trigger from the extra parts the trigger must operate for the DA functionality.
3. If one chooses a DA/SA design that can not be carried cocked and locked AND wants to carry chamber loaded, they will have to transition from a DA first shot to an SA second shot.

I think for a lot of people it's just a don't care kind of thing. The disadvantages either don't mean anything for them (Probably 1 & 2 are not even things most people think about and 3 only applies to some SA/DA guns with owners who are going to use them a specific way.) or they don't care enough about them to give them much weight.

I guess what I'm saying is that the DA-SA transition (which is the main disadvantage--and probably the only one most people think about--if they think about this topic at all) just probably isn't something that lots of pistol owners care about.

On the other hand, they may see some of the advantages as real benefits.

[44caliberkid]

Like Franken Mauser, I give the wife and daughters something they can point and shoot, DA revolver or Glock/ S&W Shield.
As an LEO, I carried a 1911 (US Army), DA/SA revolver (civilian police) and when we switched to wonder nines I chose a Taurus PT99 because I could carry it cocked and locked like a 1911. A few years later I was allowed to switch to a 1911 45, carried cocked and locked. I can’t tell you how tired I got from citizens pointing out, “Hey officer, do you know your gun is cocked.” Yep.
I currently have a BDA, S&W 1006, a P-38, maybe some others, but I never use the DA function. I wish more of them, like Beretta, would just offer the 92 in SA only, like my Brigadiers. Tanfoglio offers their CZ clones in SA only, but mainly for competition pistols. I think every company that makes a DA/SA semiauto pistol should offer it in SA only. I’ve never owned or wanted a DAO.
I think striker fired guns have replaced the DA/SA system for most users. I only have a few of those and I don’t like them either.

[Metric]

IMO, da/sa was unnecessary and we'd have been better off with more interesting designs if it had never really caught on.

However, I'm fine with da/sa so long as it comes with a manual safety that allows a cocked-and-locked mode of carry. E.g. the CZ75, and early variants of the Beretta 80-series. Then at least you get a fast second strike option on primers as part of the deal.

The da/sa with decocker concept really bugs me, though. You're basically forced to carry hammer down, with a long-assed and inconsistent trigger pull. There are some such pistols that I would consider because of their otherwise excellent design, but the trigger is unavoidably a negative to me.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Metric

The da/sa with decocker concept really bugs me, though. You're basically forced to carry hammer down, with a long-assed and inconsistent trigger pull.

How is the trigger inconsistent? If you mean you need to learn both a DA and a SA trigger pull, okay, but the weights of those pulls shouldn’t change.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

How is the trigger inconsistent? If you mean you need to learn both a DA and a SA trigger pull, okay, but the weights of those pulls shouldn’t change.

Yes, I mean the pull on shot #1 is extremely different from the pull on shot #2, unless you have time to manually cock before shot #1.

[44caliberkid]

Originally Posted by Metric

The da/sa with decocker concept really bugs me, though. You're basically forced to carry hammer down, with a long-assed and inconsistent trigger pull. There are some such pistols that I would consider because of their otherwise excellent design, but the trigger is unavoidably a negative to me.

Just because you have a decocker doesn’t mean you can’t carry cocked and locked. The S&W 4506 and 1006 for example. The safety lever has 3 positions, on safe, fire and decock. You can carry cocked and lock, one click down to fire, push all the way down to decock. I thought the PX4, being discussed in the other thread, was like that too, at least from the YouTube vids I watched about it. The Taurus TH series is like that.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by 44caliberkid

Just because you have a decocker doesn’t mean you can’t carry cocked and locked. The S&W 4506 and 1006 for example. The safety lever has 3 positions, on safe, fire and decock. You can carry cocked and lock, one click down to fire, push all the way down to decock. I thought the PX4, being discussed in the other thread, was like that too, at least from the YouTube vids I watched about it. The Taurus TH series is like that.

I like those as well.

The issue for me is just being forced into hammer-down carry. If I can avoid that, I'm good.

Also, it's not so much about "learning" two different pulls. It's the fact that pull #2 takes a different grip, leverage, and orientation of the trigger finger compared to pull #1. There is more than just a purely mental switch between the two -- the physical orientation in the hand needs to be subtly adjusted, for best results. Not ideal, when speed is of the essence.

[44 AMP]

IMO, the history is basically that most everyone used revolvers at one point. DA revolvers were an evolution of that. Without a manual safety, these proved to be safe tools. IME, a 12lb trigger on a 3lb gun is just hard to pull accidentally, but easy enough to pull with intent.

First point, you're leaving out a LOT of history. Second, you are assigning a value to safety that is not historically accurate. and last, there were very few DA revolvers that go 3lbs. Only the biggest revolvers went even close to 3lbs and even the S&W "N frame" guns are listed as just under or at 3lbs.

The early (pre 1900) DA revolvers generally had horrid and heavy DA pulls. The "safety" of the long heavy DA trigger pull was not a major concern in those days. Period literature simply doesn't mention it to any noticable degree.

The selling point of the DA system wasn't its safety, it was the fact that it could be used in an emergency allowing the gun to be fired without needing to cock the hammer first. And generations of people were trained that way. To shoot (and hit) you aimed and cocked the gun, firing it SA. DA was only for when you didn't have time to use the other method.

Obviously attitudes have changed since, but that's the way most people thought, back then.

The earliest (commercially successful) DA/SA semi auto I can find are the Walther pocket pistols the PP and PPK which showed up about 1929 or so. The first 9mm DA/SA I know of is the Walther P.38 (adopted by Germany in 1938).

The "Safety" of the long heavy DA trigger pull isn't a recent thing, but consumer concern with it, is. Ayoob once remarked that the DA/SA pistol is superior to the SA pistol in police work, because police are often required to hold a suspect at gun point without shooting them and the DA feature helped reduce accidental discharges.

I understand the logic, even agree with it, but don't see how that is a clear adantage for civilian self defense.

[rc]

I think a lot of guys feel they have a much lower chance of busting their nuts accidentally with a DA/SA gun than with a striker fired gun that might give you a permanent Glock Limp. I have a Kahr K9 I like and a good holster that covers the trigger but I think the CZ P01 with a decock lever is still much safer with a firmer double action first pull.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Metric

Also, it's not so much about "learning" two different pulls. It's the fact that pull #2 takes a different grip, leverage, and orientation of the trigger finger compared to pull #1. There is more than just a purely mental switch between the two -- the physical orientation in the hand needs to be subtly adjusted, for best results. Not ideal, when speed is of the essence.

Speaking for myself, I don’t adjust my grip between the first DA shot and the following SA shot. As far as trigger finger position, I think of shooting a DA/SA pistol as the initial DA pull and then resetting the trigger for each pull afterwards. Even in non-DA pistols the reset point can be different than the initial starting position, so the finger may have to make some adjustments.

Since this is the second time speed has been mentioned, below is a video of Ben Stoeger discussing how he trains with DA/SA. If you watch this and the next video where he is doing live fire you’ll see he’s not adjusting his grip between his first and following shots and he’s still quite fast.

https://youtu.be/VYfOM4up4dU?si=hfiIzTKwJqtE_QWM

https://youtu.be/nmesYY4W1wE?si=y3KZLD9F6VsG7QSd

Again the Shadow 2 is pretty common in USPSA and if speed with DA/SA was a large hurdle it wouldn’t be as popular as it is. Now I’m not saying everyone, including myself, is as fast as say Stoeger, but the idea that the shot process needs to be completely reset between DA and SA to the point where it’s a significant hindrance is shown not to be the case for many people that put the time into this. As I said earlier, if a person doesn’t want to put the time into getting to that level, that’s their call. I think a fair argument against DA/SA is that some people find it takes longer to build the same proficiency with it as other trigger systems.

[jar]

As someone that often (more often than its fair share) chooses a DA/SA pistol over my many SA or DA choices, I can try to explain my preferences.

The term DA/SA is generally related to pistols rather than revolvers so for this thread that will be my base. Yes, I know and have on occasion shot my revolvers in a DA the SA or SA then DA fashion.

I'll try to use specific examples when discussion things since the options and variables are really a very broad spectrum.

First two similar sized pistols, the Sig P239 and the Walther PPS M2. They both are 9mm, both can be 8 + 1 rounds as standard, both from major players and both meant for the compact self defense role initially. The former is all metal slightly larger when the Walther 8 round magazine is chosen and about 5 ounces heavier. The former is DA/SA hammer fired and the latter is striker fired polymer framed. Neither has a safety but the Sig has a decocker. The initial DA trigger pull on my P239 averages 6lb 7oz and the SA averages 2lb 12oz. The Walther has a consistent 4lb 5oz average. The Sig has a decocker and is an external hammer so when it comes to re-holstering under stress there is a big broad relatively flat surface as well as the over 6lb trigger for safety. The Walther has the lighter just over 4lb trigger and a little thumb poker should the trigger get tugged on during re-holstering but it is simply not as easy as the big hammer on the Sig. It's possible for me to put my thumb on the back of the Walther slide but not over the finger poker.

The stock trigger on the Sig is smoother in both modes and the 2lb 12oz SA trigger a delight while the Walther is gritty and meets a really solid significant wall before breaking; better than on the Glocks I've tried and failed to like but certainly not a nice trigger.

Both are equally accurate as SA distances but the heavier Sig is far easier to return to POA for followup shots.

Here is the PPS with the 8 round magazine sitting on top of my P239:



and the P239 on top:



The P239 gets carried a lot, the Walther gets carried very seldom and has pretty much become a range gun. The PPS is too big for true pocket carry though with the 6 round magazine the grip is less noticeable but accuracy suffers.

If folks are interested I can compare other examples, my Wonder Nines vs my Shields, P-35 vs Browning BDM, 1911 vs P220 vs Shield 45, likely several others as well.

[JustJake]

S&W 3rd Generation DA/SA models …. all day.

[Drm50]

I have close to 60 DA revolvers and 3 DA autos. The revolvers never fired a DA shot, neither has the autos. The only reason for a DA shot would be in close quarters SD situation for me. I wouldn’t own one of those DA only autos.

[1972RedNeck]

I will only buy DA/SA pistols. I did buy an M&P 22 Mag when they first came out, but that's the last striker I will buy.

[Mike P. Wagner]

I am about to purchase a Beretta PX4 because I want to shoot a Beretta PX4 - not sure anyone should feel it necessary to "make a case" for shooting what they want to shoot.

I plan to get the "F" model because I like the redundancy of a safety and DA/SA - thought I understand real men tell me real men abhor safeties and immediately rio those out for a G decocker.

I like a "dead trigger" safety as opposed to a "locked trigger" safety - with a redundant DA first pull.

I understand that it will take time to adjust to a DA/SA - right now I have a CZ 75 clone (Armalite AR-24) that I shoot almost exclusively in SA mode because it doesn't have a decockeer, and manually decking seems like an accident waiting to happen.

I feel pretty certain that I can acquire the skill to shoot the PX4 as well as I can shoot any other pistol - a lot of very good shooters shoot CZ 75s extremely well.

I suspect that for almost all of us - except maybe a handful of the top competitive shooters in the world - the our accuracy and speed limitations are far more likely to be between our ears than in the trigger mechanism of the pistol in our hands.

[Mosin44az]

Honest Outlaw on YouTube repeatedly extols the virtues of DA/SA pistols, particularly his competition CZ Shadow2 and his all-time favorite carry gun, the CZ P07.

He opines that appendix carry is MUCH safer with a DA first pull. Not shooting his “junk” is a high priority for him.

He is a VERY fast shooter with those and really all pistols, he has never mentioned any competitive disadvantage to DA/SA pistols.

Aftermarket companies like Langdon Tactical sell kits that lighten the DA pull on Berettas if needed. Cajun Gun Works and CZ Custom for CZs.

I personally am with the OP on this issue. It’s a confession I suppose, that I don’t want to put in the training to master the two trigger pulls when striker triggers are so much easier. Length of the DA trigger pull is also an issue if, like mine, your hands aren’t particularly large.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Mike P. Wagner

I plan to get the "F" model because I like the redundancy of a safety and DA/SA - thought I understand real men tell me real men abhor safeties and immediately rio those out for a G decocker.

I understand the way people perceive comments obviously varies person to person, but in either this thread or the other I don’t remember a comment questioning the manliness of having the safety variant.

[JohnKSa]

Sometimes you need a safety, sometimes you don't. Depends on what you are carrying and how. I prefer the simplicity of no manual safety, but there are times that the way I am carrying mandates a manual safety.

[totaldla]

There was a time when semi-auto pistols were a bit of a novelty and nobody really cared about accuracy beyond 20 feet. Most American police carried revolvers.
When the European "experts" were allowed to dictate pistol designs, DA/SA & Mag disconnects were "required" without any supporting evidence that these "features" were solving real problems. But that really didn't matter because handgun ownership and competitive shooting hadn't really taken off in America.

I remember quite well the impact Glock had with a consistent trigger pull and all the controversy over a chambered round. Things that are so passe today.

The adoption of the Beretta by the military simply delayed the inevitable - people were flocking to consistent trigger pull and ditching DA/SA.

The DA/SA semi-auto pistol design was always a solution in search of a problem.

IMHO of course.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by totaldla

When the European "experts" were allowed to dictate pistol designs, DA/SA & Mag disconnects were "required" without any supporting evidence that these "features" were solving real problems. But that really didn't matter because handgun ownership and competitive shooting hadn't really taken off in America.

I can think of a number of US designed and produced handguns that used DA/SA. I don’t know that I have ever seen proof that the presence of those designs was due to Europeans.

[JohnKSa]

The DA/SA semi-auto pistol design was always a solution in search of a problem.

I don't know. I think that overstates things a bit.

People wanted to be able to have a pistol with a chambered round that wasn't cocked. The original DA/SA designs satisfied that desire and didn't require thumb-cocking the hammer to fire the chambered round.

I get that a lot of people don't think that's a big advantage, probably based on carrying one specific design one specific way (1911 cocked & locked) but not every SA pistol at the time DA/SA designs first came on the scene were set up to allow that kind of carry safely. Even now, some folks like the idea of an uncocked pistol with a chambered round for self-defense.

I think that there are options today that make it appealing to a smaller share of the overall handgun market, but for some people, the DA/SA fills a niche that other handguns don't. That's true today, but when the design first hit the market, it was even more true--at that time it was absolutely a solution for what was perceived as a problem by many.

I don’t know that I have ever seen proof that the presence of those designs was due to Europeans.

It is in the sense that the first successful DA/SA pistols were European designs.